Good bid!

[Rossoneri]

The question is whether 1 can be suspicious enough.

Maybe the better statisticians can correct me, but that would depend on your prior belief and the perceived magnitude of the board in question?

[mikeh]

C. Damage to the Plaintiff.  In other words, the Plaintiff must demonstrate how he was harmed, e.g. sales at my store dropped 25% after someone sent out 10 million E-mails saying I smoke crack while driving without a seat belt and talking on my cell phone.

 

 

This is not true in libel, only in slander, at least in Canada, and, I think, the UK and some other commonwealth countries (I know nothing about jursidictions operating from a different legal heritage than the English). Damages in libel are recoverable without calling any evidence of actual loss.

[Lobowolf]

California (my home state) breaks down libel depending upon its explicitness. There's a category in which damages don't have to be proven (libel per se), and one in which they do. I don't know what the majority rule is in the USA. Good catch; I should have mentioned the distinction.

[nigel_k]

On the legal defamation issue, don't forget that costs are a big difference.

 

In the UK the loser typically pays the winner's legal costs, while in the US the parties typically pay their own costs. A case like this would be hardly worth pursuing in the US because the plaintiff would likely have to pay their lawyer more than they received in damages.

[bab9]

2. If you have a solid suit, it is best not to make it the trump suit as once the trumps are drawn it will generate clear winners.  A possible explanation why ♦s were bid instead of ♣s.  With the length of the ♣ suit, the declarer could dump losers.

Most beginner courses also push the concept that the trump suit should be a suit in which you and your partner have a known fit.

And a lot of books claim that a 4/4 fit is superior to a 5/3 and 6/2 fit. Point 3 of my post addressed how the declarer may have concluded there was a fit with partner.

 

I am disappointed to see that it seems this thread is more about a flaming then bridge.

[Trinidad]

On Monday night my opponent held

♠ 3

♥ KQJ876543

♦ K3

♣Q

 

Her partner opened 1NT (12-14) Next hand bid 2♣ (♠+Ano). She bid 6H. It was cold. Extraordinary, incredible, her partner had 3 Aces for her Weak NT. Was she cheating? Had she fixed the board? Had she overheard? Don't be ridiculous! She gets 41% each week, tries many of these sort of efforts of which 98% do not work. Partner and I were fixed. It happens!

 

In England if you accused someone of cheating in a forum like this(and I accept it is disputed as to whether this has happened) then you might find yourself on the receiving end of a charge from the Laws and Ethics Committee which would not go away even if said person were convicted and sent too the gallows. Is there no concept of bringing the game into disrepute which is what the last 11 pages (or at least a lot of them) seem to do?

Indeed until about the end of page 4 of this thread when a few sane people said "Hang on a moment" accusation, trial, verdict and execution had already occurred.

Gnasher referred earlier to a case in the UK. It was the subject of painful and determined observation and discretion and featured no-one publicly discussing it or casting the first stone  let alone the quarry load that has been cast here.

The question is, what about when her bid is 6♦, THAT contract is cold, and 6♥ goes down on a heart ruff at trick one.

 

 

:blink: <----Best smiley I could find to indicate a 3/4-facetious post.

But partner! How could you pass my transfer?

 

I once played in a "random partner draw" at the club where my partner opened 2NT. I jumped to 6♦ and she naturally bid 6♥, explaining to the opps that 6♦ must be a transfer "because Rik always plays such complicated systems".

 

Rik

[the hog]

According to Bud Hinkley:

 

"Mr. Piltch was informed this past Tuesday morning that this incident would be put in his file and that no other action was being taken."

 

I wonder if this will result in a public apology?

[CSGibson]

2. If you have a solid suit, it is best not to make it the trump suit as once the trumps are drawn it will generate clear winners.  A possible explanation why ♦s were bid instead of ♣s.  With the length of the ♣ suit, the declarer could dump losers.

Most beginner courses also push the concept that the trump suit should be a suit in which you and your partner have a known fit.

And a lot of books claim that a 4/4 fit is superior to a 5/3 and 6/2 fit. Point 3 of my post addressed how the declarer may have concluded there was a fit with partner.

 

I am disappointed to see that it seems this thread is more about a flaming then bridge.

What you don't seem to recognize is that there's no reason to guess whether we have a fit based on theory. If we wanted to swing, we'd simply X and let partner TELL US what his longest suit is, and then raise that to slam if it seemed appropriate, discounting a 4 club reply because that's the suit we were planning on taking pitches in after drawing trump in the other suit.

 

Any rambling about bidding 6 diamonds because of the theoretical advantages of a 4-4 fit are simply nonsense. This person had the ability to consult with partner to determine the best percentage action, and instead took a guess - unilateral action that happened to strike a magic holding.

 

That's what makes this bid so suspicious in my mind. The individual had tools to explore what the best fit was, and ignored those tools despite having the reputation of being a competent player.

[jdonn]

2. If you have a solid suit, it is best not to make it the trump suit as once the trumps are drawn it will generate clear winners.  A possible explanation why ♦s were bid instead of ♣s.  With the length of the ♣ suit, the declarer could dump losers.

Most beginner courses also push the concept that the trump suit should be a suit in which you and your partner have a known fit.

And a lot of books claim that a 4/4 fit is superior to a 5/3 and 6/2 fit. Point 3 of my post addressed how the declarer may have concluded there was a fit with partner.

There are ways to search for a fit other than jumping to slam in a 4 card suit?!

[mrdct]

Only 30,000 more views to beat 'We didn't vote for Bush", but closing in very fast on "German concession mid-match".

[billw55]

There are ways to search for a fit other than jumping to slam in a 4 card suit?!

I suppose bidder could argue that he wanted to remove LHO's chance at bids like 4♠ or 5♠.

[Little Kid]

I would be pretty annoyed if opponents were bidding like this and can fully understand being outraged about it. Although I don't play at anywhere near this level of bridge, I would not be able to just let it slide past if I were at the table in a big tournament. Since I don't know the person in question nor his history with bridge ethics I can't factor that into how I feel about the situation.

 

Nonetheless, I would give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a desparate punt that hit the jackpot. If you are playing bridge at that kind of level, surely you would opt for the "I picked the wrong bid" excuse rather than risk an appeal if you really were cheating. Having read what people said of what happened at the table I find it hard to imagine how they could have cheated anyway (granted I might be pretty gullible when it comes to cheating). Finally if you are going to cheat and you are a reasonably intelligent person, wouldn't you at least try to do it in a much more subtle way than this kind of flamboyant bidding?

[NickRW]

I wonder if this will result in a public apology?

Well, why would it - neither side has won, neither side has lost.

[TimG]

I wonder if this will result in a public apology?

Well, why would it - neither side has won, neither side has lost.

I think both sides have lost: Justin has lost because he made a public accusation of cheating, Piltch has lost because he has been accused of cheating and lots of misinformation about the past has been tossed about.

[blackshoe]

I tried to search back through the entire thread to see where "Justin...made a public accusation of cheating". I didn't find it, but given that Ben has apparently edited several references to the individual concerned perhaps it was deleted. IAC, from what I do see Justin reported the facts of what happened, then reported that he'd consulted with several players and TDs, he was advised to request a C&E hearing on the incident, he did so. I don't see anything here on the results of that hearing, but perhaps that was also deleted or otherwise edited. Or perhaps it's in another thread on the same subject (there's at least one more). IMO there's no point in belaboring this any further until we find out what the hearing decided. If we do.

[jdonn]

Yes in fact Justin specifically made the point in one post that he thought this was a case that should be adjusted due to apparant UI but the threshold for a finding of cheating should be much higher.

 

The laws of bridge should be changed so that a hand like this is evidence enough of UI, so that there can be an adjustment. When zero players of someones level will bid 6D, and zero players think 6D can be bid without UI, that should be enough for an adjustment.

 

I named no names. The bar for being suspended for cheating should clearly be higher than the bar for adjusting a board based on possible UI. To me the difference is like civil court vs criminal court, I doubt anyone would argue that this hand alone is not a preponderance of evidence of UI, and thus an adjustment should be awarded even if the player involved is not punished criminally.

[mikeh]

I tried to search back through the entire thread to see where "Justin...made a public accusation of cheating". I didn't find it, but given that Ben has apparently edited several references to the individual concerned perhaps it was deleted. IAC, from what I do see Justin reported the facts of what happened, then reported that he'd consulted with several players and TDs, he was advised to request a C&E hearing on the incident, he did so. I don't see anything here on the results of that hearing, but perhaps that was also deleted or otherwise edited. Or perhaps it's in another thread on the same subject (there's at least one more). IMO there's no point in belaboring this any further until we find out what the hearing decided. If we do.

Read the edit to the first post. That sure suggested to me that he felt that the player had rigged the deck in some manner. See also the reference to innuendo in an earlier post of mine.

 

The good news, as I see it, is that his later posts make it clear that he isn't now accusing the player of cheating.

 

But, with all respect to Justin, his suggested new approach is little better, and could be nightmare-inducing.

 

He wants a rule that says that whenever an outrageous bid works, there should be a presumption of UI.

 

As several posters have commented, one problem is selection bias. The outcome of such a rule would be, in part, that wild bidders lose when their action fails (i.e. most of the time) and lose again, doubly, when it works. Doubly, because they get the result adjusted against them and because they get tainted or smeared with the (often unfounded) presumption that they used UI...and since there will be in these cases no evidence of B.I.T.s or other common UI, the inference must be they got UI by some nefarious means.

 

That's only part of the problem. Such a rule would depend on completely subjective views of what action crossed the line...and where that line should be drawn. Who makes that determination?

 

Initially it is the opponents...they get to decide whether to call the Director. Some players will be more tolerant than others.

 

Then it is the Director....while most at Nationals are very competent directors, and have access to others...the reality is that most directors are not very good or knowledgeable players.

 

So off to committee....and even at Nationals the committees sometimes get easy things wildy wrong.

 

More to the point, most bridge is not played at nationals, and we would end up inviting thousands of rulings at various levels of the game, with varying degrees of knowledge and personal idiosyncrazies amongst directors and players on committees.

[gnasher]

It doesn't really matter whether you actually use the C-word or not. It's quite clear that Justin was alleging, at least, that the other player intentionally used UI in order to gain an advantage. That would be cheating, regardless of how the UI was obtained.

[hrothgar]

Yes in fact Justin specifically made the point in one post that he thought this was a case that should be adjusted due to apparant UI but the threshold for a finding of cheating should be much higher.

 

The laws of bridge should be changed so that a hand like this is evidence enough of UI, so that there can be an adjustment. When zero players of someones level will bid 6D, and zero players think 6D can be bid without UI, that should be enough for an adjustment.

 

I named no names. The bar for being suspended for cheating should clearly be higher than the bar for adjusting a board based on possible UI. To me the difference is like civil court vs criminal court, I doubt anyone would argue that this hand alone is not a preponderance of evidence of UI, and thus an adjustment should be awarded even if the player involved is not punished criminally.

Like others, I think that the distinction is academic at best.

 

Two quick comments:

 

1. Whenever I see a writeup for an UI case there is a specific note that explicitly describes the nature of the UI For example, "Break in Tempo" is very common. I'm not sure how this one would be written up...

 

2. Even if it were possible to apply this type of regulation at the top level of the game, it would be a nightmare for beginner's and intermediates where inane misbids and mistakes are a dime a dozen and many of these stike gold.

[JLOGIC]

None of my posts were edited FWIW as far as I know, as I never mentioned names (until the players partner came and posted his name and it was ok), and have never directly said that my opponent cheated.

 

One thing, people are talking about the player doing other similarly crazy things this set. He did basically nothing crazy after this board until the 4th set, where he was down a lot (I think 60 with 16 boards to go or something, which is a lot different than 45 with 45 boards to go).

