Good bid!

[JLOGIC]

I appreciate his partner coming forward to post these facts. Btw #14 is such a dispicible and dumb thing to do, why do people think things like that are a good idea??? Hemant was kind to let him say anything before hanging up.

I agree that it was probably unwise, but why is it despicable? Or, at least, supposing that he were innocent, why woud it be despicable?

Umm because he called at 9:30 AM and I have to play the round of 16 today? Guess what, I was SLEEPING, and sleeping is nice before an important match. Sleeping is a normal thing to do when it it is 3 and a half hours before game time, especially when I sit out the first set.

 

Can't really respond to any of this yet because I have to play, all I'm going to say is I don't see any new "facts" that have been presented. Mr Piltch says he only dealt board 8, ok. What a weird thing to remember, which exact board you dealt, and how convenient. I know personally that I don't ever know what exact board number I dealt, but it would be very convenient to do so if someone thought maybe I rigged a board.

 

Also, lol at a lie detector test. How about this, we ask all of the people on the top 20 seeds of the spingold whether or not they think that Mr. Piltch had some kind of UI in order to bid 6D. If less than 95 % of these people think he did, I will write a public apology. If more than 95 % did, he will resign from the ACBL.

But that's the whole thing about this, isn't it?

 

It's irrelevant whether any of the top 20 seeds THINK Piltch did something wrong. Cheating is a very very serious accusation in the ACBL. Accusing someone of cheating is almost just as serious as someone actually cheating. Put aside the personal feelings. It's about facts. Again, you're the one who's accusing him, in a public forum no less.

 

"Can't really respond to any of this yet because I have to play" Then please wait until you're finished (and I wish you best of luck), have time to process all that's being said, and respond with an understanding of the gravity of the situation, the accusations, and the consequences.

I made no direct accusation of cheating. The point of this post is that:

 

The laws of bridge should be changed so that a hand like this is evidence enough of UI, so that there can be an adjustment. When zero players of someones level will bid 6D, and zero players think 6D can be bid without UI, that should be enough for an adjustment.

 

I named no names. The bar for being suspended for cheating should clearly be higher than the bar for adjusting a board based on possible UI. To me the difference is like civil court vs criminal court, I doubt anyone would argue that this hand alone is not a preponderance of evidence of UI, and thus an adjustment should be awarded even if the player involved is not punished criminally.

[JLOGIC]

Also I assume Mr Piltch does not want to go into detail on a public forum about his disciplinary/ethical history wrt Rosen/Bramley/Wolff etc. I am willing to not go there as it pretty much amounts to mud slinging, and is hearsay on my part (albeit from much more reputable people than Mr. Piltch who were involved). Let's keep it to this hand.

[peachy]

Edit: I should add that I think you're off in your facts.

Yes, 25. Typo

What do you mean "off in your facts", other than the typo.

 

Edit: I removed the incorrect statement. You are right. My apologies.

[pretender]

I appreciate his partner coming forward to post these facts. Btw #14 is such a dispicible and dumb thing to do, why do people think things like that are a good idea??? Hemant was kind to let him say anything before hanging up.

I agree that it was probably unwise, but why is it despicable? Or, at least, supposing that he were innocent, why woud it be despicable?

Umm because he called at 9:30 AM and I have to play the round of 16 today? Guess what, I was SLEEPING, and sleeping is nice before an important match. Sleeping is a normal thing to do when it it is 3 and a half hours before game time, especially when I sit out the first set.

 

Can't really respond to any of this yet because I have to play, all I'm going to say is I don't see any new "facts" that have been presented. Mr Piltch says he only dealt board 8, ok. What a weird thing to remember, which exact board you dealt, and how convenient. I know personally that I don't ever know what exact board number I dealt, but it would be very convenient to do so if someone thought maybe I rigged a board.

 

Also, lol at a lie detector test. How about this, we ask all of the people on the top 20 seeds of the spingold whether or not they think that Mr. Piltch had some kind of UI in order to bid 6D. If less than 95 % of these people think he did, I will write a public apology. If more than 95 % did, he will resign from the ACBL.

But that's the whole thing about this, isn't it?

 

It's irrelevant whether any of the top 20 seeds THINK Piltch did something wrong. Cheating is a very very serious accusation in the ACBL. Accusing someone of cheating is almost just as serious as someone actually cheating. Put aside the personal feelings. It's about facts. Again, you're the one who's accusing him, in a public forum no less.

