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

[billw55]

Did anyone read Elinescu's rebuttal? He made some highly pertinent points.

It seems I cannot easily find an English translation. Can anyone link? I would like to at least read it.

[helene_t]

the translations linked from BW are quite terrible and look like automated translations. I believe someone tried to put a decent translation into Google Translate but was unsuccesful. It would be better if he just posted his translation somewhere else.

[BillHiggin]

It seems I cannot easily find an English translation. Can anyone link? I would like to at least read it..

From Bridge Winners: a google translation

http://goo.gl/G2K6A2

from this page select the third item under "Papers"

The translation is rather low quality - note that it fails several times to translate "huster" which is German for "cough" (and therefore quite significant for this case).

[rhm]

The translation is terrible and the exact German meaning matters in my opinion.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

Someone have a link to the original? Perhaps I can wade my way through the German if it is not too legalistic.

[nige1]

It shows what happens when you do not have a fair trial and and do not hear both sides to an accusation. Note, I am not claiming they are innocent, only that the evidence is not as overwhelming as it seems on first inspection.

Agree. Earlier, Mr Ace asked how anybody can suspend judgement in the face of overwhelming evidence. Some of us felt we should wait for a fair trial with evidence and argument from both sides.

[rhm]

Someone have a link to the original? Perhaps I can wade my way through the German if it is not too legalistic.

 

Go to

 

http://www.bridge-verband.de/web/news/3028

 

If you click on "Stellungnahme von Dr Elinescu"

 

You get the original German version downloaded as a PDF, which you can save on your PC

 

Since Dr Elinescu responds to the findings of the German commission and refers to their pages

 

I would recommend that you also download from the same page

 

"Bericht von der vom DBV eingesetzten Kommission"

 

which is also a PDF download.

 

 

I am not prepared to translate all this but if you have difficulty understanding a specific paragraph let me know.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[hrothgar]

Agree. Earlier. Mr Ace asked how anybody can suspend judgement in the face of overwhelming evidence. Some of us feel we should wait for a fair trial, with evidence and argument from both sides.

 

And some of us felt that the original tribunal was fair...

 

During the original proceedings, the major complaints seemed to be

 

1. It was unfair to hold the proceedings in the US because it was too far for W&E to travel.

 

The second tribunal was held in Switzerland (the venue that W&E were insisting on) and they still were unwilling to show.

(Note, during this latest round of the trial, W&E started claiming that the tribunal needed to be held in Germany

 

2. The makeup of the tribunal was unfair because there were Americans involved

 

Quoting the WBF" "The mere fact of nationality can not be the basis of bias"

(This arose because the Doctors were arguing that the new tribunal was also biased against them)

 

I'm not at all surprised that Elinescu is claiming to be innocent.

 

I'll simply let the following quote from the DBV stand for itself

 

The independent commission appointed by the DBV is "100% convinced that information as to shortness of balanced was exchanged in each of these 14 hands" (The video recorded boards. This statement was made by the country whose team will - most likely - be stripped of their medal, whose head was a team mate of the Doctors.

 

I understand that folks like to bitch about procedure and that conspiracy theories are fun.

Its time to give this one a rest...

 

(BTW, the WBF also hit the Doctors with a $25,000 bill for the tribunal)

[cherdano]

I agree

 

It shows what happens when you do not have a fair trial and and do not hear both sides to an accusation.

Note, I am not claiming they are innocent, only that the evidence is not as overwhelming as it seems on first inspection.

 

Rainer Herrmann

This is a good example how far from reality this discussion is.

Elinescu's reply is entirely a reply to the report by the German commission. It does not say anything at all about the trial.

 

Also, can someone point me to a "highly pertinent" point by Elinescu? His first two are completely ridiculous, and show exactly why (if you are interested in finding out the truth) it can sometimes be best to just do it quietly on your own.

 

In any case, for me the larger picture is the following: Elinescu and Wladow are guilty, and were banned from bridge in a trial that was of a pretty high standard. Meanwhile, Amanda Knox is almost certainly innocent, and was sentenced to life multliple times; in the US, there are hundreds of innocents sitting in death rows.

 

If you need to satisfy your desire for outrage about unfair trials, there are plenty of better targets available. You can even choose them match your anti-American or anti-anti-American taste.

[rhm]

And some of us felt that the original tribunal was fair...

 

During the original proceedings, the major complaints seemed to be

 

1. It was unfair to hold the proceedings in the US because it was too far for W&E to travel.

 

The second tribunal was held in Switzerland (the venue that W&E were insisting on) and they still were unwilling to show.

(Note, during this latest round of the trial, W&E started claiming that the tribunal needed to be held in Germany

 

2. The makeup of the tribunal was unfair because there were Americans involved

 

Quoting the WBF" "The mere fact of nationality can not be the basis of bias"

(This arose because the Doctors were arguing that the new tribunal was also biased against them)

 

I'm not at all surprised that Elinescu is claiming to be innocent.

