There is a divide-and-conquer version of this. The #1 seed first pick #2, which is the last team they want to face. Then they start selecting teams for their opponent until the whole filed is divided into two halves. E.g. #1 pick #3 for the other half and #2 ...
Ross - I agree with what you have observed. This may (or may not) be a pattern for passing illegal information. But it's not part of Magnus's initial comment in the link below, which is consistent with many boards for the EBTC matches
Agree with all the facts stated here.
Just for those who wants to check the video themselves, F-S were declaring board 1-9,11 in this set. So just follow the time stamp posted above if you are only interested in the lead.
I think this set (first youtube link) is less convincing than the ETBC ones.
Board 1,2,3,6,8,10,11 F-S declaring so I didn't carefully look at them.
Board 4(29.00) against 1♣-1♦-1NT by LHO (polish club so essentially a blind 1NT), Fisher ...
KZ: we don't have an objective definition of "normal" for actions by F-S. You would rely on the poll results first to determine which actions by F-S are normal, which are not. You cannot later use this criterion to determine which boards are control, which are not.
Michael has a valid point. To scientifically justify the unbiasedness of the poll result, It is a good idea to have control boards (not at all relevant to this spingold) mixed with the experimental boards where you gauge the convict/exonerate index of each expert.