Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That sort of wide sweeping waiver of rights leads to abuse of power by the organisation. There needs, 100% essential, to be checks and balances on the organisation.

You can't appeal unless you lose the right to play is oppressive bullying behaviour. It has no place in the 21st century. An organisation that had such a rule would increase my concern about fair treatment not diminish it.
Sept. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ironically we are discussion a different name for players that always win.
Sept. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do all those participating in sport give such a waiver?
Aug. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lotan was not the only one who looked at his opponent's hand.

If think you open a can of worms if you start throwing the book at people who have looked at their opponents hands in situations like this contrary to a strict reading of the law.

Maybe in future enforce it more strictly but I don't think we can go back in time and label someone based on a common practice.
Aug. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“If Magnus is right, there is a simpler way. Simply check and see if when they are on defense the partner of the opening leader is always the one who removes the tray (if one of them removes it). If that is the case, that is completely convincing evidence. ”

I disagree with this statement. Assuming NS always remove the tray (not completely my experience). There is a practical reason for the non-leader to remove the tray. The leader should be thinking about their lead.

If I was to suggest a partnership procedural method just to make the most use of our time I would suggest the non-leader always removes the tray.
Aug. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Indeed assuming there is cheating, and even if there was no suspicion of cheating, it seems it would be good practice to make the videos available.

If these things are public then it will be harder to hide and therefore better for the game in the long run.
Aug. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If there is evidence on those two hands I think it is the drinking bottle. But I want to document more instances of when he uses the drinking bottle and I don't have time to look.
Aug. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What was the explanation of the bidding?
Aug. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Martin if you have a 90% action, by which I think you are saying it is 90% likely to be successful with AI, and it becomes 98% with UI then there is likely to be no damage. Your actions will not change.

It will vary from problem to problem but a 90% action is likely to have very close to 100% following. Indeed if we all knew the probabilities of success precisely then (ignoring state of the match/session) a 51% action would have a 100% following (or very close). Only because we have imperfect information do we create so-called logical alternatives. However in clear cut cases the additional information of increased or even decreased liklihood of success will not affect our action.

What is not clear is where the threshold is with imperfect information and it is likely to be different for different problems.
Aug. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So he is not on probation and he has his masterpoints back.
Aug. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
hmmm
Aug. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What is 4? Is both majors more likely than one major and diamonds?
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The customer is always right. You should be able to at least ask for exactly what you want.

People hire pros for a huge variety of reasons hence there are a huge variety of pros. Some are more adaptable than others. Some very good players (pros) are not always very good to their clients - at least that is what I have witnessed. Of course some are very good to their clients.
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was with you until the last claim you made. There is an alternative explanation.

These guys know something legitimately that makes them better players, if not overall in some aspect of the game - leading for example.

Note I am not saying that is the case just that it could be.

Say a pair has an improved style of leading. What you would see is a number of hands where they depart from standard expert practice and are successful. That is what an improved style of leading would mean.

In other words we would observe the same (or a similar) phenomenon as if they had additional information obtained by illegal means. Its not clear to me how to distinguish between the possibility of illegal information and a different style (that can be proven to be successful).

As others have pointed out there have been (possible) improvements with the publishing of the Bird Anthias books. Its possible that there is other information that is not in the public domain. In fact I know its true as I personally have a list of leads based on single dummy data from a database of 100000 hands or so, some of which suggests non-standard leads (some of which concur with Bird Anthias double dummy analysis).

If they make these non-standard leads and are at times not successful that is evidence (but not necessarily proof) that they are not cheating. No good (clean) method works 100%.

This might follow through to later stages of the play, like trick two in the Fredin hand where Fischer found a club switch. If say a trump lead from a weak hand pretty much guaranteed an ace then the club switch is (while not necessary 100% clear) more understandable and conversely perhaps the ‘expert standard’ spade hoping for Q is decidedly wooden - given that the lead cannot (or is much less likely to) hold that card.
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John Kranyak - what if it could be proven that those leads on balance lead to a loss of IMPs. Well actually there is no requirement for players always to analyse perfectly so even if it was proven that it was a close decision - leading a heart or not.

Are you saying that you would ignore the analysis?

Your post is also ambiguous, what is your opinion?
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with Josh. Half as good and twice as good maybe made on some other metric. For example half as good might mean makes twice as many mistakes and twice as good half as many mistakes. When you add these together you get something worse than two good players. Say a good player makes a 100 mistakes on average over some time period. The player half as good makes 200 mistakes and the one twice as good makes 50 mistakes - now we have 250 mistakes rather than 200 mistakes.

My suspicion is that we do not need to get very far down the worse player chain before you are making more than twice as many mistakes as the world's best.
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes it could.
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is wrong to convict them of current form because they had some problems at an earlier stage. They have a right to a presumption of innocence until proved guilty on the current claims which I am not sure are even charges yet at this point. That includes them having a right to mount a defence.

These are basic human rights.
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There is also this:

“the Israelis played two and rather underperformed.”

Which could be evidence that they do not or were not cheating.
Aug. 29, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top