Cheating Allegations

[mikeh]

And why do people keep talking about trials? This isn't a criminal case. This is a decision of a private organization, whether or not to sanction two of its members, or allow them to participate in its events. Said organizations can use whatever internal administrative process they have for that, and I very much doubt that ever involves a trial.

 

Or are people thinking that FS will sue BB for libel and/or slander? At this point it doesn't look like that would work out very well for them.

I was a member of our ACBL District Judicial committee for years, tho fortunately never had to sit on a case. I was counsel on such a case 25 years ago, and even at the District level the accused was entitled to counsel. I cannot imagine a US based organization, with the ability to impact earnings powers, not affording what the Americans like to refer to as 'due process' and what we in the Commonwealth (referring I think to related but slightly different concepts) call the principles of natural justice.

 

If these guys are up on charges, especially if not arising from measures taken by a TD at a tournament, my understanding, based on perhaps out of date experience, is that they will be entitled to a formal hearing. Of course, if they are confronted with overwhelming evidence, they may instead try to negotiate a deal or just skulk away. We can hope.

 

 

edit: re the libel issue. Different countries have different rules, some very different. Here in Canada, on the evidence so far presented I'd rather be acting for FS than for Brogeland, BW, or any of the others who have gone public. Not that there would be any jurisdiction here. And no, this isn't an offer to act for them :P I hope, and frankly expect, that the more evidence that comes to light, or that would be found in the context of a lawsuit, the more that would change (in terms of who would be likely to win). Here, the damages could be massive...not just compensation for the loss of what I imagine is a very lucrative career, but also even punitive damages for 'malice'. You have to remember that what is acceptable in the public mind as 'proof' isn't at all the same as what is acceptable in a courtroom.

[ggwhiz]

I was a member of our ACBL District Judicial committee for years, tho fortunately never had to sit on a case.

 

The last part of this sentence is exactly why BB felt it necessary to go public. BTW, he's now living in a secret location due to death threats.

 

fisher and Schwartz have announce their intention to file suit and may well be able to cherry pick their jurisdiction.

 

Oh and all the action crashed Bridgewinners forcing a furiously fast upgrade to their system.

[PhantomSac]

lol if you think it's just the traffic bringing them down. they are being attacked for sure.

 

This really is like a Hollywood movie

[kuhchung]

I am telling all of my non bridge friends about the details as it unfolds. They want some justice!

[cherdano]

Mike, I won't argue with your legal reasoning. It may be possible that the way Brogeland set about doing this won't help him if he gets sued for libel.

 

But I think the goal he had in mind was to get the relevant authorities (ACBL/IBF/EBL/WBF/...) to act. His strategy was to pass the full information on to them; and once they didn't seem to react by themselves, he added public pressure by adding tidbits of information publicly.

 

And his goal isn't only to get rid of F-S - I am sure thinking about this case made him realize how laughably little deterrent the current system is against potential cheats, and that he wants fundamental change.

 

I mean, if nothing fundamental changed, and I was someone cheating at bridge - I would probably tell myself "LOL as long as I don't do it as blatant as these guys - using all possible tools towards cheating and winning every tournament in sight - I will NEVER be caught". And that IS a problem, since most top players seem to believe that there are other top pairs that cheat, only less egregiously.

[cherdano]

lol if you think it's just the traffic bringing them down. they are being attacked for sure.

I'd find that quite plausible - if there are 10 times as many readers reading 10 times as many comments, the load is 100 times of what it was before. Plus having more of anything seems to bring out bugs in everybody's code.

On the other hand, that last phrase may not be apply to code written by Greg H. Plus it was down Monday morning European time (i.e. middle of the night US time) - that did seem a bit odd.

[PhantomSac]

exactly, maybe I overrate greg humphreys but he seems like a baller lol. it is hard for me to believe natural traffic took them down for so long.

 

I mean the guy has an academy award and was baller at GOOGLE

[mgoetze]

I'd find that quite plausible - if there are 10 times as many readers reading 10 times as many comments, the load is 100 times of what it was before. Plus having more of anything seems to bring out bugs in everybody's code.

On the other hand, that last phrase may not be apply to code written by Greg H. Plus it was down Monday morning European time (i.e. middle of the night US time) - that did seem a bit odd.

Right, I was fully willing to believe it was down because of natural reasons on Sunday evening, but with the problems still ongoing on Monday at noon when I would expect all the Americans to be in bed I started to think there may be more to it than that.

[broze]

Why haven't the ACBL released their videos by the way? They might have discussed that in their statement but chose not to.

