Rumour and Mathematics

By Krzysztof Jassem,
professor at Adam Mickiewicz University, Pozna, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer
Science,
author of books on Polish Club

This article concerns the case of withdrawing the invitation to Bermuda Bowl to the pair:
Cezary Balicki, Adam mudziski.
The article is designed as follows:
Section 1. states the main facts concerned with the invitation withdrawal and the
participation of team Poland in Bermuda Bowl.
Section 2. describes the method of analysis carried out in Section 3.
Section 3. analyses material sent unofficially by Mr. Brogeland to Mr. Kalita of the Polish
national team the day after the invitation withdrawal.
Section 4. concludes the article with the authors opinion on the case as well as a suggestion
for proceeding in similar cases.

Section 1. Facts concerned with the invitation withdrawal and

the participation of team Poland in Bermuda Bowl.
Saturday, 26th of November 2015, 6:50 p.m.
This communication aears on the WBF web-page:
The Credentials Commiee of the World Bridge Federation met earlier today. It
determined that the invitation extended to Cezary BALICKI and Adam ZMUDZINSKI be
withdrawn; consequently they will no longer be eligible to play in the Bermuda Bowl in
Chennai.
Saturday, 26th of November 2015, 7:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m.
Opening Ceremony
Saturday, 26th of November 2015, 9:00 p.m. 9:15 p.m.
A talk between the Chairman of the WBF Commiee, Yves Aubry and representatives of
the Polish team: Piotr Walczak, NPC, Krzysztof Jassem, player.
The Polish representatives want to know the rationale behind the decision. The Chairmans
answers that the Commiee is allowed to take a decision of not inviting players without
giving a reason. Mr. Aubry admits, however, that a material on Balicki-mudzikis
misbehaviour has reached WBF. The material has not yet been analysed.
Sunday, 27th of November, afternoon
Mr. Boye Brogeland and Mr. Jacek Kalita have a skype talk. Mr. Brogeland expresses his
opinion that the Polish team should withdraw from Bermuda Bowl. Mr. Brogeland sends Mr.
Kalita the file that proves the hypothesis on illegal communication between Balicki and
mudziski. Aording to the allegation the pairs code consists in the way they put the
bidding cards on the tray. Specifically, the distance between bids is proportional to the value
of the hand regarding the current bidding, in other words: the larger gap, the stronger hand.
The material sent to Mr. Kalita presents two matches played by the Polish team in European
Championship in Opatija: Poland-Israel and Poland Turkey. The material from the Poland
Turkey match is selected to six boards, and tagged with Mr. Brogelands commentary.

Section 2. Explanation of the analysis method

As a mathematician by education and job, I will attempt to analyse the material with a simple
mathematical tool, the correlation coefficient.
Webster's Online Dictionary defines correlation as a reciprocal relation between two or
more things; a statistic representing how closely two variables co-vary; it can vary from 1
(perfect negative correlation) through 0 (no correlation) to +1 (perfect positive
correlation) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576830/).
I will try to determine the correlation coefficient between the messages coded by gaps in the
bidding as stated by Mr. Brogeland, and the actual values of the hands.
I will use the following translation between card value and integer numbers:
HAND VALUE
NUMBER
VERY NEGATIVE
-2
NEGATIVE
-1
NEUTRAL
0
POSITIVE
1
VERY POSITIVE
2
Table 1. Maing between human hand evaluation and integer numbers

3. Analysis of the Boards from the Poland Turkey Match played

at European Championship, Opatija 2014, selected by Mr.
Brogeland
3.1. Analysis of each of 6 boards
Board: 19. Dlr: South/EW
AJ42
Q6543
A7
83
KQ5

76

AJ

K 10 8 7 2

K5

62

KQ9765

A J 10 2
10 9 8 3
9
Q J 10 9 8 4 3
4

Open Room
West

North

East

South

ATABEY

BALICKI

KAYA

ZMUDZINSKI
Pass

Pass

Dbl

Pass

Pass

Pass

All pass

Brogelands commentary:
Zmuds 2D bid is almost over Pass holding 1098x x QJ1098xx x
Comment: Super minimum response