 

"Can't really respond to any of this yet because I have to play" Then please wait until you're finished (and I wish you best of luck), have time to process all that's being said, and respond with an understanding of the gravity of the situation, the accusations, and the consequences.

I made no direct accusation of cheating. The point of this post is that:

 

The laws of bridge should be changed so that a hand like this is evidence enough of UI, so that there can be an adjustment. When zero players of someones level will bid 6D, and zero players think 6D can be bid without UI, that should be enough for an adjustment.

 

I named no names. The bar for being suspended for cheating should clearly be higher than the bar for adjusting a board based on possible UI. To me the difference is like civil court vs criminal court, I doubt anyone would argue that this hand alone is not a preponderance of evidence of UI, and thus an adjustment should be awarded even if the player involved is not punished criminally.

The problem here with "expert" testimony is that this is not a science. I've been known to many of my partners and opponents over the years to have made bids that wouldn't occur to most players and yet I never make such bids without bridge reasons, whether others agree with those reasons or not. When you just assign a "top players" group to such a question, you also have strong possibilities for groupthink.

 

If your intention is that there should be a civil/criminal court resolution to such matters, then I really think you should have made it clear that that was the purpose of this discussion thread. As someone who read the post objectively, it sounded fairly accusatory enough, let alone if I was the one who was being addressed.

 

As someone who prides himself on thinking outside the box, especially at bridge, I hate when people use something along the lines of "no one else would do that" as a "reason". I once played on a team in a side swiss event with a teammate whom I'm pretty sure you know, who knew he was so far ahead in the match that he made a red on white psych and it worked. Again, another case of something "zero people polled would do", but it worked. Are you to punish him for that?

[awm]

Were any additional "state of the match" bids/plays made by this individual, or did they play down the middle bridge the rest of the time? If there were other wild and gambling actions, how did they work out?

This is a very good point.

 

As Hrothgar pointed out (perhaps indirectly) these types of incidents suffer from a form of selection bias. We tend to notice/report/complain about "crazy" seeming actions which work out, whereas similarly crazy actions which end in disaster for the perpetrators don't get recorder forms filed (or posts on BBF).

 

It's worth noting that Justin's team still had a big lead after this board happened. If the person in question is just trying to create action to get back in the match (rather than having some UI on the particular board), he would probably try a few more "offbeat" calls. It seems likely that many of them would backfire. Did this happen?

[TimG]

It's worth noting that Justin's team still had a big lead after this board happened. If the person in question is just trying to create action to get back in the match (rather than having some UI on the particular board), he would probably try a few more "offbeat" calls. It seems likely that many of them would backfire. Did this happen?

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.

[jdonn]

LOL at "I have made bids that wouldn't have occured to anyone too" or "I psyched once in 1953 does that make me a cheater?" or all other stupid comparisons made in this thread.

 

I also do not recall ever knowing the board number(s) I shuffled after any match was over. I can assure anyone that I have a far above average memory. Take it for whatever you want, maybe Mr. Piltch and his partner are very special in this regard, I don't know. There are plenty of other ways to get UI about a board other than shuffling and dealing it so I think that whole aspect is a bit of a red herring.

[awm]

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.

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.

[TimG]

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.

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.

[pretender]

LOL at "I have made bids that wouldn't have occured to anyone too" or "I psyched once in 1953 does that make me a cheater?" or all other stupid comparisons made in this thread.

 

I also do not recall ever knowing the board number(s) I shuffled after any match was over. I can assure anyone that I have a far above average memory. Take it for whatever you want, maybe Mr. Piltch and his partner are very special in this regard, I don't know. There are plenty of other ways to get UI about a board other than shuffling and dealing it so I think that whole aspect is a bit of a red herring.

See, I don't care about Howard's guilt or innocence. My point is that Justin's view, that certain bids are soooo suspicious (and as discussed there's selection bias because they're only suspicious when they work out) that they must be punished, is very dangerous groupthink.

 

That's why "I have made bids that wouldn't have occurred to anyone too" matters to me.

 

To me, it's like the guy playing online poker who runs into someone making an atrocious bet or call, hits runner runner, and then feels online poker is rigged because the other guy "must have known".

[TimG]

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.)

