jkdood

IF I had it (on occasion, depending on my partner's thought process or the phase of the moon) and used it, I don't think I would tell about it... ...unless of course it was considered AI and I got brought up on C&E charges for several unusual "lucky" actions I took!

Well, ESP has it's supporters and doubters: "Most ESP claims do not get tested, but parapsychologists have attempted to verify the existence of ESP under controlled conditions. Some, like Charles Tart, Dean Radin, Gary Schwartz, and Raymond Moody, claim success; others, such as Susan J. Blackmore, Richard Wiseman, and Chris French claim that years of trying to find experimental proof of ESP have failed to turn up any proof of indisputable, repeatable psychic powers. Defenders of psi claim that the ganzfeld experiments, the CIA's remote viewing experiments, and attempts to influence randomizers at Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research have produced evidence of ESP. (Please follow the links for more details and criticisms of those experiments.) Psychologists who have thoroughly investigated parapsychological studies, like Jim Alcock (1990, 2003), Ray Hyman (1989), David Marks (2000), and Susan Blackmore (1980, 1995), have concluded that where positive results have been found, the work was fraught with questionable assumptions, lack of randomization, serious problems with controls (no use of control groups or controls of any kind, irrelevant controls), statistical legerdemain, lack of replication, or fraud." I personally have heard of at least a couple of anecdotal examples of ESP-type claims being made regarding "insightful" bridge players, or plays. Is it at all possible that some of the top-ranking masterpoint holders in certain regions (such as New England) from time to time get an ESP "table feel", and act accordingly? Just assuming you accept the existence of this phenomenon, here's a question: If a bridge (or even a poker) player uses it in competition, should it be considered AI, or UI or cheating?

Of course there are smart or extremely able cheaters, as well as poor ones. It was somewhat amusing to me that the Reese Shapiro UK defense of the Argentina actions largely centered on what they did or didn't do, or could have done, on specific hands. It seems to me that anyone deep into cheating and also somewhat smart about it, would vary their usages accordingly. They might bid a hand occasionally in such a way that it might be used as defensive evidence, should the need occur, that they could not have been cheating a certain way. Therefore it may be extremely difficult to establish cheating took place by even careful expert analysis of a large set of deals, if the cheater is thus smart.

I think many TDs tend NOT to consult with less than top expert players available, in practice, most of the time. IMHO, I think they prefer to hob-nob with the creme de la creme, human nature being what it is... ...but you brought up an excellent point. From what I know of the bridge level of many of the posters here, they me be more aligned with Mr. P's level than Justin's Spingold-poll. And as we have seen, they are far from in any total agreement bout the 6D call being impossible without UI. Maybe the TD did do their own poll as a evidence gathering effort, of like players, and found opinion similar to what these threads offer? Hmmn.

Thanks all for Law85a1: 1. In determining the facts, the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. If this indeed applies to UI and the TDs can determine via expert player consulting that there is 100% agreement that the bid "is not possible without UI", it seems they surely went astray in not referring to C&E. EDIT: "Or adjusting!" 2ND EDIT: In which case, there's nothing "wrong with bridge", just some timid, uninformed, or otherwise not-up-to-par TDs here.

What seems equally important to the public debate here, is the notion that presumably 20 of 20 top expert players believe the bid is "not possible without UI" and the TD's are in a position to determine this to some extent. Yet that doesn't rise to the level of being sent to a C&E or other formal inquiry. Something is way wrong with that picture!

I just don't see why the TD's can't go up to their expert player consultants as they often do, and ask: Conditions are as follows... 6D is bid... is this bid "possible without UI"? Y/N? If they all say N, Voila, adjustment, C&E review, etc... Or not. Why someone won't answer (y/n) as Fred didn't, is another matter.

Reference please? Is this in writing anywhere? TY.

But Ken, Junyi, others... Is it POSSIBLE WITHOUT UI? Y/N (maybe a poll....)

Josh you are right. Several really did try to justify the choice of 6D, as if they would also (under the same conditions) make the same bid. (Not that I believe it.) I actually lean towards the "impossible without UI" feelings. But I can also feel someone is likely guilty when the jury says otherwise. In such a case I respect the official judgement, NOT GUILTY. Of course, that's not the same as INNOCENT, blah blah blah. Based upon the current rules, standards, treatments, and lack of condemning unanimity, I give him a reluctant PASS.

a) ...don't recall ever seeing or hearing about an expert player intentionally doing anything even remotely similar. IMO not only is bidding 6D an obviously terrible, terrible, way to swing... b ) ...I would suggest to some who think 6♦ was a sensible bid to remain silent... NO one has really suggested that 6D was sensible, less than bizarre, terrible, etc. But many have suggested that to say 6D was "impossible without UI" is not correct, and it seems that getting even the Top 20 players to all say that in no uncertain terms, isn't going to happen. Not that ACBL rules or TD policies suggest that such a determination by itself is currently worthy of an adjustment, C&E hearing, or otherwise. I think Mr. P. might very well be deserving of benefit of the doubt, at the very least, for this single "lucky strike".

