Elinescu-Wladow were stupid. You haven't found the smart cheats...

[ArtK78]

 

Clearly some if not many here feel this was a miscarriage of justice.

 

Based on what I have read in these posts it seems that the Laws of WBF and bridge were carried out in full.

 

We need to hear the other side of this more fully.

 

I only note there may be disagreement between the "correct principles of justice"

and following the laws of WBF and bridge.

 

This is an incredibly schizophrenic post. On the one hand, there was a miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, the laws of the WBF and bridge were carried out in full. On the other hand, we need to hear from the other side more fully.

 

I read the WBF report. While the meeting in Dallas did not give the accused a real opportunity to appear in person, that really was not necessary. They were given every opportunity to present their case in writing or by video conference. They were given 2 months notice to prepare their defense. They chose to do nothing but protest the procedure.

 

The German Doctors have every right to protest the procedure. What they do not have the right to do is to ignore their opportunity to present a defense. In every judicial proceeding, if an accused is given an opportunity to present a substantive defense to the charges against him, a failure to avail himself of that opportunity amounts to a waiver. Normally, one does not get two bites at the apple. Now, it may very well be that the Doctors will get the opportunity to present their defense in some subsequent proceeding. But by failing to avail themselves of the opportunity granted to them by the WBF to present their defense at the hearing in Dallas, they will, in the minds of many, if not most, of the world's bridge players be considered guilty as charged, regardless of the outcome of any subsequent proceeding.

 

The WBF report: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_6gbBWyyA_wVXI4RFRuQmVXNXc/preview?pli=1

[mike777]

I wish people post in full context.

 

yet many prefer to only post part

 

ARt you post in partial..shame on you for this post. You are better than this last post. You post great stuff in full context I love to read your posts.

 

If the point was the posters ...have opposing views ..I agree

 

If your point is you feel the law was followed ..fair enough.

[the hog]

" that really was not necessary. They were given every opportunity to present their case in writing or by video conference"

This is a nonsensical comment. I assume Art has never taken part in a video conference?

 

"They were given 2 months notice to prepare their defense"

This is incorrect.

 

I have evidence to suggest that Art is cheating by breaking wind with various patterns. I will hold a hearing next week in Vientiane Laos. If Art does not appear, the hearing will go ahead and he will have no legal representation. Tough! I might give Art a paper copy of some, but not all of the evidence. There are some videos of Art raising his buttocks during the match. His rho looks pained.

PS I don't really have evidence thank heavens, but this is an analogous situation.

[rhm]

This is an incredibly schizophrenic post. On the one hand, there was a miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, the laws of the WBF and bridge were carried out in full. On the other hand, we need to hear from the other side more fully.

Which laws and where are the procedures to be followed for such an incident laid out in advance?

Even if, it is still only fair to ask whether the laws and procedures to be followed are appropriate to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

It is my impression, that the WBF did a reasonable good job to gather the evidence.

It is not my impression that the WBF had clear rules how to handle such an incident before hand and was entering virgin soil even though there had been such incidents before.

I hate trial in absentia. The evidence used by the prosecution was not given in full to the accused and in time to prepare a defense.

I do not accept the statement the WBF or for that matter a country, who follows its laid out procedures, can not do a miscarriage of justice.

It is not very hard to find counterexamples to that, say people imprisoned for decades and sometimes on death rows, who were not guilty.

 

With regard to Ben's post:

It is the first time I see the sort of statistical evidence I am looking for, namely that the coughing can not be random and the match with the hand pattern is precise.

Whether the evidence is correct and stands up to scrutiny I can not verify, but having a mathematical background myself it sounds convincing to me.

 

With regard to Wladow's behaviour at the table. I did not look through the complete video but I checked the incidence at the end of video 4 and beginning of video 3 mentioned in Ben's post and I must say I disagree. I also understand German.

 

Wladow had clearly alerted his 1♣ bid and it was in my opinion hard to overlook.

Bates wanted to retract a call he had clearly made and which the rules do not allow in my opinion.

Wladow had every right to call the director. There was also UI because of the retraction attempt.

 

The director decided against Wladow, probably because he did not have the video evidence at that time or because of Wladow's bad image.

This is a typical Wladow incidence. Wladow is very brisk and gets quickly emotional. I agree, he is not someone you like to play against, but his behaviour there is not clearly unethical.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[the hog]

I totally agree with what Rainer has posted above.

