BBO Discussion Forums: Elinescu-Wladow were stupid. You haven't found the smart cheats... - BBO Discussion Forums

Coincidentally, in class a couple days back, we were having a discussion around privacy focusing on Google glasses and the like.

One of my classmates brought up the surveillance system in casinos and claimed that heading off bullshit lawsuits was one of the big benefits of the video recording systems.

1) Casinos win when the games are honest, with some small exceptions. Those exceptions they make sure they have a clause so they can say "thank you, but your custom is not welcome here" (or "you are welcome to be here, just not at the games you can win.") They do that to make money. They are very successful at this.
2) The ACBL, and other bridge organizations have similar regulations, but they're there because their reputation is based on a game fair to all. They, despite several gripes, don't make that much money; in fact they work hard not to lose money.
3) In both cases, there are people who are banned who believe that the PTB are destroying their livelihood, and sue. Which of the two are more likely to succeed in the Law Courts; which of the two are able (if not willing) to take the hit a multiyear lawsuit will cause? Which will likely recoup the cost of said multiyear lawsuit, whether or not they "win it", as they prove that "if you do things we don't agree with, we will throw you out. Go ahead and sue"?
4) Hrothgar's point about surveillance is appropriate. In addition, again, which organization expects to recoup the cost of the surveillance, even if it doesn't catch anything (because the games it would catch don't get played here)?

the hog, on 2014-April-24, 17:43, said:

Go troll someone else.

hrothgar, on 2014-April-25, 08:53, said:

• The WBF report Para 23-24 relates how Manolo Eminenti observed sessions 5 and 6 of the Germany-USA match at Bali to crack the code (Exhibit 4)
• Para 25 explains how Bertrand Gignoux observed boards 1-24 of the Cavendish at Monaco, to confirm the suspected code (Exhibit 5). This would be most telling evidence. Presumably, a long time ago, the WBF sent a copy of exhibit 5 with relevant videos to the DBV and Drs. Please would some kind person post a link to them.

It looks like the German Bridge Federation is washing their hands of W+E

From the Independent German Commisssion

Quote

Quoting Joerg Fritsche on BW

Quote

I predicted this outcome from this commission.

I know we have some people who enjoyed playing Law&Order in bridge forums but the rest of the bridge community, including the Germany, seems to focus on the bridge part of the incident.

"I know we have some people who enjoyed playing Law&Order"
Translated - we have some people who believe that justice must not only be done but also seen to be done.
I guess that means by omission that we have some people who enjoy playing vigilante games.

the hog, on 2014-May-06, 17:53, said:

I saw a similarly silly line of reasoning in a (Dutch) newspaper article this week. It claimed that we condoned the abduction of Nigerian girls because we didn't stand up against it.

Just because someone doesn't like playing Law&Order doesn't mean he enjoys vigilante games. Just like the fact that I haven't done anything about the abduction of these Nigerian girls doesn't mean that I condone it.

It is not really surprising that, on a forum for bridge players, you will find more players interested in the bridge and probabilistic aspects of this case than in the legal aspects. If you would go to a lawyer forum, this would probably be reversed.

Rik

I wonder what the "natural justice" vigilantes would say if they heard about the procedures that led to the lifetime suspension of Donald Sterling (owner of the LA Clippers, an NBA team)...

the hog, on 2014-May-06, 17:53, said:

Ron this was unfair. If you read my previous posts I clearly stated that you and Rainer made good points both here and in BW. But imo later it kinda went too far, Nige1 for example, who I really like his personality as far as I get to know him on forums, said something like "he doesn't know if they cheated or not" We are bridge players and most of us are not spring chicken. I expected from Nige1, just like Rainer made it clear, that he was at least convinced that this pair was dirty. And then you can still defend their right to have a fair trial. At some point some of you, except Rainer started to sound like these two are innocent people and the rest of the world is trying to screw them.

As Joerg Fritsche said very well, if there is a procedural mistake, and that the judgement was biased, there are lawyers who are expert on this subject and I am sure E+W are very capable of hiring a good lawyer to fight against it. Why should we bridge players play the lawyer?

