Good bid!

[foo]

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.

No there was not when you are already -40 or worse vs a team that is objectively better skill wise.

 

At -20, there is "plenty of time". not at -40.

 

Nor, was there a reasonable chance of "going slower".

Your team had the Spades at Favorable vul and with +40 "padding".

 

You can, and should, stomp on any "slow" auction that you think has ANY reasonable chance of ending in the right spot for Them.

 

They have slow auction to 6m. you simply bid 6S on top of it anytime you think it rates to have even 1/3 of being right.

 

...and any decent pro KNOWS that, and is therefore not going to give you the chance to evaluate a slow auction in this situation.

[jkdood]

Well, 6D is a bit safer than 6H since if it is doubled, you can then try 6H ;)

 

The above (Justin's post) opinion and bridge logic is of course accurate and thoughtful. But Justin is by far the better player, (than Mr. P or myself or others posting here)so probably can no longer put himself in an "M"'s shoes :)

[JLOGIC]

Hey when did foo come back? I feel like I've missed so much! No thread is epic until foo in da house!

[JLOGIC]

Well, 6D is a bit safer than 6H since if it is doubled, you can then try 6H ;)

 

The above (Justin's post) opinion and bridge logic is of course accurate and thoughtful. But Justin is by far the better player, (than Mr. O or myself or others posting here)so probably can no longer put himself in an "M"'s shoes :)

Haha, by the way nice to see you posting on the forums Jay, hope you stick around for the bridge posts also you always have a....unique...view :P See you somewhere soon I hope.

[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.

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?

If there were a hand where a player in a major competition leapt to a slam on a four-card suit in direct seat over a 3-level preempt, you would not need to search the database of all known hands to find it. It would have been the talk of the tournament, if not the entire bridge world.

 

If there were any prior instance of an action such as this in any major tournament, it would have been brought to light during the course of this thread. Someone would have said that "Joe Smith made a similar call holding XYZ in the 1951 Tibet Team Championship" or something along those lines. But it seems that no one has heard of anything like the action taken at the table against Justin's team.

 

One has to admire such a unique action and the success it enjoyed.

[jkdood]

Thanks M. I feel your frustration and indignation greatly. Especially at first! And you probably are aware I am no fan of Mr. P (or Mr. O or whatever I call him.)

 

Maybe it was just a "tilt". And when it worked and when he had a C&E director visit/discussion at the break, he decided to take it easy from then on. I dunno.

 

I do know you won the match (Yea!) and had some great results in Nawlins! Congrats!

[foo]

Hey when did foo come back? I feel like I've missed so much! No thread is epic until foo in da house!

This incident and the furor it has created in both real life and online is what brought me back Justin.

 

I do not know if it is still in print, but if people want lot's of examples of unusual bridge actions and the controversy they inspired, I highly recommend

_Fair Play or Foul?_ by Cathy Chua (I may have mispelled the author's name)

 

What Mr Piltch did is not anywhere as unique, or even extreme, as some things that have happened in high level bridge over the years.

 

Terrence Reese, IIRC, once underled AQx on opening lead vs a suit contract. It was the only lead that could set the contract.

 

the 3-3 fit is called "The Rodwell", and Support Doubles exist, because Eric used to so aggressively insert =3= card suits into some auctions that he often ended up playing his 3-3 "fit".

 

etc etc.

 

High level players have always done things based on Table Feel, visualization, and sheer gall that the rest of us simply do not consider.

[PeterGill]

Either the 6D bidder is highly imaginative, or else he did something wrong.

 

As a newbie to this thread who has just completed a marathon read, I think the initial reactions are understandable and human, but the obvious conclusion 24 pages later is that the 6D bidder is highly imaginative and has a brain type that is not afraid to depart (considerably) from the mainstream. Einstein had his hecklers too.