[mike777]

Just to back up a second.

 

 

The jury found them guilty

 

At this point at least in the Usa justice the burden of proof shifts

 

I understand in many parts of the world it does not

 

 

At the very least it is very difficult to prove you are "NOT GUILTY" AFTER you are proven guilty.

 

Art78 knows this process better than most of us...it is long very long and very costly!

[gnasher]

where are the procedures to be followed for such an incident laid out in advance?

What there is is on the WBF website, under the heading "Disciplinary Code":

 

http://worldbridge.o...y-hearings.aspx

 

Wladow had clearly alerted his 1♣ bid and it was in my opinion hard to overlook.

Was the alert made and acknowledged in the manner prescribed by the rules? That is is:

The alert must be made by placing the Alert Card over the last call of the screen-mate, in his segment of the bidding tray; the alerted player must acknowledge by returning the Alert Card to his opponent.

I know that almost nobody actually does this, but if you choose not to alert in the correct way it's your responsibility to ensure that your alert is recognised as such. If you alert in a non-standard way and your screenmate misses it or misinterprets it, it's your fault and it's misinformation.

 

Of course, this incident tells us nothing about whether they were cheating or not.

Edited April 20, 2014 by gnasher

[gnasher]

Paragraph 6 of the report of the hearing says "... a response was provided dated 14/02/14 to the allegations of potential bias or prejudice and a request that the Defendants confirm within seven days whether or not they wished her [Georgia Heth] to be removed as chairman of the panel. No such request was received within that seven-day period."

 

Assuming that's true, I think the complaints about the composition of the panel are unfounded, although one might object to the defendants' being given so little time to respond to this.

Edited April 20, 2014 by gnasher

[rhm]

What there is is on the WBF website, under the heading "Disciplinary Code":

 

http://worldbridge.o...y-hearings.aspx

 

 

Was the alert made and acknowledged in the manner prescribed by the rules? That is is:

The alert must be made by placing the Alert Card over the last call of the screen-mate, in his segment of the bidding tray; the alerted player must acknowledge by returning the Alert Card to his opponent.

I know that almost nobody actually does this, but if you choose not to alert in the correct way it's your responsibility to ensure that your alert is recognised as such. If you alert in a non-standard way and your screenmate misses it or misinterprets it, it's your fault and it's misinformation.

 

Of course, this incident tells us nothing about whether they were cheating or not.

To clarify my statement Wladow did not alert according to the above rules. He used his forefinger and at least where I play this is how most people alert behind screens.

Also Wladow had alerted his bids that way all the time and so did the other players.

I am not sure whether the written rules make a distinction here whether screens are in place or not.

For example nobody uses the stop card when screens are in place where I play.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Paragraph 6 of the report of the hearing says "... a response was provided dated 14/02/14 to the allegations of potential bias or prejudice and a request that the Defendants confirm within seven days whether or not they wished her [Georgia Heth] to be removed as chairman of the panel. No such request was received within that seven-day period."

 

Assuming that's true, I think the complaints about the composition of the panel are unfounded, although one might object to the defendants' being given so little time to respond to this.

I have no reason to doubt that the WBF followed the rules it had in place.

But my main point is I am not convinced that they are appropriate. Ron makes a good hypothetical case above, why not.

You get the impression that the WBF convinced itself as a prosecutor and jury in one that cheating took place.

The case for a fair committee hearing was of lesser importance, except for giving out the punishment.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mike777]

I have no reason to doubt that the WBF followed the rules it had in place.

But my main point is I am not convinced that they are appropriate. Ron makes a good hypothetical case above, why not.

You get the impression that the WBF convinced itself as a prosecutor and jury in one that cheating took place.

The case for a fair committee hearing was of lesser importance, except for giving out the punishment.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

They may indeed not be appropriate but you don't provide a better measurement or argument.

 

Indeed you do not provide a method to end the debate.

[rhm]

They may indeed not be appropriate but you don't provide a better measurement or argument.

 

Indeed you do not provide a method to end the debate.

Do you think that's my duty?

