TimG

"If north can rebid 2♦, he does" so it also sounds like north has 6 diamonds. I changed the simulation conditions to give north 6+ diamonds and south 6+ hearts and came up with north holding ♠KQ 28.2% of the time.

Don't we get anything for a non-trump lead, or a bit of card-reading? Perhaps you should, I was just reporting what I found through simulation. Did not mean to imply anything beyond that.

I've tried to duplicate these condition. My first run of 1000 deals produced a 5♣ making percentage of 56.6%, so I suspect I've got something slightly off, but pretty close. I then replaced East's ♠J with the ♠6. Under this condition 5♣ made 9.3% of the time. I think it is safe to say that the double dummy results greatly overstate the chances of 5♣ making as a result of being successful against both ♠KQ and ♠Hxxx in north. If you allow declarer to make 9.3% of the time plus 30.1% of the remaining 90.7% (cherdanno's percentage for KQ in north), you get 5♣ making 36.6%. Under both conditions, 4♣ failed less than 0.5% of the time, so it doesn't seem to me that there should be any difference between the scores for 3♣ and 4♣.

Speaking with the director and/or filing a player memo is the official course of action and is private rather than public. Discussing the hand with "most of the experts in the Spingold" is also a public action. I believe this hand occurred in the second quarter of the match (not at Justin's table so that he would not have known about it until halftime) and Justin posted the hand here during the halftime break of the match. The post is stamped Jul 26 2010, 05:49 PM for me, which I believe from noting time stamps on other posts is the actual Central Time Zone time that the post was made. That does not leave much time for using proper channels and privately seeking advice from a respected player or two. If it had "already been discussed with most of the experts in the Spingold" that was surely very quick, I'm surprised it would reach most of them so early in the dinner break. In short, the rate with which the news spread was controlled largely by Justin and his teammates. If they had pursued this matter strictly through official channels, it is highly unlikely that we would be discussing the matter now or ever.

I'm sure everyone who read your post that included reference to a suspension is still following this thread and has now read your retraction. No harm done.

I have a 14 year-old daughter who has read and enjoyed Sachar books (actually 2-3 years ago). I knew Sachar played bridge, but until reading the Bulletins from New Orleans, I didn't know that he had written a bridge novel. Interesting to hear that it is both geared towards teens and has bridge content rather than just being in a bridge setting. I'm curious, but might wait until there is a copy at the library.

Yeah, using a single set of opponents' hands must be wrong.

4♦ over 4♣. If partner retreats to 4♠, I think I'm worth another bid: 5♣.

My first thought was 4♣, must accept the game try if that is what partner holds and shows which minor I control if he has a slam try. Over 5♣X, I'll bid 5♥.

Well, why would it - neither side has won, neither side has lost. I think both sides have lost: Justin has lost because he made a public accusation of cheating, Piltch has lost because he has been accused of cheating and lots of misinformation about the past has been tossed about.

No, the opponents have neglected to check the system card or ask for a review with explanation. The point I expect you are about to make is that those using the Billy Miller speculative double can also check the system card or ask for explanations before making their double.

A 5N which asks for kings is conventional whether or not it promises all the aces, isn't it?

A single case? I don't think so. It would take repeated cases for me. I don't know how many.

looks like all 32 breaks handle fairly easily by A and low. However this is played like this to handle some of the 41 breaks where the singleton is either the K or T. You usually bite the dust against KTxx vs x. Sure you can pick it up on your left by finessing the 9 but you increase your 32 losses when RHO has Tx I'm not good at these things either...but leading the Queen seems to pick up singleton 7, 8 or T on your left and singleton T or K on your right. Ace and then low picks up singleton K or T on either side. So, doesn't leading the Queen pick up an extra 4-1? (Really asking, I'm never confident in these things.)

