Funny hand from B-Z

[benlessard]

this hand was noticed by Tim Schumacher.

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=34209

B19

 

--http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=34209--

 

 

The theory is that no spacing = minimum hand while big spacing = extra values.

 

"B" first think his hand is pretty good for a 1 level NV overcall plus he got Ax and ruffing power that goes with partner D suit.

 

But later we see him reevalute probably thinking my partner showed a "bad" 2D so my hand isnt that good anymore.

[1eyedjack]

I take my hat off to anyone who can see anything in that video.

[benlessard]

25min27 he tip the pass twice to make the bid close to the 1H overcall. Its quite clear.

 

Again the theory is that wide spacing between the bids is extras and no spacing is minimum and medium spacing is medium hand. So he changed his mind here and its somewhat understandable.

 

I wasnt convinced by this theory and kept some doubt about B-Z since the initial videos that ive saw werent clear but Kit post on BW is nearly as convincing as the one on F-N and F-S cases.

[kuhchung]

I'm glad that the whole thing is now (probably) over with regard to searching for evidence. I tuned out once Ish uploaded the screenshots of Balicki signaling his entire shape while groping dummy, lol. I know scientific process and all that but omg that violates my common sense threshold WAAAAAY too hard.

[Fluffy]

You were not the only one.

[The_Badger]

Everything about the cheating allegations of various top level players (including the number 1 world pairing) recently has made me re-evaluate my own feelings about bridge. This beautiful card game has been hijacked by various alleged duplicitous individuals who have colluded as pairs to profit from their alleged cheating. And even if the world of bridge is now 'cleaned out', there's a very bitter taste that so many expert pairs have had to resort to these methods. It was bad enough in 1965 in Buenos Aires when my own country was accused of cheating. Sadly, for me, I no longer feel the empathy and passion for the game as I had previously. I do not wish to sound melodramatic but I do wonder if other players feel similarly? And it does make me wonder just how many other bridge partnerships in the world are also using some form of code at the table? What occurred before the World Championships may only be the tip of the iceberg.

[Mbodell]

Everything about the cheating allegations of various top level players (including the number 1 world pairing) recently has made me re-evaluate my own feelings about bridge. This beautiful card game has been hijacked by various alleged duplicitous individuals who have colluded as pairs to profit from their alleged cheating. And even if the world of bridge is now 'cleaned out', there's a very bitter taste that so many expert pairs have had to resort to these methods. It was bad enough in 1965 in Buenos Aires when my own country was accused of cheating. Sadly, for me, I no longer feel the empathy and passion for the game as I had previously. I do not wish to sound melodramatic but I do wonder if other players feel similarly? And it does make me wonder just how many other bridge partnerships in the world are also using some form of code at the table? What occurred before the World Championships may only be the tip of the iceberg.

 

I don't think you are alone. I feel somewhat the same in that it is one thing to spend time on a hobby/pass time that is "just a game" it is another to spend time on a hobby/pass time that is "just a corrupt game". And I've heard from quite a few folks that they assume bridge at the top is much more like Lance Armstrong era top cycling (essentially nearly everyone cheating) than just a couple of bad apples (I doubt this, but I also doubt everyone who cheats is caught). That said, I'm still looking forward to Denver nationals and am cautiously optimistic that we (bridge players world wide) can work through this.

[kuhchung]

I'm also glad that Boye's original screenshots/implied hypothesis actually wound up being the nail in the coffin.

 

I did see in a thread that Kit was testing Ovunc to read Balicki's entire shape from fingers and taps, and that Ovunc was very very successful. But it feels nice to have the original document/hypothesis sent to the WBF to be the one to seal the deal.

[gwnn]

[hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=34209--B19]600|400[/hv]

[benlessard]

thx how can i change the size in my link ?

[gwnn]

thx how can i change the size in my link ?

(hv=http://bridgebase.com/link)400|300(/hv)

But with square brackets (you can see what I did by quoting my post and seeing the code.

[nullve]

I'm also glad that Boye's original screenshots/implied hypothesis actually wound up being the nail in the coffin.

What has been proved is (at most) that B-Z were cheating or that their bid placements were unconscious tells. Or maybe one can tell the difference by just looking?

 

From a comment on Bridgewinners (http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-videos-shout-balicki-zmudzinski/?):

 

the fact they clearly spaced in 2 ways was enough for me. Nobody does that, nobody, what are the chances of same players on the same pair?.

To which Nicolas Hammond replied:

 

Nobody sat West for this board. Watch the spacing of the second bid (pass)

now watch the spacing of the third bid (3NT)

 

IMO, this is a very clear wide, then narrow, bid.

 

[...]