 

About 5 years ago, a highly imaginative client of mine (who liked to make bids that shock) held 10, AKQJ, void, AKQ109542. 1S on her right, Dbl by her, 1NT by her LHO, Pass by me ... I passed a lot in this partnership :) ....

 

Pass by her RHO, 7C, down one. She reasoned correctly that we needed a top, and with her marked spade void on this bidding, there was no way that her LHO would lead a spade. She got that right, but forgot there was nowhere for the spade loser to go in 7C. I had 9xxxx, 9xxx, 10xx, x. Hearts were 3-2. I have to admit that it didn't occur to boring me at the time to correct to 7H. I'm not that imaginative. Our partnership has won three National Championships, including two Open Pairs titles.

 

Being a dutiful pro, I said nothing at the table (of course), but after the game I pointed out that she might have done better to try 7H, as that contract provides more opportunity for the spade loser to vanish, when I'm marked on the bidding to have few high cards.

 

Returning to the Spingold, it is the visible Axx holding in hearts that makes 6D non-loony to those who think very differently from the mainstream. I personally regard the 6D call in a similar category to displaying a placard "We did not vote for Bush" at a dinner and expecting no repercussions. Unusual actions attract discussion. That does not necessarily make the unusual action bad. although many will criticize unusual actions.

 

6D might also make opposite AKxx, xxxxxx, Kx, x or the like, when 6C fails on a club lead with clubs 4-2 and diamonds 4-3. My clients have made stranger bids than the 6D bid. Not this week, but there was one a few months ago.

 

Someone asked: "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?"

 

No, but perhaps after my post mortem above, my then partner may have tried this stunt with another partner? I certainly fit the description of "bridge commentator", being a frequent BBO Vugraph Commentator.

[jkdood]

... I highly recommend

_Fair Play or Foul?_ by Cathy Chua (I may have mispelled the author's name)

"Chua" is correct. Book (and info about author) is available. see for example http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2963978.Cathy_Chua

[ArtK78]

Hey when did foo come back? I feel like I've missed so much! No thread is epic until foo in da house!

 

What Mr Piltch did is not anywhere as unique, or even extreme, as some things that have happened in high level bridge over the years.

OK, foo. You have the book. Please provide an example of an action similar to the one taken by Mr. Piltch in a serious tournament.

[jkdood]

About 5 years ago, a highly imaginative client of mine (who liked to make bids that shock) held 10, AKQJ, void, AKQ109542. 1S on her right, Dbl by her, 1NT by her LHO, Pass by me ... I passed a lot in this partnership :) ....

 

Pass by her RHO, 7C, down one. She reasoned correctly that we needed a top, and with her marked spade void on this bidding, there was no way that her LHO would lead a spade. She got that right, but forgot there was nowhere for the spade loser to go in 7C. I .

Welcome to the FRAY Peter.

 

Uhh (just a M here) but how is LHO to be considered "having marked spade void" in this auction?

[ArtK78]

Either the 6D bidder is highly imaginative, or else he did something wrong.

 

As a newbie to this thread who has just completed a marathon read, I think the initial reactions are understandable and human, but the obvious conclusion 24 pages later is that the 6D bidder is highly imaginative and has a brain type that is not afraid to depart (considerably) from the mainstream. Einstein had his hecklers too.

 

About 5 years ago, a highly imaginative client of mine (who liked to make bids that shock) held 10, AKQJ, void, AKQ109542. 1S on her right, Dbl by her, 1NT by her LHO, Pass by me ... I passed a lot in this partnership :) ....

 

Pass by her RHO, 7C, down one. She reasoned correctly that we needed a top, and with her marked spade void on this bidding, there was no way that her LHO would lead a spade. She got that right, but forgot there was nowhere for the spade loser to go in 7C. I had 9xxxx, 9xxx, 10xx, x. Hearts were 3-2. I have to admit that it didn't occur to boring me at the time to correct to 7H. I'm not that imaginative. Our partnership has won three National Championships, including two Open Pairs titles.

