Cheating Allegations

[helene_t]

Pass. No second choice.

[MrAce]

NOTE that in BW, Magnus admitted that he is not accurate with the ♠ signal. He claims club diamond and heart signals remain the same but spade is different.

[shyams]

NOTE that in BW, Magnus admitted that he is not accurate with the ♠ signal. He claims club diamond and heart signals remain the same but spade is different.

I haven't seen the Poland videos referred to on BW in another thread. However, the signal for ♠ as identified by BW readers is identical to the one used on #12 -- i.e. push board all the way across.

 

Thought that may be useful for your discussion (if any) on BW.

[Flem72]

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

 

Second this--can't find anything beyond statements that they have a "code solution."

[phil_20686]

Imo, the only reason to see the sweater tugging as evidence of cheating, based on nothing more than this hand, is confirmation bias. We have been primed, as an audience, to think that the video contains evidence of cheating (since Brogeland clearly thinks that it does).

 

That isnt a correct way to think imo. We are basically involved in a baysian updating process. Suppose you think that someone is 20% to make this play if they aren't cheating, but 100% to make it if they are cheating, then this is still evidence that they are cheating. Sure, you then combine it with some prior belief, and for most people the prior belief that they are v unlikely to be cheating gets updated to some still very small number. On the other hand if you think that the the chance they are cheating is 100% you will get "unconvinced" a little bit by this example, as there is still some reasonable chance that they aren't cheating based on this hand.

 

My point is that what you are calling "confirmation bias" is actually a pretty logical way to think. It only becomes a problem if you start to let your prior leak into your estimates of how likely they are to make this play if they aren't cheating.

 

It also shows why it should be easier to convict top players on their play alone, since the chances of them taking suboptimal lines is much smaller, where for a bad player lots of suboptimal lines will be just as likely, if not more likely than a good line, which makes it virtually impossible to prove cheating allegations without knowing the method.

[Zelandakh]

I haven't seen the Poland videos referred to on BW in another thread. However, the signal for ♠ as identified by BW readers is identical to the one used on #12 -- i.e. push board all the way across.

This was my conclusion, at least for F, but I have not seen enough data points for S to see if this is also the case. In my view, the mere fact that F takes the board and places it exactly in the middle on every hand where N-S declare but does so only a very small percentage of the time when E-W declare is enough to be highly suspicious. Combined with the additional mannerism of pushing it back to the middle when on lead it is difficult not to conclude that something is amiss.

 

The question I ask is that Justin has already pointed out that there were monitors present and videos taken for all of their ACBL tournaments over a long period. Does anyone actually analyse the data taken? It seems impossible that this could go unseen over an extended period. Of course they might well have been changing their code constantly, indeed I still do not understand why cheats do not use a different code vulnerable to NV, but honestly, as soon as one focuses on the board rather than the tray it is obvious. Surely monitoring should take notes of such things?

 

As for the fallout, I wonder if this will bring in a system where the players are unable to pass the tray or place the board themselves. It is surely not difficult to implement such a system and it would definitely reduce the opportunities available.

 

Finally, I have not yet done an analysis of the Holland match video but on a quick viewing I only saw 2 hands where this mannerism was enacted in sight of S. Both of these involved a singleton, one on lead and the other a 4-1 trump break as Dummy. If someone finds more examples it would be good if they could post the time reference.

[mikeh]

That isnt a correct way to think imo. We are basically involved in a baysian updating process. Suppose you think that someone is 20% to make this play if they aren't cheating, but 100% to make it if they are cheating, then this is still evidence that they are cheating.

I disagree.

 

I am not saying 'forget the math', but I am saying that you are forgetting basic psychology. Confirmation bias exists. The circumstances of the unfolding of this tale are perfect examples of how it can be created and how it works.

 

At the risk of over-simplification, bias will affect how we evaluate the chances that declarer would make this play absent cheating. If we think he is likely cheating, we will lowball our feel for the odds of a legitimate play. If he convinced he is innocent, we will increase our estimate, possibly to the point of arguing that it would be silly to make any other play, given that the lead of the Ace of clubs pretty much gave the show away.