Another thing that annoyed me was the tone of some posters, including you, which sounded like you guys have something against Americans. Forgive me if I am wrong, and I believed this affected your judgement. I believed if the cheaters was an American pair you would react differently. Again, forgive me if I am wrong, I may as well be.

the hog, on 2014-May-06, 17:53, said:

From what I can tell, the process that the WBF used to prosecute W+E were in complete accord with the governing documents of the institution.
You are the one in the vigilante games camp when you suggest ignoring the governing documents in favor of some other random system that you feel is more fair.

FWIW, I think that it is possible to identify areas where these processes might be improved.
I'd even go so far as to say that I would favor such an attempt.

However, I don't see anything wrong with following the written regulations when adjudicating an offense.

hrothgar, on 2014-May-07, 08:56, said:

When the written regulations clearly mean that the defendant can't be represented, there is no chance of a fair trial. If this happened in a court of law in the UK, and the defendant or their barrister was stuck elsewhere, the hearing would be adjourned till they could attend. That is what should have happened in this case.

Cyberyeti, on 2014-May-07, 10:45, said:

Here's the rub: The UK spends enormous amounts of resources maintaining a court system that operates (close to) 365 days a year.
The WBF is a small, resource constrained organization, that has infrequent meetings.
The systems that are appropriate for a nation can be radically impractical for a small group of hobbiests.

In this case, I think that there was a compelling reason to get hold the proceedings quickly and expediently.
(I don't think anyone wanted the results of future events brought into question by having W+E participate)
Given a choice between a significant delay/significant expense and having W+E attend via a video channel rather than in person, I think that the WBF made the right call.

In particular, please note that W+E responded to the charges by disputing the right of the WBF to adjudicate this matter.
The accused insisted that they need to be tried in a court of law in Switzerland.
This makes me even less concerned about the issues related with scheduling.

hrothgar, on 2014-May-07, 11:34, said:

The Swiss courts adjudicate in almost all serious sporting disputes as the Court for arbitration in sport is there and also most large sports organizations have their HQ there.

The WBF could have offered E-W a choice of holding the hearing when they did or a temporary suspension until it was heard at a meeting of E-W's choice.

Cyberyeti, on 2014-May-07, 11:57, said:

Now that would seem really poor procedure: executing the punishment before the defendant is found guilty... and letting the defendant opt for it voluntarily.

What makes you think that E-W would have accepted such an offer when they didn't recognize the committee to begin with?

Rik

In this day and age, many justice systems, especially in civil disputes, allow remote attendances for some players. In British Columbia, where I practice, we are increasingly moving towards remote hookups. We do some pre-trial procedures, including complex case management matters, by telephone on occasion, especially when there are multiple parties with counsel from different cities around the Province.

We will do some witnesses by video linkup. I once cross-examined an expert witness, on qualifications to give opinion evidence, with the witness in Philadephia, me in Victoria, and the Judge and other counsel in Vancouver.

As others have noted, we aren't dealing here with a state taking steps against a citizen or other person. We are dealing with internal procedures to which the parties have explicitly or implicitly agreed.

This is far more akin to a civil dispute than to a criminal dispute. At no time were the accused at risk of losing their liberty or even of being fined. They risked their membership in the world of competitive bridge. They may also have risked losing money. I don't know if they are professionals, but if not then they are actually financially better off by being barred than by being able to compete I have played in 7 world championships and even on the occasions when we were subsidized, it cost me a lot of money In any event, my point is that when one deals with civil disputes the rules are far less protective of 'rights' than when dealing with criminal matters. Even a state-run system has to balance cost and convenience against the notional goal of perfect justice.


E-W were members of their NBO, and as such are bound not only by the rules of the NBO but also by the Rules of the WBF should they, as representatives of their NBO, participate in a WBF event. Not only is this implicit, but in my experience from competing in a number of WBF events, including 7 world championships, the Rules are readily available to all competitors should they wish to read them.