 

I'll simply let the following quote from the DBV stand for itself

 

The independent commission appointed by the DBV is "100% convinced that information as to shortness of balanced was exchanged in each of these 14 hands" (The video recorded boards. This statement was made by the country whose team will - most likely - be stripped of their medal, whose head was a team mate of the Doctors.

 

I understand that folks like to bitch about procedure and that conspiracy theories are fun.

Its time to give this one a rest...

 

(BTW, the WBF also hit the Doctors with a $25,000 bill for the tribunal)

you are missing the point:

 

Neither am I surprised that Elinsecu claims to be innocent, but this does not mean it is not worthwhile reading the arguments of the defense.

And Elinescu's arguments are in response to the 27 page report of the commission you quote, which looks at the technical evidence.

 

Assume for just a moment they are innocent.

Would you have advised them to go to Lausanne?

That really depends how you assess their chances that the WBF would now be prepared to look at the evidence again with an open mind and be prepared to overrule itself.

 

This would have been sensational to say the least.

If I would be their adviser I would have considered the chance for an overrule close to zero irrespective of whether they are innocent or not.

There is now far too much bias against them and the WBF would have to lose face.

 

Note, that the successful appeal of the Reese Shapiro Buenos Aires affair happened by a completely independent organisation.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[jjbrr]

This is a good example how far from reality this discussion is.

Elinescu's reply is entirely a reply to the report by the German commission. It does not say anything at all about the trial.

 

Also, can someone point me to a "highly pertinent" point by Elinescu? His first two are completely ridiculous, and show exactly why (if you are interested in finding out the truth) it can sometimes be best to just do it quietly on your own.

 

In any case, for me the larger picture is the following: Elinescu and Wladow are guilty, and were banned from bridge in a trial that was of a pretty high standard. Meanwhile, Amanda Knox is almost certainly innocent, and was sentenced to life multliple times; in the US, there are hundreds of innocents sitting in death rows.

 

If you need to satisfy your desire for outrage about unfair trials, there are plenty of better targets available. You can even choose them match your anti-American or anti-anti-American taste.

 

lol@you. AK is almost certainly guilty. make a new thread so we don't derail this one and I can drop some facts on you.

[rhm]

Also, can someone point me to a "highly pertinent" point by Elinescu? His first two are completely ridiculous, and show exactly why (if you are interested in finding out the truth) it can sometimes be best to just do it quietly on your own.

As I already wrote I have no intention to translate all this stuff but I will give just one example, which I remember impressed me as "Bridge evidence" at the time when it was brought forward by Eddie Wold on Bridgewinner.

This is one example. Of course I am aware that no single board can prove or refute anything.

 

Eddie Wold wrote on April,5th on Bridgewinner under the heading "Diagnosis: Foul Play"

 

10) The final hand of the set totally convinced me the doctors were cheating. South held:

 

...[hv=pc=n&s=skq95h76dk9cak654&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p2np]133|200[/hv]

 

"2NT showed 11-14 HCP, with both minors or 6+ diamonds. Holding a strong notrump opposite opening bid values, he bid 3♣, pass or correct, which runs the risk of missing game or even slam when partner has both minors. I now know he "knew" his partner was going to correct, so he was assured of getting another bid. The full hand:"

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skq95h76dk9cak654&w=s8hjt9432dq8cj973&n=sjha85dajt742cq82&e=sat76432hkqd653ct&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p2np3cp3dp3sdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

"I then came out of the room and immediately told my captain that I was sure the German doctors were using some kind of coughing system to send illegal information to their partner."

 

(end of quote)

 

At that time I found this persuasive Bridge evidence.

 

My translation what the German commission wrote about this board:

 

"It is an unusual action with the South hand to bid a non forcing 3♣ after North has shown a six plus diamond suit or 5-5 in the minors with 10-14 HCP."

 

To call this action "unusual" sounds to me low-key. I would have chosen stronger terms to describe this action.

 

Now, however, the translation of what Elinescu wrote about this incident:

 

....

 

"After North artificial 2NT opening East thought for at least 1 minute before passing.

It was obvious that he was rankled to get into the bidding, which he finally - after long deliberation - refrained from doing vulnerable in the sandwich position.

South, who could not have escaped noticing the long huddle, opened a trap by a deceptive 3♣ bid.

North alerted and gave the written explanation : Pass or correct

 

Now East intervened with 3♠,which was doubled and went for 1100.

During the play East realized the trap he had fallen into and called the director and complained in a rude manner "South is strong" and North has given the verbal explanation "weak".

North contradicted that he never said weak but "pass or correct". which was proven.

The director let the score stand, but East raged on, that North lied and this let to a loud exchange between North and East, which continued after the end of the segment.

South trap was an in depth but riskless maneuver. To insinuate illegal information is malicious."

 

Again, I am not claiming Elinescu has proven his innocence, nor am I convinced, that he is.

But this is in my opinion not his duty.

