https://www.bridgescoreplus.com/zall/anon-300/ will lead you to this enormous matrix, but somewhat lacking, of bridge play info.

I entered the first four deals into a PBN file, and produced a par contract for each. Number four was an eye opener for me.

On the surface it is a simple 3 major bid, and 3 made by N/S. However, the par contracts tell an entirely different story. Par was 3NT by E/W! Par for N/S was down 2! I make that a quick team disaster for E/W.

Then I broke the deals into their daily session increments (initially 11 deals each, later 14 deals each; total 20 sessions). Finally I matched all contracts bid with tricks made.

I can now see clearly what the USBF was concerned about. Match the N/S defensive deal results with their offensive deal results. See if you see a pattern. Imagine yourself as E/W throughout.

Without a complete listing of all 253 par contracts, I am unable to reach a definitive conclusion about this Bertens matter. I am still stuck at 50/50. I am confident I could reach a defensible conclusion with that 253 par info.

All of this addresses the playing partnership in whole. There is nothing at all which points to a single partner. Color me perplexed by this point, at this point.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 2:44:44 PM UTC-8, Douglas wrote:

https://www.bridgescoreplus.com/zall/anon-300/ will lead you to this enormous matrix, but somewhat lacking, of bridge play info.

USBF session one:
Deal 1 - East declared 4 clubs. Down 1. Par was 3 spades E/W. Wrong contract.

Deal 2 - North declared 5 spades. Made. Par was 5 diamonds x -2 E/W & 4 spades N/S.

Deal 3 - East declared 3 NT. Down 2. Par was 3 spades E/W.

Deal 4 - South declared 3 spades. Made. Par was 3 NT E/W & 0 spades N/S! A two-sided disaster.

Deal 5 - West declared 3 clubs. 2 over. Par was 5 minor E/W. Missed E/W game.

Deal 6 - North declared 3 NT. Down 2. Par was 3 NT N/S.

Deal 7 - North declared 4 spades. 1 over. Par was 5 clubs x -2 E/W & 4 spades N/S.

Deal 8 - North declared 5 clubs. Made. Par was 5 clubs N/S.

Deal 9 - East declared 3 NT. Down 1. Par was 2 NT E/W.

Deal 10 - West declared 6 clubs. Down 1. Par was 5 NT E/W.

Deal 11 - North declared 4 hearts doubled. Made. Par was 4 hearts.

Par predicted 8 deals were E/W’s. N/S declared 6 deals; made 5.

Think of all the USBF report pages I could have saved so far!

I suggest the card play of each deal has de minimus meaning concerning
any possible “unauthorised information” available to N/S.

Not knowing anything at all about the other half of the N/S team, it
looks to me like the N/S team should be off to a terrific start.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session ten:

Deal 1 - East declared 5 diamonds doubled. Down 2. Par was 4 diamonds x-1 E/W.

Deal 2 - East declared 6 spades. 1 over. Par was 7 spades E/W.

Deal 3 - South declared 4 hearts. 3 over. Par was 7 NT N/S. Missed both slams.

Deal 4 - North declared 4 hearts. Down 1. Par was 3 hearts N/S.

Deal 5 - South declared 4 hearts. 2 over. Par was 6 clubs x-3 E/W & 4 hearts N/S.

Deal 6 - West declared 4 spades. Down 1. Par was 3 spades E/W.

Deal 7 - West declared 7 hearts. Down 1. Par was 6 hearts E/W.

Deal 8 - North declared 3 NT. 2 over. Par was 5 NT N/S.

Deal 9 - West declared 4 spades doubled. Down 2. Par was 3 hearts x-1 N/S.

Deal 10 - South declared 1 NT. Made. Par was 2 NT x-1 N/S.

Deal 11 - West declared 3 NT. Made. Par was 4 hearts E/W.

Deal 12 - North declared 2 hearts. Down 1. Par was 2 spades E/W & 1 heart North.

Deal 13 - East declared 4 spades doubled. Down 3. Par was 5 hearts N/S & 1 spade E/W.

Deal 14 - South declared 2 hearts. 1 over. Par was 3 hearts N/S.

Session ten has the most results changes per my rustic numeric scale. It is also about half way to the end of the competition. So if no sign of unauthorised information use by N/S shows up here, we should only have to consider the last ten sessions in
our hunt for potential wrong doing.

I see E/W’s bidding misjudgements in this session, as in session one, as the primary source of N/S’s overall score gain in this session. There is no obvious evidence of use of unauthorised information by N/S. And certainly no evidence that either N
or S individually benefited from such information.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

While sessions two and ten are only two of twenty sessions played at the USBF invitational last year, they have an important shared feature relating to Huub Bertens’ cheating accusation by USBF. They are both exonerating as to the charge of acquiring,
and using, unauthorised information.

