What happened in Tenerife?

[the hog]

Totally disagree. Playing fast in an attempt to induce a mistake is perfectly legitimate.

No it's not.

 

LAW 73

 

D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

 

2. Intentional Variations

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made.

 

Roland

This law would seem to not pertain here.

Induce mistake does not have same definition as mislead opp.

Perhaps another section of laws do apply however.

Roland to play fast in the hope that the opponents make a mistake IS legitimate. What is not legitimate is to VARY your tempo. If you constantly play fastand hope the opponents misdefend that is their problem. They can try to slow the tempo down. You may note that some good players deliberately try to cultivate a very fast declarer style at the table.

[the hog]

Regarding Lanzarrotti-Buratti. It appears there are many "bush lawyers" around. People should not comment unless they know the facts, not the facts as presented by someone who has a barrow to push.

 

Luis' post is unemotional and sensible and I agree with his comments.

[guggie]

Just put yrself in the place of Baraket. Your screenmate, who is dummy, peeps into yr hand, than lies on the table, tapping in an unusual way with 3 fingers on his arm and on the table, at least 2 times, in a way his p can see it, and consequently this partner plays against the odds you for having 3 trumps and wins a slam.

 

 

Furthermore, why should we, admittedly NOT knowing all the facts, roll over the digital floor fighting? Let the normal procedures take their course.

 

I was in Tenerife, but got more information from internet than in the playing grounds. There was a lot of hearsay, generally like a kind of relief they were caught at last, but that is only hearsay.

[Gerben42]

About playing on computers: To those who have never played with screens and get the feeling it is impersonal.

 

It isn't. The relation with your screenmate can be very nice (or not but this rarely happens as better players tend to be nicer than on lower levels)

 

And for me personally it is better for my play because I can concentrate more without seeing partner. And it has a feel of seriousness on it that helps me also. On the other hand playing on a computer the reverse is true. You have no one to communicate with and harder to concentrate (at least for me).

[joker_gib]

About playing on computers: To those who have never played with screens and get the feeling it is impersonal.

 

It isn't. The relation with your screenmate can be very nice (or not but this rarely happens as better players tend to be nicer than on lower levels)

 

And for me personally it is better for my play because I can concentrate more without seeing partner. And it has a feel of seriousness on it that helps me also. On the other hand playing on a computer the reverse is true. You have no one to communicate with and harder to concentrate (at least for me).

Totally agree ! ;)

 

Alain

[McBruce]

I have yet a different view.

I don't know if they were cheating or not but I think the comitee acted poorly. The facts and the decision don't match. If they were considering previous events they should have provided the information from those previous incidents.

So in your view, the Committee should have done nothing for lack of evidence?

 

--Bareket said Lanzarotti peeked; Lanzarotti denied peeking. Somebody is lying. Lanzarotti's supporting statement that he's blind in that eye to differences among the red honors is suspect. Why even make such a statement if you didn't peek in the first place?

 

--Bareket claimed to see three fingers three different ways. Lanzarotti did not even deny that this happened; he told the Committee only that, as dummy, he had put both arms down on the table and laid his head on them. Apparently this explains why there are fingers pointing to Bareket. Apparently, Lanzarotti's restful position (from which it seems quite impossible to play dummy's cards when called from declarer) includes three (not all four--try this and you will see how unnatural this is) fingers resting over the arm. This doesn't explain how the fingers got "free on the table in front of the arm."

 

--Buratti gave four reasons for the anti-percentage play, ranging from completely false by any reasonable standard ("we were behind at the time") to dubious ("the questions led me to beleive the Q♦ was onside," "the A♥ lead [made at most of the tables where 6♦ by South was the contract] was curious") to downright silly ("diamonds are always badly divided at this tournament").

 

The Committee did not call B-L cheats; the C-word is nowhere in the official report.

 

They ruled that Lanzarotti had passed improper information and Buratti had acted on the improper information. They explained that the biggest reason for their decision was the unconvincing nature of the explanations by the accused pair, which, for competant players was self-incriminating.

 

They did not disqualify the team from the event. They simply ruled B-L ineligible for the Lavazza-Barel match, and the score obtained was annulled and replaced by a 18-0 walkover score.

 

If the Committee had determined unquestionable cheating, they would have had to disqualify the Lavazza team completely from the event, and find some way of cancelling ALL of the team's results equitably.

 

They did not do this.

