info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Miscarriage of justice: Huub Bertens convicted on flimsiest evidence imaginable
519 views
Skip to first unread message
jono...@gmail.com
Feb 1, 2021, 3:42:53 PM2/1/21
to
Cheating scandals have rocked the bridge world over the last few years, particularly since the game has gone (almost exclusively) online. The attempt to prosecute cheaters has been slow and cumbersome, and It looks like it may have claimed its first innocent victim, Huub Bertens.
In all other cases there were multiple instances of highly fishy/questionable decisions that worked out well for the cheaters, but this case seems to rely entirely on Mr. Bertens' consistent play. In a recent tournament he made fewer mistakes than one would expect a player of his caliber to make more than once per ~25 tournaments.
Okay ... AND?
If this is truly the entire case for the prosecution, Mr. Brad Moss should be removed immediately from his position as President of the USBF and banned for life from ever serving on the USBF board again. Ms. Jan Martel, COO of the USBF, should be dealt with likewise.
If the accused player (on the same statistical evidence) had been a friend of Mr. Moss, someone like Fred Gitelman, or Joe Grue, or Bobby Levin, or Steve Weinstein, this case never would have been brought. And if in some parallel universe it had been brought and a guilty verdict reached, the entire American expert bridge community would be coming to the defense of the convicted player, as they did with Mike Passell, whose case was overturned in spite of overwhelming evidence against him.
Assuming the case against Mr. Bertens is as weak and flimsy as it appears to be, shame on Mr. Moss, shame on this reprehensible committee, and shame on the toxic community at "BridgeWinners" for joining in on what seems to all appearances to be an utter travesty and miscarriage of justice.
In all other cases there were multiple instances of highly fishy/questionable decisions that worked out well for the cheaters, but this case seems to rely entirely on Mr. Bertens' consistent play. In a recent tournament he made fewer mistakes than one would expect a player of his caliber to make more than once per ~25 tournaments.
Okay ... AND?
If this is truly the entire case for the prosecution, Mr. Brad Moss should be removed immediately from his position as President of the USBF and banned for life from ever serving on the USBF board again. Ms. Jan Martel, COO of the USBF, should be dealt with likewise.
If the accused player (on the same statistical evidence) had been a friend of Mr. Moss, someone like Fred Gitelman, or Joe Grue, or Bobby Levin, or Steve Weinstein, this case never would have been brought. And if in some parallel universe it had been brought and a guilty verdict reached, the entire American expert bridge community would be coming to the defense of the convicted player, as they did with Mike Passell, whose case was overturned in spite of overwhelming evidence against him.
Assuming the case against Mr. Bertens is as weak and flimsy as it appears to be, shame on Mr. Moss, shame on this reprehensible committee, and shame on the toxic community at "BridgeWinners" for joining in on what seems to all appearances to be an utter travesty and miscarriage of justice.
kingfish
Feb 1, 2021, 6:08:39 PM2/1/21
to
Message has been deleted
jono...@gmail.com
Feb 1, 2021, 9:35:35 PM2/1/21
to
So now that people are pointing out that none of the 253 hands that were alleged to constitute a 'prima facie case' that 'Mr. Bertens had obtained information about other players’ hands in violation of the USBF Competitor’s Agreement' actually suggest guilt, we're moving the goalposts. What a complete shit-show.
I have no idea if Huub Bertens cheated at some point in his life or not. He may have cheated in every online event in 2020 EXCEPT FOR the USBF Invitational for all I know. But if your case is entirely circumstantial based on a fairly mild/common statistical anomaly, the last thing you do is limit it to ONE event in which there isn't a single hand that raises red flags, and then when people start calling your case the giant NothingBurger that it is, retroactively try to drag hands from outside the scope of that investigation/hearing into the public discussion.
Destroying a top pro's bridge career and reputation is serious business. If you want the bridge public to have faith in your process, then design a process that is more than a popularity contest coupled with Steve Weinstein's feminine intuition about the 'totality of decisions' that Bertens made over 1,000+ hands.
I have no idea if Huub Bertens cheated at some point in his life or not. He may have cheated in every online event in 2020 EXCEPT FOR the USBF Invitational for all I know. But if your case is entirely circumstantial based on a fairly mild/common statistical anomaly, the last thing you do is limit it to ONE event in which there isn't a single hand that raises red flags, and then when people start calling your case the giant NothingBurger that it is, retroactively try to drag hands from outside the scope of that investigation/hearing into the public discussion.
Destroying a top pro's bridge career and reputation is serious business. If you want the bridge public to have faith in your process, then design a process that is more than a popularity contest coupled with Steve Weinstein's feminine intuition about the 'totality of decisions' that Bertens made over 1,000+ hands.
Bertel Lund Hansen
Feb 2, 2021, 1:41:29 AM2/2/21
to
kingfish skrev:
> Cheating over the internet will be difficult to establish
> without the help of those cheating.
It couldn't even happen without it.
--
/Bertel
> Cheating over the internet will be difficult to establish
> without the help of those cheating.
--
/Bertel
jono...@gmail.com
Feb 3, 2021, 1:14:03 PM2/3/21
to
So a few months ago, it appeared we were in a truly awful position: After rampant cheating on BBO by many players, only Sylvia Shi appeared to be facing any serious consequences. I hated being in the position where I felt any sympathy for someone who has no business playing bridge ever again, but even when someone commits an offense that merits being tossed from the game for life, it's not right if dozens of others who committed the same offense get off scot free.
Now, we've somehow managed to wiggle into an even WORSE position:
If you're a Friend of Brad, it seems you will never be investigated or held accountable.
If you're not a Friend of Brad, you will be convicted of cheating if you play too consistently well, even if you made seemingly normal decisions on every hand in isolation.
If we're ONLY going to go by how stellar one's online results were from last year, where are the investigations into ALL OF the people on Hammond's list? Let's look at their boards under a microscope, as we have done with Huub's, and see what we can find. Some of these names and results seem a lot fishier (or more unlikely, if you prefer) than others, but rather than tarnish someone's name by naming them, let's go through the whole dang list.
https://www.detectingcheatinginbridge.com/statistics/index.html
If you believe Huub cheated, it still seems overwhelmingly likely that others who cheated were far more blatant (or less careful) about it. Why aren't they being looked into? Why weren't they prosecuted FIRST?
Instead of going for the low-hanging fruit, the most blatant offenders, we're going after someone who, if he cheated, did so in an incredibly careful and meticulous manner. Do you really think that's true of all the cheaters? Do you think that lends confidence to the process?
The decision of whom to investigate and how much resources to dedicate to each investigation is JUST AS IMPORTANT as reaching a verdict that is supported by the evidence in the case. The USBF is bungling both, badly. Brad Moss is unfit for the job and the sooner he's replaced by someone who takes this responsibility seriously, the better.
