Good bid!

[jdonn]

I wonder if this will result in a public apology?

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.

Yes Tim, but the problem is that Piltch has lost through no fault of his own and only because of someone else's hot headed and apparently incorrect action.

Actually a number of people are now suggesting that the ACBL should take action against the other party.

Yes the ACBL just loves mountains of unnecessary legal fees!

 

Btw what makes you think Piltch was faultless and that the action was "apparently incorrect"?

[cherdanno]

Of course the accused doesn't come out looking good from this. I mean, if I believe everything he says that means

- he thinks lie detectors can win you an argument (ok, I admit that's a common fault in some circles)

- he is either clueless enough (as a former ACBL director!) to think 9.30 am is a normal time to call a bridge pro during a tournament, or malicious enough to do so as a revenge and clueless enough that he thinks that's a good thing to mention in his public defense

- he thought 6♦ was a reasonable attempt to swing 40 IMPs down with more than 40 boards left in the match, etc.

 

(Maybe I should add though that an earlier post of mine regarding suspensions was incorrect. I will go and delete it as many others in this thread would be better informed than me to correct it.)

[the hog]

Actually a number of people are now suggesting that the ACBL should take action against the other party.

IMO that would be quite ridiculous. People have already mentioned "bringing the game into disrepute" in this thread - but for the ACBL (or any other similar body) to act as you suggest would only add fuel to the fire and render them as guilty as those they might charge. People would be muttering that Mr P. has friends in high places and all manner of extra unnecessary and unhelpful rumour.

 

IMO the ACBL would do best to do as the Queen does - no comment.

 

Nick

Nick, it is not my suggestion, I don't even play in the ACBL so that would have nothing to do with me. For what its worth, I agree with shutting up and doing nothing exceptt offer an apology for the cheating accusation. (Regardless of how you twist and turn, that is what it was).

 

Josh, I did say "Apparently incorrect". I read Bud's account as well as you did. If you accept that account as being correct - and there has been nothing presented to counter those comments - then it would indeed appear that a wrongful accusation was made.

 

A couple of other comments: had this happened to me, I would probably have been annoyed as well. However I would certainly have dealt with the situation in a totally different manner, certainly not publicly; in fact as it happened at my teammate's table, it would probably have been more appropriate for them to deal with it.

To say that Piltch is "clueless" for calling at 9.30, (actually 9.45), is very unfair. If you believe you have been unfairly accused, you want to clear the air as soon as possible.

[NickRW]

Nick, it is not my suggestion, I don't even play in the ACBL so that would have nothing to do with me. For what its worth, I agree with shutting up and doing nothing exceptt offer an apology for the cheating accusation. (Regardless of how you twist and turn, that is what it was).

Yeah - sorry - I did imply it was your suggestion when that isn't quite what you said.

 

I agree with you it might have been better had Justin not mentioned this publicly - but I can understand him doing so. Never the less, I wouldn't be apologising if I were in his shoes. While I agree with some other posters that there is not evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict anyone of cheating, I stand by my first comment - essentially that the 6♦ bid stinks - or - more politely - on the balance of probabilities I think it more likely that there was UI than not.

 

Nick

[peachy]

I have deleted what I said about suspensions. I was wrong, only discipline and probation, no suspension. My apologies to all.

[jkdood]

I have deleted what I said about suspensions. I was wrong, only discipline and probation, no suspension. My apologies to all.

Well thank goodness for that! We can cancel the lie detector test planned for you and the 9:30 AM breakfast meeting with G!!!! :)

[TimG]

I have deleted what I said about suspensions. I was wrong, only discipline and probation, no suspension. My apologies to all.

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.

[mrdct]

I stand by my first comment - essentially that the 6♦ bid stinks - or - more politely - on the balance of probabilities I think it more likely that there was UI than not.

We shouldn't lose sight of this point. The original post was about seeking an adjustment for UI on the board and suggesting that a law change was necessary to allow for adjustments on boards like this. The problem was, nobody actually called the director so we will never know how the director might have gone about establishing the facts and determining whether or not there was a >50% chance that the 6♦ was based on UI. You do not need iron-clad proof of cheating to award an adjusted score, simply the balance of probabilities needs to be satisfied (just ask OJ Simpson).

 

It does seem pretty silly to be complaining about inadequate laws when they weren't actually brought into play in the case at hand as there was no ruling and no appeal.

[mike777]

I stand by my first comment - essentially that the 6♦ bid stinks - or - more politely - on the balance of probabilities I think it more likely that there was UI than not.

