jkdood

DELETED BY AUTHOR

Now that we have learned(?) that inadvertent glances of the opps flashed cards are AI not UI, it makes me wonder: A) When a "non-putz" bids accordingly, successfully, and is questioned about an apparently unusual call, what will stating the root of the AI that influenced him result in? (Ie; neutral feelings? condemnation, forgiveness, hate, anger, indignation, admiration, ???)

I like 2s, despite seeing what the better players are voting (above,) It seems safer at imps, where if that is a poor spot, I am less likely to be doubled into game. It would help to know if opps x's are negative or penalty on the 2-level... if negative (my own pref) its harder to get caught speeding! I also like 2S because it takes up room, suggests a pleasant strain, and because double gives them so much room to use all their tools. P.S. Mr. Landy likes your methods also!

Oh, I should probably include (same minutes, Toronto 2001): "however, because Mr. Piltch has been disciplined twice within a 24 month period, he is automatically placed on ACBL probation for two years by ACBL management. "

It should be hard to say "Justin was wrong", when the published minutes of at least 3 different nationals mention that something went beyond simply "accusation". Example, Toronto 2001: "In the matter of Howard Piltch 's (N966671) appeal of the decision of District 25 Disciplinary and Appellate Committee's decisions, the committee affirms the factual findings of the committees, but finds the previous discipline is excessive... reduced to public reprimand and 30 days probation... " (The developments centered on appeals, which did not exactly succeed.)

alcohol? drugs? seeking new partners? opps?

At the risk of being off-topic by being on-topic - :rolleyes: - I am sure most posters know that on BBO, especially in tournaments, and on other online venues like OKB (and perhaps even at the club level,) calls and actions that smell of UI are made far too often for most players comfort or enjoyment. Possibly due to income or membership considerations, but more likely due to the time and energy required to review and resolve this in individual circumstances with limited tools and success, it continues unabated. The "Recorder system" shows promise but has fallen far short for the benefit of most venues. To call a spade a spade, there seems to be a lot of cheating, and the processes for addressing it are not user-friendly, painless, or even reasonably fruitful on most levels. Some tool, like a RofC in concept, would be a welcome addition to a well-needed arsenal of possible resolution.

It may well be something that is worthy of discussion. The discussion could have been initiated with a hypothetical or with the actual hand some days/weeks removed from the time of its occurrence with specifics of the parties involved left out. Good points although it belies what might be the major problem with any sort of RofC: What review and determination is appropriate for consideration of the player(s) involved? Are they a rank beginner? Was an ace hidden? Was the state of the match involved? Were they mad at their partner? Did an opp flash a card inadvertently? Have they done this (successfully, unsuccessfully) before? Have they read a similar BBO post recently? :rolleyes: Etc. No easy, perhaps no good answers. But maybe someone has a workable idea, and wouldn't that be nice?

Regarding the above and this thread: There could/would be a thread much longer if it addressed what all the reasons might be for a pasttime (bridge) having significantly suffered in popularity from 50 or so years ago; even 25 years ago. The RofC school of thought in the 70's and 80's seems to have risen to address a problem that needed, in many excellent bridge minds' opinions, to be addressed. It was indeed implemented, and yes, it wasn't workable in the form it took, and was effectively retracted. No matter how you want to play it because he used an example that has now become legend, Justin's initial post explicitly poses the thought that some sort of rule or law might be called for to address incidents like the example. I, for one, couldn't agree more, although I understand the problems and issues with the RofC and other suggestions. Maybe bringing this thread into beneficial discussion of other alternatives (rather than "closing it") makes even more sense? P.S. If the guy who bid 7H x xx in anger at his partner got called on the carpet as a result of some review, well, is that really bad???

Welcome to the FRAY Peter. Uhh (just a M here) but how is LHO to be considered "having marked spade void" in this auction?

"Chua" is correct. Book (and info about author) is available. see for example http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2963978.Cathy_Chua

Assuming pard heard me double 3S, I would not only pass but expect to make it (or perhaps it's time for a new partner.) a 7-5 such as x Kxxxx void KQJTxxx seems the very least pard could have. Of course need both A of H and K of S onside to make. Wish I had bid 5C myself to get the spade lead AWAY from the K, as RHO must be on a yarborough!

Thanks M. I feel your frustration and indignation greatly. Especially at first! And you probably are aware I am no fan of Mr. P (or Mr. O or whatever I call him.) Maybe it was just a "tilt". And when it worked and when he had a C&E director visit/discussion at the break, he decided to take it easy from then on. I dunno. I do know you won the match (Yea!) and had some great results in Nawlins! Congrats!

Well, 6D is a bit safer than 6H since if it is doubled, you can then try 6H ;) The above (Justin's post) opinion and bridge logic is of course accurate and thoughtful. But Justin is by far the better player, (than Mr. P or myself or others posting here)so probably can no longer put himself in an "M"'s shoes :)

I dunno, as Justin knows, I can be an "M" (for Moron), but I can't help but think that if the real "M" (Zia M.) (for Master) bid 6D in some successful match saving or comeback ploy, he might get the Bols award for brilliancy.

