Good bid!

[bluecalm]

Just as a side note. In Poland in every local event we have computer dealt hands with live scores available on the internet etc.

 

I know this case is very bad but what you Americans really should focus on is to pressure td's to organize tournament in normal modern way or just to stop choosing retards who are responsible for the way American tournaments are organized.

Last time it was different boards in every match at the same stage, then it's hand dealing in major tournament. I mean what the ***** ?

[the hog]

I find the behaviour of some of the posters in this thread to be absolutely disgusting. Perhaps they are just supporting a friend, but some of the comments and allegations that have been made are appalling.

 

There appears to be a some evidence that the bid was the result of wild swinging. We have already seen statistics that show that there was some logic in the madness. Sure it is still possible that a deck may have been slipped in, but it is just as possible not.

 

What is unfortunate is that this issue was aired on a public forum and while the op did not come out directly and say "cheating", there were so many references and allusions that it is largely irrelevent whether he did or not. Actually I have reread the posts; my previous comment is incorrect - note the following:

 

Quote:

"I made no direct accusation of cheating." Really! See the quotes below.

 

Then:

"As some know I often get disheartened by the ethics of top players, let alone less than top players. I love bridge but it will never be played for a ton of money or on TV because cheating is too easy. But this just shocked me. I mean wow."

 

And later:

"Expert testimony is admissible. The fact that every top player in the world will tell you that:

 

1) This bid is impossible at any state of the match by any non novice player

2) This bid is impossible without any form of UI

 

means that the collective wisdom and experience of all the top players in the world is that this bid was almost certainly made with UI."

 

I feel sorry for the person accused of this action, and yes accused is the correct term. The issue should have been raised before a committee and not on an open forum like this, where the braying wolf pack comes out of the cave and destroys a person's reputation with howls of indignation.

 

It is naive to say that the op did not name the individual involved; it is trivial to find out the person's name.

 

Yes, Mr Piltch's action in phoning in the morning was naive, but to say this is suggestive that his action at the table was suspect is the height of idiocy.

 

A person's reputation is at stake here; before this thread I had never heard of this individual, but it is unlikely that I will now forget his name.

This whole issue has been handled extremely badly probably due to an, (understandable but not excusable), hot headed reaction after the event.

Meanwhile there are some people on this board who should be ashamed of themselves. I, like Richard, would also be in touch with my solicitor. This could prove to be a very costly exercise for those throwing around wild accusations if they prove to be unfounded.

 

Finally, I agree with Dave's comment above, "Why on earth are they using hand-dealt boards in such a prestigious event?"

[bab9]

As a B/I player, I must be missing something (I am not referring to the implication of possible cheating, but the bid itself). The reason being the rules of thumb that I was taught.

 

1. The declare has a 3 loser hand. I was taught to expect 2 tricks from your partner. Hence would make the contract at the 6 level.

 

2. If you have a solid suit, it is best not to make it the trump suit as once the trumps are drawn it will generate clear winners. A possible explanation why ♦s were bid instead of ♣s. With the length of the ♣ suit, the declarer could dump losers.

 

3. After the 3♠ opening, it is likely that partner is short in ♠, and hence has support for the other suits. Given that declarer has a long suit in ♣s and RHO has a long suit in ♠, this leaves the likelihood that partner will have a red hand; with ♦s being declarers better red suit.

 

 

I have seen no mention of the system the declarer and partner play.

a. Do they play canape bids?

b. Is a double of 3♠ for takeout or penality?

 

Also, what system are the opponents playing. More specifically, what was the explanation / meaning of 3♠.

 

What was the vulnerability of the hand?

[mrdct]

2. If you have a solid suit, it is best not to make it the trump suit as once the trumps are drawn it will generate clear winners.  A possible explanation why ♦s were bid instead of ♣s.  With the length of the ♣ suit, the declarer could dump losers.

Most beginner courses also push the concept that the trump suit should be a suit in which you and your partner have a known fit.

[awm]

I'm not sure why the dealing of hands is particularly relevant.

 

It seems to me that with pre-dealt hands that are the same at all tables, it is easier for someone to see something at another table or overhear something discussed by members of another team and thereby obtain UI on a board.

 

Obtaining UI about a hand-dealt board that is played only by your team would require intentional cheating (fixing the deck) and would also be particularly tough to manage if the opponents were at the table at the time of the shuffling/dealing.

[the hog]

I'm not sure why the dealing of hands is particularly relevant.

Yes that is true; it has little to do with similar scenarios. You also get the problem of some players walking around the room, sometimes trying to catch a peek, as well as the problem of maintaining security for hand records for pre dealt boards.

However to those of us who have played for years with pre dealt boards, it seems incomprehensible that pre dealt boards are not used together with hand records. You can compare how pairs did on the same boards, and taking a hand record to dinner for a post mortem is something many players enjoy.

[bluecalm]

I'm not sure why the dealing of hands is particularly relevant.

