[barmar]

the hog, on 2014-July-24, 07:09, said:

"The final hand of the set totally convinced me that they were cheating." So before this board he was clearly not totally convinced. The last board proves nothing and in fact Wold is made to look foolish by players he possibly regarded as amateurs. So is it surprising he gets angry and plays the cheating card?

The way I interpret his statement is that he was already very suspicious, and the final board was so damning that it confirmed his suspicions.

[Cascade]

barmar, on 2014-July-24, 11:30, said:

The way I interpret his statement is that he was already very suspicious, and the final board was so damning that it confirmed his suspicions.

Only trouble is the last board was not damning and seems very weak evidence.

[gwnn]

Finally I can use my extensive vocabulary of fallacies . What you (the hog and Cascade) are committing here is called the genetic fallacy (and maybe I am committing the fallacy fallacy too a little bit). You assume that since Eddie Wold was convinced on cheating by the wrong board, it means that E-W is not cheating, or at least that they are less likely to have cheated than if Wold were convinced by a more convincing board. In fact, we have to treat the evidence more carefully, in this case we know that 14/14 of the board where they had shortness they coughed during the auction period and in none of the boards where they had no shortness did they cough. They also never coughed after the opening lead has been made (as far as I know inquiry confirmed this). That is a much more important point to discuss than what Eddie Wold's guts told him in the spur of the moment. We need to examine the claim that they had a coughing mechanism, the board that Eddie Wold found most or least convincing in this regard is completely immaterial.

[the hog]

"it means that E-W is not cheating." No I don't assume that. I don't know if they were or were not. I have a suspicion which may or may not be correct. This last board is clearly not worthy of evidence and to say, as Wold did, that this board convinced him is what some of us are picking up on. Some posters also believed, and still do, that the initial hearing was unfair for a number of reasons.
By the way, I just read the findings from the tribunal in Lausanne. They are quite damning.

[gwnn]

Why do you cut my sentence in half? Quote all of it, it's not that long.

[rhm]

gwnn, on 2014-July-25, 02:25, said:

Finally I can use my extensive vocabulary of fallacies . What you (the hog and Cascade) are committing here is called the genetic fallacy (and maybe I am committing the fallacy fallacy too a little bit). You assume that since Eddie Wold was convinced on cheating by the wrong board, it means that E-W is not cheating, or at least that they are less likely to have cheated than if Wold were convinced by a more convincing board. In fact, we have to treat the evidence more carefully, in this case we know that 14/14 of the board where they had shortness they coughed during the auction period and in none of the boards where they had no shortness did they cough. They also never coughed after the opening lead has been made (as far as I know inquiry confirmed this). That is a much more important point to discuss than what Eddie Wold's guts told him in the spur of the moment. We need to examine the claim that they had a coughing mechanism, the board that Eddie Wold found most or least convincing in this regard is completely immaterial.

I will try to tell you what I dislike and why these boards are not so unimportant.
When this scandal broke out the first arguments brought forward was on bridge evidence, and boards like the one mentioned here played a prominent role.
Almost anybody was immediately convinced the Americans were robbed and a sort of witch hunt ensured and pre judgements were made, which created an atmosphere, where a case for the defense was hardly possible.
Admittedly this was less so on this forum than on Bridgewinner. (Kit Woolsey and Michael Rosenberg were notable exceptions to this).
What resurfaced were resentments against ugly Germans with nationalistic undertones.
A famous Bridge incident resurfaced from 25 years ago(!) where a Canadian team had lost to "the Germans" in Geneva (Rosenblum) when an appeals committee refused to change a wrong score which would have changed the result of a KO match in the semifinals. ("The Germans" went on to win in Geneva)
I have lived all my life in Germany and have a German passport but for many reasons I have not much emotional attachment to Germany.
I do abhor such emotions.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cascade]

I am commenting only on Wold being convinced not on the innocence or guilt of Elinescu and Wladow.

Barry said that he interpreted Wold's statement as that he was convinced by the last board having already been suspicious.

Whether this is Wold's reasoning or only Barry's interpretation, I don't know, however it is fallacious. One can't rationally be convinced by facts like this that do not point in the right direction.

[gwnn]

Cascade, on 2014-July-25, 04:10, said:

Whether this is Wold's reasoning or only Barry's interpretation, I don't know, however it is fallacious. One can't rationally be convinced by facts like this that do not point in the right direction.

So what? Who cares what Wold's reasoning is and how many fallacies he commits? He can say that E-W cheated because they passed 1NT on a 5-count and made exactly 7 tricks. He can also say that he saw Wladow sending illicit messages with homing pigeons. I don't care. He may be as irrational as pi. There is plenty of other evidence.

[Cascade]

gwnn, on 2014-July-25, 05:01, said:

So what? Who cares what Wold's reasoning is and how many fallacies he commits? He can say that E-W cheated because they passed 1NT on a 5-count and made exactly 7 tricks. He can also say that he saw Wladow sending illicit messages with homing pigeons. I don't care. He may be as irrational as pi. There is plenty of other evidence.

I am not denying any of that I was merely saying my comment restricted to Barmar's observation of Wold's behaviour and not an expression of judgement about the guilt or innocence of Elinescu and Wladow.

I do however concur with some of the observations of Rainer on how this may have affected or influenced subsequent decisions.

