Good bid!

[hrothgar]

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).

Comment 1: If you jump out of a plane without a parachute, you expect to die. Sims suggest that this bid is quite a bid better than "expect to die", especially given the sate of the match.

 

Comment 2: The player in question has a history in and around District 25 of making strange, unilateral bids when down in a match. Simply put, the player had a history of jumping out of planes (especially when said planes are on fire at the time)

[awm]

Comment 1: If you jump out of a plane without a parachute, you expect to die. Sims suggest that this bid is quite a bid better than "expect to die", especially given the sate of the match.

 

Comment 2: The player in question has a history in and around District 25 of making strange, unilateral bids when down in a match. Simply put, the player had a history of jumping out of planes (especially when said planes are on fire at the time)

Fine, we can disagree about the merits of this particular bid.

 

Suppose the player in question had bid 7NT and found partner with the magic hand. Can we agree that this call is strongly suggestive of UI without an immense database search? Further, suppose he did it when his team held a small lead.

 

Or is there no level of "weirdness" where you would accept such an argument?

[gwnn]

Is 40 imps really impossible to recover in 40 boards?! Two vulnerable games and a slam in 40 boards???? am I some sort of absolute idiot for not understanding how 40 imps is an insurmountable mammoth disadvantage?

 

This board you can simply try to guess what the other table does (5♣, 6♣ or 7♣ or 3NT) and try to do something else. If you're smart and a little lucky you have only about 28 imps remaining for 39 boards!

[bill1157]

This unfortunate occurrence happened early in the event and the offender's team was eliminated. Too big a deal is being made about this. As we all know even very good players will, under pressure or losing badly do outlandish things (I played against a very good pair in a Swiss yesterday and they did stuff equally as stupid:I don't think they were cheating, just frustrated and having a bad day).

Since Justin's team won anyway where is the harm?

oh that's right: the sacred game...

 

Bill

[hrothgar]

Comment 1:  If you jump out of a plane without a parachute, you expect to die.  Sims suggest that this bid is quite a bid better than "expect to die", especially given the sate of the match.

 

Comment 2:  The player in question has a history in and around District 25 of making strange, unilateral bids when down in a match.  Simply put, the player had a history of jumping out of planes (especially when said planes are on fire at the time)

Fine, we can disagree about the merits of this particular bid.

 

Suppose the player in question had bid 7NT and found partner with the magic hand. Can we agree that this call is strongly suggestive of UI without an immense database search? Further, suppose he did it when his team held a small lead.

 

Or is there no level of "weirdness" where you would accept such an argument?

I think that it is highly inappropriate to try to evaluate anything this complex using a single data point;

 

Even more so when this involves what is, for all intents and purposes, a public accusation of cheating.

[jdonn]

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

He wanted to make sure it would be appropriate to concede at the half?

[foo]

1= In all of this, I keep seeing folk ignoring the most important fact of this whole situation.

 

The State of the Match.

 

As a pro, you are hired to do everything legally within your power to win for your client. When you are behind, it is your =JOB= to "swing" as hard as you think you can to try and get back in contention.

It's a standard tactic of pros.

 

If you are -40whatever vs a team better than yours, there is very little to lose by swinging and a potential huge gain.

 

I am confident that Mr Piltch would not consider an action like the 6D bid if his team was merely -20.

-40 is a whole other kettle of fish.

 

2= Nor have people taken enough note of the fact that Mr Piltch's opponents were at Favorable Vul ratio with The Master suit.

"space conserving" calls like X or 4N could very easily get "stomped" on:

(3S)-X-(5S)

(3S)-X-(6S)

replace "X" with "4N" for similar lessons.

...and given that Justin's team as +40 something, the risk to them of such action is minimal at best.

That means that Mr Piltch's best chance is to jam the auction as much and as fast as possible in one bid.

IOW, bid at the odds on 6 level.

6D rather than 6C is definitely imaginative, but that's a different issue.

 

3= People need to note and consider the difference between "illegal" and "unethical". Cheating is certainly illegal. By defintion.

But many of the examples being discussed here are issues of =ethics=, not =legality=.

 

4= A cheating accusation, and let's make NO pretence that Justin did not make such, he most certainly did, is the worst accusation one can make in Bridge.

The accusation, in and of itself regardless of any other factor, can and has destroyed the careers of players.

Such accusations should NEVER be made in a public forum for that very reason.

 

5= I find it interesting that no one has tried the obvious other tactic here.

Proof by contradiction.

Let's assume that Mr Piltch was =not= cheating any more than Coon, Shapiro, Reese, Zia, or any of a number of other players famous for "flare" in bidding style.

And try to see if we can duplicate their logic and board visualization skills.

(I'll skip "table feel" since the younger non rubber bridge players might consider that "unethical" .... ;-) )

Maybe, just maybe, they know something of legitimate skill that the rest of us could learn from.