(I readily admit it is easier to criticize than to do it better)

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mike777]

::)

 

 

YES

[the hog]

Mike, don't be silly. Neither Rainer nor anyone else who is an ordinary b. player has a duty to this. No one says it is easy either. However, don't you and others believe that everyone, guilty or not, is deserving of a fair hearing. I don't think the procedures were fair. Michael Gromoeller, (do you know who he is? A former World Champion), doesn't either. Rainer doesn't. I am sure there are many others.

[cherdano]

To clarify my statement Wladow did not alert according to the above rules. He used his forefinger and at least where I play this is how most people alert behind screens.

Also Wladow had alerted his bids that way all the time and so did the other players.

From watching the video, it seemed to me that

• Wladow alerted the bid by briefly pointint at it twice, while Bates was starring somewhere else,
  
• Bates did not acknowledge the alert, and
  
• Wladow later claimed to the director that he alerted using the alert card.
  

 

Do you disagree with any of that?

[blackshoe]

These are the things I find annoying. All of us have been guilty of some of these offences, the question is what is the measure of guilt? To those not familiar with German, and I know Arend is of course, I suggest you look up the word "Scheinheilig." I suspect many of the BW posters and quite a few of the posters here are guilty of this. Are you Arend?

What annoys me is people who claim they have evidence through personal experience of other people cheating, yet the only thing they've ever seemed to do about it is to bitch about it on an internet forum. Either report transgressions to the proper authorities or keep your mouth shut.

 

WBF had a procedure that said "choose three of these five people to hear the case". They did that as best they could. You may not like it. Hell, maybe the WBF leadership didn't like it much. But the alternative would have been to throw the procedure out the window and start from scratch. Not only is that fraught with political problems, it's definitely grounds for some to argue that the decision (whichever way it went) was bogus. More so than following the correct procedure, which they did.

 

Or perhaps you would have preferred to see Herr Wenning chair the committee.

[rhm]

From watching the video, it seemed to me that

• Wladow alerted the bid by briefly pointint at it twice, while Bates was starring somewhere else,
  
• Bates did not acknowledge the alert, and
  
• Wladow later claimed to the director that he alerted using the alert card.
  

 

Do you disagree with any of that?

I looked at the video (again) and saw Wladow alerting.

If Bates claimed he did not see the alert consciously I have no reason to doubt that, even though the alert was clear but quick (in my opinion) and I could not see Bates looking in a different direction.

Wladow's command of English is poor. He used the alert card to tell to the director that he had alerted 1♣.

He did not understand initially what the director wanted to know, that is in what form he alerted.

It was accepted that he did not alert with the alert card and the director let Bates change his bid.

 

So I disagree with the last sentence above and claiming that would be stupid since the German team captain (Karen Schroeder, not visible in the video, but I recognize her voice) was observing the match and did the translation for Wladow.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

. I am sure there are many others.

 

There are also people who agrees with the suggestion of the author of this article

 

Which tells me we have extremists in both sides http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif

[cherdano]

These are the things I find annoying. All of us have been guilty of some of these offences, the question is what is the measure of guilt? To those not familiar with German, and I know Arend is of course, I suggest you look up the word "Scheinheilig." I suspect many of the BW posters and quite a few of the posters here are guilty of this. Are you Arend?

 

What do I have to do with this?

I am convinced that W-E were cheating.

I am also convinced that any good player had to know for a long time that they routinely lie to directors and committees. I would never play with such players as teammates, would you?

(I do realize that this is easy for me to say. If playing with them would mean playing on the national team, maybe that would affect my judgement subconsciously.)

[the hog]

Blackshoe,I suggest you shut your trap. Both these instances were reported and acted upon. In one case the perpetrator was sacked from his position as a correspondent on Australian Bridge. So you know absolutely nothing about what you were posting.

[MrAce]

Frankly, I am convinced that doctors are cheating and I expressed my opinions accordingly in multiple forums. However I can not say I disagree with what Ron and Rainer said. In fact Rainer made some very good points both in BBF and BW forums. Only thing I strongly disagree with Ron is his upvote of the complete nonsense post by Bianca. But he has all the right to do so, just like I have my right to disagree.

 

I hope WBF did not do a lousy job which may actually work for the benefit of these doctors. I do not have the knowledge or education to judge whether they did or not in the eye of law. We will see.

[Cyberyeti]

Justice may or may not have been done, I have no strong opinion on that.

 

Justice has IMO definitely not been seen to be done due to the procedures adopted, and in many ways that seems as important.