The allegations have to be judged after the defense had a chance to make their case.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[nige1]

The Tribunal mentioned damning evidence from the Cavendish -- especially significant because it was collected well after the alleged code was cracked. Officials had ample time for careful preparation. Please post a link to Cavendish observations and relevant videos.

[the hog]

Someone have a link to the original? Perhaps I can wade my way through the German if it is not too legalistic.

 

There is a link on the BW site. Yes I agree that the translation does not do credit to the original. I also agree with Rainer that this does not prove the innocence or otherwise of the doctors. However as I stated, Elinescu makes some pertinent comments - one of which is mentioned by Rainer above. If Elinescu's description of events is accurate, his action is logical makes perfect sense to me

 

I do not see why Arend is persisting with the childish "anti American" argument. No one has posted any comment which could be construed in this way.

[WellSpyder]

"After North artificial 2NT opening East thought for at least 1 minute before passing.

It was obvious that he was rankled to get into the bidding, which he finally - after long deliberation - refrained from doing vulnerable in the sandwich position.

South, who could not have escaped noticing the long huddle, opened a trap by a deceptive 3♣ bid.

Just a small query - wasn't this event played with screens? If so, isn't it normal for North and East to share the same side of the screen? If so, I'm not sure how South would be aware of who had the long think.

[Zelandakh]

No one has posted any comment which could be construed in this way.

Point 6 from Elinescu's letter could certainly be seen like this.

[the hog]

Point 6 from Elinescu's letter could certainly be seen like this.

 

 

I was talking about posts on this site, Zel.

[cherdano]

As I already wrote I have no intention to translate all this stuff but I will give just one example, which I remember impressed me as "Bridge evidence" at the time when it was brought forward by Eddie Wold on Bridgewinner.

Well I am sorry, but this hand was never convincing evidence.

 

There are two completely independent statistical pieces of evidence:

- In the 14 hands on the videos, the doctors coughed during the auction every single time when they had shortness, and did not cough every single time they had no shortness.

- The results of Kit Woolsey's study on leads.

 

I made some conservative computations for the latter, posted on bridgewinners. I arrived at a Bayesian factor of about 10,000 - i.e. if you thought that there is a 1% chance that EW are cheating, then after reading that study you should be 99% convinced that they are. (Note that you should take into account the observations about coughing before opening leads before arriving at the 1% figure.) I did not do computations for the former, but I would think the factor would be even larger.

[rhm]

Just a small query - wasn't this event played with screens? If so, isn't it normal for North and East to share the same side of the screen? If so, I'm not sure how South would be aware of who had the long think.

When bidding takes a long time behind screens you sometimes can deduce who took the time and sometimes not.

However, when your partner starts with an unorthodox preemptive weapon, which has multiple meanings and next hand passes red against white and all this takes an extraordinary long time, is it in doubt for any good player, who took the time?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[the hog]

Arend, du scheinst eine richtige Macke zu haben mit diese anti Amerikanische Einstellung. Wieso?

[Zelandakh]

However, when your partner starts with an unorthodox preemptive weapon, which has multiple meanings and next hand passes red against white and all this takes an extraordinary long time, is it in doubt for any good player, who took the time?

Depends how much time is taken for explanations, no? Given you are a pair known for poor disclosure and that therefore the opps may ask for extra clarification on every detail it does not seem unlikely that this non-thinking period might last a while.

[cherdano]

Arend, du scheinst eine richtige Macke zu haben mit diese anti Amerikanische Einstellung. Wieso?

Lol. I wrote one on this page, as a joke, about the possibility of choosing your outrage about unfair trials according to your anti-American or anti-anti-American perdisposition. In reply, you wrote twice about me continually brining up the anti-American angle.

So who is obsessed about the anti-American angle? Welcome back to my ignored user list.

[the hog]

Lol. I wrote one on this page, as a joke, about the possibility of choosing your outrage about unfair trials according to your anti-American or anti-anti-American perdisposition. In reply, you wrote twice about me continually brining up the anti-American angle.

So who is obsessed about the anti-American angle? Welcome back to my ignored user list.

 

 

I think we should let other posters decide who has an obsession. You are a stranger person than I ever thought.

[the hog]

I was not going to post this but in view of some of the previous posts have decided to do so. I am not a mathematician and only have rudimentary undergraduate grasp of statistics. I asked a friend, a retired professor of stats who has many publications to explain the references and posts regarding Bayesian analysis. His comment was that anyone who attempts to apply this to real life situations does not have the slightest idea what he is talking about and is using pseudo mathematical knowledge to attempt to obfuscate his audience. (His words not mine). This is a bit sad really.

[helene_t]

I asked a friend, a retired professor of stats who has many publications to explain the references and posts regarding Bayesian analysis. His comment was that anyone who attempts to apply this to real life situations does not have the slightest idea what he is talking about and is using pseudo mathematical knowledge to attempt to obfuscate his audience. (His words not mine).

What exactly was he refering to? Applying Bayes factors to real life situations in general? Or something more specific?