We shouldn't lose sight of this point. The original post was about seeking an adjustment for UI on the board and suggesting that a law change was necessary to allow for adjustments on boards like this. The problem was, nobody actually called the director so we will never know how the director might have gone about establishing the facts and determining whether or not there was a >50% chance that the 6♦ was based on UI. You do not need iron-clad proof of cheating to award an adjusted score, simply the balance of probabilities needs to be satisfied (just ask OJ Simpson).

 

It does seem pretty silly to be complaining about inadequate laws when they weren't actually brought into play in the case at hand as there was no ruling and no appeal.

excellent points.....

 

However the elephant in the room was stated but undiscussed.

 

-----------

 

 

To put it another way we can have all the laws and regulations in the world but enforcement and more is another step........

 

 

--------------------------

 

 

Why with real experts...wc players is it so hard to actually have the laws "brought into play"?

 

 

----------------

 

 

I fully grant this is an issue with all laws and regulations in the world......to just have them is step one.....not the last step....

[JLOGIC]

I stand by my first comment - essentially that the 6♦ bid stinks - or - more politely - on the balance of probabilities I think it more likely that there was UI than not.

We shouldn't lose sight of this point. The original post was about seeking an adjustment for UI on the board and suggesting that a law change was necessary to allow for adjustments on boards like this. The problem was, nobody actually called the director so we will never know how the director might have gone about establishing the facts and determining whether or not there was a >50% chance that the 6♦ was based on UI. You do not need iron-clad proof of cheating to award an adjusted score, simply the balance of probabilities needs to be satisfied (just ask OJ Simpson).

 

It does seem pretty silly to be complaining about inadequate laws when they weren't actually brought into play in the case at hand as there was no ruling and no appeal.

The director was called after the set. I don't understand why people keep saying the director was never called. The directors discussed this and ruled that there should be no adjustment.

[mrdct]

I was just going on Bud's account:

12.  The director was not called to the table at any time following or during this board.  A recorder form was completed and the National Recorder spoke with Mr. Piltch just before the play of the last board of the third quarter and later Mr. Krekorian spoke with the National Recorder.

I'm not 100% sure of what the rules are as it may be a conditions of contest matter, but I would've thought calling the director at the time of the infraction was the correct procedure.

[gnasher]

I'm not 100% sure of what the rules are as it may be a conditions of contest matter, but I would've thought calling the director at the time of the infraction was the correct procedure.

Yes, that must be it. The director said it was too late to ask for a ruling, but rather than tell us that Justin thought it would be more fun to create a 250-post thread about (or possibly not about) cheating.

 

The CoC for the Spingold aren't hard to find, by the way.

1. The period for an appeal for or of a director's ruling expires 30 minutes after each session or when the auction begins at either table of a play-off whichever is earlier.

[rhm]

I wonder if this will result in a public apology?

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.

Yes Tim, but the problem is that Piltch has lost through no fault of his own and only because of someone else's hot headed and apparently incorrect action.

Actually a number of people are now suggesting that the ACBL should take action against the other party.

Yes the ACBL just loves mountains of unnecessary legal fees!

 

Btw what makes you think Piltch was faultless and that the action was "apparently incorrect"?

I can not see what the 6♦ bidder did wrong. Faultlessness can not be proven, faults have to be.

 

6♦ was a perfectly legal bid.

 

Justin thought it was bizarre

 

Closer inspection shows (according to my simulations with dealmaster pro) that after the 3♠ preempt

 

6♦ has close to a 40% chance of making

It will be the only making slam in about 10% of all deals

 

( There was at least one other independent simulation which came to similar conclusions)

 

Now the hand is difficult to bid over a 3♠ preempt and ♦ as the right strain may often be hard to reach by "normal" methods.

 

6♦ over 3♠ will sometimes put LHO in a difficult position.

 

In my opinion 6♦ is eccentric (I would not choose it, but of course I also have my flights of fancy), but 6♦ is neither absurd nor illogical and not bizarre given the state oft the match.

 

Justin may disagree, but this is his assessment.

 

It is not unknown that even experts grossly misjudge the merits and disadvantages or what the probability are, that a bid may gain or loose.

 

There was nothing wrong bringing the board itself into the public domain.

But Justin clearly accused his opponent of unethical behavior and came at least close of accusing him implicitly of cheating.

 

Where do we end up with if people accuse their opponents of unethical behavior, whenever an eccentric bid (which may look bizarre on first inspection) happens to be successful?

