Cheating Allegations

[Vampyr]

Mikes

 

I am it anything like the bridge player and analyst that you are. But I submit my impressions after watching the Norway video:

 

When Tor-erik was removing the tray and Schwarz grabbed the board off it that was weird. And the club signal when Fischer kept the board in front of him not making it visible through the hatch was super weird.

 

The other board placements were strange too and it is odd that a player would not put the board in the same place every time. In my experience they do, and the placements did follow the code.

 

I think that Woolsey definitely showed a bias when the board placement and lead did not match. But it seems to me that his eg 10/10 or whatever should have been eg 8/10.

 

Making too much of the evidence is poor and damages the case against F/S. But the evidence is definitely there, and it is difficult to deny, after watching the video of just that one match, that something is going on, evident to the point that a non-bridge player would notice it.

[nige1]

I agree with mikeh that many forum-members are baying for blood and their arguments demonstrate bias. I quibble on a few mikeh points. For example, IMO, it's significant that there's no signal when observers judge no signal to be needed (although, judgements and observations should be, but are not always, made independently -- and the process should be properly audited).

 

On the central issue, however, I agree that this way of treating cheating allegations is morally wrong. Even if the authorities abjectly fail in their responsibilities, 2 wrongs still don't make a right.

[mikeh]

Mikes

 

I am it anything like the bridge player and analyst that you are. But I submit my impressions after watching the Norway video:

 

When Tor-erik was removing the tray and Schwarz grabbed the board off it that was weird. And the club signal when Fischer kept the board in front of him not making it visible through the hatch was super weird.

 

The other board placements were strange too and it is odd that a player would not put the board in the same place every time. In my experience they do, and the placements did follow the code.

 

I think that Woolsey definitely showed a bias when the board placement and lead did not match. But it seems to me that his eg 10/10 or whatever should have been eg 8/10.

 

Making too much of the evidence is poor and damages the case against F/S. But the evidence is definitely there, and it is difficult to deny, after watching the video of just that one match, that something is going on, evident to the point that a non-bridge player would notice it.

I suspect you misunderstand me. I think them to be guilty. I think that some of the evidence is extremely suggestive. I am being critical of process, not (yet anyway) result, Maybe it is my training and experience as a trial lawyer (not in the criminal realm), but irrational arguments that appeal to prejudice make me feel very ill-disposed to those who make the arguments, even when I share their underlying suspicions....

[MrAce]

Mike, here are #2 and #3 decisions that are published by IBF. SEC. I am not posting this for the purpose of proving anything. I already know that you and I are not actually in opposite sides of what we think the truth is, regardless of our differences about the process. Just asking your opinion as lawyer what inferences can you draw from these decisions, if any, other than what it exactly says. I mean is it normal procedure for the lawyer(s) of F-S to challenge the authority of IBF Special Ethics Committee or does it suggest something about F-S trying to avoid the questions by this committee in your experience?

 

Decision #2

 

Decision #3

 

 

Thanks

[cherdano]

Timo, all it says that F-S's lawyers thinks its in his clients best interests to challenge the legitimacy of this committee. To me, this looks consistent both with being guilty and innocent. (If you were innocent, wouldn't you want things to calm down before someone makes a judgement about you? Wouldn't you be worried about being wrongly convicted of cheating in the heat of the moment?)

[MrAce]

Timo, all it says that F-S's lawyers thinks its in his clients best interests to challenge the legitimacy of this committee. To me, this looks consistent both with being guilty and innocent. (If you were innocent, wouldn't you want things to calm down before someone makes a judgement about you? Wouldn't you be worried about being wrongly convicted of cheating in the heat of the moment?)

 

This is totally understandable Arend. But if this is their reasoning (to slow down the process) then why don't they ask for it openly and make a reasonable argument as you just did? Request for more time to prepare defense due to the severity of the accusation and due to the possible heavy consequences of the outcome. I would think everyone will find it very reasonable to grant them the time they request, am I wrong?

 

EDIT: My personal view, what they really do not want is IBF to come to a decision before EBL or ACBL does. I may be wrong but imo they believe the decision of IBF will affect directly the decisions of others.

[cherdano]

EDIT: My personal view, what they really do not want is IBF to come to a decision before EBL or ACBL does. I may be wrong but imo they believe the decision of IBF will affect directly the decisions of others.

Again, this does not lead to any conclusions about their guilt. Maybe they believe the IBF committee is biased against them, and they will get a fairer hearing at the ACBL or EBL.

 

Lawyers of innocent defendants try to prevent charges going to trial everyday. "I am innocent, I have nothing to lose by going to trial, as I will get cleared of all charges" is naive.

[MrAce]

Lawyers of innocent defendants try to prevent charges going to trial everyday. "I am innocent, I have nothing to lose by going to trial, as I will get cleared of all charges" is naive.