[cherdano]

From watching the video, it seemed to me that

• Wladow alerted the bid by briefly pointint at it twice, while Bates was starring somewhere else,
  
• Bates did not acknowledge the alert, and
  
• Wladow later claimed to the director that he alerted using the alert card.
  

 

Do you disagree with any of that?

 

 

I looked at the video (again) and saw Wladow alerting.

If Bates claimed he did not see the alert consciously I have no reason to doubt that, even though the alert was clear but quick (in my opinion) and I could not see Bates looking in a different direction.

Wladow's command of English is poor. He used the alert card to tell to the director that he had alerted 1♣.

He did not understand initially what the director wanted to know, that is in what form he alerted.

It was accepted that he did not alert with the alert card and the director let Bates change his bid.

 

So I disagree with the last sentence above and claiming that would be stupid since the German team captain (Karen Schroeder, not visible in the video, but I recognize her voice) was observing the match and did the translation for Wladow.

 

Rainer Herrmann

Well, that's not what I see (though admittedly some of it is open to interpretation and guessing). Starting at 1:16, the director tries to ask him multiple times "How did you alert?" Wladow first refuses to answer, even after Karen Schroeder translates the question for him, stops her from answering the question herself, and then finally (shortly before 1:17) again makes the gesture of alering with the alert card two times. Since the only question at that time was "how", it would be strange to do this unless you wanted to imply that is how you alerted.

(I also do not believe Wladow's English is so bad that he does not understand "How did you alert?". He seems quite articulate in comparison when complaining about the US's pairs hesitations.)

[Cascade]

This is an incredibly schizophrenic post. On the one hand, there was a miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, the laws of the WBF and bridge were carried out in full. On the other hand, we need to hear from the other side more fully.

 

I read the WBF report. While the meeting in Dallas did not give the accused a real opportunity to appear in person, that really was not necessary. They were given every opportunity to present their case in writing or by video conference. They were given 2 months notice to prepare their defense. They chose to do nothing but protest the procedure.

 

The German Doctors have every right to protest the procedure. What they do not have the right to do is to ignore their opportunity to present a defense. In every judicial proceeding, if an accused is given an opportunity to present a substantive defense to the charges against him, a failure to avail himself of that opportunity amounts to a waiver. Normally, one does not get two bites at the apple. Now, it may very well be that the Doctors will get the opportunity to present their defense in some subsequent proceeding. But by failing to avail themselves of the opportunity granted to them by the WBF to present their defense at the hearing in Dallas, they will, in the minds of many, if not most, of the world's bridge players be considered guilty as charged, regardless of the outcome of any subsequent proceeding.

 

The WBF report: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_6gbBWyyA_wVXI4RFRuQmVXNXc/preview?pli=1

 

In many jurisdictions the accused would be entitled to some form of natural justice or the equivalent. I don't know if there is likely to be any exception here.

 

Assuming natural justice applies. The procedure may be in violation of that by holding the hearing at a remote location, remote from the accused. Essentially it could be considered that choosing the location deprived the accused of their right to be heard. Just as Ron's example illustrated.

[rhm]

WBF had a procedure that said "choose three of these five people to hear the case". They did that as best they could. You may not like it. Hell, maybe the WBF leadership didn't like it much. But the alternative would have been to throw the procedure out the window and start from scratch. Not only is that fraught with political problems, it's definitely grounds for some to argue that the decision (whichever way it went) was bogus. More so than following the correct procedure, which they did.

 

Or perhaps you would have preferred to see Herr Wenning chair the committee.

Let me be clear.

If you have a procedure assigned to such an incident, you can not change it on the spot.

Nobody suggested that Herr Wenning should chair the committee or be member of the jury.

I also understand that unfortunately another eligible member had passed away shortly before.

 

Still there were easy to avoid misjudgments.

Among others:

Why was the DBV indicted? A very silly idea. Do you really believe the WBF would have indicted the ACBL or USBF if an US pair would have been accused?

The DBV asked for a postponement because the annual meeting of the DBV where all representatives had to be reelected was long fixed for this weekend.

According to Mr Wenning, a member of the WBF anti doping committee for years, even a postponement of a couple of days during the Vanderbilt in Dallas would have allowed a representative of the DBV to fly in and take part.

 

Rainer Herrmann