 

Being a dutiful pro, I said nothing at the table (of course), but after the game I pointed out that she might have done better to try 7H, as that contract provides more opportunity for the spade loser to vanish, when I'm marked on the bidding to have few high cards.

 

Returning to the Spingold, it is the visible Axx holding in hearts that makes 6D non-loony to those who think very differently from the mainstream. I personally regard the 6D call in a similar category to displaying a placard "We did not vote for Bush" at a dinner and expecting no repercussions. Unusual actions attract discussion. That does not necessarily make the unusual action bad. although many will criticize unusual actions.

 

6D might also make opposite AKxx, xxxxxx, Kx, x or the like, when 6C fails on a club lead with clubs 4-2 and diamonds 4-3. My clients have made stranger bids than the 6D bid. Not this week, but there was one a few months ago.

 

Someone asked: "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?"

 

No, but perhaps after my post mortem above, my then partner may have tried this stunt with another partner? I certainly fit the description of "bridge commentator", being a frequent BBO Vugraph Commentator.

Thanks for the post, Peter.

 

As you no doubt pointed out to your partner, it is one thing to see after the fact that 7♥ would have worked out better than 7♣, or even considering making a 7♥ call rather than 7♣ prior to taking the plunge, but it is an entirely different thing to actually make the 7♥ call.

[JLOGIC]

High level players have always done things based on Table Feel, visualization, and sheer gall that the rest of us simply do not consider.

Oh really? Thanks for the input.

 

Foo, just out of curiosity, I obviously openly admit to being biased in discussing this matter. Do you feel that you are biased at all for any reason?

[foo]

Hey when did foo come back? I feel like I've missed so much! No thread is epic until foo in da house!

 

What Mr Piltch did is not anywhere as unique, or even extreme, as some things that have happened in high level bridge over the years.

OK, foo. You have the book. Please provide an example of an action similar to the one taken by Mr. Piltch in a serious tournament.

I =read= the book. Some time ago. if I still =had= the book, would I have been so unsure as to the spelling of the author's name?

I may still have at somewhere and will look around for it.

 

OTOH,

ask Mr Rodwell about the 3-3 "Rodwell" fit and the history of support doubles.

 

ask Alan Sontag to tell you some stories about "frisky" actions ATT.

 

go look up some of the more notorious actions Zia has meade ATT.

 

etc etc.

 

There are players whose forte' is to "generate action".

They are not the Bill Root's or Norman Kay's of the Bridge world.

 

...and just about any time they do something unusual that works spectacularly, they get accused of being unethical or cheating.

 

 

One of the thing this thread has NOT said is that Mr Piltch's team was about -50 at the half and then proceeded to be every bit as aggressive in the last half to try and get back to parity. It did not work.

=THAT= is why they ended the match <= -100 IMPs.

 

None of those actions are being discussed or examined. Just the one that worked.

 

The very definition of biased sampling.

[ArtK78]

Hey when did foo come back? I feel like I've missed so much! No thread is epic until foo in da house!

 

What Mr Piltch did is not anywhere as unique, or even extreme, as some things that have happened in high level bridge over the years.

OK, foo. You have the book. Please provide an example of an action similar to the one taken by Mr. Piltch in a serious tournament.

I =read= the book. Some time ago. if I still =had= the book, would I have been so unsure as to the spelling of the author's name?

I may still have at somewhere and will look around for it.

 

OTOH,

ask Mr Rodwell about the 3-3 "Rodwell" fit and the history of support doubles.

 

ask Alan Sontag to tell you some stories about "frisky" actions ATT.

 

go look up some of the more notorious actions Zia has meade ATT.

 

etc etc.

 

There are players whose forte' is to "generate action".

They are not the Bill Root's or Norman Kay's of the Bridge world.

 

...and just about any time they do something unusual that works spectacularly, they get accused of being unethical or cheating.

