What happened in Tenerife?

[mike777]

Who knows?  Maybe there is video and the committee chose not to mention it publicly, but kept it in case of a lawsuit.

Good grief now we have secret evidence posts.

Committee may or may not have secret evidence.

Both sides in dispute either do not know it or if they do they keep it secret

Witnesses and technical people know but do not tell......

 

Hush Hush, secret testimony, secret evidence..secret video, secret witnesses..whispers in the halls.......

 

The Muggles do not know, shhhh

The secrets will be revealed on July 15 at midnight in usa.........

[EricK]

[...]James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, pages 33-34:

 

Experts are also surprisingly bad at what social

scientists call "calibrating" their judgments.  If

your judgments are well calibrated, then you have a

sense of how likely it is that your judgment is

correct.  But experts are much more like normal

people: they routinely overestimate the likelihood

that they're right.[......]

[.....]The only forecasters whose judgments are routinely well

calibrated are expert bridge players and

weathermen.  It rains on 30 percent of the days

when weathermen have predicted a 30 percent chance

of rain.[....]

"Calibrating" is not a good term here (I don't know which is, though).

 

I wonder if this comparison between currency dealers, physicians, meteorologist and bridge players is fair. After all, bridge players and meteorologist have a tradition of expressing knowledge in terms of probabilites:

 

If a bridge player says that a given line of play has 75% chance, and it fails, he might still be right (a computer simulation could confirm it).

 

If a meteorologist says that there's 75% chance that it will be raining and it doesn't, he might still be considered right (at least by his collegues). This is because his estimate is based on a probabilistic model which has been validated in the general case, so it's irelevant if it fails in a particular case.

 

If a physician says that there's 75% chance that surgery will suceed, and it fails, he will probably be considered wrong. This is for two reasons: first, patients and physicians alike are bad at making decisions based on probabilities. So it doesn't realy matter if the assement is 75% or 95%. In both cases some binary decision (to cut or not) will be made on the basis of the physian's assement, and that decision will "turn out" to be either right or wrong. Second, it is difficult to verify what the probability really was. Maybe if you have 1000 "identical" patients you can verify the assessment that surgery will suceed in appr. 750 cases. But this is not a typical situation. And even in that case, the families of the 250 unlucky patients will say that the physician should have noticed that those cases were not typical.

 

I would like to believe that bridge players are more honest than other people. But it may have more to do with whether the reader of your message realy wants honest self-assesment. Who wants a physician, politician, judge or military adviser who keeps saying "there's 25% chance that my advice/decision is wrong"?. But a bridge coach, or a meteorologist, can make such statements and keep their job.

I think calibrating is the correct word here.

 

When surgeons say that there is a 75% of success, you don't need 100s of identical patients to check their accuracy; you simply need 100s of instances where surgeons are predicting 75% of success.

 

Similarly for meteorologists: If they repeatedly say that there is a 30% chance of rain, and yet it only rains on 20% of those days then their estimates are clearly not calibrated with reality. However it turns out that their estimates are accurate in the probabilistic sense.

 

And to answer your last point I would dearly love to have physicians, politicians, judges and military advisers who told the truth. If that truth is that my operation has only a 25% chance of success I want to know that. If that truth is that there is a 95% chance that there are no WMD in Iraq then I want to know that too. What surprises me is that there are people who are happy to be lied to by "authority figures".

 

Eric

[Chamaco]

It is a borderline slam, and in fact less than half of the field bid to 6♦. Why risk this success with making a clear anti-percentage play?

Because the swing needed was huge:

let's say they made 6 diamond and at the other table they bid and made 5 diamond.

 

This swing would not be enough: in orer to recover the lead, BL would absolutely need both of the following:

 

1- at the ther table they go down in any contract

2- BL make this slam.

 

So the only chance was that at the other table they had bid to 6D, and that 6D would go down with a logical play, whereas BL needed to make with an illogical play.

Any other combination of chance MIGHT make win BL a handful of IMPS, but not enough to be back in the match.

[helene_t]

When surgeons say that there is a 75% of success, you don't need 100s of identical patients to check their accuracy; you simply need 100s of instances where surgeons are predicting 75% of success.

True, and that's how Surowiecki reaches his conclusion. But each individual physician can still claim (and even believe) that allthough the average physician is wrong, he's right himself.