 

I agree with you that it is naive to take the risk by going to trial if the community is large in your profession. Otoh, I think totally the opposite when it comes to small societies like bridge world and you are the celebrity of this small community. Which then makes it naive to believe that everything will go away and people will forget it by the time if only you can avoid the charges. Na..if you are innocent and accused wrongly, your best chance is to fight when it comes to small community or you are pretty much done. Especially when you write on your webpage that you will fight and prove your innocence. Running from your opportunity to clear your name is not the best way to disprove and clear your name. But that's my opinion only.

[Antrax]

I saw those committee decisions and didn't think they contained anything of interest. It's just legal preliminaries, like in court cases the defendant always files for dismissal before bothering presenting any defense.

[phil_20686]

Timo

 

I didn't in fact read absolutely everything that Kit wrote....I just spent some more time and confirmed my original impression.....there is, and this is unavoidable given the context, an enormous amount of repetition, but one post struck me as really telling.

 

He argued that we should use our preconceptions about guilt or innocence to influence how we perceive an action!!!!! This is such utter nonsense, that I can only assume that he has temporarily lost his mind, due to wanting so badly to defend his conclusions and those of people he sees as 'right'.

 

This is the exact opposite of how one should think.

 

As has been explained countless times, altho the vast majority of posters seen oblivious to it, there is a proper, reliable way of demonstrating, to a very real sense of accuracy, whether they cheat and how. It is NOT done by analyzing an action on the assumption that what we are looking at is evidence of cheating!!!

 

It is human nature. Look at the shooting in Ferguson. Those who believe the cop was justified see all of the evidence in that light. They assume that the black kid was threatening and menacing, because that is the impression they have of young black males in an urban environment. Those who believe the cop murdered the kid assume that that is how cops regard young black males in an urabn environment...as a threat against whom the cop thinks he can get away, literally, with murder if the kid annoys him.

 

Comparing it to Ferguson is hardly an apples to oranges comparison. One is all about the context of a specific incident, the other has been repeated in reasonably controlled conditions hundreds if not thousands of times.

 

Code breaking, as with most learning techniques, comes in two stages. In the first you literally do attempt to analyse every movement to get the best explanation of the results possible. In the second, you take your hypothesis about the code to a second, unrelated set of boards, and see which parts of your hypothesis stand up to this independent test. If, broadly, your hypothesis is predictive, then you can be reasonably sure that you have discovered a signal. This is called "training your model" and "testing your model", and there is a usually a third part, validating. If we put woosley and ish in the "training your model", then approaching it with the belief that they are cheating is the right thing to do, the next step is to take the code to some unrelated set of boards and see if its predictive on boards that the code breakers have never seen.

[billw55]

So if one suspects confirmation bias, investigates, and finds confirmation bias, then ...

[mikeh]

Comparing it to Ferguson is hardly an apples to oranges comparison. One is all about the context of a specific incident, the other has been repeated in reasonably controlled conditions hundreds if not thousands of times.

 

Code breaking, as with most learning techniques, comes in two stages. In the first you literally do attempt to analyse every movement to get the best explanation of the results possible. In the second, you take your hypothesis about the code to a second, unrelated set of boards, and see which parts of your hypothesis stand up to this independent test. If, broadly, your hypothesis is predictive, then you can be reasonably sure that you have discovered a signal. This is called "training your model" and "testing your model", and there is a usually a third part, validating. If we put woosley and ish in the "training your model", then approaching it with the belief that they are cheating is the right thing to do, the next step is to take the code to some unrelated set of boards and see if its predictive on boards that the code breakers have never seen.

I agree with you about how it ought to be done. But that isn't how either did it. When they looked at the 'new' set if boards, when the predictions were not borne out, they rationalized the results into being confirmatory anyway. They even purport to explain what F and S were thinking when they gave no signal or ignored a perceived signal. The sad thing is that there seems to me to have been no reason, other than bias, to have done so. Simply report the null results along with the actual positives, and there would still have been compelling reason to conclude that cheating was going on. By taking null results and twisting them to fit the theory, they risk having their credibility and reliability rejected should they be invited to testify, and that applies to anyone who uncritically endorses their approach. I hope that whoever presents the case against FS before any tribunal will do the job independently of the flawed approach we see on BW. I see that the IBF is subject to the Israeli judicial system. I deal with 'experts' as witnesses all the time. I would have a field day with Ish and Kit if I got to cross examine them, and I suspect that FS have counsel who are at least as competent as I am in that area.