[nige1]

So the play in the animated GIF I posted is from the first match by RS that I looked at: partner leads the lowest ♦ spot against 1NT, a balanced dummy comes down with JTx, and RS covers dummy's honor with Qxxx. Could you imagine a player of your level making this mistake in an important match?

It's suspicious when a player is hugely successful, in spite of frequent peculiar losing blunders. But it also makes his peculiar anti-percentage winning actions less suspicious.

[cherdano]

Meanwhile, while all this is going on, The Bridge World wrote s.th. like 15 editorials on....SPORTSMANLIKE DUMPING AS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM THREATENING COMPETITIVE BRIDGE!

[Phil]

Meanwhile, while all this is going on, The Bridge World wrote s.th. like 15 editorials on....SPORTSMANLIKE DUMPING AS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM THREATENING COMPETITIVE BRIDGE!

 

Actually this month's was about Fantunes making the weird defensive play versus the slam to get an extra under that went to the 'sports judge'.

[Vampyr]

Meanwhile, while all this is going on, The Bridge World wrote s.th. like 15 editorials on....SPORTSMANLIKE DUMPING AS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM THREATENING COMPETITIVE BRIDGE!

 

Back in Kaplan's day the Bridge World was in favour of s.d. If the CofC allowed it. Input was the latter that they thought was the problem. Is that not the case anymore?

[captyogi]

And why do people keep talking about trials? This isn't a criminal case. This is a decision of a private organization, whether or not to sanction two of its members, or allow them to participate in its events. Said organizations can use whatever internal administrative process they have for that, and I very much doubt that ever involves a trial.

 

Or are people thinking that FS will sue BB for libel and/or slander? At this point it doesn't look like that would work out very well for them.

 

quote

= = = =

Or are people thinking that FS will sue BB for libel and/or slander?

= = = =

unquote

 

Well Well Well, that will be highly welcome by BB.

That officially opens the Pandora's Box.

If you stay in Glass House, You don't throw stone on somebody staying in Stone House.

[PhantomSac]

Back in Kaplan's day the Bridge World was in favour of s.d. If the CofC allowed it. Input was the latter that they thought was the problem. Is that not the case anymore?

 

yeah I don't think you got it

[Vampyr]

yeah I don't think you got it

 

No, it's not that; I was just seriously curious as to whether the Bridge World had changed its position. But never mind, it's not really relevant to the thread.

[MrAce]

Kit Woolsey

I also congratulate Boye on his efforts. While I have often disagreed with some of the actions he has taken, and have told him so, he was the one who saw exactly what FS were doing in the Spingold. It was his speaking up that caused several very intelligent people to examine all the evidence carefully. And it appears that Cullen has succeeded in interpreting that evidence properly. He too is to be congratulated. Since I don't like to take anything anybody says for granted, I am checking every board from the three videos Boye put on his website. I'm a little over halfway through, and I can tell you now that Cullen appears to be 100% correct. When I finish I will post a brief summary of my findings, and then follow up with a detailed board by board description.

 

Do any of you know what are the findings of Cullen and Bertheau?

[helene_t]

♠Qxx

♥void

♦AKQJTxxx

♣xx

Rho opens 1♥ and you pass!!!

This is just amazing and doesn't fall into the general pattern of actions exposed on bridgecheaters which seem almost normal, some slight anti-percentage guesses that happened to work most of the time. Do these guys sometimes make such bizare psyches and if yes, does it also backfire sometimes?

[rhm]

lol if you think it's just the traffic bringing them down. they are being attacked for sure.

 

This really is like a Hollywood movie

I'd find that quite plausible - if there are 10 times as many readers reading 10 times as many comments, the load is 100 times of what it was before. Plus having more of anything seems to bring out bugs in everybody's code.

On the other hand, that last phrase may not be apply to code written by Greg H. Plus it was down Monday morning European time (i.e. middle of the night US time) - that did seem a bit odd.

Right, I was fully willing to believe it was down because of natural reasons on Sunday evening, but with the problems still ongoing on Monday at noon when I would expect all the Americans to be in bed I started to think there may be more to it than that.

Yeah, let's indulge in some conspiracy theories. So much more fun.

FS hired some Israeli hackers, who learned their trade at the Mossad and they are now sending death squads to Norway to get Boye.

Mossad is good at that

 

Rainer Herrmann.

[helium]

I would hope not, but I am sure that I have done equally foolish things in the past. Btw, while I fully understand why low is the percentage play on most hands, I can think of layouts, especially at imps, where the Q is correct, tho I can't think of a plausible example at the one level :D .

 

Anyway, everybody makes plays that in hindsight are below their normal standard of play. One of the problems with a retrospective analysis of hands is that we tend to seize upon errors and magnify them to fit our preconceptions.