 

Board 24. West hand: QJ72:QJ106:AQ:643.

 

Auction (West dealer): 1♦-1NT-X-2♦:P-2♥-3♥-P:3NT-P-P-P.

 

The 1♣ was normal, wide pass of 2♦ transfer bid indicates willingness to penalize 2♥? Narrow bid of 3NT indicates minimum (12 HCP) for the auction? Nothing should ever be read into one board.

Of course, West was neither Balicki nor Zmudzinski, but Brogeland himself.

[gwnn]

Cheating or unconscious tells or adjusted by aliens or the footage was edited by the NSA or maybe they were brainwashed by Russia when they lived there (Manchurian candidate) or....

[nullve]

the footage was edited by the NSA

Well, that would certainly fit the hypothesis that Balicki was deliberately signalling and Brogeland not.

[gwnn]

Well, that would certainly fit the hypothesis that Balicki was deliberately signalling and Brogeland not.

I disagree with Fluffy (who is the poster from BW you wrote about) that nobody spaces the calls unevenly only B-Z. "The accusers" are not a monolith and I do not need to defend every single thing they said about every single thing.

 

Balicki was definitely signalling (definitely=very high probability, not 1.00 {actually not even probability=1.00 is logical certainly}) based on analysis done on 200 hands. You showed two photos of Brogeland and did not even mention the hands. Do you see the difference? Of course you do, so I am not sure what you are trying to do.

 

It being an unconscious tell is something we have discussed ad nauseam already, but I just want to say that you will never be able to prove that any signal is not an unconscious tell. How would you go about it? It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. As I mentioned before, even written admission of guilt can be a result of false memories. It doesn't mean that the whole legal system (in the bridge world or outside) needs to break down. There is reasonable doubt and unreasonable doubt and in my opinion the issues you are raising belong to the second category.

[nullve]

Do you see the difference?

Of course. We don't disagree. (I even believe that B-Z were signalling.)

you will never be able to prove that any signal is not an unconscious tell. How would you go about it?

How come the burden of proof is suddenly on me?

It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Maybe an exaggeration, but essentially my point. Where's the disagreement?

As I mentioned before, even written admission of guilt can be a result of false memories. It doesn't mean that the whole legal system (in the bridge world or outside) needs to break down.

Agree.

There is reasonable doubt and unreasonable doubt

Ok, but hopefully the witchfinder generals are not the ones to decide what is what.

[gwnn]

Of course. We don't disagree. (I even believe that B-Z were signalling.)

Great. So why bring up Brogeland?

How come the burden of proof is suddenly on me?

It is not on you. It is just that nobody can prove it, no matter on who the burden of proof rests. Anyone could reply to any accusation, even if there is tape of them committing the crime, that it was just unconscious. It is simply not a feasible way of going about life to accept that proposition or even entertain accepting it without some sort of additional evidence.

 

Maybe an exaggeration, but essentially my point. Where's the disagreement?

The disagreement is that you say "they either cheated or they were unconsciously signalling" as if it was a 50/50 proposition. It is not. I know you're not giving exact probabilities but when you say it like that, without any qualifiers, it makes it sound like that in natural language.

Agree.

Ok, but hopefully the witchfinder generals are not the ones to decide what is what.

The "witchfinder generals" spent hundreds of hours looking at slow-motion videos and doing statistical analysis while we were sitting at home, drinking coffee, and discussing things like "but it's possible!" "but do you think it's plausible?" "I don't know! but it's possible! don't you see it's possible??" Maybe a bit more respect to their work is in order. The witchfinder generals apparently now need not only to do the statistical analysis and convince people who say things like "ok but p=0.000001 is still not certainty right?" but they have to convince you who can ask them "but maybe B-Z developed a message as pigeons do, maybe they both developed the same exact message semi-independently, maybe they learned to interpet the messages as horses do, maybe they were completely oblivious to all of this, maybe they adjust the bids when they slide because they have an OCD-like compulsion due to the subconscious code that is controlling them like Ophiocordyceps unilateralis* takes over ants and make them climb as high as possible on the grass to be eaten by cows, maybe all of this is true, so yea it's pretty much 50/50, so now that you climbed the mountain of proving the code clearly, I would like to point to this other mountain that I can tell you a priori that it is completely unscalable, but OK good luck, until you're done, I will still have my logical possibility and you can't do anything to disprove them." Yes OK I think there is some disagreement.

 

*-I know you didn't mention the brain parasite but I couldn't help but mention it. hope you don't mind

[nullve]

Great. So why bring up Brogeland?

Because many posters here and on Bridgewinners seem to think they can look at bid placements on one board and find proof that B-Z were cheating. Fortunately, you're not one of them.