 

a)hand dealing is not random enough comparing to computer dealing; hand dealing in general generates more flat layouts

 

b)you can cheat when dealing hands; even if you don't "fix" the deck it's easy to have a pick or two when you deal or when someone else deals

 

c)it's just waste of time

 

d)it's not attractive for players/kibitzers as you can't compare scores with others nor have nice paper sheet with layouts/double dummy results after you play

 

As to your concerns about predealing. The deals can be prepared 5 minutes before the event that's not a problem at all.

To me playing with hand dealing is like coming back to stone age but I admit c) and d) are only luxuries which are not necessary but hard to live with once you are used to them.

Standard tournament here offers you all the layouts after the tourney so you can have a chat about hands during the dinner/on the way back home. When you arrive there are all the scores/protocols waiting for you on the internet so you can see what every other pair did on given board. I mean do people really play bridge without those things ? :)

[gnasher]

I'm not sure why the dealing of hands is particularly relevant.

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.

Edited July 29, 2010 by gnasher

[hrothgar]

I'm not sure why the dealing of hands is particularly relevant.

The two highest profile cheating cases 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.

With this said and done...

 

If the same bid had been made using computer dealt hands, people would simply have suggested that Howard listened on the results at another table

 

I think its inane that the ACBL still uses manual dealing, however, I don't think that they are any kind of panacea.

[Fluffy]

I am not following all the trash in this thread, but Richard, didn't Ben clearly ask us to not let the player's name appear here?, maybe it has changed and I missed it, if that's the case sorry.

[jeremy69]

On Monday night my opponent held

♠ 3

♥ KQJ876543

♦ K3

♣Q

 

Her partner opened 1NT (12-14) Next hand bid 2♣ (♠+Ano). She bid 6H. It was cold. Extraordinary, incredible, her partner had 3 Aces for her Weak NT. Was she cheating? Had she fixed the board? Had she overheard? Don't be ridiculous! She gets 41% each week, tries many of these sort of efforts of which 98% do not work. Partner and I were fixed. It happens!

 

In England if you accused someone of cheating in a forum like this(and I accept it is disputed as to whether this has happened) then you might find yourself on the receiving end of a charge from the Laws and Ethics Committee which would not go away even if said person were convicted and sent too the gallows. Is there no concept of bringing the game into disrepute which is what the last 11 pages (or at least a lot of them) seem to do?

Indeed until about the end of page 4 of this thread when a few sane people said "Hang on a moment" accusation, trial, verdict and execution had already occurred.

Gnasher referred earlier to a case in the UK. It was the subject of painful and determined observation and discretion and featured no-one publicly discussing it or casting the first stone let alone the quarry load that has been cast here.

[Rossoneri]

I find the behaviour of some of the posters in this thread to be absolutely disgusting. Perhaps they are just supporting a friend, but some of the comments and allegations that have been made are appalling.

 

....

Well said!

 

Indeed until about the end of page 4 of this thread when a few sane people said "Hang on a moment" accusation, trial, verdict and execution had already occurred.

 

Sad but true.

[Cyberyeti]

I am not following all the trash in this thread, but Richard, didn't Ben clearly ask us to not let the player's name appear here?, maybe it has changed and I missed it, if that's the case sorry.

When his partner posted at length in the thread with the accused's permission I think this all changed.

[Codo]

Luckily I di not participate on the witch hunt which happened first.

 

I had seen no reason for the 6 ♦ bid besides a mechanical error.

So I may well had been guilty of more then one harsh word about this "cheat".

 

But now a lot looks different:

 

1. So far it is not disputed that this player tried to swing on many hands and was successless with this tactics on more then one hand. This could be verified by the hand records.

So why burn him for the one case where he was successfull?

 

2. There is nothing besides the bid itself which looks suspicious. No indication at all. Hard to built a case just because something was successfull.

 

3. You always have the benefit of the doubt.

 

I had never the "pleasure" to meet this guy in reality, nor do I have access to cases which included this person in the past. But even if he was guilty in former cases, this would not be important for this case. This would make a possible punishment harder, but it could not be used to make a punishment more likely.

[gnasher]

Gnasher referred earlier to a case in the UK. It was the subject of painful and determined observation and discretion and featured no-one publicly discussing it or casting the first stone  let alone the quarry load that has been cast here.

I think you're referring to a post by MickyB, not me. The incidents I mentioned (breaking plates at breakfast, attempted misuse of EBU microphone, etc) would have been hard not to observe for anyone who was in the same room, although sadly I missed all of them.

[inquiry]

I am not following all the trash in this thread, but Richard, didn't Ben clearly ask us to not let the player's name appear here?, maybe it has changed and I missed it, if that's the case sorry.

When his partner posted at length in the thread with the accused's permission I think this all changed.

This is correct. Since permission has been granted to the person who posted the name, indeed it seems that things have changed.

 

Having said that, I think now that this is going before a committee, people should wait until that is over before reaching any conclusion.