 

What surprises me is that there are people who are happy to be lied to by "authority figures".

 

Let me guess: You're a bridge player, right?

 

Lol. I agree, of course.

[cherdano]

It is a borderline slam, and in fact less than half of the field bid to 6♦. Why risk this success with making a clear anti-percentage play?

Because the swing needed was huge:

let's say they made 6 diamond and at the other table they bid and made 5 diamond.

 

This swing would not be enough: in orer to recover the lead, BL would absolutely need both of the following:

 

1- at the ther table they go down in any contract

2- BL make this slam.

 

So the only chance was that at the other table they had bid to 6D, and that 6D would go down with a logical play, whereas BL needed to make with an illogical play.

Any other combination of chance MIGHT make win BL a handful of IMPS, but not enough to be back in the match.

Mauro, this is unfortunately absolutely wrong. They wanted to win 15 IMPs over 8 boards. This was the 3rd board out of 8. The first board had been a potential non-vuln slam swing IN FAVOR of B-L, otherwise almost always a 2 IMP pickup. Second a tie or an unlikely partscore swing against them. Making slam against 3NT in the other room would gain 12 IMPs, meaning that any small swing, or just 3 overtrick would be enough to win by the margin they wanted (and note that winning by 12 IMPs would already mean good chances to go on) -- even if they had not made a gain in the first board.

 

This is, unless I am wrong about which two boards they had played before (but I didn't see any two bad boards for B-L at all in this set).

[Chamaco]

Mauro, this is unfortunately absolutely wrong.

Sorry, my fault.

I thought there were only a couple of boards to go when this deal occurred, say 2-3 boards.

 

In that case I think the "all or nothing" desperate approach would have been right IMO.

[hrothgar]

Here's another message from rec.games.bridge that folks might find interesting...

 

>No less than our own dear David Burn was interviewed by UK's BBC 'pm'

>flagship radio program about the scandal. He dodged the more difficult

>questions skillfully. David's his rich baritone may be heard on the link

>below. (May need real audio to receive)

>

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/pm

> .. fast forward to 53min+39sec for the interview

>--

>How is it that 4% of World humans can produce 25% of the worlds CO2?

>Chris Ryall Wirral UK <cjr2...@my.domain>

[Deanrover]

Thanks for link - good interview by David. Do you think this publicity will be good for bridge?

[MickyB]

Interesting that DALB suggests that L-B decided to cheat on the spur of the moment.

[mikestar]

Some points. If bridge cheating accusations were determined in the court system, the applicable standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" only for the question of whether to impose criminal penalties (imprisonment, fines, etc.) for the alleged cheating. The question of disqualifying the alleged cheaters, making them refund prize money (if applicable), etc. is a civil question and the standard of proof is "preponderance of evidence". If the only evidence is the testimony of the parties, it is sufficient if the accuser's testimony is more credible.

 

In the context of appeals committees, the analogy would be that any sanction up to disqualification would require predonderance of evidence but a ban from future events would require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

 

By the way, beyond reasonable doubt does not mean "certainty". It means that if there are two or more reasonable interpretations of the evidence and one of those interpretaions points to the defendant's innocence, the defendent must be aquitted even if that interpretation is less likey than interpretations pointing to his guilt.

 

Even if this standard is applied rigorously, erroneous convictions do occur--an unreasonable interpretation of the evidence might be in point of fact true, or significant facts may not have been entered into evidence.

[Echognome]

Any reason to be using U.S. standards for an event which is taking place in Europe?

[hotShot]

Someone pointed out that a crook/impostor could do much better than this.

 

But cheaters don't think they are crook's. They believe that live somehow has been unfair to them, and they are just bending the rules a little to adjust things the way they should be.

 

The following is pure speculation:

Imagine one of the worlds best bridge players is about to fail in the qualification to one of the top 5 bridge events. Does this feel right?

Somehow he discovers that the contract they are playing could turn out to be sealing their fait or it could bring them back into buisness if his partner only knew .........

He could feel tempted?

[epeeist]

What What?

1) LOl, there was much more evidence presented, read the facts.

2) The expert opp's feel justified with the decision based on the evidence

3) The expert committee feels justified with the decision based on the evidence.