Now, we've somehow managed to wiggle into an even WORSE position:
If you're a Friend of Brad, it seems you will never be investigated or held accountable.
If you're not a Friend of Brad, you will be convicted of cheating if you play too consistently well, even if you made seemingly normal decisions on every hand in isolation.
If we're ONLY going to go by how stellar one's online results were from last year, where are the investigations into ALL OF the people on Hammond's list? Let's look at their boards under a microscope, as we have done with Huub's, and see what we can find. Some of these names and results seem a lot fishier (or more unlikely, if you prefer) than others, but rather than tarnish someone's name by naming them, let's go through the whole dang list.
https://www.detectingcheatinginbridge.com/statistics/index.html
If you believe Huub cheated, it still seems overwhelmingly likely that others who cheated were far more blatant (or less careful) about it. Why aren't they being looked into? Why weren't they prosecuted FIRST?
Instead of going for the low-hanging fruit, the most blatant offenders, we're going after someone who, if he cheated, did so in an incredibly careful and meticulous manner. Do you really think that's true of all the cheaters? Do you think that lends confidence to the process?
The decision of whom to investigate and how much resources to dedicate to each investigation is JUST AS IMPORTANT as reaching a verdict that is supported by the evidence in the case. The USBF is bungling both, badly. Brad Moss is unfit for the job and the sooner he's replaced by someone who takes this responsibility seriously, the better.
jono...@gmail.com
Feb 5, 2021, 12:35:48 PM2/5/21
to
A few more hot takes:
First, let's look at people who outperformed Huub. I am NOT accusing these people of anything, but if Huub is being convicted solely on his performance, rather than on suspicious hands, and these people outperformed Huub, then it is worth asking the question: Why aren't these people ALSO being dragged in front of a USBF tribunal and being forced to prove their innocence (an impossible task) and secondarily, what, if any, is their personal relationship to USBF president Brad Moss?
Curtis Cheek seems to be on top of many of the lists. https://www.detectingcheatinginbridge.com/statistics/index.html Is it true that Curtis Cheek was the long-time partner of Brad's current partner Joe Grue?
Yes, THIS Joe Grue:
https://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Joseph_Grue_17204013/
https://www.jailbase.com/arrested/florida/orange-county/joseph-patrick-grue-15006705
One might also ask: If there are one or more wealthy clients on the list, who have dramatically outperformed their FTF record, what is the likelihood that a tribunal of professional bridge players will drag that wealthy client in front of it and force that person to prove their innocence?
This whole thing stinks to high heaven and anyone with an inkling of integrity knows it.
First, let's look at people who outperformed Huub. I am NOT accusing these people of anything, but if Huub is being convicted solely on his performance, rather than on suspicious hands, and these people outperformed Huub, then it is worth asking the question: Why aren't these people ALSO being dragged in front of a USBF tribunal and being forced to prove their innocence (an impossible task) and secondarily, what, if any, is their personal relationship to USBF president Brad Moss?
Curtis Cheek seems to be on top of many of the lists. https://www.detectingcheatinginbridge.com/statistics/index.html Is it true that Curtis Cheek was the long-time partner of Brad's current partner Joe Grue?
Yes, THIS Joe Grue:
https://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Joseph_Grue_17204013/
https://www.jailbase.com/arrested/florida/orange-county/joseph-patrick-grue-15006705
One might also ask: If there are one or more wealthy clients on the list, who have dramatically outperformed their FTF record, what is the likelihood that a tribunal of professional bridge players will drag that wealthy client in front of it and force that person to prove their innocence?
This whole thing stinks to high heaven and anyone with an inkling of integrity knows it.
jono...@gmail.com
Feb 5, 2021, 1:55:37 PM2/5/21
to
Interesting comment by Marisa Silverman: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/huub-bertens-suspended-7-years-by-usbf-for-cheating/?cj=1075859#c1075859
"As a client and friend of Hubb Bertens I am certain Hubb would not cheat at the game of Bridge, he’s just to honest and smart. I have spent at least ten years playing with with and learning from professional Bridge players at ACBL sanctioned tournaments. I realize my opinion is not based on thousands of hands played and analyzed and, my experience is no where near the people whom are making these charges and convicting Hubb but I have a good sense of the wicked. I feel that the cancel culture climate has gone too far and we, as Bridge players, should be very careful not to punish each other based on opinions. I read through the comments, all 700 plus, and I am astonished at the meanness, this is just another peanut gallery. We are talking about someone’s reputation, livelihood, and passion. In addition everyone knows many people, mostly the ones that are complaining, cheat at online bridge. Holding tournaments on a platform that can’t prevent cheating shouldn’t be allowed. We in the Bridge world have so many amazing intelligent people we should be able to come together and fix this digital problem instead of allowing this to go on and then occasionally take a big name Pro down in a Kangaroo style court to satisfy the mobs of angry coupled up people. This hurts the game of Bridge and you’d better watch out, anyone of us could be next. "
My thoughts:
I am not astonished by the meanness, but I AM disgusted by it. The way some people are behaving in that thread is contemptible. Nothing new about that, though.
She overbids a bit here: "Holding tournaments on a platform that can’t prevent cheating shouldn’t be allowed." Obviously you can never completely prevent cheating. But more steps could and should have been taken to make cheating far more difficult.
The biggest takeaway, though, is that the decision about whom to prosecute must be evidence-based, not relationship-based. "I trust the people who conducted this hearing" is every bit as irrelevant a testimonial as "I trust Huub to never do what he's been accused of."
"As a client and friend of Hubb Bertens I am certain Hubb would not cheat at the game of Bridge, he’s just to honest and smart. I have spent at least ten years playing with with and learning from professional Bridge players at ACBL sanctioned tournaments. I realize my opinion is not based on thousands of hands played and analyzed and, my experience is no where near the people whom are making these charges and convicting Hubb but I have a good sense of the wicked. I feel that the cancel culture climate has gone too far and we, as Bridge players, should be very careful not to punish each other based on opinions. I read through the comments, all 700 plus, and I am astonished at the meanness, this is just another peanut gallery. We are talking about someone’s reputation, livelihood, and passion. In addition everyone knows many people, mostly the ones that are complaining, cheat at online bridge. Holding tournaments on a platform that can’t prevent cheating shouldn’t be allowed. We in the Bridge world have so many amazing intelligent people we should be able to come together and fix this digital problem instead of allowing this to go on and then occasionally take a big name Pro down in a Kangaroo style court to satisfy the mobs of angry coupled up people. This hurts the game of Bridge and you’d better watch out, anyone of us could be next. "
My thoughts:
I am not astonished by the meanness, but I AM disgusted by it. The way some people are behaving in that thread is contemptible. Nothing new about that, though.