[TimG]

Given the bidding it is clear that the chance that partner has 4 or more diamonds is substantial and I am not even sure whether it is an underdog.  (Slam still maybe)

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".

[awm]

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.

I think it's fine to call a bid or play "crazy" if very few players of comparable skill would even consider them (even given the state of the match). I agree with Justin that this bid meets the standard.

 

However, making crazy bids or plays doesn't mean you have UI. And even crazy bids or plays sometimes work out. The suspicious behavior is the individual who only makes crazy bids/plays when they work out.

 

I do not think it's necessary to determine how the alleged information was obtained. A subtle cheater is hard to catch "red-handed." Once suspicion is raised (as per this incident) the right thing to do is try to observe this person's actions on future boards. If he's innocent, he will be observed making other similarly anti-percentage calls in similar match situations, and many of them will not work out. If he's guilty, we will find that his anti-percentage calls seem to always (or almost always) hit the jackpot. Of course, if we had a detailed prior record of all hands he has played (i.e. on BBO) we could just go through them... but the selection bias makes the recorder system substantially less useful for such a process.

[jdonn]

LOL at "I have made bids that wouldn't have occured to anyone too" or "I psyched once in 1953 does that make me a cheater?" or all other stupid comparisons made in this thread.

 

I also do not recall ever knowing the board number(s) I shuffled after any match was over. I can assure anyone that I have a far above average memory. Take it for whatever you want, maybe Mr. Piltch and his partner are very special in this regard, I don't know. There are plenty of other ways to get UI about a board other than shuffling and dealing it so I think that whole aspect is a bit of a red herring.

See, I don't care about Howard's guilt or innocence. My point is that Justin's view, that certain bids are soooo suspicious (and as discussed there's selection bias because they're only suspicious when they work out) that they must be punished, is very dangerous groupthink.

 

That's why "I have made bids that wouldn't have occurred to anyone too" matters to me.

 

To me, it's like the guy playing online poker who runs into someone making an atrocious bet or call, hits runner runner, and then feels online poker is rigged because the other guy "must have known".

That is still a very bad comparison and you really should be able to figure out why...

[xcurt]

I suppose that if partner held:

 

xxx KQJxx xxx xx

 

then a 6♥ bid would have been the right call instead of 6♦.

 

How would we feel about that one?

This is a perfect example why your line of reasoning is so flawed...

 

...

 

 

I sure would call -- nay, scream -- for the director if this happened to me. I'd be about 99% sure that my expert opponent got his wires confused, and so would almost everyone else.

 

Given the bidding it is clear that the chance that partner has 4 or more diamonds is substantial and I am not even sure whether it is an underdog.  (Slam still maybe)

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".

This also means LHO is likely to have 4+ diamonds 48.4% of the time (at least to a reasonable approximation, since LHO wasn't passed and CHO was, if I recall).

[MFA]

This is not just taking a swinging action. 6♦ is an almost unreal bid that catches a model-perfecto scenario. xx, xxx, Kxxx, xxxx. Not even a jack to spare anywhere. It's not just outside my box, the whole thing is far and away the most spectacular thing I have ever seen at a serious tournament.

 

Sure, 6♦ might work out. Of course. It is a strong hand and we have AQxx of trumps. We might buy well.

 

I don't think it is a surprise that such a board gives cause to suspicion, and having a committee to review the happenings seems logical.

 

When that has being said, 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.

[mikeh]

I still have sympathy for Justin, and I mean no criticism of him at all when I say that I think he is too emotionally involved in this incident to be capable of any degree of objectivity. Given what happened, I don't blame him one bit...and the player calling him early in the a.m. no doubt compounded the situation.

 

We will probably never 'know' what happened. Justin's suggestion (and he wasn't saying it happened here) that it is possible for a cheater to slip in a rigged deck, even while appearing to shuffle, is plausible. In matchpoint games with hand records and boards made at the table, I find it faster to deal the hands out, and as those of us who do this invariably do, I deal face down. Sometimes EW move down a table for the duplication, and I make a show of 'shuffling' the deck, but of course I don't meld the cards. I then proceed to deal the hands facedown....you should see the looks on some players' faces, as they try to stop me from doing it:)

 

So the fake shuffle is easy: I get away with it doing it while trying to attract attention, so imagine how easy it is to do with one board while the other 3 are dealing with 2 boards each.