 

 

Anyway, I gather that more work has been done into deciphering their methods, and I hope it becomes public. I am speaking of more than Woolsey's 13/15 apparent board placement post on BW.

[mikeh]

This was my conclusion, at least for F, but I have not seen enough data points for S to see if this is also the case. In my view, the mere fact that F takes the board and places it exactly in the middle on every hand where N-S declare but does so only a very small percentage of the time when E-W declare is enough to be highly suspicious. Combined with the additional mannerism of pushing it back to the middle when on lead it is difficult not to conclude that something is amiss.

 

I can think of a very simple, honest reason for placing the board on the table differently when NS are declaring and when EW are.

 

If one is S and West is declaring, one expects dummy to be laid out on your right. Because we are with screens, dummy may well want to lay the cards down a little closer than without screens, and of course may be laying down a long suit on occasion. It is therefore polite to put the board somewhat to the left, from S's perspective, so as to make it easy for dummy, and to improve declarer's view of the dummy. The opposite applies if West is dummy.

 

One has to be careful. We need to check to see whether the positioning of the board correlates to who is dummy or which suit the non-leading defender wants to show.

 

All of this is extremely important detail, and heightens my concern about bias being created. Simplistic, biased reasoning will lead to disaster. Competent lawyers, either expert bridge players themselves or aided by experts, can rip this sort of thing to shreds.

 

This can lead to an erroneous decision...if the court/tribunal/panel correctly sees 90% of the case as nonsense, it may not be able to recognize the 10% that is pure gold, and will dismiss it along with the crap.

 

I am pleased to read that one of those who thinks he has cracked the code is actually a Judge, which should prevent this sort of error creeping in.

[phil_20686]

I disagree.

 

I am not saying 'forget the math', but I am saying that you are forgetting basic psychology. Confirmation bias exists.

 

Sure, but on the other hand, there is a danger that we go the other way, and start thinking that every use of prior information is 'confirmation bias'. The truth is that these hands as a collective are much more convincing than any one on its own, and people have thought that Fischer-Schwarz are dirty for years. At the junior euro's years ago, one team would make you put your hands face down on the table and cover up dummy every time one of them got up from the table for some water or a toilet break, they were already convinced way back then.

 

At some point such a pattern must be taken into account. In bridge, in every hand, a lot of fine judgements must be made in a row, almost all of them are arguable, so its hard for one hand to be convincing. If you were to take the devils argument on almost any hand, you would be able to put together something plausible.

 

Another strong line of argument is that they do not do things that seem pretty ordinary for the level of player that wins all these things. This hand: was pretty convincing. Playing the Q of clubs is totally clear for a player at this level, or the club T could be your agreement if you use honours to "wake up partner" and SP with pips, or something. Playing the club 8 feels totally wrong, and I bet that BB knows their signalling agreements and would know if the club 8 magically asked for a spade. At that point, playing anything other than a diamond is treating your partner like a d****, sure, I have been that d*** before, sometimes you play too fast and don't signal, but I bet its been years since BB or players on that level have missed such a clear signalling opportunity. If my partner had played a spade after the 8 of clubs, he would have got a black mark in error count right next to mine, since what's the point of signalling if your partner just ignores you in a high stakes situation? It just doesn't exist to be as good as you have to be to win all that stuff, and miss such an easy play/huge edge. His partner could have been A of spades and k of diamonds and need a diamond, just trivially. And the spade ten, just to remove any guess if there is KJ9x or something?

 

Sure, that's just one hand, but I bet its that, more than anything else, that has convinced so many players that they must be getting their edge somewhere else.

[aguahombre]

I am pleased to read that one of those who thinks he has cracked the code is actually a Judge, which should prevent this sort of error creeping in.

If someone thinks he has cracked the code, anyone with powers of observation can compare the alleged signals with the actual holdings and confirm the theory. It is the signal, not the bidding or play which is the cheating.

[barmar]

Confirmation bias works by giving too much weight to the cases that confirm your hypothesis. I spray elephant repellant around my apartment, and conclude that it works because there are no elephants. You address this by considering all the cases that don't confirm the hypothesis -- I've been living in this apartment for 25 years without spraying elephant repellant, and there were no elephant attacks then, either.