Deal 4 in session one: If Bertens had prior knowledge he could make nothing in spades prior to the bidding, how could he be expected to willingly bid 3 spades? And how could he be expected to make 3 spades. Ergo, he had no prior deal knowledge.

Note this takes place early in the session. If E/W had doubled 3 spades, which is a usual course of events, and taken their expected tricks, Bertens’ pair would be down 800. This taking place early in the session makes it doubly impossible to
contemplate. How could Bertens know that they could make it all back later with any certainty?

Deal 3 in session ten: Again early in the session. If Bertens had illicit information about the hands, why did he not bid at least 6 hearts or 6 NT. What would make him bid 4 of either, and guarantee him a near bottom result for his team starting off
their session? Which is what their 4 hearts bid, and made with 3 over, did. Making this an impossible result for someone of his experience with prior illicit knowledge.

By now, I am thoroughly convinced the entire case against Bertrens relies solely on evidence that a second “kibitzing” internet feed went to the Bertens’ household numerous times during the 20 USBF competition sessions. It is the only scenario
which makes sense of all the bits and pieces disclosed in public to date. And which could account for the inordinate time and effort put into this matter by the USBF.

It simply has to be numerous times. Once, or twice, or even three times, just could not be enough without some sort of solid backup of obvious bridge bidding, or play, shenanigans. And there is little, to no, such evidence in the bidding record. Hence, I
think, almost all expert conjecture to date on Bridge Winners is about opening leads, and individual trick playing .

In these times of household internet accounts, an internet feed does not mean it goes to a particular residence. For instance, if a member of the Bertens family {like a child, or grand child) was interested in what dad, or granddad, was doing, why could
they not look-in on the competition from their family account cell phone anywhere? And if that person was a teen, could they be shy about it if questioned by an adult? This is all pure conjecture on my part. Just saying.

What I cannot get past is this: Mr. and Mrs, Bertens are long-time bridge professionals. He plays and teaches. She administers at an advanced level. You would think that if either wanted to gain illicit deal info, they would at least borrow a neighbor’
s, or a friend’s, laptop to do the deed. It is simply inconceivable to me they could do otherwise.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session seventeen:

Deal 1 - West declared 4 hearts. Made. Par was 4 hearts E/W. Expected.

Deal 2 - West declared 2 spades. Made. Par was 2 spades x - 1 E/W. N/S failed to take their tricks.

Deal 3 - South declared 5 clubs x. Down 1. Par was 5 any minor x. Best result for N/S.

Deal 4 - North declared 4 hearts x. Down 3 x. Par was 4 NT E/W. 200 better for E/W.

Deal 5 - East declared 1 NT x. Made. Par was 5 clubs E/W. Missed E/W game in wrong denomination. Gift to N/S.

Deal 6 - East declared 3 NT. Made. Par was 4 diamonds E/W. Much better for E/W.

Deal 7 - West declared 1 NT. Made. Par was 4S x-2 E/W. Inferior contract for E/W.

Deal 8 - West declared 5 clubs. Made. Par was 4 spades E/W. Slightly inferior contract for E/W.

Deal 9 - West declared 3 hearts. 2 over. Par was 5 clubs x-1 N/S. West stole contract, and N/S played poor defense to boot.

Deal 10 - East declared 2 spades. 2 over. Par was 4 diamonds x-1. East stole contract, and N/S played poor defense to boot.

Deal 11 - East declared 4 spades. Made. Par was 4 spades. Expected.

Deal 12 - South declared 3 hearts. 1 over. Par was 3 spades x-1. South stole contract, and E/W played poor defense to boot.

Deal 13 - South declared 3 NT. Down 1. Par was 2 NT N/S. N/S overbid, and E/W took their expected tricks.

Deal 14 - North declared 4 hearts. Made. Par was 4 spades. Expected.

By my primitive measurement, this is N/S’s worst session of them all. It is the 4th from the end of the competition. I can think of no better time to use illicit deal information if one has such. Can you see N, or S (remember, it is one or the other,
not both) using such information to their benefit in the 14 deals above? I cannot.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session thirteen:

Deal 1 - West declared 1 NT. Made. Par was 3 Hearts E/W. Inferior contract.

Deal 2 - East declared 2 Clubs. Down 1. Par was 2 Clubs E/W. Inferior play.

Deal 3 - East declared 2 Hearts. 3 over. Par was 5 Diamonds E/W. Wrong denomination, and missed game.

Deal 4 - North declared 4 Hearts. Made. Par was 4 NT N. Slightly inferior contract.

Deal 5 - West declared 3 NT. 1 over. Par was 5 NT E/W.