[gwnn]

rhm, on 2014-July-25, 04:06, said:

I will try to tell you what I dislike and why these boards are not so unimportant.
When this scandal broke out the first arguments brought forward was on bridge evidence, and boards like the one mentioned here played a prominent role.

Fortunately there are other, better arguments now. It doesn't matter what the first arguments were. Are you saying that the emotions you mention below had not occurred if all the arguments had been based on sound statistics?

Quote

Almost anybody was immediately convinced the Americans were robbed and a sort of witch hunt ensured and pre judgements were made, which created an atmosphere, where a case for the defense was hardly possible.
Admittedly this was less so on this forum than on Bridgewinner. (Kit Woolsey and Michael Rosenberg were notable exceptions to this).
What resurfaced were resentments against ugly Germans with nationalistic undertones.

I haven't followed the discussion on bridgewinners. If what you're saying is right (and I am not really doubting you), that is regrettable and should stop. One German cheating pair should not mean all Germans are cheaters.

Quote

A famous Bridge incident resurfaced from 25 years ago(!) where a Canadian team had lost to "the Germans" in Geneva (Rosenblum) when an appeals committee refused to change a wrong score which would have changed the result of a KO match in the semifinals. ("The Germans" went on to win in Geneva)

That's a stupid connection to make by them and this should be obvious to anyone. People are immature and sometimes I get the feeling that bridge players are even more so than non-bridge players (although that is probably just means that I don't know the inner workings of the international badminton scene or other areas).

Quote

I have lived all my life in Germany and have a German passport but for many reasons I have not much emotional attachment to Germany.
I do abhor such emotions.

Rainer Herrmann

I don't think there is anything particularly abhorrent about national pride. I just think it's silly.

[jdeegan]

gwnn, on 2014-July-25, 02:25, said:

In fact, we have to treat the evidence more carefully, in this case we know that 14/14 of the boards where they had shortness they coughed during the auction period and in none of the boards where they had no shortness did they cough. They also never coughed after the opening lead has been made (as far as I know inquiry confirmed this).

This should be enough to convict them, assuming it was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The trick is first to figure out that a pair is likely cheating. Then to figure out how. Finally, to observe and gather evidence.

Back in the day, Reese and Shapiro were clearly busted for signaling, but the punishment ended up as nothing out of respect for Reese and his earlier contributions to the game. He just had to quit doing it.

As far as electronic signaling is concerned, it would require certain rather specialized equipment. To get away with it, first you would have to get quite familiar with the equipment. Then you would have to keep that a secret. This is not impossible, but if the casinos can identify cheaters, even the tiny little bridge world ought to be able to do the same. It boils down to this: if a pair is getting results well above their apparent ability, you smell a possible rat and start looking. Maybe you will turn out to be right or maybe not.

[hrothgar]

rhm, on 2014-July-25, 04:06, said:

What resurfaced were resentments against ugly Germans with nationalistic undertones.

I thought that Escinescu was Romanian...

[aguahombre]

gwnn, on 2014-July-25, 05:11, said:

I don't think there is anything particularly abhorrent about national pride. I just think it's silly.

I don't think you meant that about national pride. National prejudice, however, is abhorrent. Here, we have two players whose illegal communication has been documented and proved. I don't care how many times they "used" the illegally gained information -- against whom and with whatever results. I don't care that they perchance were playing on a particular national team.

I care that they will not be allowed to continue cheating and don't care who first discovered it, or whether the people who discovered it were pissed off at the time.

[billw55]

the hog, on 2014-July-25, 02:52, said:

By the way, I just read the findings from the tribunal in Lausanne. They are quite damning.

I would also be interested in an English translation of this, if one is available.

[the hog]

jdeegan, on 2014-July-25, 05:26, said:

This should be enough to convict them, assuming it was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The trick is first to figure out that a pair is likely cheating. Then to figure out how. Finally, to observe and gather evidence.

Back in the day, Reese and Shapiro were clearly busted for signaling, but the punishment ended up as nothing out of respect for Reese and his earlier contributions to the game. He just had to quit doing it.

As far as electronic signaling is concerned, it would require certain rather specialized equipment. To get away with it, first you would have to get quite familiar with the equipment. Then you would have to keep that a secret. This is not impossible, but if the casinos can identify cheaters, even the tiny little bridge world ought to be able to do the same. It boils down to this: if a pair is getting results well above their apparent ability, you smell a possible rat and start looking. Maybe you will turn out to be right or maybe not.

Your comment regarding Reese is nonsensical. From where on earth have you dredged this idiocy?

[the hog]

billw55, on 2014-July-25, 07:04, said:

I would also be interested in an English translation of this, if one is available.

It is in English, Bill. I find it hard to post a link as I am posting from my phone, but it was on the Italian Fedn bridge web site.

[the hog]

hrothgar, on 2014-July-25, 06:44, said:

I thought that Escinescu was Romanian...

Elinescu is Rumanian but a German citizen.

[the hog]

hrothgar, on 2014-July-25, 06:44, said:

I thought that Escinescu was Romanian...

Elinescu is Rumanian but a German citizen.

[gwnn]

http://www.bridge.nl...g16July2014.pdf

[gwnn]

aguahombre, on 2014-July-25, 07:03, said:

I don't think you meant that about national pride. National prejudice, however, is abhorrent.

I don't care what you think. I know what I wanted to say and I still find my wording in excellent agreement with my feelings.