 

 

One of the thing this thread has NOT said is that Mr Piltch's team was about -50 at the half and then proceeded to be every bit as aggressive in the last half to try and get back to parity. It did not work.

=THAT= is why they ended the match <= -100 IMPs.

 

None of those actions are being discussed or examined. Just the one that worked.

 

The very definition of biased sampling.

Foo, I am not concerned about Meckwell and 3-3 fits.

 

I am not concerned about Alan Sontag and frisky actions at the table.

 

I am not concerned about Zia and some of his unusual actions.

 

I am not concerned about what happened in the second half of the match, since the hand we are discussing occurred early in the second quarter.

 

I am concerned solely about this one hand. If you can find any reported hand similar to the one being discussed, please present it. Otherwise, we are just wasting time.

 

Peter Gill presented a hand which had the potential for being similar to the posted hand, but his partner was not quite as "imaginitive" as Mr. Piltch. Perhaps you can show us an example of a hand where someone demonstrated the same level of imagination.

[JLOGIC]

One of the thing this thread has NOT said is that Mr Piltch's team was about -50 at the half and then proceeded to be every bit as aggressive in the last half to try and get back to parity.  It did not work.

=THAT= is why they ended the match <= -100 IMPs.

This is a complete lie. They were down ~45 after the first quarter, and WON imps in the 2nd quarter (including on this board), to be down only ~25, not 50.

 

As I (who played the match) have reported here, Mr Piltch did nothing that would be considered insane on this level by most until the FOURTH quarter. That means the rest of the 2nd quarter, and all of the 3rd quarter, nothing. Starting the 4th quarter he was now down ~50 with 16 boards to go (a lot different than ~45 with 45 boards to go). He was indeed swinging at that point.

 

Foo if you would like to report the facts of a match you did not play in in an event you did not play in at a tournament you did not play in, at least get them right.

 

Also, Foo I will ask again are your posts on this matter biased at all? I think it is important for people who might give credit to anything you say to realize that other than being your usual foo self, you are also completely biased in this matter.

 

Thanks.

[foo]

Foo, just out of curiosity, I obviously openly admit to being biased in discussing this matter. Do you feel that you are biased at all for any reason?

If I have any bias, I am trying very hard not to have it affect me.

 

1= I waited quite some time and did some investigating before I made even one comment on this. I did not post "knee jerk" or emotionally.

Nor did I post until I had a reasonable grasp on the facts.

 

 

2= I am "calling the dogs off" you just as hard as I am off Mr Piltch.

 

Neither you nor Mr Piltch should be hauled before a C & E because of public outcry to do so.

Nor should either of you be "tried by the public".

I repeat. We have established formal procedures for dealing with these issues.

They should be used instead of what amounts to public lynch mobs.

 

 

3= Over the years I have heard about or seen a number of miscarriages of justice with regards to cheating or unethical behavior in Bridge.

In some cases a guilty party got away with it (at least that time) because of politics or a breakdown in the process.

In other cases an innocent party was railroaded due to the same causes.

In still others, we can =never= be sure what the truth is because of those causes.

 

So if I have any strong bias, it is towards the Bridge community dealing with these issues "in the right way".

 

In short, I am biased towards there being a fair and objective process; and towards that process being rigorously enforced.

 

What's going on here, on rgb, and elsewhere doesn't look to fit the bill to me.

Just the emotional extremes of the some of the positions ("lynch Piltch!" "no, lynch Lall!") is IMHO adequate evidence of that.

How about we don't lynch anybody and not go off "half cocked"?

How about we let those who are trained and authorised to deal with this do so?

[JLOGIC]

If I have any bias, I am trying very hard not to have it affect me.

Sure, everyone tries to. It should still be known what those biases are.

 

Was Mr. Piltch involved in your wedding?

 

Did you used to play bridge with Mr. Piltch?

 

Etc. These are useful things to know for people reading your posts, thanks.