 

I have far less sympathy for his notion that the honesty of the bid should be gauged by polling real experts. As Adam (and others) have pointed out, the reason Justin is so peeved is precisely because this was an action that would never occur to most players, let alone the best players in the world, who are never going to be tempted to do this for several reasons.

 

1. It will usually be a disaster

2. They have reputations to think of....imagine their sponsor's reaction to this tyoe of action....let alone partners and teammates current and prospective

3. they expect to have a chance to win, even against a better team, through their skill and talent...their confidence in their own abilities would stop them from doing this

 

No...the 'pool' you need to consult would be players of the general skill and experience level of the player in question and even that would be problematic. In my area, I can think of maybe a dozen players who are, in my view, decent but non-expert...they win the occasional sectional but rarely a regional and never compete far in large events. They are, therefore, more or less equivalent in overall skill. Yet one of them is incredibly conservative, another is very seat of the pants, and is more akin to (my idea of) a poker player than a bridge player, and so on.

 

The only real 'pool' is the player himself.....and this thread is intself one reason why that pool can no longer be tested.

 

What should have happened is that the ACBL should have been notified, quietly, of the concern. The ACBL, if it chose, could have started a watching brief...even quiet conversations with other players who faced the player in other events, and/or video monitoring of his shuffling in team games and so on.

 

It seems to me to be at least as likely that this approach would have revealed him to be an honest but idiosyncratic player, of a type that many of us would prefer not to play with, rather than expose him as a cheat. Indeed, it seems to me, based on what we know so far, that this is highly likely.

 

In a small way, this reminds me of the foot-soldiers incident from some 35 years ago...Lew Mathe (I think) blew up on learning of the alleged cheating and the result was that the opportunity to nail it down was lost....I think a similar problem may have arisen with the Katz-Cohen scandal from the mid 70s as well.

 

When one thinks that another player is cheating, the outrage that one feels makes it hard to act in a thoughtful manner, but rushing off to make one's outrage public isn't the best way to react. I should know...I tend to become hotheaded myself. The only reason I am at all objective here is that I wasn't involved.

[jdonn]

I have far less sympathy for his notion that the honesty of the bid should be gauged by polling real experts.

Wasn't that just a response to the notion that the honesty of the bid should be gauged by a lie detector test?

[jkdood]

I am too fond of Justin to extensively comment on what might be justifiable but perhaps a wee bit "too harsh and public" reaction. And by reaction I refer not only to the incident, but to some defenders' remarks, the inane rationalizers, and to early morning phone calls while trying to get rest before the next session (boy do I really hate that!)

 

Now, to knowing that "he" shuffled just board 8 of 8. Ha ha. I confess to being an ardent N-S-sitter who likes to "manage the boards". I confess to saying to an E-W opp that grabs the next one off the side-chair: "you wanna handle the boards? sit N/S". And if that's not enough "mea culpa", I confess to shuffling and dealing the highest number board first so that it can be placed face up on the bottom of the stack of boards on the table, assuring at least one is in proper order to start the stack. (So I would know this also.)

 

Now about that bid. Well, yes, it seems rather hard to imagine it was made without UI, despite absence of any real evidence of UI.

 

But if you took some 100 Flight A players, told them they were down a bunch in the match so feel free to make an imaginative bid to create a swing, and gave them that hand, well, I would bet money more than 1 and maybe 5 or 10 might select 6D. Really. I already got one to pick it as their "third choice", using this schemed approach.

 

If a precedent needs to be established (or re-established) that a "0 in 100 experts would not make that call" bid that strikes gold is in itself cause for adjustment or punishment, well, let's discuss it and agree or not and then issue the proper regulation. I for one was very fond of the old "Law of Coincidence", an application of Rule 40 that would allow adjustment of a "lucky result" if both players took clearly unusual actions and the result was paydirt.

 

My understanding is that in the shadowy poorly-documented world of "interpretting the regulations", this "Law of Coincidence" has gone from practical acceptance to impractical disappearance over the past 2 decades. Maybe it should be reborn, with full published details that are easy to interpret and apply? I vote YEA.

[hrothgar]

My understanding is that in the shadowy poorly-documented world of "interpretting the regulations", this "Law of Coincidence" has gone from practical acceptance to impractical disappearance over the past 2 decades. Maybe it should be reborn, with full published details that are easy to interpret and apply? I vote YEA.