Table 2. shows the range of hands that are consistent with the current bidding.
Hand value
-2
-1
0
1
2

Example hand
10732 3 KQ10865 J2
10732 J6 KQJ865 2
10732 76 AQJ865 2
Q103 76 AQJ865 2
K107 76 AQ10865 32

Table 2. Board 19: Example hands consistent with the bidding

The actual hand does not fit to any row of the Table 2. The hand is non-standard, hard to
classify. Because of the scarcity of the material (6 boards) I will not remove this hand from
the analysis. For the favour of the hypothesis I am trying to verify, I will classify the hand to
the group indicated by the message code: very negative.
Message Code
-2

Hand Value
-2

Table 3. Board 19: Message Code vs Hand Value

Board: 22. Dlr: East/EW

65
A32
KJ9432
J8
72

AKQ943

K76

Q 10 9

Q 10 6

Q 10 9 7 3

K65
J 10 8
J854
A87
A42

Open Room
West

North

East

South

ATABEY

BALICKI

KAYA

ZMUDZINSKI

Pass

Pass

1NT

Mr. Brogelands commentary:

Zmuds second Pass is quite far from the first one holding J108 J8xx Axx Axx
Comment: Super strong for Pass
Technical commentary: The second pass is in the standard position (see Figure 1.).

Figure 1. The picture delivered by Mr. Brogeland commented as: The second pass is quite far from the first one.

Board: 25. Dlr: North/EW

A J 10 4 3
- A J 10 5 3 2
K6
K852

97

Q 10

K98753

K7

10 9 8 5 4

AJ73
Q6
AJ642
Q964
Q2

Open Room
West

North

East

South

ATABEY

BALICKI

KAYA

ZMUDZINSKI

pass

Pass

Mr. Brogelands commentary:

Balickis 3D is quite far from 1S AJ10xx - AJ10xxx Kx
Comment: Very strong and extra diamond for 3D
Commentary on the technical part of the bidding:
In the Polish Club version used by Balicki mudziski 2 and 2 openings show 5-5
distribution in the range of 5-10 HCP. The lower boundary of 1 is 11 HCP. The upper
boundary of 1 opening is 17 HCP (stronger hands are opened with 11). A common
agreement is that the actual bidding shows 5-5 distribution with some extras in strength that
justify overriding the previously bid suit.

Hand value
-2
-1
0
1
2

Example hand
AJ1043 AJ10532 J6
AJ1043 AJ1053 K63
AJ1043 AJ10532 K6
AQ1043 AJ10532 K6
AQ1043 AQ10432 K6

Table 4. Board 25: Example hands consistent with the bidding

Message Code
2

Hand Value
0

Table 7. Board 25. Message Code vs Hand Value

Board: 26. Dlr: East/All

A 10 9 6
K82
10 4 2
10 6 5
Q87

KJ543

J 10 7

9654

QJ876

A93

42

Q
2
AQ3
K5
AKJ9873

Open Room
West

North

East

South

ATABEY

BALICKI

KAYA

ZMUDZINSKI

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Mr. Brogelands commentary:

Balickis 3C is almost on his 1S A109x Kxx 10xx 10xx
Comment: Partners showing 16+ with clubs, he has subminimum for 3C after
his 1S bid (positive already).
Commentary on the bidding:
Balickis 3 rebid shows the range of 7-8 HCP. 2 would have been an artificial forcing bid
showing 9+ HCP.

Hand value
-2
-1
0
1
2

Example hand
KJ54 QJ2 8432 65
KJ54 QJ2 842 865
A654 K82 842 865
A1096 K82 1042 1065
A1096 K82 1042 J106

Table 5. Board 3: Example hands coherent with bidding

Message Code
-2

Hand Value
1

Table 7. Board 3. Message Code vs Hand Value

Board: 27. Dlr: South/None

K 10 6 5
AK6
J
AK832
J43

A98

75

Q987532

AK64

Q9

J654
Q72
Q J 10 9 8 4 3
10
10 7

Open Room
West

North

East

South

ATABEY

BALICKI

KAYA

ZMUDZINSKI
3

Pass

4NT

Pass

Mr. Brogelands commentary:

Zmuds 5D is almost on 3H bid. Qxx QJ1098xx 10 10x
Comment: Very weak 3H opening, no useful values.
Commentary on the bidding:
Mr mudziski opened 3 hearts non-vulnerable and showed no keycard.
Hand value
-2
-1
0
1
2

Example hand
72 Q1098743 102 107
72 QJ109843 102 107
Q72 Q1098743 10 107
Q72 QJ109843 10 107
K72 QJ109843 10 107

Table 8. Board 27: Example hands consistent with the bidding

Message Code
-2

Hand Value
1

Table 8. Board 27. Message Code vs Hand Value

Board: 31. Dlr: South/NS

A873
9654
K 10 8 7
10
Q 10 5 2

KJ964

A8

KQ2

J92

J98762

K3
- J 10 7 3
AQ653
AQ54

Open Room
West

North

East

South

ATABEY

BALICKI

KAYA

ZMUDZINSKI

Pass

Pass

dble

Mr Brogelands commentary:
Balickis double is almost on 1H bid Axxx xxxx K10xx 10.
Comment: Minimal values for Double.
Commentary on the bidding:
I am not sure about Balickis intention for double. It looks to me like a kind of co-operative
double: partner should pass with flat distribution (given the bidding), e.g. 1444, and bid on
with better shape. Table 10. is consistent with such an interpretation. All examples take into
consideration that Balicki did not bid 4 instead.

Hand value
-2
-1
0
1
2

Example hand
A873 9654 10 QJ73
A873 9654 K1087 10
A873 9654 10 K1087
A873 9654 J2 KJ7
A873 9654 J2 KQ7

Table 9. Board 31: Example hands consistent with the bidding

Message Code
-2

Hand Value
-1

Table 10. Board 31. Message Code vs Hand Value

Board: 32. Dlr: West/EW

A9
AQ5
43
A J 10 8 7 6
KJ7632

Q 10 8 4

10 2

987

A987

K5

KQ52
5
KJ643
Q J 10 6 2
94

Open Room
West

North

East

South

ATABEY

BALICKI

KAYA

ZMUDZINSKI

2D!!

2NT

Pass

3(1)

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Dbl

All pass

The contract went two down, 4 spades would have been set one down.

Mr. Brogelands commentary on the bidding:

Zmuds pass is far from 3D bid x KJxxx QJxxx xx
Comment: Must be suggesting values given Balicki bids 5c by himself.
Commentary on the bidding: Balicki-mudziski treat this auction as a forcing pass situation (bidding
vulnerable game before non-vulnerable opponents). Table 11 is consistent with their point of view.

Hand value
-2
-1
0
1
2

Example hand
KJ643 J1086 J943
KJ643 J10862 J93
5 KJ643 QJ1062 94
KJ643 QJ1062 943
5 KJ643 K1062 Q94

Table 11. Board 32: Example hands consistent with the bidding

Message Code
1

Hand Value
0

Table 12. Board 32: Message Code vs Hand Value

3.2. The results of the analysis.

1) The analysis was carried out on a small sample of selected boards that are supposed to
support the thesis.
2) One of the boards (No. 19), hard to evaluate, was classified as very weak in order to
strengthen Mr. Brogelands hypothesis.
3) One of the boards (No. 22) was not taken into account because the picture is not consistent
with its tag (big gap between passes)

Coded Message
Hand Value

Board 19 Board 25 Board 26 Board 31 Board 32 Correlation Coefficient

-2
2
-2
-2
1
-2
0
1
-1
0
0,314944889

The coefficient shows very weak correlation between the code and the actual hand value.

4. Conclusions.
1) In my opinion this report should end The Balicki-Zmudzinski case.
2) I suggest the following objective method of examining similar cases:

1) Take a statistically significant sample of random boards.

a. Statistical significant the number of the sample should be determined by an expert
on statistics
b. Random - The selection of the boards should by no means be suggested by any
interested party
2) Evaluate the value of each hand by a panel of bridge experts of the same experience level.
Take an average of the marks
3) Automatically classify the position of the bids to one of the classes this can be done by a
computer program based on elementary machine learning technique
4) Calculate the correlation coefficient between human and automatic evaluation
5) Let an expert on statistics interpret the result.