The opposite of my experience. If it is true in District 20 they are blessed with some unusually favorable site rental conditions for their large regionals. There are lots of small sites to choose from, and only a few larger ones. As a result, the cost of a large site is higher - often much higher - on a per-square-foot basis than a small site. It is the case in District 25 (New England) that the better attended regionals are the money makers and the less well attended regionals tend to lose money. But, no regional has been held in Boston in many years (it's probably been 15-20 years since one was right across the river in Cambridge) -- none of the regionals is held in the big cities. I do not know how it works in other Districts, but District 25 seldom if ever pays directly for convention space. Contracts are made such that filling a certain room block and/or buying a certain amount of food from the host's food service results in no charge for the convention space. District 25 is geographically small, even when a regional is held in an out of way spot like Portland, Maine, travel distances are shorter than in many of the geographically very large western districts. It is even smaller if you consider it from a population density standpoint with a large percentage of the membership located in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Convention space on the scale needed for an NABC is very different than that needed for a 400 guest wedding reception. In some places, the fact that the tournament spreads over 3-4 days is a good thing even though the host might make the same amount of money on a single night for a different event. It's easier for them to be able to keep their employees when they can employ them regularly rather just one or two days a week. This also plays into the off-season rates. Host sites are happy to be able to keep their employees year-round rather than dealing with seasonal employees. I believe that most ACBL regionals use 81 square feet/table as a rule of thumb for playing areas. At NABCs it is even higher, especially when screens are in use (though that is not often).

I don't think that changes things much, if at all. I think part of the reasoning is that there really isn't a difference between 14 and 15 or 42 and 46.

The two highest profile cheating cases (in the ACBL) in recent years both involved hand-dealing. It's been suggested in this case is that if cheating occurred it was probably done during the dealing. That's probably just because it is a bad way to cheat. I suspect there are lots more people cheating through overheard information than board fixing and that the perpetrators get away with the overheard information form of cheating a much higher percentage of the time.

If the three-way is 1-64-65, that means #2 has an easier time heads up with 63. If the three-way is 2-64-65, that means #3 has an easier time heads up with 62. If the three-way is 3-64-65, that means #4 has an easier time heads up with 61. If we extend this all the way to down the list to: If the three-way is 32-64-65, that means #33 has an easier time heads up with 31 We end up with a false statement (#33 would actually prefer to be in the three-way than in the heads up match). So, somewhere along the line there must be a place of near equilibrium. Maybe 12-64-65 is nearly the same as 13-52? 20-64-65 is nearly the same as 21-44? 25-64-65 is nearly the same as 26-39? It is true that the equilibrium spot will vary from event to event, but it seems to me that a reasonably accurate long-term guess could be made for the appropriate three-way. Tim

Some top 32 team(s) will be inconvenienced since they can't all advance.

lol? According to Cascade's figures, partner rates to have 4+ diamonds 48.4% of the time. rhm's "I'm not even sure whether it is an underdog" is pretty close. I'd say the answer to "lol?" is "no".

As an aside of sorts, I think it is much more likely that information is gained from boards that are shuffled and dealt by others than from boards that you shuffle and deal. Next time you're kibitzing an event with hand dealt boards, watch carefully and I bet you can gain a lot of information during the shuffle and deal from at least one player at the table. (I'd suggest doing it in an event you are playing in, but that would be improper.)

Sure, but there are many ways to lose IMPs. The question is whether there were other actions taken which were crazy enough that they might seem like "cheating" (or at least be worth filing a recorder form about) if they had worked but which actually didn't work. Is it crazy to take an inferior line that will sometimes gain? Stretch to bid games? Stay out of games that others will bid? All of these things could be done as the result of illegally obtained information. This sort of investigation will require a definition of "crazy" and that relies upon the opinion of players and you're right back to the beginning. It is my opinion that this sort of investigation is fine for raising suspicion, but for conviction there needs to be evidence of just how the alleged information was obtained.

They lost by over 125 IMPs; I'm sure there were plenty of actions taken by the Piltch team that didn't work out so well.

I admire your standing by your bridge partner but the two District 24 disciplinary cases with suspension and subsequent probation are public knowledge. I suspect you mean District 25. Edit: I should add that I think you're off in your facts.