She overbids a bit here: "Holding tournaments on a platform that can’t prevent cheating shouldn’t be allowed." Obviously you can never completely prevent cheating. But more steps could and should have been taken to make cheating far more difficult.
The biggest takeaway, though, is that the decision about whom to prosecute must be evidence-based, not relationship-based. "I trust the people who conducted this hearing" is every bit as irrelevant a testimonial as "I trust Huub to never do what he's been accused of."
jono...@gmail.com
Feb 5, 2021, 6:01:21 PM2/5/21
to
Of course the more astute among you will recognize that we are back in #SayNoToTheirCheats territory.
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.bridge/c/80QSYy0PTsU/m/i_-q0e5XBAAJ
Interesting comment by Nicolas Hammond: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/huub-bertens-suspended-7-years-by-usbf-for-cheating/?cj=1075823#c1075823
"@Brian: My involvement started only 1-2 days before a discovery deadline in November 2020. The real painstaking work that took several months was done by the USBF Investigating Committee (Dana Berkowitz, Mitch Dunitz, Marty Harris (chair), Howard Weinstein, and Steve Weinstein). They wrote the 700+ page report. That report had already been written before I was involved.
AFAIK, USBF had not seen any statistics on this case until well after that report was written. AFAIK, the decision to prosecute was also well before USBF had seen any statistical data."
Every single reference to months or hours or painstaking or 700 pages or any of that garbage should be completely disregarded. Huub got no benefit of the doubt and neither should these individuals. This is a big fluffy case alright, but ... WHERE'S THE BEEF? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6_eWWfNB54
They won't show you the hands because they want you to think that the case can be entirely proven by statistics. Then they won't show you the statistics because they want to protect their friends who would be deemed just as guilty as Huub if they use Nicolas' (or any other objective and well-designed) statistical models. They won't say who made the complaint(s). These people are playing God with people's reputations and livelihoods and they want a complete lack of transparency while they do so. Disgusting.
It's hard to believe that the 'Oh Shit' ruling might fall to second place among worst rulings in the history of North American bridge. But it's looking increasingly like that might be the case. If you wanted to competely derail the prosecution of bridge cheats going forward, it's hard to imagine a better way to achieve that result than to behave as the USBF has done.
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.bridge/c/80QSYy0PTsU/m/i_-q0e5XBAAJ
Interesting comment by Nicolas Hammond: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/huub-bertens-suspended-7-years-by-usbf-for-cheating/?cj=1075823#c1075823
"@Brian: My involvement started only 1-2 days before a discovery deadline in November 2020. The real painstaking work that took several months was done by the USBF Investigating Committee (Dana Berkowitz, Mitch Dunitz, Marty Harris (chair), Howard Weinstein, and Steve Weinstein). They wrote the 700+ page report. That report had already been written before I was involved.
AFAIK, USBF had not seen any statistics on this case until well after that report was written. AFAIK, the decision to prosecute was also well before USBF had seen any statistical data."
Every single reference to months or hours or painstaking or 700 pages or any of that garbage should be completely disregarded. Huub got no benefit of the doubt and neither should these individuals. This is a big fluffy case alright, but ... WHERE'S THE BEEF? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6_eWWfNB54
They won't show you the hands because they want you to think that the case can be entirely proven by statistics. Then they won't show you the statistics because they want to protect their friends who would be deemed just as guilty as Huub if they use Nicolas' (or any other objective and well-designed) statistical models. They won't say who made the complaint(s). These people are playing God with people's reputations and livelihoods and they want a complete lack of transparency while they do so. Disgusting.
It's hard to believe that the 'Oh Shit' ruling might fall to second place among worst rulings in the history of North American bridge. But it's looking increasingly like that might be the case. If you wanted to competely derail the prosecution of bridge cheats going forward, it's hard to imagine a better way to achieve that result than to behave as the USBF has done.
Douglas
Feb 11, 2021, 11:47:04 AM2/11/21
to
Some recent background: I recently signed-up for Bridge Winners because I saw a fundamental stat error being propagated in the Huub Bertens matter.
They were talking about a three element variable being stat evaluated as a two variable. What I call a rookie mistake when I make one (or two, ...). I had no idea I was creating a hornet's nest.
First, someone who I find out is a math professor, and long-time bridge player, demands, demands, I provide my complete math history. Just a few minutes after I read that demand all my postings are redlined, and an Eduard Hung starts re-asking for my formal ID. After several iterations back and forth, this morning he specifically demanded I find a zoom camera, and show him my face along with official ID; you know much like a police booking procedure.
It happens I was on the internet this morning early looking up this math professor. It turns out he is somebody, and was easy to find. It also turns out the person who is using the rookie mistake I pointed out is a book author. And this book author provided information to the Huub bertens tribunal (the best word i can find to describe the current state of affairs). I personally see NO evidence presented in this matter. Apparently I am supposed to be satisfied with Mr. Bertens being adequately represented (because they say so; again no evidence). For some reason, the fact that it was not even disclosed whether any of the tribunal had a dissenting opinion bothers me a lot.
Sorry if this is off topic: I think the book author has a terrific and readily implemented concept. I began to follow up about that this morning within my limited resources. I have no idea whether I will succeed.
I
They were talking about a three element variable being stat evaluated as a two variable. What I call a rookie mistake when I make one (or two, ...). I had no idea I was creating a hornet's nest.
First, someone who I find out is a math professor, and long-time bridge player, demands, demands, I provide my complete math history. Just a few minutes after I read that demand all my postings are redlined, and an Eduard Hung starts re-asking for my formal ID. After several iterations back and forth, this morning he specifically demanded I find a zoom camera, and show him my face along with official ID; you know much like a police booking procedure.
It happens I was on the internet this morning early looking up this math professor. It turns out he is somebody, and was easy to find. It also turns out the person who is using the rookie mistake I pointed out is a book author. And this book author provided information to the Huub bertens tribunal (the best word i can find to describe the current state of affairs). I personally see NO evidence presented in this matter. Apparently I am supposed to be satisfied with Mr. Bertens being adequately represented (because they say so; again no evidence). For some reason, the fact that it was not even disclosed whether any of the tribunal had a dissenting opinion bothers me a lot.
Sorry if this is off topic: I think the book author has a terrific and readily implemented concept. I began to follow up about that this morning within my limited resources. I have no idea whether I will succeed.
I
Douglas
Feb 11, 2021, 2:51:35 PM2/11/21
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 8:47:04 AM UTC-8, Douglas wrote:
Well, it has started. This is several hours later. The math professor's demand of me which was a pure assertion before, is now just a mere request with a "please" inserted in it. However, there is no edit notice in the message. Mr. Hung, who is listed as chief editor, strikes again. No doubt he will go back and correct that error soon
How sad.