 

The point is that you have to look at all the evidence, not just cherry-pick the suspicious hands. You can almost always find some boards that confirm your conclusion.

 

BTW, this month's Scientific American has a column about a recent conference on forensic analysis. Apparently, forensic processes are not as reliable as shows like CSI would let us believe: they often work backwards from the allegations to find evidence that supports it, and confirmation bias is a real problem there.

[WellSpyder]

As for the fallout, I wonder if this will bring in a system where the players are unable to pass the tray or place the board themselves. It is surely not difficult to implement such a system and it would definitely reduce the opportunities available.

I have played against one player who always insisted on the tray remaining on the table until the opening lead had been made - now I know why! I think this is actually what the screen regulations require anyway, but it is far from the norm in my experience, which seems to be that anyone with a moment to spare might remove the tray. (This would not generally be the opening leader, of course, since he has other things to think about at that time .....)

[gwnn]

The people who are talking about confirmation bias, did you read the post I quoted from Kit Woolsey? He analysed 32 boards (suspicious or not) and from 15 hands that FS had to defend, the partner of opening leader took the tray 13 times. In the other two cases, either the opening leader had an obvious lead or the partner of the opening leader had no preference and apparently refused to remove the tray as a sign of that. You can argue about these two exceptions but 13/15 is already way more than random.

 

It is reminiscent of the doctors' 9/9 (or however many they were) cases where the partner of opening leader coughed and not the other guy.

 

But yes let's pretend that it's all just some cherry picked hands from Boye. (it would still be an impressive amount of cherry picked hands from the span of just 2 years or so).

[shyams]

The people who are talking about confirmation bias, did you read the post I quoted from Kit Woolsey? He analysed 32 boards (suspicious or not) and from 15 hands that FS had to defend, the partner of opening leader took the tray 13 times. In the other two cases, either the opening leader had an obvious lead or the partner of the opening leader had no preference and apparently refused to remove the tray as a sign of that. You can argue about these two exceptions but 13/15 is already way more than random.

gwnn, I think Kit's efforts were more about whether a signal was needed and whether it was given. Unless the manner (i.e. style, speed, angle) of removing the board is used to convey UI, the stats on who removed the board itself is unlikely to be a confirmation of anything.

 

As a counterpoint, I analysed the Hungary vs Israel match; and of the 11 times Israel defended, leader's partner removed the tray only on three occasions. However each of the three occasions was significant because they may have used the (plastic) board as position marker to indicate a specific suit preference. As one can imagine, 3 is too small a sample to conclude anything.

[Trinidad]

The fact that the partner of the opening leader takes care of the tray in 13/15 cases doesn't prove anything by itself. This is the exact confirmation bias that Mike is talking about. You implicitly assume that whoever handles the tray is normally a random decision: Whoever handles the tray is coincidental. And if it is than 13 out of 15 times the partner of the opening leader, you are entirely correct in concluding that this is such a large fraction that this probably is not random anymore... There must be a reason why the partner of the opening leader is handling the tray.

 

So, you need to come up, objectively, with explanations why the partner of opening leader is the one handling the tray.

 

One explanation is: They cheat.

Another explanation is: The opening leader has something to do (think about the lead), his partner doesn't have anything better to do. I could easily imagine that if you examined 20 NS pairs in a high level tournament with screens, you would find several pairs where the partner of the opening leader takes care of the tray even more often than 13/15. (And you will also find pairs where South (or North) will always handle the tray.)

 

So, this 13 out of 15 number is high, but is the fact that it is high an indication that they cheat? No, it isn't. I stop for red traffic lights in over 999 out of 1000 cases. That is pretty extreme, that cannot be a coincidence anymore. And no, it isn't a coincidence, but there is a good reason: The traffic rules tell me to stop and I am a good citizen (or so I claim).

 

Is there then no evidence? I have to admit that I didn't go over the hands. (I am not a bridge pro and need to make a living doing other things.)

 

The real powerful evidence is the evidence that has the power to predict. Board set X has been used to crack the code: The position of the board on the table indicates the desired opening lead. Now you go to board set Y and you look for each board:

- What lead would third hand desire?

- What lead did the position of the board on the table indicate?

- What lead was made?

 

If there still is a large correlation, then that is very strong evidence for cheating.