If this is your criteria you could accuse at least 90% of all bridge players (including me) of cheating. For example, did you never jump to 3NT, where thorough investigation (an alternative way) would have told you that the opponents can cash the first 5 tricks in a suit? While I admit that bidding "what you think you can make" is nowadays out of favor and in this case a bit unusual, it is not clear that thorough investigation in the bidding will always lead to better results. Though I do not recommend the unorthodox jump to 6♦, because of its obvious risks, there are many arguments in favor of it: 1.) LHO may have a very difficult decision at favorable vulnerability whether to take a (phantom) save or not. (Give opponents the last guess) 2.) The defense is usually much more difficult when you hide the nature of your hand. For example 6♦ might be beatable on a ♥ lead. 3.) If RHO Lightner doubles it may be anything but obvious to LHO that his partner has a void in ♣ instead of in ♥. 4.) Bidding directly 6♦ may be the best way of reaching a lay-down 7♦ when partner decides to raise with an appropriate hand. (long diamonds including the king; nothing else is needed). ( 6♣ is the most likely small slam to make, but the most likely grand seems to be 7♦) It all boils down to judgment. But to believe you can have an unimpeded bidding dialog over 3♠, particularly at unfavorable vulnerability, at no cost is just a little bit naive. Rainer Herrmann When I first heard of the 6D call, like most I hated it and was thoroughly bemused. After much discussion and consideration, however; as a creative imaginative swing-potential call, it seems probably more "thoughtful" than irrational... ...there's also the increased likelihood that LHO would take a rewarding favorable-vul sac of 6S with something like Kxxx Qxxxx Kxx x over a 6C call, which is everyone's favorite "flyer" on this hand. Over 6D, he might not. Besides hands where only 6D makes (but not 6C) - when BOTH MAKE opposite something like xx KJx Jxxx Jxxx, well - isn't the 6D call going to create a swing when 6Sx is the contract in the other room after a scientific 6C is reached, but the LHO here might very well pass out 6D some days? Maybe the example hand for LHO is a "clear" 6S bid, but you could modify it to be "less clear" to achieve the same purpose.

If Sontag had found that cool line to land 3Sx at that juncture, we know who would be the hero of the night and talk of the town. Whoever said "flame is so fleeting" was maybe right on! Meanwhile, well-deserved congrats to hero Brad and the entire team!

He wanted to make sure it would be appropriate to concede at the half? Sorry for repeating this, but I am fairly certain that if you gave this hand as a bidding problem to 100 reasonable (Flight A? Thoughtful? Decent? Not always crazy? u-pick...) players, with the premise/conditions being that you are down in a match against a superior team and want to make a speculative bid that might work out well and might create a positive swing... ....at least 1, and probably 5 to 10 or even more, would select 6D. Sure, other speculative bids would be popular. Sure, it is debatable whether this was a good time for the player to be so pessimistic/so speculative. Sure, it was "amazingly" successful. But because it is (IMHO) not totally illogical and irrational under the stated premises and facts presented, some amount of doubt in my mind about there being inarguable UI remains, and apparently that's true for several other posters.

wow. TY. I also saw Barry Goren posted the same answer at bridgewinners. thanks.

Making 3 ...- the solution is very counter-intuitive. Its almost impossible to see the winning line even looking at all four hands at T5. None of the commentators spotted it, except Cohen (I think) who said "GIB thinks that 3♠ can be made at this point" (after Fred played a high club). Can anyone run GIB or otherwise ascertain the winning line for a make at T5, after A of C is played, please? I don't see it. And yes, North is 2-2-4-5, not as as shown. xx xx QJxx Qxxxx (no T of C.)

Good point (above...) This may be a "duhhhh" but the ACBL's laws seem to address (rather benevolently) "unintentionally seeing an opp's card" differently from "unintentionally overhearing a comment about a deal". The latter (and other more obvious things, such as "peeking") may well be UI, but my example wasn't.

If it is against the rules to take advantage (or just plain unethical) and you do take advantage out of greed, isn't that the very definition of corruption? Well, when are you a putz and when are you corrupt and when are you cheating (after an opp flashes his cards?) On Pg 90 (Laws of Duplicate bridge) it does indeed say: ...(but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing an opponent’s card*). (sorry I doubted you, I just HAD to see it) Seems then like I was a putz to go down intentionally in a contract I could have easily made. All agree?

There seems to some disagreement about this, perhaps as a matter of law if not just a matter of active ethics. I for one welcome more opinons, and/or expertise about this. The above actually happened to me in a Swiss teams many years ago. My ops were Ethan Stein and his client, who flashed an important card by accident. Ethan caught on, and when I was at the crucial point of declarer play, I paused to take stock of the matter. Ethan then said (a wee bit forcefully) "C'mon be a mensch - make your normal play" which after due analysis was in fact a losing play that would see the contract fail. Well, I went down "like a mensch" although whether it was fear of Ethan more than active ethics, I still haven't decided. To this day I have wondered whether the indicated choice by law, by ethics, by obligation to teammates and partner, etc; is really a subjective determination, or black-and-white.

I don't think the major learning experience for beginners is necessarily that when the director is summoned by a more experienced (or nit-picky?) player to report a case of UI such as B-I-T, they should strive to remain calm and un-offended (although that would be nice.) I think the education needed is about how the least favorable logical alternative as per any (substantiated) UI (such as B-I-T) MUST be selected, by applied law. Should the TD substantiate it, he should then ensure the offending side fully understands this obligation. At most club games I have attended, this is rare or at best hit-or-miss. I don't think this is trivial; too often we simply hear after the fact - "I was always going to bid such and such", which is missing the point, of course.