Well, it has started. This is several hours later. The math professor's demand of me which was a pure assertion before, is now just a mere request with a "please" inserted in it. However, there is no edit notice in the message. Mr. Hung, who is listed as chief editor, strikes again. No doubt he will go back and correct that error soon
How sad.
Douglas
Feb 12, 2021, 12:26:24 PM2/12/21
to
On Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 11:51:35 AM UTC-8, Douglas wrote:
In case you haven't looked, there are now somewhat past a thousand postings on Bridge Winners concerning the the Bertens matter.
Here are some reported facts from it. Bertens played in at least 8 online competition since spring 2020. Somehow, one of those competitions of some 250+ deals was selected to be extensively examined by an elite panel of bridge players. Blah, blah, blah...
This is where I stumbled in. If, in deciding what was the best single competition to examine, they relied on nonstandard stats provided to them by a book author. When he could have provided them standard stats. We now have the possible start to cascading decision errors. Using standard stats, it is possible that another competition could be selected.
Additionally, when you have at least 8 competitions available, it is considered a kind dirty stat pool to simply ignore the other 7. The tribunal could have randomly selected enough deals out of all the competitions to stat support their ultimate conclusion of "guilty as charged" to a generally accepted level. And this result would then be accepted as representative of all 8+ competitions.
In the these Bridge Winner postings so far, there are a number of them about Bertens going down in a slam-dunk slam deal. And that this is some kind of evidence of "unauthorized info" to him. Maybe someone can explain to me how this particular deal advantaged Bertens?
In case you haven't looked, there are now somewhat past a thousand postings on Bridge Winners concerning the the Bertens matter.
Here are some reported facts from it. Bertens played in at least 8 online competition since spring 2020. Somehow, one of those competitions of some 250+ deals was selected to be extensively examined by an elite panel of bridge players. Blah, blah, blah...
This is where I stumbled in. If, in deciding what was the best single competition to examine, they relied on nonstandard stats provided to them by a book author. When he could have provided them standard stats. We now have the possible start to cascading decision errors. Using standard stats, it is possible that another competition could be selected.
Additionally, when you have at least 8 competitions available, it is considered a kind dirty stat pool to simply ignore the other 7. The tribunal could have randomly selected enough deals out of all the competitions to stat support their ultimate conclusion of "guilty as charged" to a generally accepted level. And this result would then be accepted as representative of all 8+ competitions.
In the these Bridge Winner postings so far, there are a number of them about Bertens going down in a slam-dunk slam deal. And that this is some kind of evidence of "unauthorized info" to him. Maybe someone can explain to me how this particular deal advantaged Bertens?
jono...@gmail.com
Feb 14, 2021, 10:28:09 AM2/14/21
to
Douglas:
I wouldn't piss on Eugene if he was on fire, but requiring proof of your identity seems reasonable. If you provided proof and he STILL didn't let you comment, that would be unacceptable.
The slam deal isn't about Huub going down, it's about him not bidding a slam that someone who was self-kibitzing would bid. (Unless we're talking about a different subthread exchange that I missed.) And the counter-arguments are true: If someone self-kibitzes on 50% of hands (for example,) they will miss plenty of double--dummy opportunities on the other 50% but will still have a tremendous advantage over the non-cheaters. Also, a cheater must evaluate how blatantly to cheat (for example, bidding a grand slam on 4 finesses, all of which he can see by self-kibitzing happen to work.)
But the way the Bertens case has been handled is setting an intolerable precedent. There is no transparency. There is a strong stench of favoritism as far as whom is being investigated/prosecuted and whom is not. And it still seems quite likely that an innocent man has had his reputation destroyed and his ability to earn a livelihood greatly diminished. But even if he is guilty, an opaque process like this that relies completely on how much we trust the current USBF president, is completely unacceptable.
If "Trust me, I didn't cheat." is not evidence, then "Trust me, he cheated" isn't either. Pursuing people who aren't politically connected when the case against them is weak while letting people who are politically connected skate even though the case against them is much stronger is revolting.
I see Clee now asking for the resignation of the ACBL A&C committee because they (by all appearances at least) seem to have exhibited favoritism towards friends in a recent cheating case. I fully agree with Roger, assuming the case is as strong as he claims. And for (essentially) the same reason, Brad Moss must also resign.
#JustSayNoToTheirCheats
I wouldn't piss on Eugene if he was on fire, but requiring proof of your identity seems reasonable. If you provided proof and he STILL didn't let you comment, that would be unacceptable.
The slam deal isn't about Huub going down, it's about him not bidding a slam that someone who was self-kibitzing would bid. (Unless we're talking about a different subthread exchange that I missed.) And the counter-arguments are true: If someone self-kibitzes on 50% of hands (for example,) they will miss plenty of double--dummy opportunities on the other 50% but will still have a tremendous advantage over the non-cheaters. Also, a cheater must evaluate how blatantly to cheat (for example, bidding a grand slam on 4 finesses, all of which he can see by self-kibitzing happen to work.)
But the way the Bertens case has been handled is setting an intolerable precedent. There is no transparency. There is a strong stench of favoritism as far as whom is being investigated/prosecuted and whom is not. And it still seems quite likely that an innocent man has had his reputation destroyed and his ability to earn a livelihood greatly diminished. But even if he is guilty, an opaque process like this that relies completely on how much we trust the current USBF president, is completely unacceptable.
If "Trust me, I didn't cheat." is not evidence, then "Trust me, he cheated" isn't either. Pursuing people who aren't politically connected when the case against them is weak while letting people who are politically connected skate even though the case against them is much stronger is revolting.
I see Clee now asking for the resignation of the ACBL A&C committee because they (by all appearances at least) seem to have exhibited favoritism towards friends in a recent cheating case. I fully agree with Roger, assuming the case is as strong as he claims. And for (essentially) the same reason, Brad Moss must also resign.
#JustSayNoToTheirCheats
Douglas
Feb 14, 2021, 3:32:23 PM2/14/21
to
On Sunday, February 14, 2021 at 7:28:09 AM UTC-8, jono...@gmail.com wrote:
> Douglas:
After calming down somewhat, I realized the Stat professor sent me two requests for my math background. The one that demanded, demanded that background simply disappeared with no usual reason given. That is why I feel certain the chief editor is involved in that action.
I woke one morning, saw the Math professor's demand, went to the top of my video page to sign-in, and when I returned his posting was gone. By then the red lines were there. and moments later I noticed the e=mail demanding I find a Zoom and present myself to the chief editor full face with ID he approved of. I am going very red-faced if it turns out this is commonplace internet practice these days.
> The slam deal isn't about Huub going down, it's about him not bidding a slam that someone who was self-kibitzing would bid.
