A slow answer to a scurrilous accusation by someone who should know better

151 views
Skip to first unread message

Douglas

unread,
Apr 30, 2021, 10:34:39 PM4/30/21
to
Here are salient complete parts extracted from a lengthy Bridge Winners posting dated February 1. 2021, by bridge playing pro Steve Weinstein.

“In June 2020, I was asked to be part of an investigatory committee to examine Huub’s play in the USBF Invitational 1.”

“Since then I have, in great detail, analyzed over 1,000 hands that Huub Bertens played from around March to June 2020 in online tournaments. What I found was very distressing. In examining the totality of decisions he made, my conclusion is that Huub cheated in online bridge over this period. I have zero doubt about this, and the evidence is overwhelming.”

“I think Huub cheated in all events he played during this period.”

“Nicolas computed that Huub’s online play is around 11 (!) standard deviations better online than his face-to-face play.”


Notes:
1. The online USBF Invitational 1 bridge tournament occurred May 30, 2020 to June 3, 2020.
2. “Nicolas” is Nicolas Hammond, a bridge book author.


I know this posting seems a mite late, but I have been busy developing actual public record evidence, and Weinstein’s posting is verbose. I admit I passed over it very lightly the first time. With what I know now, these four pieces are salient, and directly comparable to now public fact evidence.

This now public “evidence” is overwhelming that Huub did NOT cheat during any part of his 20 sessions played May 30 to to June 3, 2020. So much for the creditability of Weinstein’s expert opinion concerning “over 1,000 hands”.

I am unaware that it is alright now to openly accuse any other bridge player of cheating in tournaments outside the scope of Weinstein’s authority. Personally, I do not care what he “thinks.”

Nicolas Hammond needs to make public the computation of the alleged 11 standard deviations. I suspect it is mere author bravado.

Douglas

Nicolas Hammond

unread,
May 10, 2021, 9:08:39 PM5/10/21
to

>
> Nicolas Hammond needs to make public the computation of the alleged 11 standard deviations. I suspect it is mere author bravado.
>

The calculations were based on USBF specifications. You would have to ask USBF for the specifics of the data, and the calculations that were made from them.

There is some more information about the Bertens case here: https://www.detectingcheatinginbridge.com/investigations/cases/h_bertens/index.html

Douglas

unread,
May 12, 2021, 4:24:00 AM5/12/21
to
On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 6:08:39 PM UTC-7, Nicolas Hammond wrote:
> >
> > Nicolas Hammond needs to make public the computation of the alleged 11 standard deviations. I suspect it is mere author bravado.
> >
> The calculations were based on USBF specifications. You would have to ask USBF for the specifics of the data, and the calculations that were made from them.
>
Specifications? That's cute.

Deflection, deflection, thy name is deflection.

You continue to ignore the possibility of stating the calculations abstractly, even if contributed data is somehow contractually withholdable.

And then there is your prior claim not to participate in any part of the active USBF investigation. If true, how can there be a contractual obligation? It is all very confusing? And confusion is the usual intended deflection result.

Specific enough?

Douglas

Nicolas Hammond

unread,
Aug 31, 2021, 11:19:49 AM8/31/21
to
The computations were requested by the USBF panel. Bertens defense team included a PhD statistician. There was no objection. I provided the data, including the raw data (references to original BBO data so the answers could be double-checked) and performed the requested calculations. If you want to know more, please request the data from the USBF. From memory, there was no objection from the defense team after the data was presented. If USBF considers this information private, then it will need to remain so. There is some high level detail here: https://www.detectingcheatinginbridge.com/investigations/cases/h_bertens/index.html

Douglas

unread,
Sep 2, 2021, 6:50:35 PM9/2/21
to
On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 8:19:49 AM UTC-7, Nicolas Hammond wrote:

All the following double quoted sentences and paragraphs have unchanged wording. They are rearranged somewhat for sensible meaning.

“The computations were requested by the USBF panel.”

“I provided the data, including the raw data (references to original BBO data so the answers could be double-checked) and performed the requested calculations.”

“If you want to know more, please request the data from the USBF. If USBF considers this information private, then it will need to remain so.”

“Bertens defense team included a PhD statistician. There was no objection.”

How charitable of that USBF Panel to allow Mr. Bertens a Ph.D. statistician into the panel’s hearings.

Per Mr. Bertens appeal made to the CAS, there was no defense allowed Mr. Bertens. Merely him submitting answerers to the panel’s inquiries. And that is why it was merely a ‘hearing.’

I am unclear as to whether Mr. Bertens received the panel’s ‘comfortable’ verdict in person, or by writing. I now know where the ‘comfortable’ verdict concept came from; a previous, now infamous, verdict from the CAS.

“From memory, there was no objection from the defense team after the data was presented.”

Since there were no objections allowed to Mr. Bertens in this hearing, and since he was not presented your data, how do you suppose this last sentence rises to any sort of truth? Again, per Mr. Bertens’ CAS appeal, no data was given him, merely a verdict. Which was immediately broadcast to the world primarily by way of the internet.

I’m glad I thought a while before posting this response: I do not consider 11 standard deviations ‘data.’ To me, it is an ‘evaluation result’ resulting from data.

Douglas
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages