Good bid!

[blackshoe]

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

I've been running forums like this one for nearly twenty years. IME, the only way to do that is to have the software intercept all posts, and require manual vetting by an administrator. That's very manpower intensive, and in 90% of cases a waste of time. I very much doubt it's ever going to happen.

[Phil]

Aside from the main issues in this thread, it really helps to be at the table when this sort of thing happens.

 

Apparently I'm not as imaginative as Mr. Piltch, but occasionally I make a 'creative' call. If I am monumentally lucky and my opponents give me a funny look like something is amiss, my reaction is more of embarrassment than say defiance or enthusiasm. If I felt like I was taking a view and got lucky, I might say something IMOD.

 

Think of it as making a truly terrible call on the turn and getting what you need on the river. You usually kind of sheepishly turn over your hand. While winning is fun, you kind of want to disappear because you know that you will get some sh** from the other players.

 

Even on BBO, how often have you made a bad call and ended up in a nearly hopeless slam that rolls because of some far-fetched distribution. A "sorry opps" is usually in order, because bad bridge was rewarded. Without saying, it is horrible form to gloat about a result like this.

 

Right after Piltch claimed, I wonder if he said "sorry opponents, I felt like I needed to generate a swing and this seemed like a good opportunity". Or did he simply put his cards in the board as if nothing strange had happened? A criminal does not want to call attention to his actions, although its delusional to think that there won't be repercussions, even if it happens after the set. A nonplussed reaction would cast dispersions in my mind.

 

Perhaps almost as important was Mr. Hinckley (sp?) reaction. Did he feel embarrassed as if he is thinking to himself (oh *****, I've seen him pull this crap in a regional, and now he's doing it HERE?). Did he look at Howard's hand afterward and say "how did you think of that?". Did he say, "Great bid Howard, you are a true genius"? Whenever my partner makes a leap to slam I'm going to take more of an interest in whats going on, then I would if I were pulling the dummy in 1N. Will Mr. Hinckley the defender continue to play with Mr. Piltch?

 

All of this presupposes a love for the game, and respect for your opponents. I do not know if this was the case.

 

Justin, I would love to hear what your teammates account of the situation was.

[foo]

Is this a denial or confirmation?

 

If it is a denial, what are the reasons that you "might be biased" (your words). Clearly you are attached since you came back to the forums during this episode (paraphrasing you), and have heard accounts from the other side about this.

 

If it is a non denial/non confirmation, are you still trying to deny who you are since you got laughed off of RGB?

 

It would be an interesting coincidence that you have insider information and were moved enough to come back to BBF and defend Mr. Piltch when the person who everyone thinks you are and you post exactly like was a former partner of Mr. Piltch, and who had Mr. Piltch attend his wedding.

 

Lots of coincidences in the world though!

a= my primary sources of information about this are not on any of the teams involved.

The whole Bridge world is discussing this situation. That is more than a little due to your efforts to "spread the word". It even got to me ;-)

 

If anything, I am late to it compared to most (consider the dates of the incident, the beginning of the online threads, and when I first posted in them. Page =4= of this thread IIRC.)

 

 

b= I have never been "laughed off" RGB

 

 

c= MOST IMPORTANTLY, I am not defending either you or Mr Piltch.

-I called for fair process.

-I pointed out what the typical playing pro's attitude and responsibilities are.

-I reminded some of some bridge issues that I thought were not being given enough credence or weight.

-I said one data point does not a pattern make.

-I have pointed out other such actions and noted the furor they caused in their day.

-I said that a public forum is an inappropriate place to try a cheating accusation.

None of these statements is unique to me. Others have also said some or all of these point in this thread. and on rgb.

 

Now you seem to be attacking me because I am not "supporting" your PoV strongly enough to satisfy you.

 

That's really bad. It implies that your emotions are so out of control on this issue that it will not matter what decisions are made or advice is given to you.

You've made up your mind and the rest of the world had better conform to Justin's PoV! That is a very dangerous attitude.

 

I am sure you are more logical than that at heart.

 

Given the emotional reactions of some involved, this thread really does need to get locked.

[JLOGIC]

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

[JLOGIC]

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

[vuroth]

Even on BBO, how often have you made a bad call and ended up in a nearly hopeless slam that rolls because of some far-fetched distribution. A "sorry opps" is usually in order, because bad bridge was rewarded. Without saying, it is horrible form to gloat about a result like this.

As I was reading this, I couldn't help but think that I would apologize to opps if a mechanical error or antipercentage bid came home for me, even though I would understand that such an apology would be unnecessary. After 20 pages of debate, I'd kind of decided that I was alone in this point of view, and being a n00b.

 

Glad to see someone else saying what I was thinking. Thanks, Phil.

[JLOGIC]

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

[foo]

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

I've been running forums like this one for nearly twenty years. IME, the only way to do that is to have the software intercept all posts, and require manual vetting by an administrator. That's very manpower intensive, and in 90% of cases a waste of time. I very much doubt it's ever going to happen.

well, I am not a "computer geek", but it seems to me that one should be able to set up SW to notice if a thread is wildly busy compared to most and then have the SW call an admin's attention to that thread via an email or something.

 

Participation in threads like these are clearly similar to behavior in "flash mobs".

 

That should be a Red Flag all by itself.

 

Combine the above with a quick filter on inflammatory terms like swear words or "cheat" and I'd hope you'd get a decent "auto magic" way of noting that there's a thread on where someone is being talked about as a cheater?

 

But like I said, I'm not much of a computer guy, so maybe it is more complex than that in some way I do not as yet understand.

[JLOGIC]

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

[foo]

yep I made a typo. I corrected it and apologized for it. Can't do much more than that.

 

As for "I don't see anyone else as being emotional in this matter", you certainly seem to be. Your reaction to me saying a bunch of things in one post that others had said most of over a few posts was to accuse me of some sort of inappropriate relationship with the Accused and make an Ad Homenium attack on me.

 

I have to reluctantly conclude you want the Accused "burned at the stake" and

a= you do not give a darn what anybody else thinks or says on the matter.

b= anyone whom you perceive as being too supportive of The Accused is to be attacked if you think you can get away with it.

 

Which is ironic given that I've been mostly saying that people need to calm down and be careful about what they suggest with regard to either you or the accused.

 

The use of bold letters is not an attempt at shouting or whatever you seem to be calling it.

It's an attempt to make it easier for admins to find the request in the middle of what is clearly a lot of text.

 

Maybe I'm misreading you and you are every bit as phlegmatic as you claim.

I certainly hope so.

[WellSpyder]

Even on BBO, how often have you made a bad call and ended up in a nearly hopeless slam that rolls because of some far-fetched distribution. A "sorry opps" is usually in order, because bad bridge was rewarded. Without saying, it is horrible form to gloat about a result like this.

As I was reading this, I couldn't help but think that I would apologize to opps if a mechanical error or antipercentage bid came home for me, even though I would understand that such an apology would be unnecessary. After 20 pages of debate, I'd kind of decided that I was alone in this point of view, and being a n00b.

 

Glad to see someone else saying what I was thinking. Thanks, Phil.

It seems to me like people who want to apologize when they do something bad that works lack killer instinct. Just my opinion.

Last week I opened a balanced 19-point hand with 1N, ostensibly showing 14-16. Partner happily passed a flat 5-count. The cards lay badly and I made 7 tricks, while most of the rest of the room went off in 2N or 3N.

 

Did I have a wire? No, I had an ace hidden and failed to notice I only had 12 cards!

 

Did anyone accuse me of cheating? I don't think it even occurred to them.

 

Did I apologise? Definitely - I know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of something like this.

 

Do I lack a killer instinct? Quite possibly....

[JLOGIC]

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

[jeremy69]

If I am monumentally lucky and my opponents give me a funny look like something is amiss, my reaction is more of embarrassment than say defiance or enthusiasm.

 

Well you might look sheepish and mutter sorry for being so outrageously lucky but your predisposition to do this might change if we went along with the suggestion that if you made a truly bizarre and successful bid (not sure who is going to judge this) then that would be all that is needed to adjust the result.

 

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.

 

Many things surprise me about this thread but the fact that this suggestion made has not been more widely condemned (although some disagreed) is the greatest of them.

There was a suggestion, early on, that Law 85 could be used but I don't think a law that deals with disputed facts is appropriate.

 

"Director. The opponents have just done something beyond outrageous which has worked"

 

Which fact is in dispute? The adjective is an opinion.

[JLOGIC]

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

[WellSpyder]

Last week I opened a balanced 19-point hand with 1N, ostensibly showing 14-16.  Partner happily passed a flat 5-count. The cards lay badly and I made 7 tricks, while most of the rest of the room went off in 2N or 3N.

 

Did I have a wire?    No, I had an ace hidden and failed to notice I only had 12 cards!

 

Did anyone accuse me of cheating? I don't think it even occurred to them.

 

Did I apologise?  Definitely - I know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of something like this.

 

Do I lack a killer instinct?  Quite possibly....

I don't know what this post means or it's purpose, other than to agree with me that if you apologize when you get lucky you lack killer instinct! Thanks for the support!

Sorry, Justin, I wasn't trying to be obscure, and I don't think the meaning is particularly unclear. I agree the purpose is perhaps less obvious. It certainly wasn't intended to support one side or the other in the overall debate on this thread. It just struck me as interesting that I might just have found myself in a spot of bother if someone tried to invoke a "rule of coincidence" against my carelessness last week, and the hand has crossed my mind a number of times when catching up with this thread.

 

I don't have any problems with supporting your view on the killer instinct. I do prefer to try to remember that bridge is a game and that everyone at the end of the day is out to enjoy themselves. (I am not a pro!) I don't think this dulls the urge to win, but maybe it does mean I see no reason to try to grind someone into the dust while doing so.

[jdonn]

Obviously if he had ever said he pulled the wrong card by mistake and meant to pull 6♣, virtually everyone including myself would give him the benefit of the doubt that it was true.

[JLOGIC]

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

[TimG]

Even on BBO, how often have you made a bad call and ended up in a nearly hopeless slam that rolls because of some far-fetched distribution. A "sorry opps" is usually in order, because bad bridge was rewarded. Without saying, it is horrible form to gloat about a result like this.

 

Right after Piltch claimed, I wonder if he said "sorry opponents, I felt like I needed to generate a swing and this seemed like a good opportunity".

Either of these could easily be seen as gloating. I think best to say nothing.

[PeterGill]

In my example, "her marked spade void" was meant to refer to my partner, from the opening leader's point of view, having a marked spade void for her jump to 7C.

 

It sure is easy to be misunderstood in this thread, as I was.

 

Bizarre bids do happen. Here's another example. 3H on your right, pass from you, 7H on your left, Dbl, P P Redbl, All Pass. Your lead from KJxx, xxx, K9, Kxxx?

 

.......

 

At the table, a trump was led, so 7HXX made. Dummy had xxx, x, AQJxxxx, xx and declarer had xxx, AQ10xxxx, x, Jx. 7H and the Redbl were retribution bids by a top player who was furious with his partner at the time. Dummy did apologize to the opponents. I think declarer made some comment about not making the overtrick.

 

The 6D bid on AQxx would not occur to me as a possibility. Nor would 7H and XX.

But such things do happen, without sinister overtones.

 

I think this thread is fascinating, as it has taught readers like me several morals:

 

- that the Laws of Bridge are fine as they are, and the suggested law changes discussed early in this thread are not needed

 

- basing our conclusions about a person on just one hand, or assuming that the success of a bizarre bid implies prior knowledge, is dangerous

 

- that we must be understanding not only of our partner's tendency to make crazy bids but also of our opponent's tendency to make even crazier bids

 

- that in the bridge world and on BBO Forums, evidence provided by a less well- known person (Bud Hinckley) can be just as influential as the evidence provided by well-known leading bridge players/writers whom almost all of us admire very much.

 

[getting off-topic now]

 

- don't be 100% certain that what bridge legends write is 100% accurate.

For example, early in this thread some material from the book The Lone Wolff about the 6D bidder was referenced by several people who later cast doubt on the accuracy of that material in the book, which I once had read and believed.

 

[next bit = relevant only to readers of bridgeblogging dot com]

 

I then read the next 11 pages of The Lone Wolff, coming across on page 262:

"Peter [Pender left] an additional $50,000 to the Vugraph development program, and (unbeknownst to him) it was decided to rename it the Pendergraph in gratitude", which is the opposite of what his wife wrote a few weeks ago on her blog at bridgeblogging.com. Who is right - husband or wife? I don't know. His wife wrote that she has sought a copy of Pender's will, to find out the truth - good on her. Just as we don't know for sure about the 6D bid in this thread, though "innocent until proven guilty" has been the direction this thread eventually took.

[WellSpyder]

Obviously if he had ever said he pulled the wrong card by mistake and meant to pull 6♣, virtually everyone including myself would give him the benefit of the doubt that it was true.

Sure - I agree that would have been a much closer scenario to the one I mentioned.

 

(Was it one of Victor Mollo's characters in the Menagerie who said - in the context of hogging the bidding - that it was as well always to have a reason for your bid, such as "I wanted the lead to come round to my ♥AKQ", in order to avoid partner being upset by realising you didn't trust their declarer play?)

[TimG]

The use of bold letters is not an attempt at shouting or whatever you seem to be calling it.

It's an attempt to make it easier for admins to find the request in the middle of what is clearly a lot of text.

There is a "!report" botton on each post. If you use it, you can be sure an admin will see it. No need for public shouting.

[mikeh]

This thread has meandered all over the place.

 

It began with a barely concealed accusation of cheating. Justin says he didn't make the accusation, but it is abundantly clear that the majority of readers interpreted his words as amounting to such an accusation. I am not saying that Justin is misleading us....sometimes the words we use end up being read by others in a manner different from what we intended and I have no problem accepting that what Justin was trying to do was to argue, as he later did explicitly, that whenever someone does something truly bizarre, and it works, the directors/committees should infer UI.

 

I also assume that the rule change he advocates would contain a proviso that the 'deemed' illegal information part would not apply if the bidder were able to plausibly explain why he or she took the action.

 

Simulations have been attempted in an effort to demonstrate that the 6♦ call was statistically a reasonable, altho imaginative, effort to swing. These arguments provoked extended counter-arguments but the entire topic seems to me to be missing the point. There is no reason to think that Mr. Piltch had ever made any sort of study of this situation and I doubt that even a Rodwell could assess the odds at the table with any degree of accuracy. If Mr. Piltch were motivated by a desire to swing (and he may well have been), the fact that a simulation supports or fails to support the call on a statistical basis seems irrelevant.

 

In summary, what we have is evidence that a player made a bizarre call in circumstances where we cannot see any evidence suggesting that he had a wire on the board, other than the fact that the call was a success.

 

All of the information about dealing, and shuffling, and knowing that he had only shuffled Board 8 and this was Board 5, and so on, may strike some as suspicious but his partner offered a plausible explanation and no-one has countered it.

 

In the absence of evidence that the explanation was false, the only reason for rejecting it is a reluctance to accept that there could have been no wire. In other words, if one is convinced that the only explanation is cheating, in some fashion, evidence that rules out the only plausible form of cheating will run into the barrier posed by cognitive dissonance.

 

I think we see a lot of that in this thread.

 

As for the proposed rule change I and others have pointed out that this goes against the spirit of the game.

 

Bad players have to be allowed to have a chance that their bad plays or bids will work. Justin's rule would mean that a good team, fixed by a bad team, could ask the Director and then a committee to take away fixes by arguing that the bad call or play has to be deemed to be based on knowing use of UI (i.e. cheating)...and making the inferior player justify why they made the call or play.

 

And who makes the decision? Directors are not, generally, expert enough and will often be swayed by experts....who, precisely because they are experts, will argue that they would never make that play or call...that it is so bad that it has to be based on UI....just as many of us did and do here.

 

We tend, as humans, to assume that our personal standards are 'the' standards. In much the same way as studies have shown that for theists, they tend to base their views of God's wishes upon their own personal views....God likes what they like and disapproves of what they disapprove of...so to do bridge players reject as bizarre an action that they personally would never take.

 

So pity the poor (bad) player in Justin's world. Take an egregious action that generates the usual bad result, and everyone smirks at you for being so bad. Take the same action and get a good result, and see the opps howl for the director and argue that since it worked, you must be deemed to be cheating!

 

That is not a game I want to play. I hate getting fixed. I take a back seat to no-one in terms of hating a situation that 'smells', as this one must have done. But I don't want a cure that is infinitely worse than the disease.

 

Getting back to the original concern, at least as discerned by most posters....what evidence is available demonstrates no plausible mechanism by which Mr. Piltch could have had UI. What evidence there is suggests that while Mr. Piltch may be a 'pro', he is not in fact a very good player. He was on a weak team, in comparison to his opps. He was already stuck. He apparently has a track record of making bad plays or calls. He made a particularly bizarre one that had, nevertheless both a theoretical and, as it happens, real life chance of succeeding and it did.

 

Arguments about whether he was stuck 'enough' to warrant this call are meaningless...what matters is not whether someone else would think he was stuck enough...what matters is whether the player in question thought that his chances in the match were such that he had to go weird in an effort to shake things up.

 

Having shaken it up, successfully, maybe he (correctly, given that the match was tightened up considerably at the half) felt no need to go to the well again, or the hands didn't afford this type of dramatic opportunity again. It really doesn't matter. Absent the ability to read his mind, arguments that he was cheating are arguments based on a gut sense that no-one should be 'allowed' to do something that neither we nor our peers would consider reasonable.

 

If that is all there is to the situation, and despite the hundreds of posts, I see nothing more than that, we ought to let this thread die and ought not to allow this or any similar hand cause us to so fundamentally change the game so as to make majority views of what is 'bridge' tar imaginative bidders...or just plain bad bidders...with the brush of being cheated as well as being bad.

[qwery_hi]

Given the emotional reactions of some involved, this thread really does need to get locked.

Sorry, we'll consider locking it only if you use ALL CAPS.

[jkdood]

QUOTE: If that is all there is to the situation, and despite the hundreds of posts, I see nothing more than that, we ought to let this thread die and ought not to allow this or any similar hand cause us to so fundamentally change the game so as to make majority views of what is 'bridge' tar imaginative bidders...or just plain bad bidders...with the brush of being cheated as well as being bad.

Regarding the above and this thread:

 

There could/would be a thread much longer if it addressed what all the reasons might be for a pasttime (bridge) having significantly suffered in popularity from 50 or so years ago; even 25 years ago.

 

The RofC school of thought in the 70's and 80's seems to have risen to address a problem that needed, in many excellent bridge minds' opinions, to be addressed.

 

It was indeed implemented, and yes, it wasn't workable in the form it took, and was effectively retracted.

 

No matter how you want to play it because he used an example that has now become legend, Justin's initial post explicitly poses the thought that some sort of rule or law might be called for to address incidents like the example.

 

I, for one, couldn't agree more, although I understand the problems and issues with the RofC and other suggestions. Maybe bringing this thread into beneficial discussion of other alternatives (rather than "closing it") makes even more sense?

 

P.S. If the guy who bid 7H x xx in anger at his partner got called on the carpet as a result of some review, well, is that really bad???

[TimG]

No matter how you want to play it because he used an example that has now become legend, Justin's initial post explicitly poses the thought that some sort of rule or law might be called for to address incidents like the example.

 

I, for one, couldn't agree more, although I understand the problems and issues with the RofC and other suggestions. Maybe bringing this thread into beneficial discussion of other alternatives (rather than "closing it") makes even more sense?

It may well be something that is worthy of discussion. The discussion could have been initiated with a hypothetical or with the actual hand some days/weeks removed from the time of its occurrence with specifics of the parties involved left out.