Good bid!

[mrdct]

No director spoke with me and I am not personally aware of a director speaking with any member of my team.  But it is possible that without my knowledge a director did speak with a team member before the second half or near the end of the third quarter when Mr. Piltch spoke with the National Recorder.

That does beg the question of how the director(s) managed to fulfil their responsibilities under Law 85 without speaking with the guy who held xx xxx Kxxx xxxx.

[qwery_hi]

and defender if they want to be. Open discussion is quite helpful for the non-guilty party.

 

Well I know from a previous post you are not that keen on the English legal system( insane, I think you said) but there is a bit of a premium on facts and evidence that might be missing from some of this discussion. I'm not sure that being able to rant on a public forum is necessarily a big advance but still get the ducking stool ready. We are going to need it!

Another Strawman.

 

You should read the post more carefully - I said libel laws, not the legal system.

 

Anyhow, given your and gnashers stubbornness to see the opposing position, I shouldn't expect any better.

[gnasher]

Anyhow, given your and gnashers stubbornness to see the opposing position, I shouldn't expect any better.

Which position do you think I am opposed to?

[cherdanno]

Anyhow, given your and gnashers stubbornness to see the opposing position, I shouldn't expect any better.

Which position do you think I am opposed to?

I thought there were at least 3, gay marriage, file sharing and marijuana? :ph34r: (That qwery_hi thinks you are opposed to)

[gnasher]

and defender if they want to be. Open discussion is quite helpful for the non-guilty party. Just ask someone who changed their mind about the incident after reading the posts in this forums.

If the accused player wants to take advantage of the judicial power of the internet, he can do so by posting the hand himself. It's not a beneift to the player for the hand to be published against his will.

[rhm]

 

Back to the original topic, while ideally we'd like to be able to point out the source of UI, a substantial track record of someone making highly anti-percentage calls with a high success rate can be reasonably viewed as evidence that something's going on.

 

Fine in theory. Can you point to one single case, where this has convincingly shown somebody was cheating. To avoid selection bias you would need to record all deals somebody plays, not the ones where the opponents call the director and claim, "we have been robbed". The current procedure looks to me more like a tool to intimidate people taking unusual actions: "Don`t do this again, or face the consequences. Big brother is watching you"

 

The question is more a matter of degree. Certainly one incident of an unusual or swingy action that works would not normally be sufficient to prove anything.

 

However, in this particular case I think there's more to say. This is not just a slightly unusual or anti-percentage bid... it's really a very weird call that hit the jackpot. Now, it could be that the player in question makes a lot of very weird calls and happened to hit gold this time. But it seems unlikely that a player who bids like this frequently would be as successful in serious bridge as this player evidently has been. The fact that no other such "spectacular" actions were taken during a long match also suggests that this is not a player who bids like this a lot. It seems, at a minimum, to be worthy of further investigation.

Sorry but I do not get it

 

What is so "weird" about a bid, which has almost a 40% chance to be successful?

You must be a truly great player if you never jumped to a contract over a preempt, which turned out on later scrutiny to have less than 40%.

 

Or maybe you are just very conservative.

 

My analysis seems to indicate that given the 3♠ preempt, chances for a slam to be there is about 70%

 

What the perpetrator may have got wrong is that the he (probably) misjudged the the relative merits between 6 ♦ compared to 6♣.

 

What is certainly true is that if 6♦ makes, your chances to get a useful swing are high.

 

I said several times I would not have chosen this bid.

I would call the bid eccentric.

But in my dictionary weird or absurd is something very different.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdanno]

Um, Rainer, how often have you seen players jump to 4-card suits over a preempt, when they had a 6-card side suit? Also, it doesn't matter whether 6♦ makes 40% of the time when there is another small slam that makes much more often.

I mean, when you have A AKQJ AK AKQJT9 over a 3S preempt, then I am sure 7♥ makes more than 40% of the time. Do you know anyone who would jump to 7♥ over 3S for that reason?

[rhm]

Um, Rainer, how often have you seen players jump to 4-card suits over a preempt, when they had a 6-card side suit? Also, it doesn't matter whether 6♦ makes 40% of the time when there is another small slam that makes much more often.