And this supports the charge it 's proof that he is self-kibitzing? To what advantage to him? Let me see: He throws away a makeable slam on purpose to defer suspicion? I hope you might see my confusion. Often I'm merely slow.
Douglas
> #JustSayNoToTheirCheats
> Douglas:
>
> If you provided proof and he STILL didn't let you comment, that would be unacceptable.
I did provide official, but old proof, before he let me on Bridge Winners originally. Some days later he then told me because I was so busy online, so soon, he needed more more ID. I gave him a severely official less old ID. He sniffed at that, telling me it was probably my grandfather's. I responded, explaining how the ID itself has the info that refutes your claim. I have no idea why he seems to want to invade my current personal privacy. I guard that to the best of my ability. I am a private person.
> If you provided proof and he STILL didn't let you comment, that would be unacceptable.
After calming down somewhat, I realized the Stat professor sent me two requests for my math background. The one that demanded, demanded that background simply disappeared with no usual reason given. That is why I feel certain the chief editor is involved in that action.
I woke one morning, saw the Math professor's demand, went to the top of my video page to sign-in, and when I returned his posting was gone. By then the red lines were there. and moments later I noticed the e=mail demanding I find a Zoom and present myself to the chief editor full face with ID he approved of. I am going very red-faced if it turns out this is commonplace internet practice these days.
> The slam deal isn't about Huub going down, it's about him not bidding a slam that someone who was self-kibitzing would bid.
>
> But the way the Bertens case has been handled is setting an intolerable precedent.
You and I are on the same page there. My point of view is they are misusing the bridge playing info the have access to incompletely and unfairly. Some part technical glitches, some part simple ignorance, a lot of unrecognized bias, and some other things. I just finished printing out the official looking Bertens Jan 31, 2021 announcement which has almost 1,100 postings attached to it. And given that their chief editor fells free to delete postings without an edit trail, there could be some number more. These are the categories of concern I see already. This is only first impression.
> But the way the Bertens case has been handled is setting an intolerable precedent.
Douglas
> #JustSayNoToTheirCheats
Douglas
Feb 15, 2021, 3:12:05 PM2/15/21
to
Boy, oh boy, what a mess.
Through no fault of their own, many, if not all, the demonstrated very logical bridge playing thinkers at Bridge Winners are essentially blind to that which is directly in front of them. A few are at least thoughtful about what is going on. There is one with a lengthy last name who I think is nibbling at the edge of inserting some sanity into what is currently going on in the Bertens matter. Hence, this posting.
I will point to what I see as recognized public facts by now:
1. The “USBF announcement” was posted by Bridge Winners management Jan 31, 2021. It was not posted by a Bridge Winners individual contributor. (I take that as notably unusual.)
2. Other than the word (which I in no way dispute) of 12 announcement identified judges, I have no way to verify any correctness to the complete bridge reputation destruction of one, or two, bridge players for the rest of their life. I think that is so very unfair to them; and for me also, an ordinary member of the bridge playing community.
To at least have some idea about how much I can rely on the announcement’s recitations, I would need two essential pieces of information:
a. Did any of the twelve USBF named judges make a report about Bertens mentioned in the first full paragraph of the announcement? Just the number, not the name.
b. Did any of these twelve USBF judges compete in the named Tournament at any time? Just the number, not the name.
3. The ready availability of “unauthorized information” when playing online bridge, and its probable use, is of generally recognized (and growing) concern in the bridge playing community.
In the Bertens matter, an enormous amount of honestly intended effort (4 1/2 months, and 700 currently secret written pages worth) was expended by the USBF. The result is something that appears to please few in the community (except possibly the USBF institutionally). And already very experienced players are conjecturing about what they will do when faced with close decisions in future online games.
I foresee the possibility of applying the most basic stat processing to available bridge playing information in a fair (to all parties) selection, evaluation, and judgement procedure that would ultimately require some majority entire-interested bridge community agreement. All this before anyone’s name can be made public; on pain of bridge playing death to ANYONE disclosing a suspect name prematurely.
This process would naturally move the most complained-about allegations toward the head of any line formed. I foresee it working best with clearly defined allegation timelines.
Most important, the weight of the entire-interested bridge playing community would be fully involved in this important decision making.
I have no idea what could happen in the world of legal jurisprudence after all that.
Douglas
> > #JustSayNoToTheirCheats
Through no fault of their own, many, if not all, the demonstrated very logical bridge playing thinkers at Bridge Winners are essentially blind to that which is directly in front of them. A few are at least thoughtful about what is going on. There is one with a lengthy last name who I think is nibbling at the edge of inserting some sanity into what is currently going on in the Bertens matter. Hence, this posting.
I will point to what I see as recognized public facts by now:
1. The “USBF announcement” was posted by Bridge Winners management Jan 31, 2021. It was not posted by a Bridge Winners individual contributor. (I take that as notably unusual.)
2. Other than the word (which I in no way dispute) of 12 announcement identified judges, I have no way to verify any correctness to the complete bridge reputation destruction of one, or two, bridge players for the rest of their life. I think that is so very unfair to them; and for me also, an ordinary member of the bridge playing community.
To at least have some idea about how much I can rely on the announcement’s recitations, I would need two essential pieces of information:
a. Did any of the twelve USBF named judges make a report about Bertens mentioned in the first full paragraph of the announcement? Just the number, not the name.
b. Did any of these twelve USBF judges compete in the named Tournament at any time? Just the number, not the name.
3. The ready availability of “unauthorized information” when playing online bridge, and its probable use, is of generally recognized (and growing) concern in the bridge playing community.
In the Bertens matter, an enormous amount of honestly intended effort (4 1/2 months, and 700 currently secret written pages worth) was expended by the USBF. The result is something that appears to please few in the community (except possibly the USBF institutionally). And already very experienced players are conjecturing about what they will do when faced with close decisions in future online games.
I foresee the possibility of applying the most basic stat processing to available bridge playing information in a fair (to all parties) selection, evaluation, and judgement procedure that would ultimately require some majority entire-interested bridge community agreement. All this before anyone’s name can be made public; on pain of bridge playing death to ANYONE disclosing a suspect name prematurely.
This process would naturally move the most complained-about allegations toward the head of any line formed. I foresee it working best with clearly defined allegation timelines.
Most important, the weight of the entire-interested bridge playing community would be fully involved in this important decision making.
I have no idea what could happen in the world of legal jurisprudence after all that.
Douglas
> > #JustSayNoToTheirCheats
Douglas
Feb 26, 2021, 12:43:14 PM2/26/21
to
Enter a Mr. Browne Greene?