 

It's fair to assume that, from the evidence presented, the Committee felt that this was a single incident based on the pressure of trying to get a last-minute qualification, not based on a repeated pattern of cheating.

 

Some, including me, have speculated that the Committee had more evidence that was reported. That happens often in reports. In fact, one cannot ever hope to write up the multilingual conversations and deliberations without missing a few non-verbal reactions that the Committee may have considered.

 

If you feel the Committee had insufficient evidence to do what they did, because they relied on the statement of the opponent, it follows that:

 

--no player should ever report a suspicious action unless he has a witness to back him up

--anything goes if there's nobody around

 

If you feel that the Committee should have considered and provided previous events to support their decision, it follows that:

 

--somebody must collect these previous events and be both available and impartial

--cheaters can cheat as long as they don't do it too often, since we require multiple incidences to convict

 

Needless to say, I don't agree. I think the Committee did the right thing given the circumstances, and acted with integrity and courage. Perhaps others will now look at the past results of this pair and make a case of habitual cheating against them, perhaps not.

 

But within fifteen seconds on this one crucially important board, they made a half-dozen very unusual movements that suggested something untoward, and then took a markedly inferior line. And when asked to explain this coincidence, they denied none of the unusual movements convincingly, and gave goofy reasons for the unusual play.

 

No expert player ever wants to give the impression that he may be cheating.

 

This pair didn't seem to care how they looked.

[mikeh]

I suspect and hope that this topic is drawing to a close, but I could not help adding one (for me) final note. I agree with everything Bruce wrote, except his description of the line of play adopted by declarer as 'markedly inferior'. In truth, it is not a great deal worse than the normal line.

 

Before we get to comparing the lines, consider what declarer should do if he cashes a high trump and the 10 appears on his left. Now he has to decide if the 10 was from Q10 or stiff 10 (it doesn't matter if it was 10x)

 

Should he now run the Jack, playing for Qxx onside, or try to drop the Q offside?

 

Ignoring that for a moment, we see that running the Jack at trick one loses (compared to the normal line) whenever the Q is stiff in either hand (2 cases) or doubleton offside (3 cases).

 

We will ignore the extra undertrick for the actual line resulting from 4-0 offside, since declarer will be concerned almost exclusively with making the contract.

 

Running the J wins, compared to the normal line, whenever the Q is 3rd or 4th onside: 4 cases.

 

So ignoring the dilemma of the 10 appearing on the first round with normal play, the actual line loses on 5 holdings and wins on 4, when it matters.

 

Now consider that the normal line may lose to Q10 offside, when declarer decides the 10 is a singleton. Should he do this? It will be a very close call. and subject to what declarer thinks he knows about the count in other suits, but certainly some declarers will sometimes go 'wrong'. So the normal line will sometimes actually NOT win against Q10. Let's say the normal declarer will hook on the second round 33% of the time.

 

Now the actual line wins on 4 holdings and the normal on 4.67 holdings.

 

So we can see that the actual line is inferior, but not markedly so. Indeed, this type of 'swing' opportunity is precisely the chance that an expert might look for if feeling in need of a swing.

 

However, I am NOT defending B-L here. On what I have read, they did NOT need a swing that badly... they apparently lied about the state of the match, if what I have read is correct, they rated to be ahead at the time. And nothing I have read affords an innocent and rational explanation for the hand actions.

 

And there was a further and crucial consderation. The slam was not routine. His opps had earlier missed a heart slam. He should have considered that his good but not quite world class opps might well have missed this slam at the other table. Accordingly, he ought to have taken the best legitimate play, and hoped for the swing through the bidding.

 

Finally, if an expert declarer took this line intentionally, he would have KNOWN these odds and they would have been his FIRST explanation of the line adopted. No world class player argues legitimately that his play was based on superstition (the suit had broken badly all tournament) rather than percentages.

 

So on the evidence I have read, if accurately described, the committee got it right.

[cherdano]

Mike, I think your analysis is flawed for three reasons:

 

1. For the normal line, you subtract 33% of the case where LHO has has QT, without adding 33% of the case where LHO has T singleton! You should assume declarer plays from the top, and give him a bonus in case you think he can guess better than 50% whether the T dropping from LHO was singleton.

 

2. If RHO has QT76, you can never avoid a loser (RHO always covers whatever you play from dummy).

 

3. Some of the time, RHO may cover with QTx. Since you want to pick up all holdings of Qx with RHO, you cannot finesse for the ten on the second round.