 

Note that you don't have to crack the code. If you find a strong correlation between the lead desired by third hand and the lead that was made, that is also strong evidence for cheating. Obviously, it is even more powerful to have the code and the cheating mechanism, but it isn't really necessary. However, it is necessary to establish as a fact that something unusual is going on. The partner of the opening leader handling the tray in 13 out of 15 cases does not seem unusual to me.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

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

 

....

 

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

 

[the boards]

 

So that's all boards from one match. In this small sample, there are at least three potential instances of signalling....

 

And in all three a seemingly normal lead was made. Also there are two "outliers". I'm convinced!

[nige1]

When a pair's success leads you to suspect them of illegal communication, and you deduce their probable "code" by analyzing deal-videos, then it's fairly convincing when further deal-videos confirm that code.

 

IMO, the WBF devised such a plan in the "Doctors" case. A coughing-code was cracked from videos at the d'Orsi Bowl. At the Cavendish, a WBF observer was told the code and confirmed it. Unfortunately, there seems to be no video-corroboration of the latter. In that case, authenticated audio-tapes might have been enough.

 

A drawback to the "lynch-mob" approach in the current case, is that most videos become simultaneously available.

[shyams]

And in all three a seemingly normal lead was made. Also there are two "outliers". I'm convinced!

Wrong way to look at the analysis. In three occasions, a specific routine was used and the lead corresponded to the implied signal.

 

It is one more piece of analysis. I did not claim that (standalone) it proves or disproves anything, but I hope it (along with other videos) can establish a pattern and prove/disprove the use of the routine to convey UI.

[gwnn]

My point was not that the 13/15 proves conclusively that they cheat but that Kit Woolsey actually looked at all 32 boards, not just the "suspicious ones," in other words, he is not affected by confirmation bias (I know he was still only looking at a couple of segments but that's ok, it's not like there's thousands of youtube videos available from them and it's not like we assume they cheated every single board of every single match). I may or may not be affected by it in my interpretation of it (in fact likely yes) but that wasn't my main point. It would be nice to check many top players wrt frequency of removing the tray, as Trinidad suggests (although if all other top players were close to 50/50, that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old).

[Trinidad]

And in all three a seemingly normal lead was made. Also there are two "outliers". I'm convinced!

 

 

 

Wrong way to look at the analysis. In three occasions, a specific routine was used and the lead corresponded to the implied signal.

 

It is one more piece of analysis. I did not claim that (standalone) it proves or disproves anything, but I hope it (along with other videos) can establish a pattern and prove/disprove the use of the routine to convey UI.

The right way to look at the analysis is to consider that the position of the board on the table (as it is placed by third hand) is an excellent predictor for the opening lead, under the condition that the opening lead is not blatantly insane. Normally, you would not expect the position of the board to have any power at all to predict the opening lead. Normally, it would have just as much predicting power as the sum of the phone number of the playing venue, the local temperature in centigrade and the number of minutes past the hour when the cards are taken out of the board: None.

 

We let two people predict the opening lead (suit only).

Person 1 is an international top bridge player. The information that he gets is the auction, duly explained, and the hand of the opening leader. With this information he needs to pick the suit that was led.

 

Person 2 knows nothing at all about bridge. We have only taught him that if the board is over here, he needs to say "spade", and when it is over there, he needs to say "heart". He does not get to see the hand or the auction (it wouldn't do him any good anyway). He only gets to see the position of the board on the table.

 

You would expect that the expert would easily win over the non-bridge player. The latter is expected to be right in 25% of the cases and the expert in something like 90%. But now we are suddenly in a situation where the non-bridge player might well beat the expert!

 

Rik

[steve2005]

Yes it is game theory, and, against you, he should cash the ace of clubs whenever he has ♦xx or ♦xxx as well, to protect his partner's jack! And if he had not cashed the ace of clubs, it would indeed have gone away on hearts and then spades after declarer discovered the trump loser.

 

According to you there is no lead that beats 6H. Ron Schwartz and Deep Finesse both agree. I know one of the declarers who made it, and he is a strong but not world-class player. He may well have reasoned as you did, but it is muddled thinking. The ace of clubs is the normal lead, as it is surely possible for partner to have the king, even against a world-class pair.

