[helene_t]

Surprised nobody posted this already:

http://newinbridge.c...mps-banned-life

They will probably appeal, though

[glen]

Here they are in action:

http://www.bridgebas...ch.php?id=30549
(see board 30 for example)

http://www.bridgebas...ch.php?id=30553
(see board 10 for example)

[cherdano]

In a first reaction from the German side it seems likely that the German Bridge Federation and/or Elinescu and Wladow will appeal against the WBF ruling.
I really hope the German Bridge Federation has better things to do than embarrassing itself like this...

[hrothgar]

I am often quite critical of the WBF and the USBF, especially where cheating allegations are concerned.

In this (sorry) example, they really seem to have done a good job.
In particular, I'd like to point attention to the fact that

1. The individuals who were allegation cheating came forward with a specific testable hypothesis. Not only did the US team allege that something untoward was happening, they also documented the precise way in which W+E were exchanging information.

2. The WBF was then able to test this hypothesis in future events. They planted an observer, used him to collect information, and was able to verify the claims by the USA team.

I've spent a lot of time reading various claims about cheating. My impression is that this is, by far, the best conducted investigation I have seen.

[aguahombre]

hrothgar, on 2014-March-29, 09:41, said:

I am often quite critical of the WBF and the USBF, especially where cheating allegations are concerned.

In this (sorry) example, they really seem to have done a good job.
In particular, I'd like to point attention to the fact that

1. The individuals who were allegation cheating came forward with a specific testable hypothesis. Not only did the US team allege that something untoward was happening, they also documented the precise way in which W+E were exchanging information.

2. The WBF was then able to test this hypothesis in future events. They planted an observer, used him to collect information, and was able to verify the claims by the USA team.

I've spent a lot of time reading various claims about cheating. My impression is that this is, by far, the best conducted investigation I have seen.

Yes, your observation...posted both here and on BWinners is worth pointing out to those of us who frequently find fault with bridge organizations. When they do something right, they should be acknowledged as well.

[nige1]

Thank you Helene_T

link to REPORT OF A HEARING OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION OF THE WORLD BRIDGE FEDERATION HELD ON 215T and 22nd MARCH 2014 AT THE SHERATON HOTEL IN DALLAS, TEXAS

IMO: Accusing players of cheating is distasteful but the WBF must investigate and prosecute when they find sufficient evidence. Previous bridge cheating allegations were mishandled in a slow, stupid, and often unfair way. The WBF seem to have taken more care with this case but the legal process is still flawed. The D'Orsi trophy is an international competition and Germany beat The US in the final. Some may regard blind patriotism as offensive but national rivalry is a key element in this case. In such circumstances, it's OK for US and German officials to be part of prosecution and defence teams but otherwise they should recuse themselves from the legal process. Also the case should be heard in neutral surroundings – and at a mutually convenient time, if possible. Finally, convicted cheaters and their team-mates should be stripped of titles earned by cheating -- encouraging selectors and other pairs to be more discriminating henceforth.

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2014-March-29, 09:41, said:

I am often quite critical of the WBF and the USBF, especially where cheating allegations are concerned. In this (sorry) example, they really seem to have done a good job. In particular, I'd like to point attention to the fact that
1. The individuals who were allegation cheating came forward with a specific testable hypothesis. Not only did the US team allege that something untoward was happening, they also documented the precise way in which W+E were exchanging information.
2. The WBF was then able to test this hypothesis in future events. They planted an observer, used him to collect information, and was able to verify the claims by the USA team.
I've spent a lot of time reading various claims about cheating. My impression is that this is, by far, the best conducted investigation I have seen.

The evidence appears damning but you might quibble with the collection process. In previous cheating allegations, there was a suggestion (again ignored in this case) that observers should not be told the precise code to look for (initially at any rate).

[Cascade]

Indeed interviewer bias is a known problem in collecting data.

The other problem I have relates to our adverse attitude to cheating accusations. Assume this pair are guilty, I don't know, but why does it take until they get to a world championship final before they are investigated?

By not having robust mechanisms at a lower level and by turning a blind eye to many, mainly lesser players who knowingly use extraneous information to such an extent that they are at least de facto using prearranged communication, the culture encourages cheats.