 

In my opinion this is not acceptable.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

Of course the accused doesn't come out looking good from this. I mean, if I believe everything he says that means

- he thinks lie detectors can win you an argument (ok, I admit that's a common fault in some circles)

- he is either clueless enough (as a former ACBL director!) to think 9.30 am is a normal time to call a bridge pro during a tournament, or malicious enough to do so as a revenge and clueless enough that he thinks that's a good thing to mention in his public defense

Or maybe:

- He was horrified to learn that he'd been accused of cheating, and still more horrified to find that everybody at the event and almost the entire internet bridge community seemed to have convicted him, without even waiting to hear if he had anything to say.

- He was awake all night thinking about it, feeling completely helpless in the face of the online and offline lynch mobs, distraught at the injustice of the situation, and wondering whether he'd ever be able to get partners, teammates or dinner companions again.

- In the small hours of the morning, he thought of a possible way to restore his reputation which, at the time and in his current mental state, seemed a good idea.

- Having resolved upon a course of action, he decided that it was best to act as quickly as possible, before the damage got any worse.

- He tried to choose a time when Justin would already be up, but still early enough for them to have time to reach an agreement before any more damage was done.

 

- he thought 6♦ was a reasonable attempt to swing 40 IMPs down with more than 40 boards left in the match, etc.

Given the eventual losing margin, maybe he was right to choose such a desparate action?

[the hog]

"But Justin clearly accused his opponent of unethical behavior and came at least close of accusing him implicitly of cheating."

 

It was more than coming "close". It was an implicit accusation of cheating.

I have already posted these extracts, to reiterate:

 

"cheating is too easy. But this just shocked me. I mean wow."

 

This bid is impossible without any form of UI"

 

If this isn't calling someone a cheat, what is?

[qwery_hi]

Closer inspection shows (according to my simulations with dealmaster pro) that after the 3♠ preempt

 

6♦ has close to a 40% chance of making

It will be the only making slam in about 10% of all deals

 

( There was at least one other independent simulation which came to similar conclusions)

 

Now the hand is difficult to bid over a 3♠ preempt and ♦ as the right strain may often be hard to reach by "normal" methods.

 

6♦ over 3♠ will sometimes put LHO in a difficult position.

What percentage of those hands find partner with the King of diamonds? I'm not even close to an expert, but with the hand in the post and perhaps with most of the hands in the simulations, I'll give thought to raising partner to 7 diamonds, especially if I take partner at his word and/or swing some myself.

 

Imagine the problem the 6D bid gives partner on some of the hands. Surely they are as much or more than the problems LHO has.

[rhm]

Closer inspection shows (according to my simulations with dealmaster pro) that after the 3♠  preempt

 

6♦ has close to a 40% chance of making

It will be the only making slam in about 10% of all deals

 

( There was at least one other independent simulation which came to similar conclusions)

 

Now the hand is difficult to bid over a 3♠ preempt and ♦ as the right strain may often be hard to reach by "normal" methods. 

 

6♦ over 3♠ will sometimes put LHO in a difficult position.

What percentage of those hands find partner with the King of diamonds? I'm not even close to an expert, but with the hand in the post and perhaps with most of the hands in the simulations, I'll give thought to raising partner to 7 diamonds, especially if I take partner at his word and/or swing some myself.

 

Imagine the problem the 6D bid gives partner on some of the hands. Surely they are as much or more than the problems LHO has.

If your partner jumps to slam over a preempt you should not assume that your partner has 12 solid tricks in his hand and that the slam will make opposite a yarborough.

Neither should your partner assume, when he considers various actions over a preempt that you are broke. (Mike Lawrence suggested that you assume around 7 HCP for partner, maybe slightly less when you are stronger)

Otherwise you would get stolen blind far too often.

 

So the king of ♦ in itself, though certainly a useful card, is not enough justification to raise

 

Rainer Herrmann

[JLOGIC]

6♦ has close to a 40% chance of making

It will be the only making slam in about 10% of all deals

Rainer you are a smart guy, surely you don't view this as being a reason that 6D might be a good bid to try. When it is the only making slam surely a lot of the time you will get their via normal bidding (like starting with double). Much of the time it is the only making slam, I'm sure partner has diamond length. If you start with a double and then keep bidding, if partner has diamond length he'll probably bid diamonds at some point. It will be a very very rare hand indeed that the only way to get to 6D is to overcall it.