Well that is the whole problem. On any one hand an unusual lead does not mean your cheating. It takes a pattern that has to be convincing and even then if you don't figure out the code it still could be coincidence.

[lamford]

Well that is the whole problem. On any one hand an unusual lead does not mean your cheating. It takes a pattern that has to be convincing and even then if you don't figure out the code it still could be coincidence.

On the "famous finesse" hand we have a few factors that need to be explained. The fact that dummy asked to see a defender's hand. The fact that he made some unusual gestures which look more than fidgeting. The fact that the ace of clubs is the normal lead, because:

a) it might go away.

b) partner might have the king, and one of the two club winners might go away.

c) partner did not double 2H, which was normal FSF, yet he seems to have length in the suit, so he does not want a heart lead.

 

It is possible that the leader has a trump trick. But it is also more likely that the ace was led for other reasons. We weigh up all the evidence of this hand and many others.

 

I personally think the jump to 6S on hand 4 after 4D-(4S)-5D is also unusual. And if you look at the video carefully, you will notice

a) Fisher takes quite some time to bid 6S

b) While Fisher is thinking, Schwarz folds and unfolds his cards, and then makes a slight crimp at the corner of them, which would produce an audible sound.

c) Schwarz had a useful void on this hand.

d) On no other hand in this set did he have a useful void.

e) On no other hand did I see Schwarz crimp the corner of his cards, although Fisher generally bid quite quickly which would not give him a chance.

 

Many pairs bid the slam here, but I do not know how many reached 5D in one round by the opponents. Perhaps others know. Perhaps some experts can offer an opinion as to whether they agree with 6S on the auction given and considering that Israel were well ahead in the match at this point and F-S would have known this after the famous finesse.

 

We assign a probability to the two hypothesis, one that they were completely honest and happened to select bids or plays that are not the choice of experts, that happened to work. The other is that they had unauthorised information from partner or another source. All we can do is to assign a probability to each as best we can. Using expert analysis and obtaining opinions on how plausible the explanation offered by F-S is.

[mikeh]

On the "famous finesse" hand we have a few factors that need to be explained. The fact that dummy asked to see a defender's hand. The fact that he made some unusual gestures which look more than fidgeting. The fact that the ace of clubs is the normal lead, because:

a) it might go away.

b) partner might have the king, and one of the two club winners might go away.

c) partner did not double 2H, which was normal FSF, yet he seems to have length in the suit, so he does not want a heart lead.

 

It is possible that the leader has a trump trick. But it is also more likely that the ace was led for other reasons. We weigh up all the evidence of this hand and many others.

 

I personally think the jump to 6S on hand 4 after 4D-(4S)-5D is also unusual. And if you look at the video carefully, you will notice

a) Fisher takes quite some time to bid 6S

b) While Fisher is thinking, Schwarz folds and unfolds his cards, and then makes a slight crimp at the corner of them, which would produce an audible sound.

c) Schwarz had a useful void on this hand.

d) On no other hand in this set did he have a useful void.

e) On no other hand did I see Schwarz crimp the corner of his cards, although Fisher generally bid quite quickly which would not give him a chance.

 

Many pairs bid the slam here, but I do not know how many reached 5D in one round by the opponents. Perhaps others know. Perhaps some experts can offer an opinion as to whether they agree with 6S on the auction given and considering that Israel were well ahead in the match at this point and F-S would have known this after the famous finesse.

 

We assign a probability to the two hypothesis, one that they were completely honest and happened to select bids or plays that are not the choice of experts, that happened to work. The other is that they had unauthorised information from partner or another source. All we can do is to assign a probability to each as best we can. Using expert analysis and obtaining opinions on how plausible the explanation offered by F-S is.

 

 

I recognize that you have convinced yourself that these matters you describe are compelling evidence of cheating. I hope you will try to read what follows with an open mind.

 

1. As I think Justin has said, it is commonplace in high-level matches for dummy to be shown his screenmate's hand. So looking at the hand is not a marker of cheating. It isn't a marker of not cheating, either..