The disagreement is that you say "they either cheated or they were unconsciously signalling" as if it was a 50/50 proposition. It is not. I know you're not giving exact probabilities but when you say it like that, without any qualifiers, it makes it sound like that in natural language.

No, there's no disagreement. (Well, now there is.) If you believe that B-Z cheated, you also believe that they either cheated or signalled unconsciously. And I'm not saying it's a 50/50 proposition. It could be a 1/99 or 99/1 proposition for all I know. If you're willing to hang B-Z on the evidence, you should be the one to come up with the probabilities.

The "witchfinder generals" spent hundreds of hours looking at slow-motion videos and doing statistical analysis while we were sitting at home, drinking coffee, and discussing things like "but it's possible!" "but do you think it's plausible?" "I don't know! but it's possible! don't you see it's possible??" Maybe a bit more respect to their work is in order. The witchfinder generals apparently now need not only to do the statistical analysis and convince people who say things like "ok but p=0.000001 is still not certainty right?"

I alredy regret using the expression 'witchfinder generals', since I certainly wasn't thinking of the statisticians who convinced me that B-Z were signalling.

[gwnn]

And I'm not saying it's a 50/50 proposition. It could be a 1/99 or 99/1 proposition for all I know.

Really? I mean, really really, you don't know whether it is 1/99 or 99/1? You have absolutely no idea at all? Your best guess it just to shrug and say you have no idea? I mean, this is even worse than saying it's 50/50.

 

I already explained why I think we should hang them. The idea that we can just say "but it was all just unconscious" after video evidence of committing a crime is absurd. We cannot have a justice system if we accept "it is unconscious" until proven to be conscious. And anyway, people are well-documented to collude in illegal ways and sending each other secret messages. There is no documented case of two people evolving unconscious mechanisms of passing signals semi-independently while being completely unaware of this, despite the fact that you can barely see each other in the mean time. All you could point to in support of this proposition were some vaguely related cases of pigeons and horses to support your "logical possibility." Doesn't that tell you something?

[nullve]

Really? I mean, really really, you don't know whether it is 1/99 or 99/1? You have absolutely no idea at all? Your best guess it just to shrug and say you have no idea? I mean, this is even worse than saying it's 50/50.

Well, at least I'm being honest.

 

The idea that we can just say "but it was all just unconscious" after video evidence of committing a crime is absurd.

And I wouldn't do that.

 

We cannot have a justice system if we accept "it is unconscious" until proven to be conscious.

Hmm. I thought "innocent until proven guilty" was the very foundation of our justice system. But I see what you mean: it's not always practical.

 

There is no documented case of two people evolving unconscious mechanisms of passing signals semi-independently while being completely unaware of this, despite the fact that you can barely see each other in the mean time.

We have natural language, which tends to be symmetric. And mirroring seems to be a well-documented psychological phenomenon. As for 'semi-independently', consider the fact that when a board is finished, every single detail about partner's hand is known in principle.

 

All you could point to in support of this proposition were some vaguely related cases of pigeons and horses to support your "logical possibility." Doesn't that tell you something?

The B-Z case is different from the F-S and F-N case in that people haven't even bothered to look for evidence that signals were transmitted; they (and now you) are willing to hang B-Z solely on evidence that signals were sent (emitted). So horses (Clever Hans, in particular) play no role here. I'm happy to be able to use Brogeland here instead of pigeons, since their role was which to debunk the view that since Balicki sometimes acts so unnaturally, he must be cheating.

[gwnn]

I just don't know whether or not to take this conversation seriously if you cannot even admit that the doubt you are raising is just a distant second-best alternative. If you were accepted as the ultimate judge and jury for this case (or similar ones), how would you expect to go from "yes. they did transmit information. but I am only certain to 1%..99% degree that they did it consciously." to a narrower range? I suppose you would ask for more information. But what other kind of information do you have in mind? In these cases, you saw FS take the board from the tray and put it in the right place, even when the opponents took the tray, and similarly you can see FN adjust the card to be vertical/horizontal precisely, and the same for BZ, moving the bidding cards carefully. These are (hopefully you accept) at least indications that they did not just do it unconsciously. I already know that the "they felt compelled by this OCD-like urge" is a possible retort to this evidence, but similarly I can make up a retort for just about any other evidence that purports to prove conscious cheating. Can you think of some kind of evidence that could sway you from "um it could be 1%, it could be 99%. I don't know." ? If you can't, that is rather telling.

Hmm. I thought "innocent until proven guilty" was the very foundation of our justice system. But I see what you mean: it's not always practical.