Deal 6 - West declared 3 NT. 1 over. Par was 4 Clubs E/W. Inferior defense.

Deal 7 - East declared 4 Hearts. Down 2. Par was 3 Spades N/S. Wrong, wrong.

Deal 8 - West declared 3 NT. 1 over. Par was 4 NT E/W. Expected.

Deal 9 - East declared 3 NT. Down 2. Par was 3 Hearts E/W. Wrong denomination.

Deal 10 - South declared 3 Spades. 1 over. Par was 4 Diamonds x-1 E/W. Inferior play by E/W.

Deal 11 - East declared 3 NT. Made. Par was 3 NT E/W. Expected.

Deal 12 - West declared 3 Diamonds redoubled. Down 4. Par was 4 NT N/S. N/S made more on this attempted E/W sacrifice.

Deal 13 - East declared 4 Spades. Made. Par was 5 Diamonds x-1 N/S. N/S missed their fruitful sacrifice.

Deal 14 - West declared 2 Spades. Made. Par was 3 Diamonds x-1 E/W. E/W didn’t have to sacrifice, and made 1 over DD in Spades!

This session’s deal 14 is extremely positive evidence there is no illicit information being used by N/S in this session.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session five:

Deal 1 - North declared 3 NT. 3 over. Par was 4 NT N/S. Poor defense by E/W.

Deal 2 - East declared 3 Spades. Down 2. Par was 2 Spades E/W. Poor declarer play.

Deal 3 - East declared 1 NT. Down 1. Par was 3 Hearts N. East stole contract.

Deal 4 - South declared 3 NT. Made. Par was 6 Clubs N/S. Missed small slam.

Deal 5 - West declared 1 NT. 1 over. Par was 3 NT E/W. Missed game, and inferior play.

Deal 6 - East declared 6 Spades. Down 1. Par was 5 Spades E/W. Over bid, and no double by N/S.

Deal 7 - West declared 3 NT. Made. Par was 6 NT E. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 8 - East declared 4 Spades. 1 over. Par was 6 Spades E/W. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 9 - East declared 1 NT. Down 3. Par was 2 Spades N. Wrong, wrong.

Deal 10 - North declared 2 NT. Made. Par was 3 NT N. Missed a makeable game.

Deal 11 - South declared 3 NT. Made. Par was 4 Diamonds N/S. Bid, and made a superior contract.

Still no real sign of N/S using illicit information. I suppose deal 11 is a possibility. It’s a little late in session, wouldn’t you think.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session three:

Deal 1 - East declared 2 Spades. Down 1. Par was 2 Spades E/W. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 2 - East declared 1 NT. Down 1. Par was 2 Hearts E/W. Wrong contract.

Deal 3 - North declared 3 NT. 1 over. Par was 4 NT N/S. Expected.

Deal 4 - North declared 3 NT. 1 over. Par was 5 NT. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 5 - East declared 3 NT. Down 2. Par was 3 Hearts E/W. Wrong contract.

Deal 6 - East declared 1 NT. Made. Par was 3 Diamonds x-1 N/S. East stole contract.

Deal 7 - North declared 3 NT. 1 over. Par was 3 NT N/S. Inferior defense.

Deal 8 - East declared 4 Hearts. 3 over. Par was 6 Hearts E/W. Missed small slam.

Deal 9 - South declared 3 Hearts. 1 over. Par was 4 clubs N/S. Inferior defense.

Deal 10 - East declared 4 Spades. Made. Par was 4 Spades E/W. Expected.

Deal 11 - South declared 1 NT. 2 over. Par was 1 NT N/S. Inferior defense.

Still no evidence of illicit deal information use by any player. I’m still looking for something that would cause “persons” to make a recorder report.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session eleven:

Deal 1 - East declared 4 Hearts. 2 over. Par was 6 Major E/W. Missed small slam.

Deal 2 - North declared 1 NT. Down 2. Par was 4 Diamonds N/S. Wrong, wrong.

Deal 3 - East declared 6 Hearts. Down 1. Par was 5 Spades x-3 N/S. Over bid.

Deal 4 - South declared 4 NT. 2 over. Par was 6 Diamonds N/S. Missed small slam.

Deal 5 - Passed out. Par was 4 Hearts E/W. Missed game.

Deal 6 - South declared 3 Hearts. 1 over. Par was 4 Major N/S. Missed game.

Deal 7 - South declared 1 NT. 1 over. Par was 2 NT N/S. Expected.

Deal 8 - South declared 3 Diamonds. 1 over. Par was 4 Diamonds N. Inferior defense,

Deal 9 - East declared 2 Spades. Made. Par was 3 Hearts x-1 N/S. N/S missed their sacrifice.