 

2. we cannot know, on the evidence publicly presented, whether Lotan's sweater pulling was normal or abnormal behaviour. We just don't know. If he has a tendency to fidget, on hands where, say, he is dummy and hasn't seen any hands, then this isn't a clue. It isn't a sign of innocence either....

 

3. The argument about not doubling 2♥ seems feeble to me. Making fatuous doubles at low levels with weak hands against strong opps is simply bad bridge. You hand the opps two additional calls unavailable should you pass. They get to pass, forcing, or redouble. Heck, on the auction 1♦ 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ they could have a real heart fit! So it is idiotic to double with, say, Kxxx(x) or KJxx(x). You are trying way too hard to make your 'reasoning' seem solid. This is a very human but very foolish approach.

 

4. While of course the lead of the Ace does not necessarily indicate some hope of a trump trick, the lead of declarer's second suit, with no indication of a solid spade suit in dummy for pitches is not a meaningless clue. Even the commentator on vugraph predicted that the lead might give away the hand, and 2 other players made the slam. Schwartz may have been acting, but he sure took a long time and looked really undecided for a while. None of this means he wasn't cheating, but your arguments don't make logical sense. His play was entirely reasonable as a straight-up play based on a courageous inference.

 

 

 

5. There would be zero reason for FS to think that making 6♦ was a pickup. 6♠ was cold, and scores better. Reaching 6♠ would not be weird...the other table bid 7♠! Now, that was weird.

 

 

6. Jumping to slam on the hand the opps bounced to 5♦ was a reasonable shot. You wouldn't do it, but what gives you the impression that your bridge judgement should be the test here? How many major events have you won? Justin, who has won a few, says that the slam bid wasn't silly, altho he personally would have bid 6♣. The fact is that he had a huge hand in context, and he had no real choice beyond 5 or 6 and 6 wasn't unreasonable, especially for a player under the age of 40 :P .

 

7. as for crimping the cards....I have played a lot of bridge behind screens and I am perhaps as unimpressed as anyone about how good they are at doing things like hiding who is in the tank. However, I defy you to show that the crimping you see could have been picked up on by a teammate on the far side of the screen. Moreover, people tend to fidget under stress, and not always in repetitive fashion.

 

8. Your suggestion of assigning probabilities to 'cheating' and 'non-cheating' may seem attractive to you but it is a largely self-fulfilling way of generating the result you want. It is not the right way. Several posters here and on BW have described how one should analyze the evidence. Take a sample, form a hypothesis, apply that hypothesis to hands that were not used in the formulation of the hypothesis. Using your hypothesis, predict the action that ought to result and compare it to what FS did. If you get, say, a 95% match, then so long as the actual actions were not almost universally normal, you have compelling evidence. You can obtain 'normal' by a survey of top rank players naïve to the source of the hands....best accomplished, imo, by giving say 100 hands of which only 40 or 50 are FS and the rest dealt randomly or, if that is too difficult, extracted from matches played by top players excluding FS. Have the experts recuse themselves on hands they recognize. Even this is imperfect, but since we can hardly ask FS to play a new set of boards for us, using cheating if they do cheat (as I think they do), this is about as good as it will get.

 

 

Finally, your sort of approach plays directly into the hands of anyone wanting to defend them. The more attacks that can be shown to be fallacious, the less impressive the legitimate attacks will seem.

[mgoetze]

Finally, your sort of approach plays directly into the hands of anyone wanting to defend them. The more attacks that can be shown to be fallacious, the less impressive the legitimate attacks will seem.

If there is something resembling a trial, do you think the judge will be compelled to take everything ever posted about this on BridgeWinners, Facebook, etc. as the case for the prosecution, or do you allow that there may, in addition to a defense lawyer, also be a prosecutor who is capable of gathering the best evidence available, making sure it is consistent (e.g. checking all the other videos for instances of sweater-tugging), and presenting it in a coherent and convincing manner?

[lamford]

I recognize that you have convinced yourself that these matters you describe are compelling evidence of cheating. I hope you will try to read what follows with an open mind.

 

1. As I think Justin has said, it is commonplace in high-level matches for dummy to be shown his screenmate's hand. So looking at the hand is not a marker of cheating. It isn't a marker of not cheating, either..