[jkdood]

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

He wanted to make sure it would be appropriate to concede at the half?

Sorry for repeating this, but I am fairly certain that if you gave this hand as a bidding problem to 100 reasonable (Flight A? Thoughtful? Decent? Not always crazy? u-pick...) players, with the premise/conditions being that you are down in a match against a superior team and want to make a speculative bid that might work out well and might create a positive swing...

 

....at least 1, and probably 5 to 10 or even more, would select 6D.

 

Sure, other speculative bids would be popular. Sure, it is debatable whether this was a good time for the player to be so pessimistic/so speculative. Sure, it was "amazingly" successful.

 

But because it is (IMHO) not totally illogical and irrational under the stated premises and facts presented, some amount of doubt in my mind about there being inarguable UI remains, and apparently that's true for several other posters.

[foo]

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

OOPS!! If the bid works, they obviously have a wire on the board and should be publically lynched, tried, convicted, and thrown out of bridge forever by a mob.

 

Not.

[qwery_hi]

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?

That posting this on the forum was in some ways good for the guy who made the 6D call.

 

When I was told about this hand over dinner that day, I was 100% convinced that there must have been UI. Then I came back to the hotel and read some of the posts here, and now I think there is reasonable doubt as to whether there was UI or not.

 

One other poster here has said the same thing, that he changed his mind after reading the forums.

[the hog]

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?

That posting this on the forum was in some ways good for the guy who made the 6D call.

Yes sure! Silly comment! Many had never even heard of Mr. Piltch before. Now if you mention the name, it is "Oh yes, the guy who cheated", or something similar. Mud sticks when it is thrown. The only good thing here is that a lot of it has also stuck to the person who did the throwing.

[foo]

...Mud sticks when it is thrown. The only good thing here is that a lot of it has also stuck to the person who did the throwing.

On that note, it is NOT IMNSHO any more appropriate for Justin to be brought before a commitee, or "tried by the public" than it was or would have been of Mr Piltch.

 

Some seem to think that because Justin made inappropriate public comments, =he= should be before a C & E.

That is at least as ludicrous as the other call for a C&E was.

 

Justin was put in a situation that charged him emotionally and he said and did some overly emotional things because of it.

 

He overreacted a bit. We all do that. Particularly when we are younger.

I'm not sure what the proper way to address that is, but I =am= sure that a "reciprocal witch hunt" is not the proper way.

 

 

My hopefully constructive suggestion as to how BBO should handle this kind of stuff in the future is that BBO should simply censor public accusations of cheating in these forums where the accused can be identified.

 

We have policies and procedures, including for when and how such information should be made public.

This forum, particularly before due process has been observed, is not and should not be one of them.

[the hog]

snipped

 

My hopefully constructive suggestion as to how BBO should handle this kind of stuff in the future is that BBO should simply censor public accusations of cheating in these forums where the accused can be identified.

"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly"

Macbeth. Act 1 scene 7.

 

I think Ben made the best of an unfortnate situation, but such a thread would have to be removed extremely quickly and this is often difficult.

[foo]

snipped

 

My hopefully constructive suggestion as to how BBO should handle this kind of stuff in the future is that BBO should simply censor public accusations of cheating in these forums where the accused can be identified.

"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly"

Macbeth. Act 1 scene 7.

 

I think Ben made the best of an unfortnate situation, but such a thread would have to be removed extremely quickly and this is often difficult.

100% agree.

 

But there should be a way to stop inappropriate posts ASAP.

 

...and a BBO policy about what happens to you if make such.

[qwery_hi]

...Mud sticks when it is thrown. The only good thing here is that a lot of it has also stuck to the person who did the throwing.

On that note, it is NOT IMNSHO any more appropriate for Justin to be brought before a commitee, or "tried by the public" than it was or would have been of Mr Piltch.

 

Some seem to think that because Justin made inappropriate public comments, =he= should be before a C & E.

That is at least as ludicrous as the other call for a C&E was.

 

Justin was put in a situation that charged him emotionally and he said and did some overly emotional things because of it.

 

He overreacted a bit. We all do that. Particularly when we are younger.

I'm not sure what the proper way to address that is, but I =am= sure that a "reciprocal witch hunt" is not the proper way.

 

 

My hopefully constructive suggestion as to how BBO should handle this kind of stuff in the future is that BBO should simply censor public accusations of cheating in these forums where the accused can be identified.

 

We have policies and procedures, including for when and how such information should be made public.

This forum, particularly before due process has been observed, is not and should not be one of them.

Yeah, like BBO forums is the only place where hands like these would be discussed. News and discussions of such hands cannot be censored.

[matmat]

Yeah, like BBO forums is the only place where hands like these would be discussed. News and discussions of such hands cannot be censored.

qwery_hi, meet foo.