 

 

It was acctually a lot worse then this, the dummy had J109 and Ron covers whit Q8xx

 

Anyway, if you look at the videos

 

NOTE: Boye told us that they always insisted on sitting NS, this suggest that they could do something whit the tray, or see the p better, under the scorners then you do EW.

 

Every time they are in a defense situasjon, the player who's not going to lead never takes the tray of the table, Also the pushing and placement of the trey suggest that they somehow signal leads.

 

This are really smart guys, not the average expert player but whit really high IQs, Lohan is even regarded as a word-class player, Ron not so good player but a really smart guy.

So there way of cheating is going to be VERY sophisticated IMO, like really subtle hints here and there, when they are on defence they would signal more often then if they declare.

Also they would switch up the meatiest, maybe every month, every tournament or even every session, so it could be really tricky to find 100% proof.

 

In my mind the sheer number of strange leads that strike gold is way to high for it not to be suspicious, even if its goes wrong from time to time, the times its successful are far more often, i mean how can a pair thats suppose to be a top 10 peir in the world make so many non expert leads plays and still come out ahead?

 

If anyone still things nothing fishy is up whit this guys, i really feel sorry for you, i agree a lot of the hands sown are not compelling at all, but the videos are pretty damming to me, not to mention there past history of cheating in Israel.

 

Cheers

[helium]

On the AKQjxxxx hand Ron ofcourse had KJ109 in !H, so 4 !H went down :)

[gwnn]

Kit Woolsey posts this on the two matches he'd watched:

 

(from http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/videos-added-to-bridgecheaters-website/ not sure how to link to the post itself)

Here is a quick summary of what I found for the two matches Boye has on his website:

 

FS were on defense 15 times. Of these, the partner of the opening leader removed the tray 13 times. The other two are easily understood.

 

On board 25 (vs. Norway), Schwartz opened 1♥, his LHO overcalled 1♠, and the opponents got to 4♠ with no further bidding by FS. Fisher held: ♠742 ♥653 ♦8543 ♣1054. He could see that he would have to lead a heart regardless of partner's signal. since if he led anything else and struck gold that would be a dead giveaway. So in one fluid motion he banged open the screen, tabled the 3 of hearts, and removed the tray.

 

On board 31 (vs. Norway), Fisher was on lead. Yet he was the one who removed the tray. A careful examination of the video shows what happened. The final pass was on the other side of the screen, so Schwartz and his screenmate scooped up their bids and shoved the tray to the other side – all routine. Fisher and his screenmate scooped up their bids. The tray was now on Fisher's side of the screen, but he wanted Schwartz to remove the tray and give a signal. So Fisher gave the tray a shove to the other side. Examination of all the deals shows that Fisher does this when he is on opening lead and the tray has landed on his side, but he doesn't do this otherwise. Schwartz didn't think he had a clear preference, and the way no preference is signaled is by doing nothing. So Schwartz did nothing, and after waiting a few seconds to see if Schwartz would pick up the tray Fisher just picked it up himself and made his lead.

 

There is considerably more evidence. On the choice of suit to signal for their signal corresponded with my choice all the time when I thought the choice was clear-cut. When it wasn't clear in my mind, sometimes they made a different signal. Also one can see slight changes in their mannerism when they are giving a signal and when they are doing nothing (i.e. when their side is declaring), but unfortunately this is somewhat subjective and doesn't really hold up as evidence.

 

I don't know what other videos of them are around. If they exist, particularly from this event (since it is almost certain that they aren't going to be changing their methods during the event), I hope that some other people will make the same kind of analysis that I have made.

 

Tomorrow I hope to give a board by board display of what I found.

 

13/15 with the two others getting pretty plausible explanations.

[Antrax]

Hebrew original: http://main.bridge.co.il/uploads/files/sec/sec-decision-1-he.pdf

 

F-S have agreed, without implying guilt, to refrain from playing together until the matter is resolved.

[MrAce]

THE CODE (broken by Magnus Magnusson, Iceking in BBO, )

 

 

This is how they ask for leads.

1. they are NS

2. If they don't mind what pd leads they leave the trey on

3. They pick up the trey when pd is on lead never pick it up if they are on lead themselves.

4. If they want club the keep the board far away from the middle so pd doesn't see the board this signal for club lead

5. If they want Diamond lead they put the board in the middle

6. Spade and heart lead they put the board in the top and bottom corner.

You can start like in the match against Norway and see it very obviously there, it was some problem on board one as Hoftaniska took the Trey but our heros fixed that for the rest of the match.