4) Your comments basically say the opp's and committee based their decision on the basis of being idiots.

5) I have said in other posts, multiple eyewitness and multiple camera views are very often contradictory, confusing and open to many many interpretations and do not lead to more definitive evidence.

6) If you feel the process is fatally flawed ok, but more eyewitness testimony and camera views will resolve nothing. Setting up secret committees with secret people, secret agents, secret discussions will not be a better solution.

7) example: say the eyewitness and camera says head was on table and fingers on arm. That proves nothing more. All of the above could be very very innocent.

8) say the eyewitness and camera views are open to interpretation and confusing, which is often the case, so what?

YES, THE PROCESS IS FLAWED!

 

As for your "point" 1, read the facts?

 

Okay:

 

"The Facts: At the end of the play, East called the Director to explain what he had seen."

 

That's what has been reported as the facts. That's it. What East (and West) claimed to have seen.

 

My entire argument is, and no slight to this particular EW, but in GENERAL, why should one pair's accusation just be believed and the denial by the other pair not be believed?

 

Additional (non-controversial, i.e. no disagreement) information was what cards were played (i.e. that the play was anti-percentage) and what Buratti said in his defense. What Buratti said was not an admission, but the committee considered it inculpatory -- essentially, his failure to provide a reasonable explanation.

 

How nice. If Buratti had said "How dare you accuse me of cheating, I will say nothing" would that have also been considered inculpatory? Failure to provide a reasonable explanation?

 

Others in this thread with far greater skill than I have suggested that the play was arguably not unreasonable for a team (thinking) it needed a big result.

 

Let me ask you a question. If you were accused of cheating because say you dropped a singleton king with an ace, with no witnesses except for you and the 3 other bridge players, and despite your denial an "expert" committee decided you cheated since your explanation was deficient, effectively ending your bridge career, would you happily accept the result? Or would you consider the process had been unfair?

 

As for the expertise of the committeee, read e.g. an NABC casebook -- you'll find expert comments on the expert decisions of the committee ranging from full agreement to wondering how the committee could have been so idiotic. And have you ever disagreed with ANY decision ever made, in history, of the U.S. Supreme Court (or House of Lords in its judicial capacity, or whatever is appropriate for your country)? Assuming you ever have disagreed, why are you assuming that a panel of bridge experts by contrast is somehow magically incapable of error?

[epeeist]

Here's another message from rec.games.bridge that folks might find interesting...

 

>No less than our own dear David Burn was interviewed by UK's BBC 'pm'

>flagship radio program about the scandal. He dodged the more difficult

>questions skillfully. David's his rich baritone may be heard on the link

>below. (May need real audio to receive)

>

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/pm

> .. fast forward to 53min+39sec for the interview

>--

>How is it that 4% of World humans can produce 25% of the worlds CO2?

>Chris Ryall Wirral UK <cjr2...@my.domain>

Thanks for the link.

 

Just in case anyone else goes to the link now, it will start playing another day. So scroll down in the list of programs on the right to the "PM" show, click on that, click on "Tuesday", then when Tuesday's show starts playing forward to the appropriate time as indicated (apparently programs remain available for 7 days).

[mike777]

What What?

1) LOl, there was much more evidence presented, read the facts.

2) The expert opp's feel justified with the decision based on the evidence

3) The expert committee feels justified with the decision based on the evidence.

4) Your comments basically say the opp's and committee based their decision on the basis of being idiots.

5) I have said in other posts, multiple eyewitness and multiple camera views are very often contradictory, confusing and open to many many interpretations and do not lead to more definitive evidence.

6) If you feel the process is fatally flawed ok, but more eyewitness testimony and camera views will resolve nothing.  Setting up secret committees with secret people, secret agents, secret discussions will not be a better solution.

7)  example: say the eyewitness  and camera says head was on table and fingers on arm.  That proves nothing more. All of the above could be very very innocent.

8) say the eyewitness and camera views are open to interpretation and confusing, which is often the case, so what?

YES, THE PROCESS IS FLAWED!

 

As for your "point" 1, read the facts?

 

Okay:

 

"The Facts: At the end of the play, East called the Director to explain what he had seen."

 

That's what has been reported as the facts. That's it. What East (and West) claimed to have seen.