Innocent until proven guilty is OK to establish whether or not the act took place. It is also OK to see whether it was negligence or premeditated. It is not OK to use for "all of this was unconscious, I cannot explain why I pulled the trigger." Nobody will say "ah, I guess we cannot know for sure whether he did it on purpose, maybe it is 1%, maybe 99%. Not guilty."

We have natural language, which tends to be symmetric. And mirroring seems to be a well-documented psychological phenomenon. As for 'semi-independently', consider the fact that when a board is finished, every single detail about partner's hand is known in principle.

Natural language evolved over several thousands of years. Here, we are talking about two people who are separated by a large screen and sent 1000 signals per year to each other.

The B-Z case is different from the F-S and F-N case in that people haven't even bothered to look for evidence that signals were transmitted; they (and now you) are willing to hang B-Z solely on evidence that signals were sent (emitted). So horses (Clever Hans, in particular) play no role here. I'm happy to be able to use Brogeland here instead of pigeons, since their role was which to debunk the view that since Balicki sometimes acts so unnaturally, he must be cheating.

You are quite wrong about this (or I missed this chunk of the conversation). For FN, all they did was show which code they used (unseen honour or singleton=vertical, otherwise=horizontal) and showed that it fit 84/86 (if I recall correctly). For F-S, they showed that the desired lead matched the code, and showed that sometimes the partner did indeed make that lead, but stressed that this second part is a weak part of the case and mostly it was just anectodal (look at this hand! isn't it a weird lead?), not seriously based on statistics. Only for EW did I see Kit Woolsey actually look at the partner's lead choices, using an expert panel. For F-S and F-N as far as I know no such endeavor exists.

[kuhchung]

gwnn you are a legend

[billw55]

So, all these signals are finally being discovered, that can be seen through that little door in the screen. It makes me shudder to think what was going on before screens.

[nullve]

I almost let this slip through:

 

Anyone could reply to any accusation, even if there is tape of them committing the crime, that it was just unconscious. It is simply not a feasible way of going about life to accept that proposition or even entertain accepting it without some sort of additional evidence.

So you think I would accept introspective evidence that a bank wasn't robbed intentionally? I'm sorry, but if this is a contest in Wittgensteinian behaviourism, I win.

 

In these cases, you saw FS take the board from the tray and put it in the right place, even when the opponents took the tray, and similarly you can see FN adjust the card to be vertical/horizontal precisely, and the same for BZ, moving the bidding cards carefully. These are (hopefully you accept) at least indications that they did not just do it unconsciously.

Yes.

 

Can you think of some kind of evidence that could sway you from "um it could be 1%, it could be 99%. I don't know." ? If you can't, that is rather telling.

But I can. And I think you owe me a couple of probabilities.

 

Natural language evolved over several thousands of years. Here, we are talking about two people who are separated by a large screen and sent 1000 signals per year to each other.

Yes, but here we are talking about ridiculously simple codes like

 

small gap = good hand in context

big gap = bad hand in context,

 

Maybe playing 1000 boards a year for 30 years isn't enough, but I'm not convinced.

 

You are quite wrong about this (or I missed this chunk of the conversation). For FN, all they did was show which code they used (unseen honour or singleton=vertical, otherwise=horizontal) and showed that it fit 84/86 (if I recall correctly). For F-S, they showed that the desired lead matched the code, and showed that sometimes the partner did indeed make that lead, but stressed that this second part is a weak part of the case and mostly it was just anectodal (look at this hand! isn't it a weird lead?), not seriously based on statistics. Only for EW did I see Kit Woolsey actually look at the partner's lead choices, using an expert panel. For F-S and F-N as far as I know no such endeavor exists.

I agree with you about the facts. But in the case of F-N and F-S the feeling was that some actions were inexplicable unless they were taking advantage of UI.

[gwnn]

You can? Then why don't you? I asked you a very simple question and you managed to reply to my entire post except the direct question. You admit that the adjustments are indeed indications that the actions are conscious but you still say that the probability in your opinion is somewhere between 1 and 99%. What kind of evidence would you need to at lease move you to 75-99% guilty? And does it mean that without these indications you would have gone for 1-10%?

 

I intentionally did not provide exact probabilities because I think it is more or less irrelevant whether it is 1% or 10% or 0.1%. I do consider the possibility quite remote for the reasons I explained already. But anyway, we simply cannot take this line of defense seriously. You already more or less admitted that you can't falsify this so from now on every cheater could retort to it and you would be forced to accept it or at best shrug under the "1%-99%" principle. Without cherdano's "if players behave in a manner indistinguishable from cheaters, we must consider them cheaters" principle we will be paralyzed in the mire of logical possibilities.