Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Oleg Rubinchik
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Game was in the club. We cannot prohibit novices to play in “big guys” game, if they wish, don't we?
Of course, normal people would not make an issue about that kind of stuff, and actually nobody did.
But I see no reason why law should not cover it.
Feb. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I found it very significant.
I would say even more. Like majority of people who reading bridgewinners I expected verdict “guilty”.
But verdict was “not guilty.” And this forced me to re-analyze situation one more time.

Who, more probably, made a mistake: majority of us, readers, or specially assigned for the task committee?
I have no reasons to expect me be smarter than committee members so I am looking at who used better procedure to investigate. I don’t really know anything about their procedure, except I know they used some procedure. This is an official committee, procedure tested on several other cases. I am guessing their procedure should be at least reasonable.
They worked more than a year and they come up with verdict. I don't have information to question their procedure and deny their verdict.

As for our procedure, it was terrible. We never had opportunity to listen the another side. Many people jumped into “guilty” conclusion much earlier than any evidence was presented. Kit Woolsey’s experiment was the only reasonable evidence of cheating, the rest was collection of nonsenses and anecdotes, but if you check the history of the forum, 90% of readers was convinced in cheating much before it was published. Quantity trumps quality.
Another, very typical argument was reference to authority. It often was presented like that: “Official authority made a dramatic act to un-invite them. They would not done it without a proof. We need to trust authority.”
Now authority made a more dramatic act by recognizing BZ non-guilty. It is funny, that the same people who asked me to believe in guilt of BZ by reading mind of authorities don't what to read the paper of authority. Well, it is human nature. As soon as person make up his mind he need much more proof to change his believe.

Correlation found by Woolsey is a very serious and remarkable evidence. Was it proof? I felt it was. I am not so sure now. Our minds were very well fertilized for the guilty verdict. It was not “double blind” procedure, number of boards was very limited and experts could see them and subconsciously follow their expectation.

So, I am taking the easy road - I believe in the verdict of DC unless I will see the evidence of mistakes.
Feb. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is a results of Individual tournament run as a part of 2013 SPORTACCORD WORLD MIND GAMES.
http://www.worldbridge.org/repository/tourn/beijing.13/microsite/Asp/totalindiv.asp?qtournid=1010&qgroupno=1&qroundno=3

You can find it ironic.
Feb. 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry Eugene, some comments should be removed not because of public opinion about them, but because they should not be published at all unrelated to how many people said they agree or disagree with them.
Feb. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are talking about research made by Kit Woolsey and published here on Bridgewinners? I hope that was the part of the case presented to DC.
Feb. 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree, I missed the point that partner of 5 bidder could not bid 3 in the case of correct explanation. We were not given his cards, so it was easy to assume his bid is automatic, but it could be not the case.
Feb. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Peter
> At the same time they disallowed the statistics

Sorry, I am still confused. What do you mean by disallowed the statistics?
For what I understand “experts lacking credentials in polish club” part come to play when we need to find correlation between wide gap and strength of cards only. If we are testing hypothesis that wide gap shows the top of the range we need to know what range the current sequence shows in the system. To say it you need to know the used system.
I vaguely remember discussion on that forum year ago. It was one-sided bidding 1 - 1; 2 - 2. AZ or CB hold 9 points and put his last bid narrow. Somebody on the forum said: “Look 2 4th suit bid shows 10+ points, player hold only 9, so his narrow placement shows subminimum, match with hypothesis.” Actually, 2 bid in that sequence shows exactly 4 spades and 7-9(10) points, so there is no match to hypothesis.
Problem with evaluating strength by intermediate players is in a simple fact that all cases starts only from the second round of bidding, sometimes competitive bidding. They need to know the system beyond familiarity with convention card.

I believe DC correctly ruled out that kind of expertise and stick to players who know Polish club. Honestly, I have no information, but I have no reason to doubt in honesty and competency of the DC, so I just hope they did the right things.
Feb. 16, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, I missed something?
I believe all evidence was available for DC.

All what was dismissed are opinions of some experts who or did not like to say their names or did not prove they are experts in that particular area.

All videos, screenshots and the rest were investigated by DC with help of experts who gave their names and proved their competence. Is it correct?
Feb. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No. In that case it will prove there is no connection between damage and MI and I can left the result stay.
Feb. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>>An innocent pair has no reason to fear expert analysis of the data and even less reason to fear a non-expert.

Sorry, it makes no sense. If somebody got in a road accident, would he like the court to base decision on non-experts opinion about the speed he drove or braking path he had?

>> not-guilty verdict by competent judges, based on scrutiny of the evidence, would surely have convinced many more observers

What make you feel it is not the case?
Feb. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not director, but in order to tackle that problem I would really like to make a poll. Two polls to be exact.
Some players provided with the same information that had player; and the same number of players provided with the correct information.
If I will see that more players bid 5 after receiving MI, I would adjust if not, I would not.
Feb. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If opponents are established pair it is expected, but what if opponents is picked up partnership or just C players?
Feb. 15, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The last week sex related scandal from chess: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/02/worlds-top-female-chess-player-resigns-5-moves-repeatedly-made/
Women's world champion Hou Yifan protested that in the open chess tournament by swiss system she was paired to play against women 7 times during the first 9 rounds.
There were ~150 players including 25 women in the tournament.
Feb. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My friends (very good and experienced players) were lectured by opponents for not alerting 1 in that exactly situation. Director confirmed that precision players should alert 1 bid because it is game forcing and suggested to explain it along the lines presented by topic starter.
Feb. 6, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Would it be better instead of asking (that creates UI for partner from your answer and possible UI for East from West's reply) silently take a look at opponents convention card?
Jan. 24, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, another Russian speaking person is here :)

In that saying in Russian word “man” or any synonym is not in use at all :)

It is a tricky linguistic construction with subject missed or rather implied.
Умный в гору не пойдёт, умный гору обойдёт. (Word by word by word: Smart will not climb mountain, smart will go around mountain.)
Jan. 19, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I clicked other because I learn 0:0 rule the hard way (due to my team accident) long before that discussions. I don't really remember what I thought would be the correct result before I learn the rule. Probably never thought about it.
Jan. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, this article reminds me jokes about explanations, given by husband who got caught by his wife in the most inappropriate moment.
“No my dear, it was not what you think you saw. I never saw this woman before. She just came to ask if we can spare an onion; she needs to cook dinner for her hungry children. Her diamond ring accidently fell of her finger. And there was a mouse. You know there are mice in our house, I always told you we need to get rid of these small beasts. The mouse took the ring and run with it. We run to catch the mouse. It was long and exacting hunt. I perspired and took off wet clothes. We finally got we mouse on the bed and you came at the same exact moment. Here is the ring. And here are my friends who can confirm what kind a good husband am I.”
Jan. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To be fair, our club is not one of ACBL clubs. But we follow ACBL regulation anyway.
Jan. 18, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well… It is one or another, not both in the same time.
If team captain actually is a person who returns slips, he should participate in score comparison or, at very list, be informed about what to return.

If we believe that one experienced player can put failed card into a hand without checking correct it or not, we should believe that another experienced team can report scores based on what was overheard.
Jan. 17, 2017
Oleg Rubinchik edited this comment Jan. 17, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top