Deal 10 - West declared 3 Spades. Made. Par was 3 Diamonds N/S. Poor defense.

Deal 11 - South declared 4 Clubs. Made. Par was 4 Clubs N/S. Expected.

Deal 12 - West declared 6 Spades. Down 3. Par was 4 Spades E/W. Over bid, and inferior declarer play.

Deal 13 - West declared 3 NT. Made. Par was 4 Spades E/W. Inferior contract.

Deal 14 - South declared 2 Hearts. 1 over. Par was 3 Hearts x-1 N/S. Inferior defense.

No evidence of any illicit information being used by any player here. This is getting a tad bit boring.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session nineteen:

Deal 1 - North declared 4 Spades. Made. Par was 4 Spades N/S. Expected.

Deal 2 - West declared 4 Hearts x. Down 2. Par was 4 Diamonds N/S. E/W overbid.

Deal 3 - East declared 5 Diamonds. Made. Par was 5 Hearts x-2 N/S. N/S missed their sacrifice.

Deal 4 - North declared 4 Spades. Down 1. Par was 4 Hearts N/S. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 5 - South declared 3 Clubs. Made. Par was 3 Major E/W. N/S stole contract.

Deal 6 - East declared 3 Hearts. Down 2. Par was 3 minor N/S. Wrong contract.

Deal 7 - North declared 4 Hearts. 1 over. Par was 5 Hearts N/S. Expected.

Deal 8 - South declared 6 Hearts. Made. Par was 7 Hearts N/S. Missed grand slam, and inferior declarer play.

Deal 9 - East declared 5 Clubs. Made. Par was 6 Hearts E/W. Missed small slam, and inferior declarer play.

Deal 10 - East declared 6 Diamonds. Made. Par was 6 Diamonds E/W. Expected.

Deal 11 - North declared 3 Spades. Down 1. Par was 3 Hearts x-1 N/S. N/S over bid.

Deal 12 - South declared 2 Spades. Down 2. Par was 5 Diamonds W. N/S stole contract, and West missed game.

Deal 13 - West declared 3 NT. Down 1. Par was 2 NT E/W. West over bid.

Deal 14 - South declared 3 Diamonds. 1 over. Par was 3 Hearts N/S. Inferior contract.

Again, no evidence of any player using illicit information this session.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session two:

Deal 1 - West declared 2 Spades. Made. Par was 4 Diamonds x-1 N/S. E/W stole contract.

Deal 2 - East declared 2 Hearts. Down 1. Par was 2 Spades S. E/W stole contract.

Deal 3 - West declared 4 Hearts. 1 over. Par was 5 Hearts E/W. Expected.

Deal 4 - West declared 2 Spades. 1 over. Par was 3 Spades E/W. Expected.

Deal 5 - East declared 4 Spades. Down 2. Par was 4 minor N/S. Good East sacrifice.

Deal 6 - East declared 3 Diamonds. 1 over. Par was 5 Diamonds E/W. Missed game, and inferior declarer play.

Deal 7 - West declared 1 NT. Down 1. Par was 1 NT W. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 8 - South declared 4 Spades. Down 1. Par was 2 Spades N.

Deal 9 - North declared 4 Hearts. Made. Par was 4 Hearts N/S. Expected.

Deal 10 - South declared 3 NT. Down 1. Par was 2 NT N/S. N/S over bid.

Deal 11 - North declared 4 Diamonds x. Down 2. Par was 3 NT x-1 N/S. N/S over bid.

N/S lost, lost, lost. Impossible to believe they were using illicit information for their benefit anywhere here.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session four:

Deal 1 - South declared 3 Clubs. Made. Par was 4 Clubs x-1 N/S. South stole contract.

Deal 2 - East declared 4 Spades. Made. Par was 4 Spades E/W. Expected.

Deal 3 - West declared 1 NT x. Down 3 x. Par was 2 NT N/S. Poor 1 NT overcall.

Deal 4 - East declared 3 NT. Made. Par was 3 Spades N/S. Inferior defense.

Deal 5 - South declared 2 Clubs. Made. Par was 2 NT E/W. South stole contract.

Deal 6 - East declared 3 NT. Down 3. Par was 4 Spades N/S. Inferior E/W bidding.

Deal 7 - North declared 5 Spades. Down 1. Par was 6 Clubs x -2 W. West missed sacrifice, and inferior declarer play.

Deal 8 - North declared 4 Hearts. Down 1. Par was 4 NT N/S. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 9 - West declared 5 Diamonds. Made. Par was 6 Spades x-3 N/S. N/S missed their sacrifice twice over.

Deal 10 - South declared 5 Hearts. Made. Par was 5 Hearts N/S. Expected.