[rhm]

6♦ has close to a 40% chance of making

It will be the only making slam in about 10% of all deals

Rainer you are a smart guy, surely you don't view this as being a reason that 6D might be a good bid to try. When it is the only making slam surely a lot of the time you will get their via normal bidding (like starting with double). Much of the time it is the only making slam, I'm sure partner has diamond length. If you start with a double and then keep bidding, if partner has diamond length he'll probably bid diamonds at some point. It will be a very very rare hand indeed that the only way to get to 6D is to overcall it.

Agreed

 

I have never claimed that a direct 6♦ jump would be my choice, even if I would be desperate.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mike777]

i give up...99% of bbo is..."inever said that"

[qwery_hi]

"But Justin clearly accused his opponent of unethical behavior and came at least close of accusing him implicitly of cheating."

 

It was more than coming "close". It was an implicit accusation of cheating.

I have already posted these extracts, to reiterate:

 

"cheating is too easy. But this just shocked me. I mean wow."

 

This bid is impossible without any form of UI"

 

If this isn't calling someone a cheat, what is?

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between asking the director to investigate the 6D bid and posting the hands with the associated comments here (This bid is impossible without UI).

 

Remember, this hand had already been discussed with most of the experts in the Spingold and would surely become the talk of the Nationals. Unlike the pre internet era, where it would probably take 6+ months for the news of this hand to reach the hog, if at all, justin was just speeding up the process.

 

FWIW, I think what Justin did , and by that I mean his posts in this thread and his comments, are most definitely not wrong.

 

Is there a age-divide emerging in Bridge like the one talked about here? - http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=588

 

I wonder if I will be penalized if I have that on a T shirt and wear that to my next bridge tournament.

[jeremy69]

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between asking the director to investigate the 6D bid and posting the hands with the associated comments here

 

Maybe I am finding myself on one side of a divide then.

I think calling the director if you believe there has been or may have been an irregularity is a perfectly proper thing to do. When the director arrives if you preface with "This is what he bid and it is impossible to do this without there being UI taken advantage of" then you may get an investigation but may also get a zero tolerance penalty.

The director represents the legal route. Some postings here smear a player (and I would not know him from Adam) in a crude and unacceptable way.

 

If it turns out after proper investigation resulting from the director call to be a case of cheating then I would be all in favour of finding a high tree and doing some hanging but the way this has panned out it is a witch hunt (or at least that is how it appears to someone who knows none of the principals).

[blackshoe]

I only know Justin from his posts here, and as for the other guy, never heard of him until I read this thread and the link to Wolfe's book.

 

I don't think it was Justin's intention to smear anybody — if that was done it was done by other posters. That said, he skirted the line if he did not cross it.

 

As I noted upthread, the case has apparently gone to a C&E hearing. Perhaps we here ought to just STFU and let that take its course. So this will be my last post in this thread.

[TimG]

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between asking the director to investigate the 6D bid and posting the hands with the associated comments here (This bid is impossible without UI).

 

Remember, this hand had already been discussed with most of the experts in the Spingold and would surely become the talk of the Nationals. Unlike the pre internet era, where it would probably take 6+ months for the news of this hand to reach the hog, if at all, justin was just speeding up the process.

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.

[jlw77]

The bare facts of the hand were spectacular enough that I think the story was bound to spread quickly. When I sat down for the 3rd quarter on Monday, my opponents (foreign players with, I assume, no personal connection to Justin's team) told us the story. This probably had nothing to do with the internet.

 

That said, I think it is much better that cheating allegations go through proper channels and not be aired publicly. If there are also, inevitably, widespread rumors, so be it, but this is different from an aggrieved party putting an accusation on a chat board.

 

Let me add, when I first heard the story I was angry, nauseated and probably ready to join a lynch mob. 6♦ just sounds impossible. As I endured the usual insomnia that night, I was probably thinking as much about this hand as about the big losing swings from my own match! So I have all the sympathy in the world for Justin being furious and perhaps going too far. The fact that I feel very differently a few days later is one very good reason we have a society of laws where cooler heads can prevail. One of our laws says that cheating allegations should be made confidentially via a director or recorder.

 

Finally, while Justin's recent post is completely right that 6♦ is *not* an intelligent way to swing because it is very likely you can get there by normal means when it's right, that's not the question. The question is whether *this* player could conceivably have convinced himself that 6♦ was a good way to swing. Considering that he spends much of his bridge life playing in side games at regionals with clients (not Bud) who would probably make any of Justin's clients look like geniuses, I'm sure he has developed an unusually strong predilection for unilateral actions. This also fits his personality. Such habits are hard to break.

 

A few days ago I never would have thought I'd be making the defense's argument, but there it is. Again, I really hope there is useful video that can exonerate or the reverse.

 

Jonathan