 

Admittedly, 3. is not so likely, but even so it is 5 (+ guessing bonus) against 3 (- cover from QTx malus) cases.

 

Arend

[Walddk]

Running the J wins, compared to the normal line, whenever the Q is 3rd or 4th onside: 4 cases.

[hv=n=sj8543&w=s&e=sq1076&s=sak92]399|300|[/hv]

 

That is not correct Mike. If East has them all, you can't avoid a loser, because he will just cover the jack. Therefore, advancing the jack is below 40%, cashing AK is roughly 53%.

 

That's a big difference, and an expert player like Buratti knows that of course.

 

Roland

[mikeh]

My analysis was flawed because I failed to review the spots :(

 

So we can ignore the 4-0 split.

 

I also accept that I was wrong to assume that declarer would go wrong 1/3 of the time the stiff 10 appears, without giving credit for guessing right.

 

So the difference is that running the J wins in 3 cases and loses in 5: in fact, according to my possibly still-flawed math, running the Jack wins 37.5% of the time while playing from the top wins 50% ( all 2-2 breaks plus stiff Q in either hand = 8 out of 16 possible distributions of rho's hand), absent other distributional information. I am not assigning any percentage to picking up Qxx after the 10 dropped, because that is both anti-percentage (by a small margin) and offset by guessing wrong and losing to Q10.

 

If the spots permitted picking up 4-0 onside, as I had assumed, the J play moves up to 43.75%.

 

I discount the chances that an expert defender would give away the location of the Q10x onside, either by covering or flinching, since declarer could have held a 5 card trump suit, and any good declarer will start AK9xx opposite J8xxx with the Jack, and it seemed that more than enough time occurred before trump were led: so any expert or near-expert would be able to duck smoothly.

 

My apologies for the sloppy analysis: ;)

[Walddk]

the top wins 50% ( all 2-2 breaks plus stiff Q in either hand = 8 out of 16 possible distributions of rho's hand

Back to the drawing board, Mike.

 

A priori probabilities:

2-2 = 40.7%

3-1 = 49.7%

 

Going for the drop wins every time the suits breaks 2-2 (40.7%), and if it breaks 3-1 with the singleton queen in either hand (49.7% divided by 4 = 12.4%). This adds up to what I wrote in my previous post:

 

Roughly 53%.

 

As you pointed out yourself, running the jack is close to 37.5%. A difference of 15.5% is a lot, and Buratti's line is not only inferior, it is significantly against the odds, if he has no inferences!

 

Roland

[luis]

I have yet a different view.

I don't know if they were cheating or not but I think the comitee acted poorly. The facts and the decision don't match. If they were considering previous events they should have provided the information from those previous incidents.

So in your view, the Committee should have done nothing for lack of evidence?

 

--Bareket said Lanzarotti peeked; Lanzarotti denied peeking. Somebody is lying. Lanzarotti's supporting statement that he's blind in that eye to differences among the red honors is suspect. Why even make such a statement if you didn't peek in the first place?

 

--Bareket claimed to see three fingers three different ways. Lanzarotti did not even deny that this happened; he told the Committee only that, as dummy, he had put both arms down on the table and laid his head on them. Apparently this explains why there are fingers pointing to Bareket. Apparently, Lanzarotti's restful position (from which it seems quite impossible to play dummy's cards when called from declarer) includes three (not all four--try this and you will see how unnatural this is) fingers resting over the arm. This doesn't explain how the fingers got "free on the table in front of the arm."

 

--Buratti gave four reasons for the anti-percentage play, ranging from completely false by any reasonable standard ("we were behind at the time") to dubious ("the questions led me to beleive the Q♦ was onside," "the A♥ lead [made at most of the tables where 6♦ by South was the contract] was curious") to downright silly ("diamonds are always badly divided at this tournament").

 

The Committee did not call B-L cheats; the C-word is nowhere in the official report.

 

They ruled that Lanzarotti had passed improper information and Buratti had acted on the improper information. They explained that the biggest reason for their decision was the unconvincing nature of the explanations by the accused pair, which, for competant players was self-incriminating.

 

They did not disqualify the team from the event. They simply ruled B-L ineligible for the Lavazza-Barel match, and the score obtained was annulled and replaced by a 18-0 walkover score.

 

If the Committee had determined unquestionable cheating, they would have had to disqualify the Lavazza team completely from the event, and find some way of cancelling ALL of the team's results equitably.

 

They did not do this.