Deal 11 - South declared 3 NT. 3 over. Par was 6 Clubs N/S. Missed small slam, and inferior defense.

Continuing positive evidence no illicit information being used by N/S. Note deals 4, 7, 8, 9, and 11.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session six:

Deal 1 - North declared 1 NT. Down 1. Par was 2 Spades E/W. N/S stole contract.

Deal 2 - West declared 4 Spades. Made. Par was 4 NT E/W. Inferior contract.

Deal 3 - West declared 4 Hearts. Made. Par was 4 Major E/W. Expected.

Deal 4 - West declared 3 NT. Made. Par was 4 NT E/W. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 5 - West declared 4 Hearts. Down 1. Par was 5 Hearts West. Poor declarer play.

Deal 6 - West declared 3 NT. Down 2. Par was 3 Hearts E/W. Over bid, and inferior declarer play.

Deal 7 - North declared 3 NT. 1 over. Par was 4 Spades N/S. Inferior defense.

Deal 8 - South declared 4 Spades. Made. Par was 5 Spades N/S. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 9 - South declared 3 NT. Down 1. Par was 2 NT N/S. Over bid.

Deal 10 - South declared 1 NT. Down 2. Par was 2 Spades N/S. Wrong contract.

Deal 11 - South declared 2 NT. Down 2. Par was 2 Spades N/S. Over bid, and wrong contract.

And the beat goes on, and ...

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session seven:

Deal 1 - West declared 3 NT. Down 1. Par was 3 NT E/W. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 2 - East declared 6 Spades. Down 1. Par was 5 Spades E/W. Over bid.

Deal 3 - North declared 2 Spades. Down 2. Par was 2 NT E/W. Inferior declarer play, and yet successful sacrifice.

Deal 4 - West declared 4 Spades. Down 2. Par was 3 Hearts N/S. Inferior defense.

Deal 5 - East declared 1 NT. Made. Par was 1 NT E/W. Expected.

Deal 6 - South declared 4 Spades. 1 over. Par was 4 NT N/S. Inferior defense.

Deal 7 - North declared 4 Hearts. Made. Par was 3 Hearts N/S. Inferior defense. Game gift.

Deal 8 - West declared 3 Clubs. 1 over. Par was 4 Clubs E/W. Expected.

Deal 9 - West declared 2 Spades. Made. Par was 2 NT E/W. Inferior contract.

Deal 10 - West declared 4 Hearts. Made. Par was 4 NT E/W. Inferior contract.

Deal 11 - South declared 4 Spades. 1 over. Par was 4 Spades N/S. Inferior defense.

Still no evidence of illicit information use by any player, much less N/S, or N, or S.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session eight:

Deal 1 - South declared 4 Clubs. Down 1. Par: 3Sx-1 E/W. Alt: 3C S.

Deal 2 - North declared 2 Hearts x. Down 3. Par: 2N E/W. Alt: 0H N/S. Poor sacrifice.

Deal 3 - North declared 4 Spades. Down 2. Par: 3H E/W. Alt: 2S N/S. Futile sacrifice.

Deal 4 - South declared 3 NT. Made. Par: 4N N/S. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 5 - North declared 5 Hearts. Made. Par: 4Sx-2 E/W. Alt: 4H N/S. Inferior defense.

Deal 6 - East declared 3 NT. 1 over. Par: 3S E. Alt: 2N E. Poor defense. Game gift.

Deal 7 - South declared 1 Heart. 3 Over. Par: 5D N/S. Alt: 2H N/S. South stole contract, and poor defense.

Deal 8 - South declared 3 Hearts. Made. Par: 4H S. Missed game.

Deal 9 - West declared 3 Clubs. Down 1. Par: 3H N/S. Alt: 3C E/W. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 10 - West declared 4 Spades. 1 over. Par: 5Hx-2 N/S. Alt: 4S E/W. Inferior defense, and N/S missed their sacrifice.

Deal 11 - West declared 4 Hearts. Made. Par: 4H W. Expected.

I know a little extra about this session from a Bridge Winners’ posting by a well-known player and author. His memory of it comports well with this summary.

Again there is no evidence of any player cheating.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session nine:

Deal 1 - North declared 3 NT. 1 over. Par: 4N N/S. Expected.

Deal 2 - East declared 4 Spades. Made. Par: 4S E/W. Expected.

Deal 3 - West declared 2 Hearts. 1 over. Par: 3H E. Alt: 2H W. Inferior defense.

Deal 4 - South declared 4 Hearts x. Down 1. Par: 3H N/S. Over bid.

Deal 5 - North declared 3 Diamonds. Made. Par: 2M N/S. Alt: 2D N/S. Inferior defense.

