Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Okan Zabunoglu
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hermod: Not really conspiracy, l would call it ‘an important divergence from the purpose that I perceived’.

EDIT: “Hermod” was added.
Sept. 25, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Sept. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think that Norway should replace a team from this point on even if she deserves it.
Sept. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
deleted (instead, just liked the comment above)
Sept. 25, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Sept. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A bigger problem (imo) with the CNBC coverage:

In the CNBC video (about 2-minute part I watched), a short time after the speaker pronounced the names of the Israeli pair, she said that the world number 1 and 2 were also caught, nearly at the same time, on the upper right corner of the screen, the heading “German Bridge Cheaters” with the names under showed up and stayed there for a while.

I wonder why Fantoni and Nunes and Italy and Monaco were not mentioned at all.

Besides, if someone who is not aware of what's happened/happening in the bridge world watched it, he/she would naturally suppose that the two Germans are the world number 1 and 2.

I find it bad, misleading journalism; to say the least.

EDIT: The link for the video was added. http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000424111

Sept. 25, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Sept. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like the quotation more than the original, because it covers the deviation resulting (in practice) from historical reliance of A, to a proper degree, in my opinion.
Sept. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well presented and very rich, thank you. It contains so many fine, logical and educative points that I can use it as a side dish when I next get together with my bridge buddies at a supper.
Sept. 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't know if you meant this one:

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-end-of-the-beginning/?cj=230473#c230473
Sept. 19, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Sept. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with the first paragraph, yet I am not sure how your ‘pool’ suggestion works in practice.

Here is another disadvantage (or maybe advantage for some):

Since half a table is needed for 2 pairs, ‘semi-table presence’ will suffice.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Timo, I agree with you in essence. Let me add this though:

It is normal that a system (I don't know if it is correct to name it “system”, as you call it “cheat-buster movement”) originally designed to prove guilt of the suspected may not be as successful when it comes to proving innocence of the suspected. Some betterment or tuning is necessary, imo.
Sept. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Does this mean that the system is working (in all cases)?
Do ‘they’ (whoever they are) all agree that nothing was found?
Sept. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I mostly agree, Nick. But, in addition, this post has also put forward very good clues for those who want to identify the third pair. I think, your guess (75 %) has now raised significantly.
Sept. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK then, tell me the 4th :)
Sept. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If I have not missed a related comment, I am afraid that one basic question may go untouched:

How to make players (and especially newcomers) never dream of cheating?“
(As Roy Welland stated, regarding Peter Fredin.)

An easy answer might be: Create an environment in which one never thinks of cheating.

A more popular, yet profounder answer is ”education, education, education".

NOTE: Please do not say that word out loud, because first of all young people hate to hear it (at least with respect to my own observation).
Sept. 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Incidently, while I was trying to get some info about ‘hypothesis testing’, I ran into this sub-heading in Wikipedia: “Fisher's null hypothesis testing”.

What a coincidence!. :)
Sept. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Magnus: then, would it be certainly accurate to state that it is less likely to find average people among those who are into statistics?!
Sept. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I took a course in statistics as a graduate student years ago. The first hour of the course, a shabbily-dressed, long-bearded man came into the class, looked at us attentively, without saying anything, put up his right foot onto the instructor’s desk and said:

“See the sock on my right foot … it is RED.
What is the probability that the left one is also RED?”

After a short while, collecting a few answers from those who had the courage to speak up in such a puzzling situation, he changed his foot putting up the left one on the desk, and we all saw that his sock on the left was BLUE.

And he continued:

”Statistics is the science of variety.
Variety is the spice of life.
Then, statistics is the science of spice of life."

NOTE: I forgot most of what I learned in that course, including the name of the instructor and details of hypothesis testing (if not used, it is very likely to be forgotten); however,
I am 99-percent confident that I will never (!) forget this incident.
Sept. 12, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Sept. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The perspective suggested by Alan Taylor looked logical and practical to me (after three glasses of Turkish Şiraz). That is, only try to give a signal where your concentrated values are, whenever you find it convenient. If you do not have any choice or decide not to give any signal, just let it go. No obligation on either player; signal or not; if you catch a signal, obey it or not… It is a free world, with a tiny extra edge.

I am not saying that F-S did something like this, maybe so, maybe not. I just like the idea!

Why don't I start testing this in my local club?! If it becomes successful gradually, in the long run, I may even win, say, a Spingold or EC. (Shoot, but I need a partner who will be willing to adopt this system. Offering someone to play such a system is very risky, so, very difficult to find a proper pard.)

The joking aside, thinking about many possible/probable ways of cheating, brought to mind by the F-S issue, I am (like some others) now more skeptical, and afraid that more sophisticated and hard-to-spot and/or -prove methods may get into the game (if not already somewhat there).

I believe there is a lot to do by the authorities, with voluntary and candid contributions from all leading actors and actresses involved, in order to direct the game toward a cleaner one, which can be played and followed in peace of mind.
Sept. 10, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Sept. 10, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Timuçin, N'aber?

It is not clear to me.
Is this letter a response to the letter signed by the presidents of the Bridge Federations of six Nordic countries, given in an above link by Borgar Bjornsen (the post you commented “awesome” right after), or what?
Sept. 8, 2015
Okan Zabunoglu edited this comment Sept. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since the outcome has been very positive so far, I see no reason for not mentioning a negativity, IMO. (If said earlier in all those many comments, please take this being rephrased.)

Considering all the facts (some going well back, found out via these pages) and the technology at hand, I find it oddly negative why it required a heroic and very risky attempt,
supported by a large and respectable internet group, to reveal it,
hopefully leading to official investigations and decisions eventually.

Without support of BW, Boye’s effort would not yield this successful results this soon. Maybe Boye expected it, maybe not; in any case there was a very big risk on his side;
and still there is, though to a much smaller extent.

Also coming to mind:
If Boye did not take the risk (and the support through these pages), how long more would this predicament be tolerated in the high-level bridge world (with all its bodies and elements)?

Even in a game of high intellectuality and civility, in this era, it is sad that another hero (!) was needed. This is even more demoralizing than the cheating itself.

I hope for the days… when we won’t need another hero.    
Sept. 7, 2015
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
.

Bottom Home Top