 

It's fair to assume that, from the evidence presented, the Committee felt that this was a single incident based on the pressure of trying to get a last-minute qualification, not based on a repeated pattern of cheating.

 

Some, including me, have speculated that the Committee had more evidence that was reported. That happens often in reports. In fact, one cannot ever hope to write up the multilingual conversations and deliberations without missing a few non-verbal reactions that the Committee may have considered.

 

If you feel the Committee had insufficient evidence to do what they did, because they relied on the statement of the opponent, it follows that:

 

--no player should ever report a suspicious action unless he has a witness to back him up

--anything goes if there's nobody around

 

If you feel that the Committee should have considered and provided previous events to support their decision, it follows that:

 

--somebody must collect these previous events and be both available and impartial

--cheaters can cheat as long as they don't do it too often, since we require multiple incidences to convict

 

Needless to say, I don't agree. I think the Committee did the right thing given the circumstances, and acted with integrity and courage. Perhaps others will now look at the past results of this pair and make a case of habitual cheating against them, perhaps not.

 

But within fifteen seconds on this one crucially important board, they made a half-dozen very unusual movements that suggested something untoward, and then took a markedly inferior line. And when asked to explain this coincidence, they denied none of the unusual movements convincingly, and gave goofy reasons for the unusual play.

 

No expert player ever wants to give the impression that he may be cheating.

 

This pair didn't seem to care how they looked.

In my opinion it's clearly they were suspended for cheating, the comitee never mentioned the C word but who in the world is not talking about B&L being cheaters? It wasn't even subtle.

Then I'm not saying the comitee should have acted differently, their decision is probably right but to me the proofs presented as well as the report is poor in contrast with the decision they took. In my view such a decision would have required a much longer report with a detailed explanation about the decision, all the factors considered must have been exposed.

 

You are putting a lot of words I didn't say in my mouth, I just said that the comitee report looks poor to me to justify the decision they took. Sounded like "We saw this man running with a wallet in his hand so we decided to shoot him". If the decision is right the report is poor if the report is complete then I disagree with the decision.

 

Luis

[Fluffy]

Probably they didn't explain fully, because everybody knows they were penalized for loads of deals played previously, everyone on the comitee knew some of those deals, others know many more.

 

And because of those previous deals (not from that tourney) everyone there believed Buratti knew the ♦ distribution for playing that way.

[luis]

Probably they didn't explain fully, because everybody knows they were penalized for loads of deals played previously, everyone on the comitee knew some of those deals, others know many more.

 

And because of those previous deals (not from that tourney) everyone there believed Buratti knew the ♦ distribution for playing that way.

Exactly if everybody knows they were penalized for loads of deals played previously then they must have presented those deals. Or at least the deals that the comitee knew.

[Walddk]

Here is a man who knows what he is talking about. Bart Bramley from USA is one of the world's best analysts. This is what he wrote, when I asked him about the probablities in the diamond suit:

 

.....

 

Hi Roland,

 

The a priori chance for each more evenly divided case is higher than the a priori chance for each less evenly divided case. Mike has correctly enumerated each of the cases in the diamond suit alone, but he ignores the other 22 cards. There are more ways to divide those cards 11-11 than 12-10, and 13-9 is fewest of all.

 

Thus, each of the 6 ways for East to hold 2 of the missing 4 diamonds is slightly more likely than each of the 8 ways that he can hold 1 or 3 diamonds, and even more likely than each of the two ways he can hold 0 or 4 diamonds.

 

In real life the a priori probabilities are just a guideline, because some of the wilder distributions can be eliminated from the defenders failure to bid, although when the defenders have very few high cards this adjustment will be small.

 

Also, East should not be void in a side suit (no double), eliminating a few more wild layouts. Therefore, as most players know instinctively, suits are more likely to split well when the opponents don't bid. However, I think that these effects do not change the overall odds by very much in general, and even less in the case at hand.

 

Here is a link to a web site that calculates each distribution in a straighforward way:

 

http://www.durangobill.com/BrSplitStats.html

 

NOTE: Don't go to the latest edition of the ACBL Bridge Encyclopedia. It has several ERRORS in its split probability tables!

 

 

Here is my own take on the analysis. Banging out the top diamonds wins about 53.1% a priori. Running the jack wins about 39.0% IF EAST NEVER COVERS, and even less if East covers sometimes and declarer then misguesses. (Proper strategy for both players is a game theoretical issue for another time.)