Deal 6 - West declared 5 Diamonds. Made. Par: 4H E/W. Alt: 5D E/W. Inferior contract.

Deal 7 - South declared 3 NT. Down 1. Par: 3N N/S. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 8 - South declared 3 Hearts. Made. Par: 3H N/S. Expected.

Deal 9 - West declared 4 Spades. Down 1. Par: 4S E/W. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 10 - East declared 4 Hearts. 1 over. Par: 6N W. Alt: 5H E. Missed small slam, and wrong contract.

Deal 11 - West declared 2 Diamonds. 1 over. Par: 2N E. Alt: 1D W. Poor defense.

Deal 11 should be enough to convince you that N/S are not cheating.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session twelve:

Deal 1 - South declared 2 Spades. 2 over. Par: 4N N/S. Alt: 4S N/S N/S. Wrong contract, and missed game.

Deal 2 - East declared 6 Clubs. 1 over. Par: 7Sx-5 N/S. Alt: 7H E/W. Missed grand slam, and wrong contract.

Deal 3 - North declared 4 Spades. 1 over. Par: 4M N/S. Inferior defense.

Deal 4 - East declared 3 NT. Down 1. Par: 4C E/W. Alt: 2N E/W. Over bid.

Deal 5 - North declared 5 Spades. Down 1. Par: 5 Dx-3. Alt: 4S N/S. Over bid.

Deal 6 - East declared 1 NT. Made. Par: 3S E/W. Alt: 0N E/W. Under bid. Inferior defense.

Deal 7 - East declared 1 NT. 2 over. Par: 3N E/W. Missed game.

Deal 8 - West declared 1 NT. Down 1. Par: 3Hx-1 N/S. Alt: 2N E/W. Poor declarer play.

Deal 9 - West declared 2 Diamonds. Down 3. Par: 2N E/W. Alt: 1D E/W. Wrong contract, under bid, under bid. Trifecta?

Deal 10 - East declared 3 NT. Made. Par: 3N E/W. Expected.

Deal 11 - North declared 2 Spades. 3 over. Par: 5Dx-2 E/W. Alt: 4S N/S. Missed game. Inferior defense.

Deal 12 - South declared 3 NT. Down 2. Par: 2N N/S. Over bid, and inferior declarer play.

Deal 13 - West declared 3 NT. Down 2. Par: 5C E/W. Alt: 1N E/W. Wrong contract, and missed game.

Deal 14 - North declared 4D x. Down 1. Par: 5H E/W. Alt: 2D N/S. Good sacrifice. Inferior defense, and lost game by E/W.

Only 5 summaries to go. I dare you to find any cheating this session.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session fourteen:

Deal 1 - North declared 1 NT. Down 1. Par: 3D N/S. Alt: None. Really wrong contract.

Deal 2 - South declared 3 NT. 1 over. Par: 4 NT N/S. Expected.

Deal 3 - North declared 6 Diamonds x. Down 2. Par: 6Dx-2 N/S. Good sacrifice.

Deal 4 - West declared 4 Hearts. Made. Par: 4N E/W. Alt: 4H E/W. Inferior contract.

Deal 5 - South declared 2 Diamonds. Down 1. Par: 5Hx-2. Alt: 5D N/W. Missed game, and really poor declarer play.

Deal 6 - North declared 2 Spades. Made. Par: 2S N/S. Expected.

Deal 7 - East declared 2 Spades. 2 over. Par: 4S E/W. Missed game.

Deal 8 - East declared 1 NT. Made. Par: 4D E/W. Alt: 1N E/W. Inferior contract.

Deal 9 - South declared 3 Diamonds. Down 1. Par: 2N S. Alt: 2D N/W. Over bid.

Deal 10 - South declared 4 Spades. Made. Par: 4S N/S. Expected.

Deal 11 - South declared 1 Spade x. Made. Par: 2Sx-1 N/S. South stole contract.

Deal 12 - South declared 4 Hearts. Made. Par: 4H N/S. Expected.

Deal 13 - North declared 4 Hearts. Made. Par: 6Sx-3 E/W. Alt: 3H N/S. E/W missed their sacrifice, and inferior defense. N made unmakeable game.

Deal 14 - East declared 2 Spades. Down 1. Par: 2Nx-1,3Cx-1 N/S. Alt: 2S E/W. N/S missed their sacrifices. Inferior declarer play.

Same-o, same-o. Only four more summaries to go.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session fifteen:

Deal 1 - North declared 4 Spades. 2 over. Par: 5S N/S. Inferior defense.

Deal 2 - East declared 1 NT. Made. Par: 3S N/S. Alt: 1N E/W. East stole contract.