I mean, when you have A AKQJ AK AKQJT9 over a 3S preempt, then I am sure 7♥ makes more than 40% of the time. Do you know anyone who would jump to 7♥ over 3S for that reason?

Of course I can not remember people doing exactly this to me, but I think I have seen similar actions in literature.

 

The logic behind making the shorter suit ♦ trumps is to discard dummy's ♥s on the long side suit ♣s.

(This is exactly what actually happened).

This works only if dummy has (at least) 4 cards in ♦ and ♦ break well.

The latter condition is one reason why 6♦ will often not be such a great contract.

 

Surprisingly it still works quite often.

 

In your example there is of course no such reasoning, which makes the 7♥ bid not just anti-percentage, but illogical.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdanno]

Of course I can not remember people doing exactly this to me, but I think I have seen similar actions in literature.

Double.

[mrdct]

when you have A AKQJ AK AKQJT9 over a 3S preempt, then I am sure 7♥ makes more than 40% of the time

I just ran that simulation versus 6-7 ♠, 2-3 ♠ honours and less than 10hcp and 7♥ only makes 38.64% of the time.

[cherdanno]

when you have A AKQJ AK AKQJT9 over a 3S preempt, then I am sure 7♥ makes more than 40% of the time

I just ran that simulation versus 6-7 ♠, 2-3 ♠ honours and less than 10hcp and 7♥ only makes 38.64% of the time.

Uh, I mean RHO having a 3S preempt, not CHO. But feel free to waste more time with another simulation :)

[3for3]

Question to the simulators:

 

How often does 6♦ go for some massive number?

[jdonn]

Um, Rainer, how often have you seen players jump to 4-card suits over a preempt, when they had a 6-card side suit? Also, it doesn't matter whether 6♦ makes 40% of the time when there is another small slam that makes much more often.

I mean, when you have A AKQJ AK AKQJT9 over a 3S preempt, then I am sure 7♥ makes more than 40% of the time. Do you know anyone who would jump to 7♥ over 3S for that reason?

Of course I can not remember people doing exactly this to me, but I think I have seen similar actions in literature.

 

The logic behind making the shorter suit ♦ trumps is to discard dummy's ♥s on the long side suit ♣s.

(This is exactly what actually happened).

This works only if dummy has (at least) 4 cards in ♦ and ♦ break well.

The latter condition is one reason why 6♦ will often not be such a great contract.

 

Surprisingly it still works quite often.

 

In your example there is of course no such reasoning, which makes the 7♥ bid not just anti-percentage, but illogical.

 

Rainer Herrmann

So you consider 6♦ a logical bid?

[awm]

How often the bid works isn't really the issue here.

 

Certainly the 6♦ call could work out. But at the time it was made, there were many available options to find the best contract (for example double, or 4NT for minors). The player in question chose to guess a slam rather than using any of these methods. Further, even if he was forced to place the final contract immediately (far from the case, assuming partner was not barred), he selected the less-likely of possible slam bids (6♣ makes more often). Does this not seem a bit odd?

 

To give a similar example, say I hold ♠AKJx ♥AQJxx ♦xx ♣xx in first seat. Totally normal 1♥ opening. Someone trying to swing might try opening 1♠ or a strong 1NT. It would be pretty weird if I were to open 4♠ on this hand right? So many options that let partner help me find the right contract, and I avoided all of them to just blast a game... and I didn't even pick the most likely game! Suppose I did open 4♠ on this hand, and partner comes down with five spades. Wouldn't it seem a little suspicious to you?

[OleBerg]

Um, Rainer, how often have you seen players jump to 4-card suits over a preempt, when they had a 6-card side suit? Also, it doesn't matter whether 6♦ makes 40% of the time when there is another small slam that makes much more often.

I mean, when you have A AKQJ AK AKQJT9 over a 3S preempt, then I am sure 7♥ makes more than 40% of the time. Do you know anyone who would jump to 7♥ over 3S for that reason?

Of course I can not remember people doing exactly this to me, but I think I have seen similar actions in literature.

 

The logic behind making the shorter suit ♦ trumps is to discard dummy's ♥s on the long side suit ♣s.

(This is exactly what actually happened).

This works only if dummy has (at least) 4 cards in ♦ and ♦ break well.