 

2. we cannot know, on the evidence publicly presented, whether Lotan's sweater pulling was normal or abnormal behaviour. We just don't know. If he has a tendency to fidget, on hands where, say, he is dummy and hasn't seen any hands, then this isn't a clue. It isn't a sign of innocence either....

 

3. The argument about not doubling 2♥ seems feeble to me. Making fatuous doubles at low levels with weak hands against strong opps is simply bad bridge. You hand the opps two additional calls unavailable should you pass. They get to pass, forcing, or redouble. Heck, on the auction 1♦ 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ they could have a real heart fit! So it is idiotic to double with, say, Kxxx(x) or KJxx(x). You are trying way too hard to make your 'reasoning' seem solid. This is a very human but very foolish approach.

 

4. While of course the lead of the Ace does not necessarily indicate some hope of a trump trick, the lead of declarer's second suit, with no indication of a solid spade suit in dummy for pitches is not a meaningless clue. Even the commentator on vugraph predicted that the lead might give away the hand, and 2 other players made the slam. Schwartz may have been acting, but he sure took a long time and looked really undecided for a while. None of this means he wasn't cheating, but your arguments don't make logical sense. His play was entirely reasonable as a straight-up play based on a courageous inference.

 

 

 

5. There would be zero reason for FS to think that making 6♦ was a pickup. 6♠ was cold, and scores better. Reaching 6♠ would not be weird...the other table bid 7♠! Now, that was weird.

 

 

6. Jumping to slam on the hand the opps bounced to 5♦ was a reasonable shot. You wouldn't do it, but what gives you the impression that your bridge judgement should be the test here? How many major events have you won? Justin, who has won a few, says that the slam bid wasn't silly, altho he personally would have bid 6♣. The fact is that he had a huge hand in context, and he had no real choice beyond 5 or 6 and 6 wasn't unreasonable, especially for a player under the age of 40 :P .

 

7. as for crimping the cards....I have played a lot of bridge behind screens and I am perhaps as unimpressed as anyone about how good they are at doing things like hiding who is in the tank. However, I defy you to show that the crimping you see could have been picked up on by a teammate on the far side of the screen. Moreover, people tend to fidget under stress, and not always in repetitive fashion.

 

8. Your suggestion of assigning probabilities to 'cheating' and 'non-cheating' may seem attractive to you but it is a largely self-fulfilling way of generating the result you want. It is not the right way. Several posters here and on BW have described how one should analyze the evidence. Take a sample, form a hypothesis, apply that hypothesis to hands that were not used in the formulation of the hypothesis. Using your hypothesis, predict the action that ought to result and compare it to what FS did. If you get, say, a 95% match, then so long as the actual actions were not almost universally normal, you have compelling evidence. You can obtain 'normal' by a survey of top rank players naïve to the source of the hands....best accomplished, imo, by giving say 100 hands of which only 40 or 50 are FS and the rest dealt randomly or, if that is too difficult, extracted from matches played by top players excluding FS. Have the experts recuse themselves on hands they recognize. Even this is imperfect, but since we can hardly ask FS to play a new set of boards for us, using cheating if they do cheat (as I think they do), this is about as good as it will get.

 

 

Finally, your sort of approach plays directly into the hands of anyone wanting to defend them. The more attacks that can be shown to be fallacious, the less impressive the legitimate attacks will seem.

I do try to read your arguments with an open mind, and they are indeed the other point of view. I originally thought, some months ago, that there was no evidence of cheating on the hands I was sent. On every hand there will be "some" explanation for the action; although the failure to bid on the hand with solid diamonds does take some explaining. I acknowledge that there is a "bridge logic" to the famous finesse. The fact that the ace of clubs was cashed is given as a defence in one of the few comments by F-S on facebook; I disagree, as do others, on the chance of the AC going away - it would have done on this hand for example. I agree we have to consider as many hands as possible, not just the ones where an unusual action was chosen. And it would indeed be interesting to poll some experts on the jump to 6S. It was another example of a "winning guess". I think also that there are stranger occurrences than this one. What is your opinion on the overcall of 5S over 5C at adverse on ♠KQJxx ♥Q ♦Axxx ♣Axx?

 

Try crimping next time you are behind a screen and test it out, if there is no background noise it is very clear.