Deal 3 - West declared 2 Hearts. 1 over. Par: 2N S. Alt: 2H E/W. West stole contract. Inferior defense.

Deal 4 - South declared 4 Spades. Made. Par: 4S N/S. Expected.

Deal 5 - South declared 3 NT. Made. Par: 5N N/S. Poor declarer play.

Deal 6 - South declared 6 Clubs. 1 over. Par: 7N N/S. Alt: 7C N/S. Missed grand slam.

Deal 7 - West declared 6 Hearts. 1 over. Par: 7M E/W. Missed grand slam.

Deal 8 - West declared 4 NT. 1 over. Par: 4N E/W. Inferior defense.

Deal 9 - South declared 3 NT. Made. Par: 4N N/S. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 10 - East declared 3 NT. Made. Par: 6D E/W. Alt: 5N E/W. Missed small slam, and poor declarer play.

Deal 11 - West declared 2 Diamonds. Down 1. Par: 2N E/W. Alt: 1D E/W. Inferior contract.

Deal 12 - West declared 2 Spades. Made. Par: 2S E/W. Expected.

Deal 13 - West declared 3 Spades. 1 over. Par: 4S E/W. Missed game.

Deal 14 - South declared 3 NT. 3 over. Par: 6N N/S. Missed small slam.

Wow, 5 total games/slams missed in 14 deals! That seems quite a lot.

Notice N/S finished this session on that low note.

Only 3 more summaries to go.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session sixteen:

Deal 1 - South declared 3 Clubs. Made. Par: 3C N. Alt: 2C S. Inferior defense.

Deal 2 - North declared 2 Hearts. 2 over. Par: 4H N/S. Missed game.

Deal 3 - West declared 6 Hearts. 1 over. Par: 7H E/W. Missed grand slam.

Deal 4 - North declared 3 NT. 1 over. Par 5N N/S. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 5 - South declared 3 NT. 1 over. Par: 6D N/S. Alt: 4N N/S. Missed small slam, and wrong contract.

Deal 6 - West declared 3 Spades. 1 over. Par: 5Hx-2 N/S. Alt: 4S E/W. Missed makeable game.

Deal 7 - South declared 3 NT. Made. Par: 4N N. Alt: 3N S. Wrong side declared.

Deal 8 - East declared 2 Hearts. Made. Par: 3N,5C E/W. Alt: 3H E/W. Missed games, and inferior declarer play.

Deal 9 - West declared 4 Spades. Down 1. Par: 4S E/W. Missed makeable game with inferior declarer play..

Deal 10 - North declared 2 Hearts. Made. Par: 3H N/S. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 11 - North declared 1 NT. Made. Par: 2H N/S. Alt: 1N N/S. Inferior contract.

Deal 12 - East declared 4 Spades. 2 over. Par: 6S E/W. Missed small slam.

Deal 13 - West declared 3 NT. Made. Par: 4N E. Alt: 3N W. Wrong side declared.

Deal 14 - North declared 3 NT. Down 2. Par: 4N N/S. Missed makeable game with poor declarer play.

Another no-cheating by any player session. Only 2 more sessions left to catch any cheating by N or S (or E or W) in this competition. What do you think chances are?

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

USBF session eighteen:

Deal 1 - East declared 2 Diamonds. Down 1. Par: 2N E/W. Alt: 1D E/W. Inferior contract.

Deal 2 - East declared 4 Hearts. Down 1. Par: 3H E/W. Over bid.

Deal 3 - East declared 1 NT. 2 over. Par: 4H E/W. Alt: 3N E/W. Missed game, with inferior contract.

Deal 4 - West declared 1 NT. Made. Par: 1N E/W. Expected.

Deal 5 - East declared 3 Hearts. Down 1. Par: 3Hx-1 E/W. Good sacrifice.

Deal 6 - South declared 2 Spades. Down 1. Par: 2Sx-1 N/S. Good sacrifice.

Deal 7 - North declared 1 NT. 1 over. Par: 2N N/S. Expected.

Deal 8 - East declared 3 Spades. Down 1. Par: 3Hx-1 N/S. Alt: 2S E/W. Over bid.

Deal 9 - South declared 2 Hearts. 2 over. Par: 4H N/S. Missed makeable game.

Deal 10 - North declared 3 Spades. Down 1. Par: 4Sx-1 N/S. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 11 - West declared 3 NT. 3 0ver. Par: 4N E/W. Poor defense.

Deal 12 - North declared 4 Hearts. Down 1. Par: 4N N/S. Alt: 4H N/S. Inferior contract, and declarer play.

Deal 13 - West declared 3 NT. 1 over. Par: 3N E/W. Inferior defense.