[phil_20686]

I agree with you about how it ought to be done. But that isn't how either did it. When they looked at the 'new' set if boards, when the predictions were not borne out, they rationalized the results into being confirmatory anyway. They even purport to explain what F and S were thinking when they gave no signal or ignored a perceived signal. The sad thing is that there seems to me to have been no reason, other than bias, to have done so. Simply report the null results along with the actual positives, and there would still have been compelling reason to conclude that cheating was going on. By taking null results and twisting them to fit the theory, they risk having their credibility and reliability rejected should they be invited to testify, and that applies to anyone who uncritically endorses their approach. I hope that whoever presents the case against FS before any tribunal will do the job independently of the flawed approach we see on BW. I see that the IBF is subject to the Israeli judicial system. I deal with 'experts' as witnesses all the time. I would have a field day with Ish and Kit if I got to cross examine them, and I suspect that FS have counsel who are at least as competent as I am in that area.

 

Sure, but we have roughly an infinity more hands to test on......

[PhilKing]

Sure, but we have roughly an infinity more hands to test on......

 

I don't think there are that many sets on video (unless we include unreleased footage).

[hrothgar]

I agree with you about how it ought to be done. But that isn't how either did it. When they looked at the 'new' set if boards, when the predictions were not borne out, they rationalized the results into being confirmatory anyway. They even purport to explain what F and S were thinking when they gave no signal or ignored a perceived signal. The sad thing is that there seems to me to have been no reason, other than bias, to have done so. Simply report the null results along with the actual positives, and there would still have been compelling reason to conclude that cheating was going on. By taking null results and twisting them to fit the theory, they risk having their credibility and reliability rejected should they be invited to testify, and that applies to anyone who uncritically endorses their approach. I hope that whoever presents the case against FS before any tribunal will do the job independently of the flawed approach we see on BW. I see that the IBF is subject to the Israeli judicial system. I deal with 'experts' as witnesses all the time. I would have a field day with Ish and Kit if I got to cross examine them, and I suspect that FS have counsel who are at least as competent as I am in that area.

 

Hi Mike

 

FWIW, I agree with everything that you have written above. I've been trying to caution Kit about his approach with limited success. I am very concerned regarding what a talented defense attorney might be able to do in a court of law.

 

With this said and done, I'm not sure whether this should all come down to a question of "law" and "Beyond a reasonable doubt". It occurred to me that casinos have enormous latitude to bar players from playing their games. I wonder whether there might be an option to change the institutional structure of organized bridge to achieve the same end.

 

For better or worse, I don't need to be 100% certain that L-S were cheating to be willing to bar them from participating.

[MrAce]

Hi Mike

 

FWIW, I agree with everything that you have written above. I've been trying to caution Kit about his approach with limited success. I am very concerned regarding what a talented defense attorney might be able to do in a court of law.

 

With this said and done, I'm not sure whether this should all come down to a question of "law" and "Beyond a reasonable doubt". It occurred to me that casinos have enormous latitude to bar players from playing their games. I wonder whether there might be an option to change the institutional structure of organized bridge to achieve the same end.

 

For better or worse, I don't need to be 100% certain that L-S were cheating to be willing to bar them from participating.

 

Yes, I read what you wrote Richard. I also tried to warn Kit despite my lack of knowledge about statistics. So I showed you and Mr.Lawrence as reference and Mike as an expert player, without giving his name. I also want, just like you and Mike that if they are going to go fully statistical, they better make a case that is statistically very strong to be beaten by a good lawyer and an expert on statistics.

[hrothgar]

Yes, I read what you wrote Richard. I also tried to warn Kit despite my lack of knowledge about statistics. So I showed you and Mr.Lawrence as reference and Mike as an expert player, without giving his name. I also want, just like you and Mike that if they are going to go fully statistical, they better make a case that is statistically very strong to be beaten by a good lawyer and an expert on statistics.

 

I am not a lawyer (though I am taking classes at Harvard Law and might even eventually get a JD)

 

Were this to go to trial, my advice would be simplify, simplify, simplify.

 

There are way to many conjectures and claims floating around out there.

You don't need to convict L-F on everything. One hand was sufficient for the racecars.

 

There's no point in introducing claims about coughing and clubs if it won't help your case.

Identify your most compelling claim and focus on this.

 

FWIW, I am very glad that Greg Lawler is participating in the thread, since his qualifications dwarf mine.

(I am even more glad that he hasn't mocked any of my claims)

[mikeh]

So if one suspects confirmation bias, investigates, and finds confirmation bias, then ...

so true. However, I had been encouraged by Kit's early postings and expected that he was going to do an objective job. I went to the videos with a sense of expectation that the code had been cracked and now we'd see the most important part: confirmation. What I saw made me exclaim out loud...the taking of the non-spade signal and asserting that the failure to meet expectations was confirmation. My heart sank as I continued, and I was incredibly disappointed to see Kit adopt Ish's approach of literally making up internal thinking processes by FS to explain away why a predicted signal wasn't made or wasn't followed when it seemed to be made. Trust me, I was hoping to see confirmation of cheating, not confirmation of bias. I think I saw some of the former and I know I saw lots of the latter. I have long respected Woolsey, so it was disappointing to see such incompetence.

