Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michal Czerwonko
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doug, You bend the evidence toward the hypothesis you try to defend. You claim every hand for wide-gaped bids to be good, which apparently provides 100% certainty of justifying what you want. You need to seek way-off bids by the partner of the guy who's made wide- or narrow-gaped bids. You really claim that x/KJTxx/x/KT8xxx is worth of wide gaping? Was making 3c free-bid unusual with the hand you haven't submitted?
Oct. 2, 2015
Michal Czerwonko edited this comment Oct. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At least they bid a slam, which is a rare bird…
Oct. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As an academic researcher in finance, I'm aware of data snooping bias. It consists of attacking the data with a new hypothesis whenever your previous hypothesis failed to show anything interesting for publication. At the end when you publish, you provide statistics necessarily with low p-values (otherwise you wouldn't publish). That's when the bias arises: your p-values should be higher since you should include in the test all previous hypothesis which failed to be interesting. While I don't have any clear opinion on BZ cheating, I don't know if a limited set of hands may prove conclusive; apparently, shocking events like leading diamond king from KQJT9 xxx Kx xxx against 1N-3N is extremely close to conclusive evidence. This is the way to reject a hypothesis possibly arising only because of the bias: to conduct a research out of sample. This apparently also includes a possibility that the evidence for a given hypothesis gets stronger. In BZ case it might be replication of the pattern (or not) on a large data set. Personally what sets me at doubt against the cheating allegation against BZ is it appears their bidding is as poor as always.
Oct. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By that time I think that the secrecy of WBF and PBU is akin to the secrecy of Boye Brogeland. So there is something about BZ we don't know and it is moral obligation of WBF and PBU to confirm what BB alleges? Is there any other possibility according to BB?
Oct. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ron, indeed 1C-1S-2H the majority of Polish pairs would play as NF (actually, this is my favorite treatment too). 1c-1S-X starts all forcing sequences (X and new suit is GF). Forcing in 1C-2D/H-2S was established since many players jump high with a fit after a preempt but I'm sure there are still players in Poland who don't play it as forcing
Oct. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ellis, Looks like Spurs-Pistons 2005 finals scores, the best of basketball I've ever seen with one of the lowest TV ratings for the finals in the modern NBA
Oct. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ron, I remember a long discussion with Bal claiming that after a preempt, the two level bid must be forcing. At that time (around 1990) it was a heresy in Poland that a two-level non-jump bid might be forcing (and that's the reason I still remember it). I guess he forgot what he had preached.
Oct. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Glen, you're right - the opener may have 18 up to not game forcing upper limit, if he's weak (12-14) hearts are 3+. The responder is still obliged to bid his hand; otherwise, it is the easiest to detect form of cheating. As I mentioned in earlier post, I don't have very warm personal feelings for Bal, yet I don't suspect him of being an idiot.
Oct. 1, 2015
Michal Czerwonko edited this comment Oct. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Danny, in Polish club you know the openers' range in the second round of bidding. How does it help you to know it a round earlier since you are making the same bids anyway? If I were to cheat, I'd rather know the length of a specific suit or whether honors are in long vs. short suits
Oct. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assume that Boye hasn't given any specifics, likely so as to not bias independent researchers. I'm not a big fan of this approach, which somehow reminds the criticized secrecy of WBF.

Thus far the only specific I found is that somebody on BBO suggested BZ tip whether their club opening is of a strong or weak variety. Unfortunately, there is not much use of knowing the range of a forcing opening, which will be revealed anyway. Years ago there was a bidding problem posted: you hold xx, xxx, xxx, xxxxx and the bidding goes: P, P, P. What do you bid? The answer is, if you pass, you miss a cold slam in clubs. It was an actual BZ hand from the strong pass times and Z passed a forcing opening.
Oct. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
deleted
Oct. 1, 2015
Michal Czerwonko edited this comment Oct. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If at every board out of 16 against 1N-P-3N-P they led diamond king from KQJT9 xxx Kx xxx…
Oct. 1, 2015
Michal Czerwonko edited this comment Oct. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think your post is not pertinent to what I wrote. In more plain English, I stated that the mere accusation of cheating even by an acclaimed cheating researcher is not sufficient for certain actions. Regarding WBF, I hope that they have somebody working on the evidence and I also would appreciate more transparency on their part.
Oct. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's still a grave accusation against BZ which hasn't been fully substantiated. And that's the first time I officially know that the evidence is yet to be processed; or in other words, the claim to be validated. So as much as I'm thankful and appreciative to Boye for his actions, it is difficult for me to agree with his demands of immediate cancellation of the Polish team from BB. On the other hand, I must admit that should the claim against BZ be validated, this cancellation must be immediate with the potential ensuing mess to deal with by WBF. On a personal note, before I moved to Canada in 1996 I hung out with Bal for many years inclusive of playing a variety of $ games against. Based on that experience, I couldn't call him a likable guy yet I think he and his partner deserve a right to defense. Last, having a major place in history is not equivalent to infallibility.
Oct. 1, 2015
Michal Czerwonko edited this comment Oct. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That's a bit surprising way to proceed given the gravity of the matter. I'd rather expected that the evidence has been processed by a statistician and that a valid claim has been laid. That's like publishing a result ‘The Speed of Light May be Exceeded’ and asking the reader to both invent and repeat the experiments leading to the result by himself.
Oct. 1, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top