[nige1]

Cascade, on 2014-March-29, 13:21, said:

Indeed interviewer bias is a known problem in collecting data.
The other problem I have relates to our adverse attitude to cheating accusations. Assume this pair are guilty, I don't know, but why does it take until they get to a world championship final before they are investigated?
By not having robust mechanisms at a lower level and by turning a blind eye to many, mainly lesser players who knowingly use extraneous information to such an extent that they are at least de facto using prearranged communication, the culture encourages cheats.

As usual, Cascade hits the nail on the head. (And equity laws that reward law-breaking just make all this worse).

The WBF should appoint a permanent official to co-ordinate the investigation of cheating allegations and to carefully outline a complete protocol for the process that reduces the suspicion of bias, as far as possible. A fair trial is especially important when the WBF seem to have a good case as here. Instead ....

It seems that the accused were tried in their absence, in what was for them a foreign country, at a time inconvenient to them and known to be impossible for their NBO. The rival team, whom they had beaten and who made the allegations against them, belong to the same organisation and country as the judges, who convicted the suspects. In spite of all this, arguably, the life-ban sentence might still be reasonable but it seems bizarre to expect the culprits to pay the costs of proceedings

[kenrexford]

I remain shocked, as I have been before as to other cheating scandals, that the offenders lack any bridge skill in their methods. Coughing to indicate short suits by rank is embarrassing. I mean, have some dignity and at least use something with more bridge savvy. Maybe coughing only when even parity? Sniff if holding a two-suited hand unworthy of a high reverse? Something that illustrates some theory strength, for Eli's Sake!

[the hog]

cherdano, on 2014-March-29, 08:55, said:

In a first reaction from the German side it seems likely that the German Bridge Federation and/or Elinescu and Wladow will appeal against the WBF ruling.
I really hope the German Bridge Federation has better things to do than embarrassing itself like this...

Arend, I am curious to know why you make this statement. Do you have information others on this site may not have regarding their reputation?
A few things concern me. The case was held in the US . Why not in Europe? Some of the evidence presented is lame to say the least and has in one case, nothing to do with coughing. eg, the ridiculous Spade bid which went 4 off. This is an egregious beginners error to bid spades here.
Finally, as Cascade points out, it is surely incorrect to tell the observer what to look for. This is not the way evidence should be gathered.

[aguahombre]

The objections to the protocol, location of hearing, and persons handling the investigation/prosecution were all dealt with by the WBF and by the committee. We can read it. A non-American, whose testimony strengthened the prosecution's case even further, was not admitted for consideration.

The "defendants" offered no denial, and did not avail themselves of the opportunity to participate in the hearing via presence or via electronic means.

The comments about what you tell an "interviewer" in advance in a criminal investigation have little to do with what an assigned investigator should be briefed on before making personal observations; however, it is not clear the investigator (monitor) was overbriefed, anyway. He was told that coughs were the method of communication regarding shortness and/or about lead requests. With that, he could correlate the coughs with the holdings. We do not know if he was told how many coughs indicated what.

Typically, defendants who have no case attack the process. So, what is new?

[avonw]

Elinescu and Wladow caught, convicted and booted out.

Summary:
http://newinbridge.c...mps-banned-life

WBF hearing:
http://neapolitanclu...22March2014.pdf

The evidence presented:
http://newinbridge.c...excel-sheet.pdf

So what about their "victory" by 11 imps in the 2013 d'Orsi Trophy?

Will the WBF strip them of the title?
Will USA2 be named the winners?

Unconfirmed reports say that this pair has a "record" going back some years. According to a newinbridge.com article of early 2011, Elinescu and Wladow "had won the German national title eight times in the past ten years."

What will the DBV do about this?
Did the DBV have any knowledge of this pair's "untoward behaviour"?

[glen]

avonw, on 2014-March-29, 20:44, said:

Elinescu and Wladow caught, convicted and booted out.

Summary:
http://newinbridge.c...mps-banned-life

WBF hearing:
http://neapolitanclu...22March2014.pdf

The evidence presented:
http://newinbridge.c...excel-sheet.pdf

So what about their "victory" by 11 imps in the 2013 d'Orsi Trophy?

Will the WBF strip them of the title?
Will USA2 be named the winners?

Unconfirmed reports say that this pair has a "record" going back some years. According to a newinbridge.com article of early 2011, Elinescu and Wladow "had won the German national title eight times in the past ten years."