[billw55]

I haven't read Kit's material, so forgive an obvious question. Was he checking for and reporting matches of the hypothesized signals to (1) the actual lead, or (2) the nonleader's hand? This seems like a big difference.

[cherdano]

Mike, I agree that Woolsey could have done a better job. (Especially given that he sometimes seems to project himself as the ultimate arbiter of such cheating accusations.) But it's also not nearly as bad as you make it out to be! For example, the hypothesis he was testing was clearly whether 3rd hand was making a signal. So any comments about the opening leader were just illustrative side remarks.

 

Also, the hypothesis he was testing was: "If given the chance by opening leader, 3rd hand will make a signal. His options are 1. Leave tray on the table to indicate no preference. 2. Take tray and keep board on his side to indicate club preference. ..." Any board where 3rd hand has no preference and does leave the tray on the table is confirmation of that hypothesis! Let me rephrase: if 3rd hand leaves the tray on the table on precisely the boards where an expert would not want to make a signal, then that is a coincidence that is much more likely to happen if they cheat, then if they not cheat. Thus, it is (probabilistic) evidence of cheating. You instead seem to want to ignore it!

[cherdano]

I also don't understand what all this talk about a trial is about. Nobody plans to take F-S to a criminal court! If they get banned by, say, the EBL, they may sue. But I doubt the court would rule on whether the EBL had proof beyond reasonable doubt - it would just rule on whether the EBL followed proper procedure.

 

I actually think the case against F-S is more solid than the case against the doctors (just because board placements are more objective to verify on a video than who coughed how many times).

[cherdano]

Code breaking, as with most learning techniques, comes in two stages. In the first you literally do attempt to analyse every movement to get the best explanation of the results possible. In the second, you take your hypothesis about the code to a second, unrelated set of boards, and see which parts of your hypothesis stand up to this independent test. If, broadly, your hypothesis is predictive, then you can be reasonably sure that you have discovered a signal. This is called "training your model" and "testing your model", and there is a usually a third part, validating. If we put woosley and ish in the "training your model", then approaching it with the belief that they are cheating is the right thing to do, the next step is to take the code to some unrelated set of boards and see if its predictive on boards that the code breakers have never seen.

Actually I am with Mike here - Woolsey was claiming to do the second part.

[Flem72]

I am not a lawyer (though I am taking classes at Harvard Law and might even eventually get a JD)

 

Were this to go to trial, my advice would be simplify, simplify, simplify.

 

There are way to many conjectures and claims floating around out there.

You don't need to convict L-F on everything. One hand was sufficient for the racecars.

 

There's no point in introducing claims about coughing and clubs if it won't help your case.

Identify your most compelling claim and focus on this.

 

FWIW, I am very glad that Greg Lawler is participating in the thread, since his qualifications dwarf mine.

(I am even more glad that he hasn't mocked any of my claims)

 

Were this to go to some kind of formal hearing, I'm certain there would be two lines of evidence besides the testimony of the participants: statistical analysis and expert opinion. At first I was bothered that so many top-level players were willing to say 'so clear they are cheating, we don't need a how' (not least b/c they appear to have no defense, on this strategy, against a slander per se action), but, on reflection, who gonna be the experts for FS?

[cherdano]

Sorry one more post: the argument "this expert testimony would never hold up in cross-examination" has exactly one place. Namely when you are considering whether to bring this expert testimony to a court where the expert would be cross-examined.

There is all sort of bullshit (including a lot that used to be called "forensic science") that holds up well in cross because it's internally consistent and because lawyers are unfamiliar with its basic problems. And there is all sort of testimony that is very much on target, but would fall apart in cross-examination because it includes irrelevant details, some of which may be not correct.

 

If you just care about finding out the truth, this question is a complete waste of time. (And if it's your main frame of reference for judging what is true - well then I can't help you.) It's about as relevant as "would make for a good soundbite" is for understanding what makes good policy.

[Flem72]

Sorry one more post: the argument "this expert testimony would never hold up in cross-examination" has exactly one place. Namely when you are considering whether to bring this expert testimony to a court where the expert would be cross-examined.

There is all sort of bullshit (including a lot that used to be called "forensic science") that holds up well in cross because it's internally consistent and because lawyers are unfamiliar with its basic problems. And there is all sort of testimony that is very much on target, but would fall apart in cross-examination because it includes irrelevant details, some of which may be not correct.

 

If you just care about finding out the truth, this question is a complete waste of time. (And if it's your main frame of reference for judging what is true - well then I can't help you.) It's about as relevant as "would make for a good soundbite" is for understanding what makes good policy.

 

In a technical case, we trial lawyers are generally only as good as the bullshitters on our side. Litigators don't know much about anything, they just learn it fast...