Useful quote from Kaplan

 

In our view, the rule of coincidence should be unfamiliar to all players since there ain't no such animal.

[bidule4]

Sure, 6♦ might work out. Of course. It is a strong hand and we have AQxx of trumps. We might buy well.

 

I don't think it is a surprise that such a board gives cause to suspicion, and having a committee to review the happenings seems logical.

 

When that has being said, 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".

I dont see how a committee would help.

 

Is it unethical to make (poor) wild & gambling bid ?

 

RECORDING such events may help.

[ggwhiz]

Howard has an "in your face" personality that can be quite unfortunate. I don't know anyone (anymore) that would dare call me before noon, 2 p.m. on statutory holidays.

 

I only have a nodding aquaintance with the guy but he always reminds me of a BB King song, "Nobody loves be but my mother, and she may be jivin too".

 

It's hot and humid in N'awleens but can we turn down the heat? Lots of good debate on the laws and procedures but 50% or so "facts" out of thin air.

 

Patience please. Given the traffic here, the facts will come out without so much guessing. AND, this team went into the dustbin.

 

Positive insights might happen IF the personal trashing goes away.

[Siegmund]

While I freely admit that the posted hand is suspicious, and it's very possible that a single incident can be grounds for convening an ethics committee, I think it's extremely hard to imagine a law/reg that would support an adjustment in this case, but not support an adjustment in the case of beginner's errors or genuine psychs that strike gold.

 

The laws of bridge should be changed so that a hand like this is evidence enough of UI, so that there can be an adjustment. When zero players of someones level will bid 6D, and zero players think 6D can be bid without UI, that should be enough for an adjustment.

 

I see that in the past couple hours, the "Rule of Coincidence" has been mentioned by name. This hand is similar in spirit. The classic RoC situation was a hand where both partners deviated from their announced agreement (one overbidding and the other underbidding, or both playing as if they had the same alternate agreement) on the same hand. RoC said this could semi-automatically be treated as proof that a concealed agreement exists, justifying immediate adjustments and penalties.

 

I started directing just at the time that RoC was being carefully removed from example hands in the ACBLscore tech files and US directors were being (re-)educated to remove it from their arsenal. It's been pretty thoroughly beaten into my head that RoC is a Bad Thing that we don't want to have back. (Stand up and take a bow, bluejak.)

 

As for past events, I would hate to have to choose between Wolff's and Piltch's version of just about anything.

[jkdood]

Like the (convoluted?) American legal system, the laws and ordinances and such are basically shaped and shooken up by the courts and judges and precedents. In ACBLworld, we have had the texts of bridge law interpreted by the columns and articles and committee and director guidelines and handbooks and rulings that bring us to the present day...

 

...while the "Law of Coincidence" was apparently just a name for a state of interpretation of the laws, it was definitely once in play. You can find it referenced per se by National Appeals committees in casebooks (Weinstein, 1989) or simply applied when North opened 1S with 9HCP, South bid 2H with AQxxxx and out, and it went pass-pass-pass and later the opps called the TD for redress, which they sometimes got.

 

Yes, Kaplan and other "authorities on the laws" bemoaned this and over time, it seemed to fully retreat into the shadows (of which for my taste there were far too many of.)

 

Whatever comes about from the vibrant discussion of you-know-who's 6D call, I hope it leads to some clearly defined precedent or regulation that applies, and is made public for all to rely UPON.

[mrdct]

The laws of bridge should be changed so that a hand like this is evidence enough of UI, so that there can be an adjustment. When zero players of someones level will bid 6D, and zero players think 6D can be bid without UI, that should be enough for an adjustment.

Which laws do you think need changing?

 

The existing laws deal with situation perfectly, the only thing is it's hard for the TD to exercise his powers under the laws if nobody calls him to the table to make a ruling.

 

If a director has been called to the table he would be required to go through the process of establishing the facts in a disputed fact situation and determining whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, the 6♦ bid was based on extraneous UI. If the TD determines as such, he would have no option but to award an adjusted score. The hand itself would form part of the evidence, as would representations and rationalisations from the 6♦ bidder. The threshold the TD needs to get over is a 50.01% likelihood that the bid was based on extraneous UI.