Deal 14 - South declared 3 NT. Made. Par: 4N S. Alt: 3N N. Inferior declarer play.

More solid evidence no one is cheating. Only one more session to go. Yay.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

SBF session twenty:

Deal 1 - East declared 4 Hearts. Made. Par: 5H E/W. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 2 - South declared 6 Hearts. 1 over. Par: 7N N/S. Alt: 7H N/S. Missed grand slam, and inferior contract.

Deal 3 - West declared 3 NT. 1 over. Par: 6D E/W. Alt: 5N E/W. Missed small slam in wrong contract, and inferior declarer play.

Deal 4 - East declared 2 Spades. 2 over. Par: 4S E/W. Missed game.

Deal 5 - North declared 4 Spades. 1 over. Par: 5N N/S. Alt: 5S N/S. Inferior contract.

Deal 6 - West declared 4 Hearts. Down 1. Par: 3Sx-1 N/S. Alt: 3H E/W. Over bid.

Deal 7 - West declared 1 NT. Down 1. Par: 1N, 2C E/W. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 8 - East declared 4 Hearts. Made. Par: 3Sx-1 N/S. Alt: 3H E/W. Inferior defense. Game gift to E/W.

Deal 9 - East declared 3 NT. Made. Par: 4N E/W. Inferior declarer play.

Deal 10 - North declared 2 Spades. Down 1. Par: 2N N/S. Alt: 1S N/S. Over bid wrong contract.

Deal 11 - West declared 4 Hearts. 1 over. Par: 5H E/W. Expected.

Deal 12 - North declared 5 Diamonds. Made. Par: 6Cx-3. Alt: 5D N/S. E/W missed their sacrifice.

Deal 13 - North declared 4 Spades. 1 over. Par: 5S N/S. Expected.

Deal 14 - South declared 6 Spades. Made. Par: 6S N/S. Expected.

N/S finished with two normal deals. I am mostly surprised how few expected results occurred in the 20 sessions.

Well, there you have it. None of these 20 sessions have any evidence of any of its players cheating with illicit deal information. Ergo, Huub Mertens is not a cheater in this competition. That should be the end of story. Again, I will not hold my breath.

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 5, 2021 at 8:29:54 PM UTC-4, Douglas wrote:

Well, there you have it. None of these 20 sessions have any evidence of any of its players cheating with illicit deal information. Ergo, Huub Mertens is not a cheater in this competition. That should be the end of story. Again, I will not hold my

breath.

Douglas

Curtis Cheek, who was on the same team as Bertens but at the other table, confessed to self-kibitzing in this event.

Take a look at Alt V and 1st OCBL teams among others as well.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 6:13:35 PM UTC-7, Nicolas Hammond wrote:

Curtis Cheek, who was on the same team as Bertens but at the other table, confessed to self-kibitzing in this event.

What is this insanity? You did note this table playing I examined here is in no way connected to any other table played in this competition for determining any claimed cheating by Huub Mertens at his particular table.

So what does your sentence have to do with the price of tea in China? I know this is an old fashioned saying, but I am (really) old fashioned.

Take a look at Alt V and 1st OCBL teams among others as well.

What am I looking for? You request is a little too terse for me to make sense of.

Is this going to be some of that other 747 “hands” studied by Steve Weinstein et al? Why? Is another tribunal going to be convened?

Douglas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 6:13:35 PM UTC-7, Nicolas Hammond wrote:

On Monday, April 5, 2021 at 8:29:54 PM UTC-4, Douglas wrote:

Well, there you have it. None of these 20 sessions have any evidence of any of its players cheating with illicit deal information. Ergo, Huub Mertens is not a cheater in this competition. That should be the end of story. Again, I will not hold my

breath.

Douglas

Curtis Cheek, who was on the same team as Bertens but at the other table, confessed to self-kibitzing in this event.

Take a look at Alt V and 1st OCBL teams among others as well.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 6:13:35 PM UTC-7, Nicolas Hammond wrote:

Take a look at Alt V and 1st OCBL teams among others as well.

I’ve gone all the way through 2020 Alt V. There are a handful of deals that could be questionable where Curtis Cheek is at the table which could be questioned standing alone only. He appears to be at the table about half the entire competition.

Huub Bertens plays about half the competition also. His half is about a half with Curtis Cheek, and half with Naren Gupta. I can make no case for Bertens taking advantage in any discernible quantity, much less any pattern of advantage. There are very
many instances where if Bertens had unathorised information he could have avoided a poor result, or bid a far superior contract.

This is at the point of ridiculousness.

Douglas

PS: Given deal results in good and complete order, it is very easy and quick to spot cheating here. Because of the scoring effect in team events, cheating by a single person has to be even more obvious in order to have any effect on the team score.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)