 

However, if declarer assumes that East definitely has the queen (perhaps from a legitimate table inference, like West's purported questioning before leading to trick 2), then the odds change. The only diamond distributions that matter are for the remaining 3 cards ("the suit of low diamonds"), which will divide 3-0 22% of the time (11% each way), and 2-1 78% of the time (39% each way).

 

Cashing the AK picks up 3-0 and 2-1 but not 0-3 or 1-2 = 11% + 39% = 50%. Running the jack picks up neither 3-0 nor 0-3, but picks up both 2-1 and 1-2 IF EAST NEVER COVERS = 78%! Even if East ALWAYS covers with Q107, Q106, Q7 and Q6, and declarer guesses right only HALF of the time, declarer still wins 52% of the time (Q76, Q10, and half of the rest).

 

Your figures may differ slightly, but clearly running the jack has a lot more going for it if you KNOW that East has the queen, and it could well be the right play. This is the argument that I myself would have used, but, of course, if I made that play then it would have been my actual reason, not a cover story.

 

Bart

[Fluffy]

Probably they didn't explain fully, because everybody knows they were penalized for loads of deals played previously, everyone on the comitee knew some of those deals, others know many more.

 

And because of those previous deals (not from that tourney) everyone there believed Buratti knew the ♦ distribution for playing that way.

Exactly if everybody knows they were penalized for loads of deals played previously then they must have presented those deals. Or at least the deals that the comitee knew.

So you suggest that the comitee instead of takign some time to rest for playing next day should had instead losed all the night trying to recompose deals that were played up to 6 or 7 years ago and that very likelly nobody remembers them fully, and there is no proof that they were actually played.

[Erkson]

So you suggest that the comitee instead of takign some time to rest for playing next day should had instead losed all the night trying to recompose deals that were played up to 6 or 7 years ago and that very likelly nobody remembers them fully, and there is no proof that they were actually played.

If the comittee is unable to gather proofs, because of your reasons (no time to loose for it or lack of sleep) or even another, they can't judge the case !

It seems so obvious to me !

 

Erkson

[kense]

:o I think the committee has done a wonderful job. If there is suspicion of cheating at least suspend them until all the evidence against them is properly gone over. It takes months in a court for a case to be resolved, but to let them continue to play with everyone spectulating whether they cheating or not is NOT good for them or the sport. hopefully when the comittee has all the evidence it will CLEAR them OR find them guilty, we should not speculate as we also dont have ALL the facts. So in my humble opinion suspending them teparily is the best thing for all.Lets all wait and see when all decisions are made public, I'm ure then too so will all evidence or lack there of..

[Rebound]

FWIW I agree with the comment that either the report or the decision of the committee is deficient. If the report is to be believed they relied solely upon credibility. If this is not the case, they should have disclosed the full basis of their decision. Even 2500 years ago it took 2 witnesses to make an accusation stick.

[luis]

:P I think the committee has done a wonderful job. If there is suspicion of cheating at least suspend them until all the evidence against them is properly gone over. It takes months in a court for a case to be resolved, but to let them continue to play with everyone spectulating whether they cheating or not is NOT good for them or the sport. hopefully when the comittee has all the evidence it will CLEAR them OR find them guilty, we should not speculate as we also dont have ALL the facts. So in my humble opinion suspending them teparily is the best thing for all.Lets all wait and see when all decisions are made public, I'm ure then too so will all evidence or lack there of..

What you say is terrible, you can't suspend a pair because you "suspect" they cheat. A very good part of the bridge community is saying "B & L got suspended for cheating" You can't just pretend to investigate the issue later, no apologies in the world would be enough to repair the damage.

[McBruce]

Come on folks; get a grip.

 

The Committee was not asked to answer the question "are these players cheaters?" They were asked to answer the question "was there illegal information passed and used on this one board?" They answered the second question YES and did not address the first. Previous hands were not considered, nor should they be. Reputations were not considered, nor should they be.

 

The Committee was not bound by the rules of evidence in a court of law. The Committee summoned everyone to a hearing and asked all of the players to present their case, then decided what they felt was the most likely conclusion based on the evidence they got.

 

The Committee was not obligated to release all of their deliberations and/or justifications publicly. That is the way we do things in tournament bridge. When there is an appeal after a game, there are no spectators to the proceedings, and the people on the Committee do not discuss the reasons for their decisions afterward in the bar.