 

My entire argument is, and no slight to this particular EW, but in GENERAL, why should one pair's accusation just be believed and the denial by the other pair not be believed?

 

Additional (non-controversial, i.e. no disagreement) information was what cards were played (i.e. that the play was anti-percentage) and what Buratti said in his defense. What Buratti said was not an admission, but the committee considered it inculpatory -- essentially, his failure to provide a reasonable explanation.

 

How nice. If Buratti had said "How dare you accuse me of cheating, I will say nothing" would that have also been considered inculpatory? Failure to provide a reasonable explanation?

 

Others in this thread with far greater skill than I have suggested that the play was arguably not unreasonable for a team (thinking) it needed a big result.

 

Let me ask you a question. If you were accused of cheating because say you dropped a singleton king with an ace, with no witnesses except for you and the 3 other bridge players, and despite your denial an "expert" committee decided you cheated since your explanation was deficient, effectively ending your bridge career, would you happily accept the result? Or would you consider the process had been unfair?

 

As for the expertise of the committeee, read e.g. an NABC casebook -- you'll find expert comments on the expert decisions of the committee ranging from full agreement to wondering how the committee could have been so idiotic. And have you ever disagreed with ANY decision ever made, in history, of the U.S. Supreme Court (or House of Lords in its judicial capacity, or whatever is appropriate for your country)? Assuming you ever have disagreed, why are you assuming that a panel of bridge experts by contrast is somehow magically incapable of error?

You seem incapable of reading all the facts presented so far in this case as well as being able to read and understand my posts. Good Grief.

1) What you say is simply not the whole truth and even close to all the facts in this case made public so far, good grief.

2) My post pointly used the phrase fatally flawed process not flawed.

3) Yes, if the supreme court and the other institutions make decisions on such flimsy evidence as you state here is the full complete public case than those institutions are idiots but of course that is not what i said if you could read my posts and understand them. To disagree with a well reasoned and thought out decision is one issue, saying it is based on basically no reasoning, evidence and thought as you do here makes the process an idiotic one.

4) To repeat if the opp's and committees make decisions based on your set of facts then the entire process is deeply and fatally flawed. I see no such decision here.

5) I respect anyones well thought disagreement to a committee decision but you are not close to presenting all the public facts.

6) Assuming all the public facts you may or maynot agree with the committees decision OK. All that does is reinforce my previous posts and the questions I raised.

7) The suggestions that this was a one time momentary on the spot cheat are illogical.

Both partners had the same thought at the same moment?

Both partners understood what information needed to be passed and how to pass it?

Logic dictates all this takes more than a one moment and one thought to successfully understand what information is needed, gather the information and pass it to partner and for partner to fully understand the coded information without prior practice.

8) Please do not take of any the above to say I agree or disagree with the decision only that the standing process was used to best effect and that the opp and committee feel justified with their decision.

[mikestar]

Any reason to be using U.S. standards for an event which is taking place in Europe?

If I recall correctly European standards of proof are similiar in civil matters and less demanding in criminal matters.

[epeeist]

What What?

1) LOl, there was much more evidence presented, read the facts.

2) The expert opp's feel justified with the decision based on the evidence

3) The expert committee feels justified with the decision based on the evidence.

4) Your comments basically say the opp's and committee based their decision on the basis of being idiots.

5) I have said in other posts, multiple eyewitness and multiple camera views are very often contradictory, confusing and open to many many interpretations and do not lead to more definitive evidence.

6) If you feel the process is fatally flawed ok, but more eyewitness testimony and camera views will resolve nothing.  Setting up secret committees with secret people, secret agents, secret discussions will not be a better solution.

7)  example: say the eyewitness  and camera says head was on table and fingers on arm.  That proves nothing more. All of the above could be very very innocent.

8) say the eyewitness and camera views are open to interpretation and confusing, which is often the case, so what?

YES, THE PROCESS IS FLAWED!

 

As for your "point" 1, read the facts?

 

Okay:

 

"The Facts: At the end of the play, East called the Director to explain what he had seen."

 

That's what has been reported as the facts. That's it. What East (and West) claimed to have seen.

 

My entire argument is, and no slight to this particular EW, but in GENERAL, why should one pair's accusation just be believed and the denial by the other pair not be believed?