[foo]

One of the thing this thread has NOT said is that Mr Piltch's team was about -50 at the half and then proceeded to be every bit as aggressive in the last half to try and get back to parity.  It did not work.

=THAT= is why they ended the match <= -100 IMPs.

This is a complete lie. They were down ~45 after the first quarter, and WON imps in the 2nd quarter (including on this board), to be down only ~25, not 50.

 

As I (who played the match) have reported here, Mr Piltch did nothing that would be considered insane on this level by most until the FOURTH quarter. That means the rest of the 2nd quarter, and all of the 3rd quarter, nothing. Starting the 4th quarter he was now down ~50 with 16 boards to go (a lot different than ~45 with 45 boards to go). He was indeed swinging at that point.

 

Foo if you would like to report the facts of a match you did not play in in an event you did not play in at a tournament you did not play in, at least get them right.

 

Also, Foo I will ask again are your posts on this matter biased at all? I think it is important for people who might give credit to anything you say to realize that other than being your usual foo self, you are also completely biased in this matter.

 

Thanks.

pardon the typo. I said last half when meant last 1/4. and was too busy answering another post to notice and edit it fast enough.

 

*sigh* I am not the world's best or fastest typist.

 

Justin's account is indeed what I was told about the sequence of events.

[foo]

If I have any bias, I am trying very hard not to have it affect me.

Sure, everyone tries to. It should still be known what those biases are.

 

Was Mr. Piltch involved in your wedding?

 

Did you used to play bridge with Mr. Piltch?

 

Etc. These are useful things to know for people reading your posts, thanks.

WHAT IN THE WORLD?

[JLOGIC]

I AM A PSYCHOPATH BUT MIKEH IS GIVING ME THE HELP I NEED

[foo]

Foo, I am not concerned about Meckwell and 3-3 fits.

 

I am not concerned about Alan Sontag and frisky actions at the table.

 

I am not concerned about Zia and some of his unusual actions.

 

I am not concerned about what happened in the second half of the match, since the hand we are discussing occurred early in the second quarter.

 

I am concerned solely about this one hand. If you can find any reported hand similar to the one being discussed, please present it. Otherwise, we are just wasting time.

 

Peter Gill presented a hand which had the potential for being similar to the posted hand, but his partner was not quite as "imaginitive" as Mr. Piltch. Perhaps you can show us an example of a hand where someone demonstrated the same level of imagination.

you do realize that's an impossible standard right?

 

unless I can find a situation that is an exact clone of this one, you can always claim it is not "close enough" to be valid to you.

 

I simply do not have that kind of database available to me.

I do not know if anyone does.

40 years from now we might if the present ability to record every board and every card played continues to be used and expanded.

 

But even if we had such a thing, why should I spend hours or days hunting for something to satisfy your curiosity?

Go do your own homework! :D

 

If people taking what looks to be anti-percentage actions in high level competition is the issue, it's easy to bring examples to the discussion.

 

If you want this =exact= situation, the laws of probability make it very unlikely since what you are asking for is

a= an exact match to this board plus

b= an exact match to the conditions of contest and state of the match plus

c= a similar player to be sitting in each of the decision makers seats.

[JLOGIC]

I AM A PSYCHOPATH BUT MIKEH IS GIVING ME THE HELP I NEED

[foo]

enough. I've said my piece. time for me to exit rather than repeat myself or have the thread go off topic.

 

It's clear that some nerves are still raw and some emotions still too high.

 

IMNSHO, this thread should be locked. So should the rgb one on this topic.

 

and we should be DONE with this unless or until the appropriate folk make a ruling or otherwise public statement.

 

The way this is going I do not envy those whose job it is to properly deal with it.

[JLOGIC]

What ruling? The ruling is, there is no evidence of UI so the table result stands. The ruling as far as a C&E hearing is that there will be none, because this hand is not evidence of any misconduct. The recorder has taken down the facts in case they are relevant for a future hearing. That's it. This has been settled for a while.

 

Bye foo, nice to see you again!