[shyams]

I don't post on Bridgewinners, so here is something I noticed on a video not discussed on the other website:

 

Match: 52nd European Team Championships (Round Robin): Hungary vs Israel. Video link: (

). Eurobridge results link: (click here). Other hyperlinks next to individual times below.

 

E/W declare on 11 of 16 boards - giving us 11 opportunities to test any hypothesis:

 

Board 1: (

) North has opened 1♣ after which E/W bid to 5♥. North is on lead, and South does nothing to the tray (i.e. leaves tray + board in centre of table). North has an automatic lead of high ♣ and does so. Inference: None. Alternatively, that South has no preference or prefers North to make a normal lead.

 

Board 3: (

) In the 3rd seat, North preempts 3♠ and East bids 3NT to end the auction. North removes the tray and replaces the board such that only a small portion of the board is visible to South. South chooses to lead a ♥ {note: the lead was often chosen at other tables, but it is not clear if other Norths bid 3♠ too). Inference: North's removal of tray when South on lead is unusual. North's placement of board may indicate a signal. Is there really a signal and, if so, what is it? That's not clear. It would be worth asking W/C players what they would lead from the South hand, given this specific bidding.

 

Board 4: (

): E/W reach 6NT after a complicated, uncontested auction. North is on lead. South removes the tray, and puts the board such that it stays exactly halfway in the slot. South continues to hold the board with two fingers probably to stop the board from being moved. South has ♦KJx and a diamond lead looks best from South's side. North leads a ♦, but the contract is unbeatable. Inference: This seemed a clear examples of a potential "lead directing" board placement. However, it must be noted that a diamond lead is repeated on many other tables -- i.e. N/S may not have gained from, or North may not have heeded, the signal.

 

Board 5: (

): E/W bid to an uncontested 3NT. South on lead. North does not touch the tray, and South makes a standard lead of low ♦. Inference: None or a negative inference that North has no preference. Question for experts: Would north prefer to indicate a club lead given their holding and in the context of the bidding? If yes, this board may be contra-indicative (i.e. North choose not to indicate a club).

 

Board 6: (

): E/W bid to an uncontested 3NT (South on lead). North does not touch the tray, and South leads a low ♥. Inference: None or a negative inference that North has no preference. FYI North held a 2-HCP 3343 hand.

 

Board 7: (

): In a contested auction, N/S have bid and supported ♥ and East bids 3NT "to play". South is on lead, and he removes the tray himself. He places the board and leads a normal ♥. Inference: Outlier. Defies the hypothesis. However, in this instance a ♥ lead is automatic given this bidding.

 

Board 10: (

): E/W reach a poor 2♥ contract after North has shown a ♦ single-suited hand. South is on lead. North does not touch the tray, and South leads a normal ♦. Inference: None. or a negative inference that North does not want anything unusual.

 

Board 11: (

): E/W reach 3NT after South opened 1♥ and North responded 1NT. South is on lead. North does not touch the tray, and South leads a ♥. Perhaps the most damaging lead (double dummy) is a low ♠, but I'm not sure if North can see the need for one. Inference: None. or a (much weaker) negative inference that North does not want anything unusual.

 

Board 12: (

): E/W reach an uncontested 4♥. North is on lead. South removes the tray, and pushes the board all the way across the slot to North's side. Actually, East then pushes the board back to centre as North finds the ♠ lead. South has ♠AJTx and a spade lead is wonderful from South's side. Inference: Another clear example of a potential "lead directing" board placement. Again, it must be noted that a spade lead is repeated on most other tables.

 

Board 14: (

): After two passes, West bids 1NT and plays there. South removes the tray but North, on lead, starts with a low ♠ before South places the board back on the table. Inference: Outlier. However, North holds a 14 HCP hand and a spade lead is automatic. It is reasonable that (from North's angle), South may be too weak to matter.

 

Board 15: (

): E/W bid to an uncontested 5♣. West has shown an extremely shapely two suiter (he held 6-6 in minors). South, on lead, cashes is ♠A without waiting for North to act. Inference: None. There wasn't much in the play but South (with both major aces) guessed dummy's singleton correctly (in ♠). Well done to South (saves a trick)

 

So that's all boards from one match. In this small sample, there are at least three potential instances of signalling. The fact that they did not gain IMPs is for all of you to debate.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

An unrelated but curious thing I noticed. You hold[hv=pc=n&n=sak9hqt5dkt762c96&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1c1d1s2dp]133|200|

 

 

What is your call? What are other calls you seriously consider?[/hv]

Once you decide, watch the video from @ 53:20 and make your own mind up re. the signal. Did it say anything about the 2♦ bid?

 

NOTE: Some typos have been since edited and some text modified.