Well, you are certainly right about that! "Reporting" that 20 of the top 20 experts asked termed the bid "impossible without UI" must be one of the biggest examples of heresay ever made.

Well, Justin did say up front that something like a "civil conviction" not rising to the standards of a "criminal convction" might be called for. Whether or not this would be good for bridge and workable, seems a valid discussion point.

I guess we could never get totally fair and adequate standards all agree with, but: If we get the so-called 20 unanimous "top experts" (it certainly wasn't unanimous on the BBO thread) into a quiet room, make them read the thread and think about it, and just one of them now decides that the bid "IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT UI"... ...then we give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. P, without regret, maybe with apology?

If you make an outlandishly bizarre bid ... Geesh, can you imagine if something was in place that had the effect of dissuading this?

Listen, if ALL the top experts (consulted or otherwise, upon more reflection or otherwise) feel this bid was "impossible without UI", then there indeed seems to be something very wrong with bridge that this can occur and not be dealt with by some version of C&E or other means, to censor, adjust, or make things right-er. On the other hand, if the representation is not accurate, something else is wrong.

I guess one of the purposes of the closed thread, is that there should be some new or different applicable rules (why else is something otherwise "wrong with bridge") when a so-called "impossible without UI" call is made. I guess after 30 pages and 20,000 views, no consensus was reached on that. But here's a friendly challenge. Fred was surely polled, and absorbed the closed thread's arguments. Does Fred think now this 6D call should be judged "impossible without UI"? :rolleyes:

A C&E deliberation would have been nice, since I think many share MFA's feelings as posted "...if that committee doesn't find anything to take action on, I will respect it 100% and never even think about using any word starting with a "c". The player (whom I don't know) will have my complete benefit of the doubt that he just chose a remarkable action with remarkable success, and it is part of the charm of the game that wild things can readily happen." Although Justin reports that he would push for a C&E committee, he subsequently posted: "...The ruling is, there is no evidence of UI so the table result stands. The ruling as far as a C&E hearing is that there will be none, because this hand is not evidence of any misconduct." One would also think, since many seem to concur with Justin's reporting that the Top 20 Spingold experts all agree that "... This bid is impossible without any form of UI", that there SHOULD HAVE BEEN a C&E hearing. But there wasn't because "because this hand is not evidence of any misconduct." ??? WHO made such a determination? The TD(s)? Why would the TD's, who frequently consult with "top players" on rulings, make such a determination that contradicts the 20 out of 20 top experts polled? Is it because the representation of such polling is inaccurate? Or if not, are the TD's making determinations that defy the reported unanimous opinion? I would really like to know why (or opinion on why) we hear that all the top players at NO thought the bid was "impossible without UI", yet there was no C&E convened.

An abbreviated description of the color spectrum Red orange yellow Green indigo Blue RGB Don't you know Roy G. Biv? *Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Indigo Violet Could RGB possibly just be rec.games.bridge? (hint hint)

And for that more than 30 pages of posts and over 20,000 views? Now THAT'S "kibble for the intellect"!

Yeah, figures. Makes me oh for 2. Last time I was given a similar bidding problem, I didn't pass, and was wrong then too :) Try me again in a year, if I do not pass again (3 strikes u out) please ban me B)

32 pages of posts on this thread and this may be the strangest one of all. Wow, that take ME off the hook (sorta) Thanks, Art!

Why not say "excuse me" then go tell the TD what happened and what your concerns are AND that there are no CCards there. He might make things work out so none of the stuff you are concerned about will occur, or be used.

Yeah yeah, you got problems. Who doesn't? You also can be charming, funny, smart, loyal, helpful, talented, insightful, etc. What's not to like? OK you can be annoying and if you don't take your meds, lose a grip. So what? I mean cmon. perspective, man. Not self-pity, not "you'll be sorry when I'm gone" Because we would be. Many here love you, like you, enjoy you. Even those you might piss off. So shake it off man, please.

You've got a lot of great qualities Justin, and most enjoy them immensely. Some just never will, that makes a world, which is full of great things as well as crap. Like most folks, you may occasionally have your lesser moments, and if people react strongly it's just a sorta personal baggage that gets the best of them (or worst of them.) So whatever. Just know your many good personality traits and contributions would be missed greatly if they were gone from this forum and elsewhere. So stick around, and do what you do. PLEASE!