[foo]

My hopefully constructive suggestion as to how BBO should handle this kind of stuff in the future is that BBO should simply censor public accusations of cheating in these forums where the accused can be identified.

 

We have policies and procedures, including for when and how such information should be made public.

This forum, particularly before due process has been observed, is not and should not be one of them.

Yeah, like BBO forums is the only place where hands like these would be discussed. News and discussions of such hands cannot be censored.

Maybe not. But just because someone else is going to gossip or backbite or slander or libel does not mean we should feel it's appropriate to do so.

 

...and by behaving "properly" we, and this site,

a= avoid being engulfed in the flames or other nasties of the controversy

b= avoid potential legal problems

[fuburules3]

It seems silly to judge the merit of the bid by saying 6D makes X percent of the time etc. It should be judged based on how often 6D is the best contract and there is no other way to get there except bidding it immediately.

 

Someone has probably mentioned this somewhere in this massive thread though . . .

[rhm]

It seems silly to judge the merit of the bid by saying 6D makes X percent of the time etc.  It should be judged based on how often 6D is the best contract and there is no other way to get there except bidding it immediately. 

 

Someone has probably mentioned this somewhere in this massive thread though . . .

If this is your criteria you could accuse at least 90% of all bridge players (including me) of cheating.

 

For example, did you never jump to 3NT, where thorough investigation (an alternative way) would have told you that the opponents can cash the first 5 tricks in a suit?

 

While I admit that bidding "what you think you can make" is nowadays out of favor and in this case a bit unusual, it is not clear that thorough investigation in the bidding will always lead to better results.

 

Though I do not recommend the unorthodox jump to 6♦, because of its obvious risks, there are many arguments in favor of it:

 

1.) LHO may have a very difficult decision at favorable vulnerability whether to take a (phantom) save or not. (Give opponents the last guess)

2.) The defense is usually much more difficult when you hide the nature of your hand. For example 6♦ might be beatable on a ♥ lead.

3.) If RHO Lightner doubles it may be anything but obvious to LHO that his partner has a void in ♣ instead of in ♥.

4.) Bidding directly 6♦ may be the best way of reaching a lay-down 7♦ when partner decides to raise with an appropriate hand. (long diamonds including the king; nothing else is needed). ( 6♣ is the most likely small slam to make, but the most likely grand seems to be 7♦)

 

It all boils down to judgment.

 

But to believe you can have an unimpeded bidding dialog over 3♠, particularly at unfavorable vulnerability, at no cost is just a little bit naive.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[qwery_hi]

My hopefully constructive suggestion as to how BBO should handle this kind of stuff in the future is that BBO should simply censor public accusations of cheating in these forums where the accused can be identified.

 

We have policies and procedures, including for when and how such information should be made public.

This forum, particularly before due process has been observed, is not and should not be one of them.

Yeah, like BBO forums is the only place where hands like these would be discussed. News and discussions of such hands cannot be censored.

Maybe not. But just because someone else is going to gossip or backbite or slander or libel does not mean we should feel it's appropriate to do so.

 

...and by behaving "properly" we, and this site,

a= avoid being engulfed in the flames or other nasties of the controversy

b= avoid potential legal problems

AFAIK gossip is allowed, and the OPost was not libel, nor was a public accusation of cheating made. And seeing how the thread has not been censored by the powers of BBO, who I think are quite conservative, I don't think they consider this a public accusation of cheating either.

[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?

That posting this on the forum was in some ways good for the guy who made the 6D call.

In fact, the position I am stubbornly maintaining is that it is unreasonable to impose this supposed benefit on Mr Piltch against his will. I don't know him personally, but his picture suggests that he's old enough to make his own decisions.

[jkdood]

It seems silly to judge the merit of the bid by saying 6D makes X percent of the time etc.  It should be judged based on how often 6D is the best contract and there is no other way to get there except bidding it immediately. 

 

Someone has probably mentioned this somewhere in this massive thread though . . .

If this is your criteria you could accuse at least 90% of all bridge players (including me) of cheating.

 

For example, did you never jump to 3NT, where thorough investigation (an alternative way) would have told you that the opponents can cash the first 5 tricks in a suit?

 

While I admit that bidding "what you think you can make" is nowadays out of favor and in this case a bit unusual, it is not clear that thorough investigation in the bidding will always lead to better results.

 

Though I do not recommend the unorthodox jump to 6♦, because of its obvious risks, there are many arguments in favor of it:

 

1.) LHO may have a very difficult decision at favorable vulnerability whether to take a (phantom) save or not. (Give opponents the last guess)

2.) The defense is usually much more difficult when you hide the nature of your hand. For example 6♦ might be beatable on a ♥ lead.

3.) If RHO Lightner doubles it may be anything but obvious to LHO that his partner has a void in ♣ instead of in ♥.