The Huub Bertens matter is increasingly non-standard to me: A foreign born and raised individual, after being a winner in an obscure U.S. bridge team match, is accused of serious impropriety. An obscure bridge organization conducting that match had enough time and money to conduct a more than six month intensive inquiry involving at least twelve elite bridge players, at least one organization attorney, and claiming to make a so-far hidden to the public 700+ page report about 253 specific bridge deals.
Only some percentage of those deals can reasonably be questionable. Meaning there are potentially an awful lot of pages (50? 100?) devoted to each questionable deal. Surface weird.
My particular interest is in what stat comparable measurements were attempted. There are numerous such possible measurements. Two comparables described in Bridge Winners which “may” be in the 700+ pages are seriously deficient in content for several easily observed reasons.
Then, instead of sending a final inquiry result letter to Huub Bertens, and to other associated bridge organizations, that inquiring organization issued an “announcement” to the internet world in coordination with Bridge Winners management on the same day, February 1, 2021. Thereby defaming Huub Bertens before the entire bridge playing world. A defamation that can never be rescinded, no matter what further transpires.
In hindsight, Huub Bertens appears to be being made an example of by someone(s) who put up those resources, and Bridge Winners management, collusively.
Mr. Browne Greene is a superbly effective plaintiff’s attorney I had the privilege of being in court with once upon a time. I mention him as an example of what specialist help Huub Bertens may want to consult with in seeking at least a U.S. specific legal remedy for that damage inflicted on him, and his livelihood.
Douglas
The Huub Bertens matter is increasingly non-standard to me: A foreign born and raised individual, after being a winner in an obscure U.S. bridge team match, is accused of serious impropriety. An obscure bridge organization conducting that match had enough time and money to conduct a more than six month intensive inquiry involving at least twelve elite bridge players, at least one organization attorney, and claiming to make a so-far hidden to the public 700+ page report about 253 specific bridge deals.
Only some percentage of those deals can reasonably be questionable. Meaning there are potentially an awful lot of pages (50? 100?) devoted to each questionable deal. Surface weird.
My particular interest is in what stat comparable measurements were attempted. There are numerous such possible measurements. Two comparables described in Bridge Winners which “may” be in the 700+ pages are seriously deficient in content for several easily observed reasons.
Then, instead of sending a final inquiry result letter to Huub Bertens, and to other associated bridge organizations, that inquiring organization issued an “announcement” to the internet world in coordination with Bridge Winners management on the same day, February 1, 2021. Thereby defaming Huub Bertens before the entire bridge playing world. A defamation that can never be rescinded, no matter what further transpires.
In hindsight, Huub Bertens appears to be being made an example of by someone(s) who put up those resources, and Bridge Winners management, collusively.
Mr. Browne Greene is a superbly effective plaintiff’s attorney I had the privilege of being in court with once upon a time. I mention him as an example of what specialist help Huub Bertens may want to consult with in seeking at least a U.S. specific legal remedy for that damage inflicted on him, and his livelihood.
Douglas
Travis Crump
Mar 1, 2021, 6:10:50 PM3/1/21
to
On 02/26/2021 12:43 PM, Douglas wrote:
> An obscure bridge organization conducting that match had enough time and money to conduct a more than six month intensive inquiry involving at least twelve elite bridge players, at least one organization attorney, and claiming to make a so-far hidden to the public 700+ page report about 253 specific bridge deals.
>
No comment on anything else, but the USBF is not an obscure bridge
> An obscure bridge organization conducting that match had enough time and money to conduct a more than six month intensive inquiry involving at least twelve elite bridge players, at least one organization attorney, and claiming to make a so-far hidden to the public 700+ page report about 253 specific bridge deals.
>
organization. I'd expect any competitive bridge player above the club
level to have heard of them. They are the organization that select the
teams for the Bermuda Bowl and other international competitions.
Douglas
Mar 3, 2021, 3:44:46 AM3/3/21
to
Let me give you genuinely interested bridge players a different
quantitative view of the 253 bridge deals played online by Huub
Bertens.
1. Start with deal 1 and call 1. Ask yourself “Is there anything
unusual at all to me about this call?” If so, mark a 1 next to index 1.
2. Continue to call 2, and so on to the final call.
3. Assume index 4 ends the calls. Index 5 will record your judgement
about the opening lead. Ask yourself “Is there anything unusual at
all to me about this lead?” If so, mark a 1 next to index 5.
4. Continue on around the table in exactly the same manner until only
four cards remain. 4 + 48 = index 52 will be where you are in this
example. Depending on how suspicious you are, your accumulated 1’s
will be zero to 52; likely less then more.
5. Go to deal 2. Your next index is 53. Maintaining the index is
crucial. The number of plays are constant at 48 per deal, but the
number of calls are variable per deal.
6. Continue on through the end of deal 253. Say your final index is
14,168. Say also your recorded 1’s total 354. That means you judged
about 2.5% of the bidding and playing decisions made in the 253 deals
to be unusual in your experience.
7. Each of your 354 unusual decisions should be labelled with deal
and index number at this point. Start at the first of the 354 asking
yourself something like “Can I not find any plausible reason to make
this decision based on what I know at this point of call or play?”
If yes, mark a 1 in a new column to the right.
8. Continue through the 354 decisions. At the end of the 354, total
the 1’s in your right hand column. Say they total 88. About 25%.
9. Now you need to go back through the 253 deals once more. You want
to assign each of your 88 final too implausible decisions to the
player who made them.
10. Now why did I go to all this effort, say you? If most of the 88
end up with one particular players name attached, you have moderately
good quantitative evidence that player is better then lucky. The
actual amount can be turned into a z-value; who knows maybe it will
be 10, or more!
However, if the 88 split anywhere evenly, even among mostly three of
the four players, there is nothing particularly unusual probably going
on.
Extra credit: Huub Bertens was playing in team competition. That means
the the same 253 deals were played by two other team pairs. Where I
come from, they would be known as exact stat comparables.
Do the same tedious first 9 steps for this other 253 deals, and you
probably will have further useful evidence to inform your opinion.
Douglas
quantitative view of the 253 bridge deals played online by Huub
Bertens.
1. Start with deal 1 and call 1. Ask yourself “Is there anything
unusual at all to me about this call?” If so, mark a 1 next to index 1.
2. Continue to call 2, and so on to the final call.
3. Assume index 4 ends the calls. Index 5 will record your judgement
about the opening lead. Ask yourself “Is there anything unusual at
all to me about this lead?” If so, mark a 1 next to index 5.
4. Continue on around the table in exactly the same manner until only
four cards remain. 4 + 48 = index 52 will be where you are in this
example. Depending on how suspicious you are, your accumulated 1’s
will be zero to 52; likely less then more.
5. Go to deal 2. Your next index is 53. Maintaining the index is
crucial. The number of plays are constant at 48 per deal, but the
number of calls are variable per deal.