It is absurd to argue that the subjects of the investigation get to choose the forum or location of the hearing, or who gets to sit in judgement. They had no right to insist on Geneva. They had no valid argument that the WBF lacked jurisdiction.

They apparently asked for an adjournment but adjournments are (in my experience) procedural matters and the tribunal, while owing some duty to the accused, has an obligation to ensure that the matter be dealt with on the merits, and can consider convenience of others, and possible problems that might arise if an adjournment were granted. This is especially so when those involved with the holding of the hearing are volunteers, with lives of their own.

Yes, the position of the accused is more significant, in weighing these issues, than the convenience of others, but it is a balancing act.

Here, if I understand matters correctly, the accused were afforded months in which to prepare and submit argument and, I assume, evidence, and were afforded an opportunity to participate by teleconference should they be unable to physically attend.

Here, if I understand matters correctly, the accused (leaving the NBO to one side for a moment) chose to do nothing other than assert that the hearing was improper.

I see nothing inherently wrong in the hearing going ahead in their absence in those circumstances.

Now, I assume that the NBO had a right to participate in some fashion, and that the original complaint included allegations or 'indictments' against the NBO. However, as I understand matters, and maybe I am wrong, the NBO was not sanctioned in any way, and I have seen no indication that any reputable body or person has suggested that the NBO knew of or condoned the cheating.

It may well be that as far as the NBO was concerned, it has a legitimate procedural grievance...I express no opinion on that.....but it seems to have no substantive grievance since it was not sanctioned. I don't see the forfeiture of the championship as a sanction in that regard, and maybe that is disingenuous of me. However, the status of the accused pair as established cheats seems to me to have been carried out appropriately, if not ideally. Ideally, the accused pair would have participated, but a cynic might say that they chose not to in order to be able to lay claim to having been denied a fair hearing. That is not an uncommon stance, especially for people who know that had they attended, they would have been unable to mount a defence on the merits. This way they can either ignore the evidence or claim that it wasn't properly presented/tested, while pretending that they had no opportunity to participate.

Trinidad, on 2014-May-07, 12:26, said:

It's fairly standard procedure in other walks of life to suspend the suspect pending the hearing with no assumption of guilt (police/teachers for example).

If E-W didn't accept the procedure, then things would have continued as they did.

Cyberyeti, on 2014-May-07, 14:11, said:

In fact it is very common, common indeed to assume guilt in many other walks of life.

English criminal law is one of the few areas of life where there is not an assumption of guilt.

At the very least it is common in many walks of life to not assume one is innocent.

MrAce, on 2014-May-07, 03:53, said:

Ideas of justice differ widely. In other threads, posters defend "Guantanamo Bay", "Rendition", and the "Iraq invasion". I empathize more with my daughter who took part in the "Not in my Name" march in London.

Imagine a US pair are accused of cheating by the German team? The US pair are not supplied with the all evidence against them? The venue is fixed as Berlin although those indicted and most of the witnesses are from the US? The hearing is fixed for a date known to be unsuitable for those indicted? A German prosecutor presents the evidence? A German chairman presides over the hearing? Submitted rebuttal evidence isn't presented? Whether or not the accused are guilty -- I'd be unhappy with this WBF procedure.

It's understandable that most people are sure that E-W are guilty. Kit Woolsey's analysis is pretty convincing. We're told that the Cavendish evidence confirms the code that was deciphered at Bali. That would have considerable weight -- but I haven't seen it yet. Anyway, until I've studied the evidence including any E-W rebuttal evidence, I suspend my own judgement.

WBF procedures seem to have improved little since Buenos Aires. It would be deplorable if E-W are guilty but are exonerated in a civil court because it deems the WBF hearing unfair.

hrothgar, on 2014-May-07, 11:34, said:

So Richard, you are arguing that smaller organisations have no need to adhere to the principles of natural justice because it is impractical? Knowing you as I do, I find this a surprising argument from you.

I have already shown why a video link up is not satisfactory to many people. I for one would refuse to take part in a trial or give evidence via such means.