4.) Bidding directly 6♦ may be the best way of reaching a lay-down 7♦ when partner decides to raise with an appropriate hand. (long diamonds including the king; nothing else is needed). ( 6♣ is the most likely small slam to make, but the most likely grand seems to be 7♦)

 

It all boils down to judgment.

 

But to believe you can have an unimpeded bidding dialog over 3♠, particularly at unfavorable vulnerability, at no cost is just a little bit naive.

 

Rainer Herrmann

When I first heard of the 6D call, like most I hated it and was thoroughly bemused.

After much discussion and consideration, however; as a creative imaginative swing-potential call, it seems probably more "thoughtful" than irrational...

 

...there's also the increased likelihood that LHO would take a rewarding favorable-vul sac of 6S with something like Kxxx Qxxxx Kxx x over a 6C call, which is everyone's favorite "flyer" on this hand. Over 6D, he might not.

 

Besides hands where only 6D makes (but not 6C) - when BOTH MAKE opposite something like xx KJx Jxxx Jxxx, well - isn't the 6D call going to create a swing when 6Sx is the contract in the other room after a scientific 6C is reached, but the LHO here might very well pass out 6D some days?

 

Maybe the example hand for LHO is a "clear" 6S bid, but you could modify it to be "less clear" to achieve the same purpose.

[foo]

AFAIK gossip is allowed, and the OPost was not libel, nor was a public accusation of cheating made. And seeing how the thread has not been censored by the powers of BBO, who I think are quite conservative, I don't think they consider this a public accusation of cheating either.

a= some gossip is far more dangerous than others.

As I said previous, just the ACCUSATION that someone has cheated at Bridge can destroy their reputation irrepairably. For teachers and pros, that literally means destroying their source of income and livelihood.

 

For a Bridge pro, a cheating accusation is every bit as nasty as taking a club to the knees or hands of a professional athlete. Either can permanently cripple or destroy the career of the sportsman in question.

 

For that reason, accusations of cheating MUST be handled extremely carefully and not as an exercise in public lynching.

 

 

b= "...nor was a public accusation of cheating made"? Who are you trying to kid, yourself or the rest of us? The Hog and others have posted the quotes that make it very obvious that Justin felt he was robbed by unethical behavior that he felt could only have resulted from someone being in possession of information they could not possibly have legitimately.

...and that he "shopped" that opinion very aggressively both at the tournament and online (both here and on rgb).

IOW, Justin accused Mr Piltch of cheating. To a =world wide= public audience.

 

I am sure that one of his motives for doing so was to "blow off steam". I am also sure that one of his motives was to use the court of public opinion to "nail" Mr Piltch and "see justice done".

 

I'll leave it to the professional lawyers here to discuss the finer points of what constitutes slander or libel. I am not a lawyer.

 

However, the major point remains that as of now, the entire process of investigating this incident is tainted. Worse, to some degree so are any possible future investigations into the accused's Bridge actions.

The pool of objectivity has been tainted. The tree of logic and evidence poisoned by so many having a pre-set bias.

 

...and all of that could have been prevented if there had not been public accusations of cheating and attempts to use "the court of public opinion" rather than the established due process.

[jkdood]

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

[JLOGIC]

Wow the talk of the 6D bid being a good "swing" bid is amazingly tilting.

 

This was the beginning of the second QUARTER. There was a lot of time to not go completely insane swinging.

 

But surely if the first thing you do on this hand is visualize hands where 6D makes and 6C does not, you see if partner can bid diamonds when you show the minors, or make a takeout double, or later offer a choice of slams.

 

Why are all the wizards who think of hands where 6D is the nut spot not thinking about hands where hearts is the nuts? If partner bids them when you give him a chance, you might just get there too.

 

I'm not sure why even if you were swinging with 45 boards left in a match you would choose to do so by unilaterally picking a suit that will often be wrong. This hand is swingy in and of itself, maybe your teammates opened 4S instead of 3S or the auction went differently, or maybe you will just judge it better than your opps after a normal start to the auction. After all, you are a bridge pro!

 

At the very least if you want to choose something unilateral you will get some info first.

 

It seems like the best argument is maybe the guy went insane and frustrated and visualized 6D making and "forgot" he could go slower and was on tilt, and he just got lucky.

 

Then after that he failed to make any similarly insane bids until the 4th quarter where he was down by like 4 imps a board, rather than 1 imp a board, with fewer boards left. I guess he just felt so good about his 6D bid working he didn't want to press his luck.

 

I still find it all to be implausible, but as I said in the beginning of the thread there is no evidence of UI other than the hand itself. I still think the laws ought to be altered so that the hand itself can be evidence of UI, at least for the purposes of adjusting the score. Obviously for conduct hearings/reprimands/etc there would need to be a higher bar, and since there is no other evidence I can understand why there would be no sanctions just based on the hand.