6. Continue on through the end of deal 253. Say your final index is
14,168. Say also your recorded 1’s total 354. That means you judged
about 2.5% of the bidding and playing decisions made in the 253 deals
to be unusual in your experience.
7. Each of your 354 unusual decisions should be labelled with deal
and index number at this point. Start at the first of the 354 asking
yourself something like “Can I not find any plausible reason to make
this decision based on what I know at this point of call or play?”
If yes, mark a 1 in a new column to the right.
8. Continue through the 354 decisions. At the end of the 354, total
the 1’s in your right hand column. Say they total 88. About 25%.
9. Now you need to go back through the 253 deals once more. You want
to assign each of your 88 final too implausible decisions to the
player who made them.
10. Now why did I go to all this effort, say you? If most of the 88
end up with one particular players name attached, you have moderately
good quantitative evidence that player is better then lucky. The
actual amount can be turned into a z-value; who knows maybe it will
be 10, or more!
However, if the 88 split anywhere evenly, even among mostly three of
the four players, there is nothing particularly unusual probably going
on.
Extra credit: Huub Bertens was playing in team competition. That means
the the same 253 deals were played by two other team pairs. Where I
come from, they would be known as exact stat comparables.
Do the same tedious first 9 steps for this other 253 deals, and you
probably will have further useful evidence to inform your opinion.
Douglas
jono...@gmail.com
Mar 21, 2021, 2:26:46 PM3/21/21
to
Nice to see someone finally got around to doing what I suggested. No more playing favorites. Who's next on the list?
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/curtis-cheek-suspended-by-usbf/
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/curtis-cheek-suspended-by-usbf/
Douglas
Mar 23, 2021, 4:40:12 AM3/23/21
to
Kafkaesque
“Of or relating to a nightmarish world where people are dehumanized by intricate bureaucratic systems.”
Huub Bertens filed a statement of appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) February 19, 2021.
In attorney language it describes rather neatly the Kafka-like process he and his attorneys are in presently. They are as blind as to the 700+ page USBF report as we all are! Amazing. How Kafkaesque.
I think the statement is a well done piece of lawyering. It answers all the objections I’ve seen posted in Bridge Winners to date. And I am not as worried about Huub Mertens fate as I was before. He has good legal help, and he is in the fight. But it promises to be lengthy and messy.
I've reread the USBF announcement of January 31, 2021. There is a discrepancy between what the investigating committee reported to the COO, and what she determined as a “prima facie” case. The committee “concluded that Mr. Bertens illegally possessed “and used” information about other players’ hands.” The COO determined “Mr. Bertens had obtained information about other players’ hands...” solely. Of course this could just be less than stellar staff work.
I highly recommend you read the statement. It is in a sub-thread to https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/usbf-v-bertens-round-2/.
Douglas
“Of or relating to a nightmarish world where people are dehumanized by intricate bureaucratic systems.”
Huub Bertens filed a statement of appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) February 19, 2021.
In attorney language it describes rather neatly the Kafka-like process he and his attorneys are in presently. They are as blind as to the 700+ page USBF report as we all are! Amazing. How Kafkaesque.
I think the statement is a well done piece of lawyering. It answers all the objections I’ve seen posted in Bridge Winners to date. And I am not as worried about Huub Mertens fate as I was before. He has good legal help, and he is in the fight. But it promises to be lengthy and messy.
I've reread the USBF announcement of January 31, 2021. There is a discrepancy between what the investigating committee reported to the COO, and what she determined as a “prima facie” case. The committee “concluded that Mr. Bertens illegally possessed “and used” information about other players’ hands.” The COO determined “Mr. Bertens had obtained information about other players’ hands...” solely. Of course this could just be less than stellar staff work.
I highly recommend you read the statement. It is in a sub-thread to https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/usbf-v-bertens-round-2/.
Douglas
Douglas
Apr 16, 2021, 10:10:28 PM4/16/21
to
On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 1:40:12 AM UTC-7, Douglas wrote:
>
> I highly recommend you read the statement. It is in a sub-thread to https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/usbf-v-bertens-round-2/.
>
I happened to look at this link tonight. And the Bridge Winners chief editor has struck again. The prior posted copy of Bertens' appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport is entirely gone. I wonder if the Bridge Winners regulars realize how much their contributions are manipulated. Oh well, most are probably adults.
>
> I highly recommend you read the statement. It is in a sub-thread to https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/usbf-v-bertens-round-2/.
>
I recently read something that describes Bridge Winners as "lightly" moderated. In just a few months, I have observed much slight of hand, and heavy handedness.
I wonder if the regulars realize they gave away the sole commercial rights to their identity as a condition of membership?
Douglas
Douglas
Apr 20, 2021, 1:59:41 PM4/20/21
to
On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 7:10:28 PM UTC-7, Douglas wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 1:40:12 AM UTC-7, Douglas wrote:
> >
> > I highly recommend you read the statement. It is in a sub-thread to https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/usbf-v-bertens-round-2/.
> >
> I happened to look at this link tonight. And the Bridge Winners chief editor has struck again. The prior posted copy of Bertens' appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport is entirely gone.
Since Bridge Winners doesn’t want you to see Huub Bertens’ CAS appeal, I’ve extracted three parts of it I deem most generally explanatory of what went on during the 6+ month USBF proceedings.
> On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 1:40:12 AM UTC-7, Douglas wrote:
> >
> > I highly recommend you read the statement. It is in a sub-thread to https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/usbf-v-bertens-round-2/.
> >
> I happened to look at this link tonight. And the Bridge Winners chief editor has struck again. The prior posted copy of Bertens' appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport is entirely gone.
Keep in mind this is solely the Huub Bertens (HB) viewpoint.
Lack of Impartiality:
HB alleges that Marty Harris was:
a) the chairman of Investigatory Committee (“IC”)
b) the Charging Party’s attorney before being replaced the day before trial began,
c) a prominent witness at the trial, and
d) external counsel for the USBF.
HB also alleges that, purportedly contrary to WBF procedure which prohibits directors/officers from acting as disciplinary tribunal judges, the Adjudicatory Committee (”AC”) was comprised of the full USBF Board of Directors.
HB further asserts that the AC included members of the IC, and was chaired by a competitor in the event.
Douglas
Douglas
Apr 21, 2021, 6:12:22 AM4/21/21
to
Here is the second extracted part of Bertens' CAS appeat.
HB = Huub Bertens.
HB alleges that the Adjudicatory Committee (”AC”) erred when it rejected his attorneys' request that WBF procedure be applied given the absence of any USBF procedure.
HB argues that the Guidelines, which were purportedly tailored for his particular case 2 months after it began, cannot reasonably have retroactive effect.