 

Additional (non-controversial, i.e. no disagreement) information was what cards were played (i.e. that the play was anti-percentage) and what Buratti said in his defense. What Buratti said was not an admission, but the committee considered it inculpatory -- essentially, his failure to provide a reasonable explanation.

 

How nice. If Buratti had said "How dare you accuse me of cheating, I will say nothing" would that have also been considered inculpatory? Failure to provide a reasonable explanation?

 

Others in this thread with far greater skill than I have suggested that the play was arguably not unreasonable for a team (thinking) it needed a big result.

 

Let me ask you a question. If you were accused of cheating because say you dropped a singleton king with an ace, with no witnesses except for you and the 3 other bridge players, and despite your denial an "expert" committee decided you cheated since your explanation was deficient, effectively ending your bridge career, would you happily accept the result? Or would you consider the process had been unfair?

 

As for the expertise of the committeee, read e.g. an NABC casebook -- you'll find expert comments on the expert decisions of the committee ranging from full agreement to wondering how the committee could have been so idiotic. And have you ever disagreed with ANY decision ever made, in history, of the U.S. Supreme Court (or House of Lords in its judicial capacity, or whatever is appropriate for your country)? Assuming you ever have disagreed, why are you assuming that a panel of bridge experts by contrast is somehow magically incapable of error?

You seem incapable of reading all the facts presented so far in this case as well as being able to read and understand my posts. Good Grief.

1) What you say is simply not the whole truth and even close to all the facts in this case made public so far, good grief.

2) My post pointly used the phrase fatally flawed process not flawed.

3) Yes, if the supreme court and the other institutions make decisions on such flimsy evidence as you state here is the full complete public case than those institutions are idiots but of course that is not what i said if you could read my posts and understand them. To disagree with a well reasoned and thought out decision is one issue, saying it is based on basically no reasoning, evidence and thought as you do here makes the process an idiotic one.

4) To repeat if the opp's and committees make decisions based on your set of facts then the entire process is deeply and fatally flawed. I see no such decision here.

5) I respect anyones well thought disagreement to a committee decision but you are not close to presenting all the public facts.

6) Assuming all the public facts you may or maynot agree with the committees decision OK. All that does is reinforce my previous posts and the questions I raised.

7) The suggestions that this was a one time momentary on the spot cheat are illogical.

Both partners had the same thought at the same moment?

Both partners understood what information needed to be passed and how to pass it?

Logic dictates all this takes more than a one moment and one thought to successfully understand what information is needed, gather the information and pass it to partner and for partner to fully understand the coded information without prior practice.

8) Please do not take of any the above to say I agree or disagree with the decision only that the standing process was used to best effect and that the opp and committee feel justified with their decision.

My view is based upon what officially has been stated as what the committee considered. That's it. The link to the report was provided by both uday and another poster.

 

My view is not based upon public speculation or innuendo about LB. Whether these are "public facts" or not, the committee decision should have been based only on what facts were before it.

 

If the committee considered anything else, the decision should have so stated.

 

If you have any link to any authoritative source -- not speculation about what LB might have done at the Cavendish Pairs, or applause by others when the decision at Tenerife was announced -- indicating that the committee considered anything beyond what was described in the press release, please post a link to it.

 

Lastly, assuming arguendo your allegation that I am unable to read and understand your posts is correct, then I submit the fault is not mine, the reader's, but rather yours, the author's.

 

I note also, your statement "What you say is simply not the whole truth and even close to all the facts in this case made public so far, good grief." To me, that seems perilously close to an accusation of deliberate falsehood on my part. I suggest you moderate your language. If I have not stated all the facts, call me mistaken, and state what those facts are and post a link to an authoritative source. Do not accuse me of prevarication.

[luke warm]

say it ain't so, joe

 

1) what percentage of the pairs were in 6D?

2) did declarer judge that n/s needed a swing or did he not?

3) if so, would a declarer of his quality play in such a way, knowing his play to be the low % line, knowing most others would take the higher % line?

 

what bothers me the most is dummy's denial of looking, uninvited, into the defender's hand... someone is lying... not mistaken, lying... i suppose the committee had to judge who was more believable, given the facts presented.. and it appears this is what they did

 

i personally don't place too much weight on the line chosen, i don't know what went thru declarer's mind at that point.. it's very possible that his table feel, given the questioning about the lead, etc, led him to play the way he did... but the accusations of looking into the defender's hand and then signaling what was seen makes this whole thing very disturbing

 

i don't know the people involved, their characters or their reputations for honesty... there were a lot of world class players involved, however, and i suppose some or all of them had to weigh their knowledge of the people involved...

