jlw77

The bare facts of the hand were spectacular enough that I think the story was bound to spread quickly. When I sat down for the 3rd quarter on Monday, my opponents (foreign players with, I assume, no personal connection to Justin's team) told us the story. This probably had nothing to do with the internet. That said, I think it is much better that cheating allegations go through proper channels and not be aired publicly. If there are also, inevitably, widespread rumors, so be it, but this is different from an aggrieved party putting an accusation on a chat board. Let me add, when I first heard the story I was angry, nauseated and probably ready to join a lynch mob. 6♦ just sounds impossible. As I endured the usual insomnia that night, I was probably thinking as much about this hand as about the big losing swings from my own match! So I have all the sympathy in the world for Justin being furious and perhaps going too far. The fact that I feel very differently a few days later is one very good reason we have a society of laws where cooler heads can prevail. One of our laws says that cheating allegations should be made confidentially via a director or recorder. Finally, while Justin's recent post is completely right that 6♦ is *not* an intelligent way to swing because it is very likely you can get there by normal means when it's right, that's not the question. The question is whether *this* player could conceivably have convinced himself that 6♦ was a good way to swing. Considering that he spends much of his bridge life playing in side games at regionals with clients (not Bud) who would probably make any of Justin's clients look like geniuses, I'm sure he has developed an unusually strong predilection for unilateral actions. This also fits his personality. Such habits are hard to break. A few days ago I never would have thought I'd be making the defense's argument, but there it is. Again, I really hope there is useful video that can exonerate or the reverse. Jonathan

My stance has softened on this one; initially I was as ready to convict as anyone. But I have changed my opinion from guilty to maybe guilty, and I now think it would be wrong to convict with no other evidence. The simulations are interesting, but not ultimately relevant, because it doesn't matter if the bid was sane or even if it was state-of-the-match sane (I don't think it was; there will be many superior ways to swing in 40 boards.) It only matters if *this* player might have done something this weird without a wire. Although I'm suspicious, I can't say *for sure* he wouldn't. It also doesn't matter if *we* all think it was poor tactics to start swinging for the fences with 40 boards left; the question is whether HP might have thought otherwise. It's possible, and it's also possible that once he visualized the winning scenario he overrated its likelihood. One final point which was being discussed on-site but I haven't seen here: if you want to swing, why not bid 4nt planning to raise 5d to slam? This will earn you 90% of the plus swings available by bidding 6d. It might lose on this hand since partner happens to be 4-4 and might bid 5c. Suspicious, right? But then, if the hand was fixed, why not give partner 4-3 minors so the 4nt plan works? Of course, this doesn't close the case--HP *could* have just not thought of 4NT. People who are swinging definitely don't always do so in the most intelligent manner. We are left with two possibilities: 1. HP fixed the deal, but failed to come up with a way to do so that didn't involve making a bizarre bid that was sure to cause an uproar, thereby showing a distinct failure of creativity in his evil-doing. 2. HP visualized a scenario where 6D would work, wanted it to work, talked himself into thinking it was higher-percentage than it is, didn't think of 4nt, and got lucky. Both involve irrational behavior. But notice that #1 requires *cold-blooded* irrational behavior, while #2 involves *warm-blooded* irrational behavior. Psychologically, the latter is more likely. Though, I will say that many cheaters are not that clever, so we can’t just routinely acquit on the basis of “no one would cheat that stupidly.” #1 is possible, I just no longer consider it much more likely than #2. So, I now have come a long way from my initial (nauseated) reaction to this story, and I now think as a C&E committee member I wouldn’t vote to suspend the player based solely on the hand. However, I would tell him that if he intends to often make bizarre bids no one else would consider, he really needs to keep a record of when they fail spectacularly. Otherwise, if they succeed spectacularly more than a few times, the statistical evidence against him will be very strong. I do not agree with Justin that “1 for 1” is significant enough…the chances of success appear to be in the 10% range. The usual scientific standard for statistical significance is 5%, and a much stricter cutoff is needed for criminal convictions. Thanks to my friend “pretender” for influencing my thinking about this. By the way, isn’t there video surveillance for NABC+ events? I hope that there is video and it is helpful, otherwise we will never know what happened. --Jonathan Weinstein