The latter condition is one reason why 6♦ will often not be such a great contract.

 

Surprisingly it still works quite often.

 

In your example there is of course no such reasoning, which makes the 7♥ bid not just anti-percentage, but illogical.

 

Rainer Herrmann

So you consider 6♦ a logical bid?

I do.

 

All you young talented players are so used to being ahead, that you're clueless about what to do when you are trailing.

 

I, on the other hand, has lot of experience in trailing, but is clueless about what to do when I'm ahead.

[tgoodwinsr]

The more things change . . . .

 

This was in a Bridge World editorial, February 1987:

[tgoodwinsr]

continuing previous post (which got discontinued inadvertently):

 

One popular move [by ACBL officialdom at the 1986 Fall Nationals] was an experimental mechanism providing possible redress for players damaged by a "lucky coincidence." The onus was transferred to the lucky side to show reasonableness if, for example, one partner held back when the other had stretched, or if an outlandish view in bidding or play met with unlikely success because of the lie of the cards. There is much value in giving a "fixed" player a shoulder to cry on, even where score adjustment is impractical. Moves in this direction included further use of and publicity for the "Recorder" system of entering complaints . . . . (BW, Feb., 1987, p.2)

 

The editorial was silent about what other "moves in this direction" were being considered. But the application of the principles outlined in the editorial to the 6D controversy seems pretty obvious.

[hrothgar]

Suppose I did open 4♠ on this hand, and partner comes down with five spades. Wouldn't it seem a little suspicious to you?

Yes, this would seem a little suspicious. (Maybe even very suspicious). However, whether or not I find something "suspicious" is almost complete irrelevant.

 

People are very, very good at identifying patterns. We're so good at identifying patterns that we often see them when nothing is there.

 

One of the trickiest parts of data analysis is not jumping to conclusions.

Learning not to on spectacular singletons is a really important skill.

[jdonn]

Um, Rainer, how often have you seen players jump to 4-card suits over a preempt, when they had a 6-card side suit? Also, it doesn't matter whether 6♦ makes 40% of the time when there is another small slam that makes much more often.

I mean, when you have A AKQJ AK AKQJT9 over a 3S preempt, then I am sure 7♥ makes more than 40% of the time. Do you know anyone who would jump to 7♥ over 3S for that reason?

Of course I can not remember people doing exactly this to me, but I think I have seen similar actions in literature.

 

The logic behind making the shorter suit ♦ trumps is to discard dummy's ♥s on the long side suit ♣s.

(This is exactly what actually happened).

This works only if dummy has (at least) 4 cards in ♦ and ♦ break well.

The latter condition is one reason why 6♦ will often not be such a great contract.

 

Surprisingly it still works quite often.

 

In your example there is of course no such reasoning, which makes the 7♥ bid not just anti-percentage, but illogical.

 

Rainer Herrmann

So you consider 6♦ a logical bid?

I do.

 

All you young talented players are so used to being ahead, that you're clueless about what to do when you are trailing.

 

I, on the other hand, has lot of experience in trailing, but is clueless about what to do when I'm ahead.

LOL

 

If this post was meant as humor it is one of the posts of the year. If it was not meant as humor that actually makes it even funnier.

[rhm]

How often the bid works isn't really the issue here.

If you consider the bid weird, I disagree. If one can show that a bid works a high percentage of the time, this matters. Such a bid can in my opinion not be considered weird. The action can be unusual and the bid can of course be criticized. It might still be a bad bid, but it is certainly not weird.

 

Certainly the 6♦ call could work out. But at the time it was made, there were many available options to find the best contract (for example double, or 4NT for minors). The player in question chose to guess a slam rather than using any of these methods. Further, even if he was forced to place the final contract immediately (far from the case, assuming partner was not barred), he selected the less-likely of possible slam bids (6♣ makes more often). Does this not seem a bit odd?

 

No, this happens all the time. This is simply a matter of judgment, as is the question whether I take the slow route in the bidding and exchange a lot of information or not. (I would, but there is research showing that contracts reached in fewer bids tend to be more successful)

If I choose 3NT instead of a game in a major, knowing I have an 8 card trump fit there, I may misjudge or I may not.