[jeremy69]

I think you're referring to a post by MickyB, not me

 

Sorry. Yes, I was

[NickRW]

On Monday night my opponent held

♠ 3

♥ KQJ876543

♦ K3

♣Q

 

Her partner opened 1NT...

:blink:

 

As a total aside to the thread, that hand was a right pain. The club secretary's wife didn't overcall the NT opening, but thought about it. 4♥ from the hand above, by nothing less than a trained TD. Then 4♠ from his LHO, the secretary himself, normally a very mild mannered man. At which point I got summoned as director for the night. Well, I won't go into all the detail - but the "c" word or allusions to that effect were said by both sides. Fortunately I was able to restore order and was glad of having a couple of experienced appeal committee people playing that night.

 

First time I've ever had to convene an appeal committee!

 

Nick

[Echognome]

Somewhat of an aside here. I have heard a lot more when I lived in England that when anyone insinuated "cheating" that "you will hear from my solicitor". It seemed such an idle threat to me. I don't know that much about defamation (slander or libel) of character in law (in the U.S. or in England), but I never hear about any cases in the media. To me it just seems like gusto and bravado that you will hear from my lawyer.

 

Also, aren't there defenses of the statement being true or that the statement is just an opinion? I'd be interested in hearing from our legal experts on the board if they actually deal with any defamation lawsuits. I understand that sanctions from the acbl are quite another story.

 

Note that I do understand that the acbl accusing someone of cheating is quite different in that they are an organization that can be sued. I recall reading that settlements have been made in such cases in the past. I just haven't heard of any lawsuits involving individuals. However, they may be out there.

[cherdanno]

I'm not sure why the dealing of hands is particularly relevant.

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.

OTOH, I would guess the most frequent type of cheating that happens (besides using UI from partner's manner and tempo) is based on overhearing remarks at other tables.

[TimG]

I'm not sure why the dealing of hands is particularly relevant.

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.

[aguahombre]

Indeed until about the end of page 4 of this thread when a few sane people said "Hang on a moment" accusation, trial, verdict and execution had already occurred.

 

Sad but true.

Not really true. At least two posts as early as page two might constitute a "hang on a moment."

[awm]

My understanding is that despite the US reputation as a litigious society, lawsuits for slander (or libel) are much more difficult here than in Europe. In the US it's not enough that the statement in question be false and harmful to a person's reputation; one also has to show that the person saying it knew (and not just should/could have known but actually knew) it was false at the time. A very difficult standard to meet.

[mikeh]

As far as I know, defamation cases are far more difficult to bring in the US than in either Canada or the UK. It's a question of balancing of public policies, with the US tending to favour freedom of expression at the possible cost of reputation, while the UK and Canada tend to favour protection of reputation. I should add that I understand that Canadian and UK law seems to have diverged somewhat over the years.

 

I actually know a fair bit about defamation....my client won one of the largest judgements in BC libel history a few years back.

 

It is a very complex area, and the laws in Canada will not necessarily apply elsewhere....altho some Commonwealth countries will likely be very similar.

 

It is important to distinguish between expressions of opinion (generally protected unless expressed maliciously) and allegations of fact. At the risk of greatly over-simplifying, many statements contain both fact and opinion, and the standard defence of 'fair comment' is based on proving that the factual allegations are true and that the comment was opinion based on true fact. Fail to make out the facts, and you lose no matter how fair the comment was...assuming it was defamatory. But make out the facts and, generally speaking, the comment is protected even if it would appear to be a bizarre comment to most people.

 

'I saw John running from the store with an unwrapped box....I think he stole it'

 

That is defamatory...suggesting John is a thief. But if you can prove that John was running from the store with an unwrapped box (He was late for a bus, and asked the clerk not to wrap it), the opinion is protected even if unfair. But, if you knew the truth and made the statement in order to harm John, that is malice and no longer fair comment.

 

'John's a thief! I saw him take a box from the store' That is, arguably, not opinion....it is a statement of fact...he 'is a thief'. You'd need to prove he stole the box.

 

This is a very simplistic summary of a complex legal topic, and the rules will differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

 

In addition, and very important in defamation, is the concept of innuendo...the setting out of language in a manner that will lead some of the readers to infer a defamatory meaning even tho the writer has been careful to avoid explicit language. One can be liable for damages for the innuendo as much as if one had been explicit.

 

It is not my intention to express any opinion as to whether anyone posting on this thread has crossed the line that divides protected speech from speech that would attract sanction. Not only is that a complex issue in and of itself, but there are (to a legal mind) fascinating issues as to where precisely any possible defamation may have occurred, given that posters write all over the world and the words appear on the internet.

 

Nothing herein should be relied upon by anyone as constituting legal advice.

[bluecalm]

overhearing remarks at other tables.

 

Well, I agree with that.

Both Bermuda Bowl and European Championship as well as all other European big tournaments are played that way though.

 

If they think it's just not possible to have the same boards they can generate different set for every match, that's not really any kind of problem is it ?