 

Yes, it is highly unique that the evidence of one opponent resulted in a decision of this type. It seems clear from the report that any of us could have survived in B-L's place by simply giving plausible excuses. But it would be far, far more troubling if the case was thrown out because there was lack of evidence. Somebody did see the signals. You can be sure that had the Committee found any reason to think that Bareket was lying, it would be Bareket under severe suspension now. You can be sure that Bareket knew this going in. Could you play your best for five more boards under these circumstances?

 

Yes, this means anyone, even you, can be suspended by a Committee only on the word of an opponent, after some unusual gestures and a good result based on an unusual play; the full details of the Committee will never be made public and you will be branded a cheater forever.

 

Perhaps you feel this is unlawful; perhaps it is.

 

But if it is so easy to get suspended in this way, why hasn't it ever happened before? We've been playing bridge for eighty years. Anyone remember a conviction based only on an opponent's testimony? I don't. Expert players don't pass obvious signals in crucial situations, don't lie about peeking into opponent's hands while dummy, don't give silly excuses for unusual plays, and don't slump on the table when they have a crucial decision to make. Without that, it's virtually impossible to get a conviction.

 

The Committee felt that the reasons presented by B-L were self-incriminating and that is all that bridge requires to suspend them. I look at the doubters posts and I still see the same two irrelevant and fallacious arguments:

 

1) The Committee must have considered previous hands or the B-L reputation. Untrue. There is no evidence that this happened except the speculation of those who find the report lacking. The Committee came to a conclusion about the matter without considering either. Both are irrelevant to the question "was illegal information passed and used?"

 

2) The Committee was bound by the rules of evidence, and based on that the testimony of only one opponent is insufficient. Also untrue. If you assume this, then a claim of cheating can never be made at a table without spectators. The Committee was asked to hold a hearing, not a trial. The rules of evidence did not apply. It was completely up to the Committee to decide whether illegal information had been passed and used, in whatever way they saw fit.

 

Can anyone make a good argument against the decision, without resorting to either of these fallacies?

 

I'm waiting.

[Erkson]

If the Commitee is not bound by the rules of evidence then this must be changed, and there must be referees in the closed room.

 

I suppose that players who want to play in those events must commit themselves not to bring Commitee's decisions to a Court, renouncing previously to sue the Commitee.

I hope that they don't have to sign any, and that B&L will sue the Commitee.

 

But, unfortunately, I don't see any sign of it.

 

Erkson

[fred]

I hope that they don't have to sign any, and that B&L will sue the Commitee.

I personally hope that B&L will crawl back into the hole they came from and that none of us will ever have to play against them again.

 

I am not trying to say that the end justifies the means. I do not know enough about the laws and procedures to know if the committee got the means right.

 

However, I do think they got the end right and, for whatever its worth, all of the leading players I have spoken with (including several Italians) believe that this pair (finally) got what they deserved in Tenerife.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kense]

However, I do think they got the end right and, for whatever its worth, all of the leading players I have spoken with (including several Italians) believe that this pair (finally) got what they deserved in Tenerife.

 

 

I agree with you .as there has been lots of talk over the last 5 or 6 years about this pair..It was suspicious after playing and doing well for Italy in the mid to late 90's why they ran away to Spain and played for Spain's national team..

I hope they do crawl into a hole and never come out..

[mikeh]

I agree with Bruce's post. I do not know enough about B-L to comment on Fred's post, but I have a great deal of respect for his opinion (and his ethics).

 

My only addition is to expand on the 'rules of evidence'. Such rules vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and I do not pretend to be an international lawyer. I am, however, a trial lawyer in a common-law country: and believe that the rules of evidence in my jurisdiction are broadly similar to those in the UK and most commonwealth countries, and the US, amongst others.

 

There is no 'rule' that requires that there be more than one witness before the trier of fact can accept the evidence. There is, in civil law, no requirement for corroboration. Certainly, evidence from more than one source, and the presence or lack of independent corroboration will be of assistance to the trier of fact, but it is not essential. Our legal systems depend on the proposition that the trier of fact can assess the credibilty of witnesses by observing the demeanour of the witness, assisted by the application of common sense, in terms of whether the story is internally consistent, consistent with our view of how the world operates, and consistent with external evidence.

 

One credible witness is worth a dozen unbelievable witnesses.

 

So the committee, from the sounds of it, did precisely what a fact-finding tribunal ought to do: they heard conflicting evidence and came to a conclusion based on credibility. This is not surprising, since I gather that at least two of the committee members were highly-regarded lawyers and hence would be familiar with the rules of evidence and the 'correct' method of resolving credibility issues.