What will the DBV do about this?
Did the DBV have any knowledge of this pair's "untoward behaviour"?

you forgot a link:

http://www.bridgebas...ge__pid__786126

[the hog]

"Typically, defendants who have no case attack the process. So, what is new?"
I think this comment is unworthy of you AGH. I do not question either their guilt or innocence, however I have read the same material as you and find there to be some serious problems in the way the investigation was conducted.

[Bbradley62]

...

[mike777]

Dr. Michael Elinescu and Dr. Entscho Wladow, both members of the German Team who won the gold medal in the d’ Orsi Seniors Bowl at the 2013 World Bridge Championships in Bali, Indonesia, have been found guilty of reprehensible conduct by a special Commission instituted by the World Bridge Federation. The Commission, in a hearing in Dallas held on the 21st and 22nd of March 2014, imposed the following sanctions: a. Elinescu and Wladow shall be banned from playing together in any WBF organised championship or competition for life; b. Elinescu and Wladow shall be each individually banned from playing in a WBF organised championship or competition for a period of 10 years; c. Elinescu and Wladow are ordered to pay the cost of the above mentioned hearing. According to the Commission it was proven that Elinescu and Wladow communicated in an inappropriate way during the finals at Bali WC when the pair played against USA2. By way of coughing the pair – when on lead - was able to signal shortness – if any – in one or more of the suits. In a first reaction from the German side it seems likely that the German Bridge Federation and/or Elinescu and Wladow will appeal against the WBF ruling.

[mike777]

Dr. Michael Elinescu and Dr. Entscho Wladow, both members of the German Team who won the gold medal in the d’ Orsi Seniors Bowl at the 2013 World Bridge Championships in Bali, Indonesia, have been found guilty of reprehensible conduct by a special Commission instituted by the World Bridge Federation. The Commission, in a hearing in Dallas held on the 21st and 22nd of March 2014, imposed the following sanctions: a. Elinescu and Wladow shall be banned from playing together in any WBF organised championship or competition for life; b. Elinescu and Wladow shall be each individually banned from playing in a WBF organised championship or competition for a period of 10 years; c. Elinescu and Wladow are ordered to pay the cost of the above mentioned hearing. According to the Commission it was proven that Elinescu and Wladow communicated in an inappropriate way during the finals at Bali WC when the pair played against USA2. By way of coughing the pair – when on lead - was able to signal shortness – if any – in one or more of the suits. In a first reaction from the German side it seems likely that the German Bridge Federation and/or Elinescu and Wladow will appeal against the WBF ruling.

[1eyedjack]

cherdano, on 2014-March-29, 08:55, said:

In a first reaction from the German side it seems likely that the German Bridge Federation and/or Elinescu and Wladow will appeal against the WBF ruling.
I really hope the German Bridge Federation has better things to do than embarrassing itself like this...

If there is an appeals process, how can it be an embarrassment to avail itself of it? Costly, perhaps.

Were the appeal to succeed, how embarrassing would that be? And to whom?

[Trinidad]

the hog, on 2014-March-29, 20:11, said:

Arend, I am curious to know why you make this statement. Do you have information others on this site may not have regarding their reputation?

The pair has quite a history of frustrated opponents and officials who are grinding their teeth, because they know they are c@$#*ing, but unable to prove it. Or, to see it from the other side: The pair has suffered from a witch hunt for a long time.

the hog, on 2014-March-29, 20:11, said:

Arend, I am curious to know why you make this statement. Do you have information others on this site may not have regarding their reputation?
A few things concern me. The case was held in the US . Why not in Europe? Some of the evidence presented is lame to say the least and has in one case, nothing to do with coughing. eg, the ridiculous Spade bid which went 4 off. This is an egregious beginners error to bid spades here.
Finally, as Cascade points out, it is surely incorrect to tell the observer what to look for. This is not the way evidence should be gathered.

It is certainly correct to tell the observer what to look for (otherwise it is hard to observe). You just shouldn't tell what the observation (allegedly) means, and hence when the observer should look for it.

The way to go is to present the authorities your model: coughs indicate shortness/opening lead, tray movements indicate hand strength.
Now, the authorities ask the observer very specifically what to look for:
Who is coughing how many times and when (board number: before the auction, end of auction, during play)?
Who is moving the tray before the auction?

When all the data are collected, the accuser's model is now going to predict shortness, opening lead and strength of the hand. Then the correlation between the prediction and actual hand record is tested. The statistician reports how confident he is that the model predicts accurately and the judge rules...

Rik