 

i certainly hope this isn't true, but i don't see how it can't be... the looking into the hand part, and its denial, weigh most heavily to me

[helene_t]

Any reason to be using U.S. standards for an event which is taking place in Europe?

If I recall correctly European standards of proof are similiar in civil matters and less demanding in criminal matters.

This may generally be true. But European systems of law differ among each other, and also the standards of proof are difficult to compare because of different systems. For example, some countries have profesional judges only (Netherlands), while others use lay judges only at the low level (Sweden) or only in criminal matters (Denmark).

[slx]

No doubt in my mind that the Lavazza -team will sue the EBL appeal comitee in court.

A pity this is not happening in USA - they would get millions of $ !!!

In Europe u can destroy people and get away with it....

 

The comitee had no reasonable reason to trust a (probably) frustrated player who just lost the match 25-2 more than a world champion !

[luke warm]

The comitee had no reasonable reason to trust a (probably) frustrated player who just lost the match 25-2 more than a world champion !

are you sure of that? if this ends up in court, i'm sure we'll all know all the reasons for this ruling

[Gerardo]

No doubt in my mind that the Lavazza -team will sue the EBL appeal comitee in court.

 

Zero chance, IMO. Maybe the players will, but I don't think so either.

 

A pity this is not happening in USA - they would get millions of $ !!!

 

Don't think nor hope so.

 

Law42A2c: Dummy may not, on his own initiative, look at the face of a card in either defender's hand.

 

That's enough for me. You have to believe either Bareket or Lanzarotti, as they contradict each other. The one you don't believe must be punished, either for making up things (Bareket), or outright lying to the Comittee (Lanzarotti, he denied taking a look).

Can't just say "nothing happened, move along".

 

And Comittee decided Bareket was more credible than Lanzarotti-Buratti. Right (IMO) or wrong, was their call. Punishment seems fair to me.

 

Further development of this is yet to be decided, and Buratti-Lanzarotti can fight that.

 

In Europe u can destroy people and get away with it....

 

Seems whoever destroyed OJ's wife got away with it.

 

The comitee had no reasonable reason to trust a (probably) frustrated player who just lost the match 25-2 more than a world champion !

 

Except players' statements. Being a world champion is not a guarentee of credibility.

[EricK]

 

The comitee had no reasonable reason to trust a (probably) frustrated player who just lost the match 25-2 more than a world champion !

 

Except players' statements. Being a world champion is not a guarentee of credibility.

 

 

When the accusation is cheating at cards, you can't use their previous success at cards as evidence for their innocence!

 

Indeed, if someone like me were to win the world championship that would be pretty good evidence that I had been cheationg at cards!

 

Eric

[Cascade]

That's enough for me. You have to believe either Bareket or Lanzarotti, as they contradict each other. The one you don't believe must be punished, either for making up things (Bareket), or outright lying to the Comittee (Lanzarotti, he denied taking a look).

Can't just say "nothing happened, move along".

Bareket can not know for certain what Lanzarotti saw or didn't see. Only Lanzarotti can know that. So there is the possibility that Bareket thought that Lanzarotti was looking at his cards when he was not. This is certainly possible assuming that Lanzarotti has limited vision in his left eye as he told the committee.

 

I am not saying that I believe one player and not the other only that it is possible that Lanzarotti was telling the truth and Bareket was legitimately mistaken.

[McBruce]

No doubt in my mind that the Lavazza -team will sue the EBL appeal comitee in court.

A pity this is not happening in USA - they would get millions of $ !!!

In Europe u can destroy people and get away with it....

 

The comitee had no reasonable reason to trust a (probably) frustrated player who just lost the match 25-2 more than a world champion !

Timing. It may not be in the committee's report, but other sources have the Israeli player getting up immediately and without comment after 6D was made to go and talk to a Director. At this point, the Israeli team was not 25-2 down; in fact they had done fairly well on the first two boards. Your post makes it seem as though the report was not made until the match was over.