This is simply one important reason why some are better at this game than others and why experience counts.

 

At the table the guy may simply have misjudged that 6♣ has a better chance than 6♦ or maybe he wanted to reach a contract unlikely to be mirrored in the other room. It is not true that 6♣ always makes when 6♦ does. It does not, but 6♣ just makes more often.

This is not prima facie obvious to everybody. Holding long clubs himself, maybe he thought it quite likely to find ♦ in dummy after the ♠ preempt. He did. He of course did not know the exact probability for all that. After all we are not allowed to start a simulation at the Bridge table.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[ArtK78]

I have a simple question for anyone who would care to answer it directly.

 

Can anyone cite one instance (prior to last Monday) of a leap to slam on a 4 card suit in direct seat over a 3 level preempt in a major competition? I am not imposing any restriction requiring a near solid 6 card side suit, and I am, for the moment, not imposing any restrictions on the credentials of the player making the bid.

 

Assuming that the answer to my first quesion is no, can anyone cite one instance (prior to last Monday) in which any bridge commentator even discussed the possibility of a leap to slam on a 4 card suit in direct seat over a 3 level preempt?

 

This does not mean to imply that just because an action is unique that it must be based on UI or any other improper activity.

 

I am trying to get this discussion out of the twilight zone realm which it has moved into - the rationalization of the 6♦ call based on a simulation showing that it has some merit.

[hrothgar]

I have a simple question for anyone who would care to answer it directly.

 

Can anyone cite one instance (prior to last Monday) of a leap to slam on a 4 card suit in direct seat over a 3 level preempt in a major competition? I am not imposing any restriction requiring a near solid 6 card side suit, and I am, for the moment, not imposing any restrictions on the credentials of the player making the bid.

 

Assuming that the answer to my first quesion is no, can anyone cite one instance (prior to last Monday) in which any bridge commentator even discussed the possibility of a leap to slam on a 4 card suit in direct seat over a 3 level preempt?

 

This does not mean to imply that just because an action is unique that it must be based on UI or any other improper activity.

 

I am trying to get this discussion out of the twilight zone realm which it has moved into - the rationalization of the 6♦ call based on a simulation showing that it has some merit.

Art, if you can provide a database with the hands from the first couple rounds of the Spingold, Vanderbilt, etc. I'll cobble together a script to look for appropriate hands.

 

Whats that? There isn't any such database...

Its impossible to conduct such a search?

[Stephen Tu]

To me it is clear that 6♦ is a crazy bid in the view of most decent players. But it is also to me crazy to believe that a devious person setting out to cheat would do so in such an outlandish manner sure to draw attention. Wouldn't most cheats try to stay under the radar?

 

Unless there is video evidence of board fixing, or pattern of repeated crazy actions from supposed offender that work, not accompanied by a history of crazy actions from same person that backfire, hanlon's razor should apply ("don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity").

[awm]

People are very, very good at identifying patterns. We're so good at identifying patterns that we often see them when nothing is there.

 

One of the trickiest parts of data analysis is not jumping to conclusions.

Learning not to on spectacular singletons is a really important skill.

Sure, we agree that having a large database of hands would be very helpful here, and that we could determine whether this person bids this way often and has an abnormally high success rate.

 

However, I think there are times when you can analyze an action without such a database. For example, suppose I jump out of an airplane. My parachute opens and I land safely on the ground. Do you think that:

 

(1) When I jumped, I had no idea that I was wearing a parachute. It was extremely fortuitous that I happened to have one this time.

 

(2) When I jumped, I knew that I had a parachute.

 

Or do you decide that either is possible, and that you need to observe a large sample of other times that I have jumped out of airplanes in order to determine which is more likely?

 

The claim is that bidding 6♦ on this hand is akin to jumping out of a plane. It will quite often be an utter disaster, and is not something that a rational person would do without the safety of a parachute (here, the UI that it would succeed). Further, we can assume based on my survival up to this point (alternately my prior degree of success in bridge) that I am not in the habit of jumping out of planes randomly and just hoping that I happen to have a parachute (I don't randomly make such bids all the time and just happened to get lucky this once).

[MickyB]

I gave this hand to a good player (European Teams silver medallist), along with the state-of-the-match. He went for 7♦.