HB alleges that the Charging Party and Investigatory Committee (”IC”} admitted that HB did not play enough bridge hands in the USBF INV-1 to determine if he was cheating during the tournament. HB argues that the AC wrongly accepted the IC’s decision to evaluate a large number of hands from online tournaments outside the USBF's jurisdiction. HB asserts that the USBF cannot reasonably rely on hands he played in non-USBF events to establish he was cheating in a USBF event.
HB alleges that his attorneys' objection to the non-USBF evidence was dismissed. HB asserts that the AC's failure to provide detailed reasons for its verdict prevents him from determining the extent to which the AC's ruling was based on hands played in non-USBF events.
HB further alleges that the IC only examined his “winning tournaments”, and did not review events in which he had bad results.
HB also alleges that during an early stage of the investigation two members of the IC (including Marty Harris) interviewed him for over 2 hours with respect to decisions he had made on a limited number of hands played. HB alleges the IC members did not advise that he was under investigation, or that the interview was in furtherance of same, until after its completion.
HB alleges that the members of the IC had electronic records of the hands but did not provide them to him. HB asserts he had a poor memory of the hands, and statements he made during this interview were used against him by the IC and at the hearing.
HB alleges that the AC's reliance on inadmissible evidence, coupled with its failure to address the testimony presented by HB statistical expert, precluded a finding that the evidence established, to a “Comfortable Satisfaction”, that he cheated.
My comments begin here:
The third paragraph above is mind blowing to me. The USBF committees could not find evidence of bertens cheating in their 253 tournament deals played by Bertens, so they looked to their choice (some times called “cherry picking”) of his playing in other competitions. How does that make any sense? At any level of reasoning, or logic?
Douglas
HB = Huub Bertens.
HB alleges that the Adjudicatory Committee (”AC”) erred when it rejected his attorneys' request that WBF procedure be applied given the absence of any USBF procedure.
HB argues that the Guidelines, which were purportedly tailored for his particular case 2 months after it began, cannot reasonably have retroactive effect.
HB alleges that the Charging Party and Investigatory Committee (”IC”} admitted that HB did not play enough bridge hands in the USBF INV-1 to determine if he was cheating during the tournament. HB argues that the AC wrongly accepted the IC’s decision to evaluate a large number of hands from online tournaments outside the USBF's jurisdiction. HB asserts that the USBF cannot reasonably rely on hands he played in non-USBF events to establish he was cheating in a USBF event.
HB alleges that his attorneys' objection to the non-USBF evidence was dismissed. HB asserts that the AC's failure to provide detailed reasons for its verdict prevents him from determining the extent to which the AC's ruling was based on hands played in non-USBF events.
HB further alleges that the IC only examined his “winning tournaments”, and did not review events in which he had bad results.
HB also alleges that during an early stage of the investigation two members of the IC (including Marty Harris) interviewed him for over 2 hours with respect to decisions he had made on a limited number of hands played. HB alleges the IC members did not advise that he was under investigation, or that the interview was in furtherance of same, until after its completion.
HB alleges that the members of the IC had electronic records of the hands but did not provide them to him. HB asserts he had a poor memory of the hands, and statements he made during this interview were used against him by the IC and at the hearing.
HB alleges that the AC's reliance on inadmissible evidence, coupled with its failure to address the testimony presented by HB statistical expert, precluded a finding that the evidence established, to a “Comfortable Satisfaction”, that he cheated.
My comments begin here:
The third paragraph above is mind blowing to me. The USBF committees could not find evidence of bertens cheating in their 253 tournament deals played by Bertens, so they looked to their choice (some times called “cherry picking”) of his playing in other competitions. How does that make any sense? At any level of reasoning, or logic?
Douglas
Douglas
Apr 22, 2021, 4:48:23 AM4/22/21
to
Here is the third extracted part of Bertens' CAS appeal.
HB = Huub Bertens.
a) Lack of Explanation of the Decision:
HB alleges that Adjudicatory Committee (“AC”) decision provided neither findings of fact, nor reasoning for the guilty verdict. Instead, after
briefly summarizing the factual backdrop, the AC's reasons are limited to the following conclusory sentence:
“The USBF Adjudicatory Committee, after full and careful consideration of all the subject USBF Invitational hands and all of the other evidence, unanimously finds, to its comfortable satisfaction, that Mr. Bertens is guilty as charged.”
HB asserts that the AC decision is fundamentally flawed because there was no explanation of what evidence was accepted, whose testimony was deemed credible (sp), what reasoning supported the conclusion, or why the AC rejected the defense expert witness' testimony and opinion.
HB alleges that the absence of reasons effectively deprives him of a meaningful right of appeal.
HB alleges that his attorneys' request for a more detailed explanation of the verdict was refused. HB asserts he was informed that “no additional information would be forthcoming” (e-mail from David S. Sokolow, Legal Counsel of the AC).
My comments begin here:
What strikes me most about this whole process is the one-way direction of the relevant information at all times. I am surprised that anyone would put up with kind of nonsense for any period of time.
Douglas
HB = Huub Bertens.
a) Lack of Explanation of the Decision:
HB alleges that Adjudicatory Committee (“AC”) decision provided neither findings of fact, nor reasoning for the guilty verdict. Instead, after
briefly summarizing the factual backdrop, the AC's reasons are limited to the following conclusory sentence:
“The USBF Adjudicatory Committee, after full and careful consideration of all the subject USBF Invitational hands and all of the other evidence, unanimously finds, to its comfortable satisfaction, that Mr. Bertens is guilty as charged.”
HB asserts that the AC decision is fundamentally flawed because there was no explanation of what evidence was accepted, whose testimony was deemed credible (sp), what reasoning supported the conclusion, or why the AC rejected the defense expert witness' testimony and opinion.
HB alleges that the absence of reasons effectively deprives him of a meaningful right of appeal.
HB alleges that his attorneys' request for a more detailed explanation of the verdict was refused. HB asserts he was informed that “no additional information would be forthcoming” (e-mail from David S. Sokolow, Legal Counsel of the AC).
My comments begin here:
What strikes me most about this whole process is the one-way direction of the relevant information at all times. I am surprised that anyone would put up with kind of nonsense for any period of time.
Douglas
Message has been deleted
The Hog
Apr 28, 2021, 11:02:53 PM4/28/21
to
snipped
Bridgewinners is an extremely biased site. As soon as there is a smell of possible impropriety the lynch mob come out in force. If it is a US player there is less vehemence. One top US player, who is totally objectionable at the table is also completely objectionable in his posts.
Bridgewinners is an extremely biased site. As soon as there is a smell of possible impropriety the lynch mob come out in force. If it is a US player there is less vehemence. One top US player, who is totally objectionable at the table is also completely objectionable in his posts.
0 new messages