 

Even when he did swing, he did normal swing things. I don't recall him jumping to slam in a 4 card suit again, or even jumping to game in a 4 card suit. People are acting like "well if he swung much later in the match in normal ways and it didn't work, that means this was just another shot that happened to work."

 

There must be a big distinction in doing something like this and doing normal crazy things. If you cannot make that distinction I think you haven't played enough bridge or something.

 

I do not know if he did anything similarly crazy in the first set since I was out, but I presume I would have heard about it if he had!

 

To me it is interesting that he did nothing remotely close to this level of craziness again. As far as I'm concerned, he was 1 for 1.

 

Regardless of whether or not you think my post amounts to a public accusation of cheating or not, I do not feel that I have "lost" by making this post. The "facts" were heard (and I think that a lot of the self serving facts offered by the other side are very convenient and there is no proof of them), and everyone can draw their own conclusions. The fact that many people have come to the conclusion that this player took advantage of UI is not something that I should feel ashamed of.

 

Even if you do not believe it is 100 % that that is what happened so there should be no disciplinary action, I find it ridiculous to not believe anyone feels that there is not a >50 % chance that something happened. If there are many instances that are well known where there is a much >50 % chance of something happening, people can draw whatever conclusions they want and that's fine. Brushing things like this under the rug rather than letting people know what happened is not the way to go about life.

 

Yes, it's dangerous for people to get publicly lynched for nothing. That said, if it's really nothing then the person bringing the facts to light will probably get lynched himself, justifiably. If there is a lot of substance to what is being said, and people alter their opinions accordingly, I am fine with that.

 

And for what it's worth, I have no idea what happened on this board, or how. I just think as an expert bridge player who has played a lot of boards of bridge that there is no way that this bid was made without some kind of UI. The fact that it caught a textbook layout where it worked, and that no other bids this incredible were made during the match, or probably ever in the history of bridge, makes it all that more likely. The fact that the person involved has a very bad reputation in the bridge world at best makes it even more likely.

 

If you think what I did was wrong I understand your point of view, but I offer no apologies.

[mikeh]

None of my posts were edited FWIW as far as I know, as I never mentioned names (until the players partner came and posted his name and it was ok), and have never directly said that my opponent cheated.

 

I didn't read your initial post until the thread was already several pages in length, but if you look at it, I think you will see the word: 'Edit' followed by 'additional information'. That is the editing to which I refer.

 

And for my last word on this thread, while I have both sympathy for and empathy with you, my experience, particularly as a litigator in which I see all sides to some very strange disputes (I could write a book but no-one would believe some of the stories, and I am barred by various forms of privilege), suggests that the human capacity for irrational acts is almost infinite. Incompetence is a far more probable explanation for virtually everything that goes wrong in life than is conspiracy or malice...not that the latter don't happen...they do but not as often as we tend to believe when we are the 'victims'.

[jlw77]

My stance has softened on this one; initially I was as ready to convict as anyone. But I have changed my opinion from guilty to maybe guilty, and I now think it would be wrong to convict with no other evidence.

 

The simulations are interesting, but not ultimately relevant, because it doesn't matter if the bid was sane or even if it was state-of-the-match sane (I don't think it was; there will be many superior ways to swing in 40 boards.) It only matters if *this* player might have done something this weird without a wire. Although I'm suspicious, I can't say *for sure* he wouldn't. It also doesn't matter if *we* all think it was poor tactics to start swinging for the fences with 40 boards left; the question is whether HP might have thought otherwise. It's possible, and it's also possible that once he visualized the winning scenario he overrated its likelihood.

 

 

One final point which was being discussed on-site but I haven't seen here: if you want to swing, why not bid 4nt planning to raise 5d to slam? This will earn you 90% of the plus swings available by bidding 6d. It might lose on this hand since partner happens to be 4-4 and might bid 5c. Suspicious, right? But then, if the hand was fixed, why not give partner 4-3 minors so the 4nt plan works?

 

 

Of course, this doesn't close the case--HP *could* have just not thought of 4NT. People who are swinging definitely don't always do so in the most intelligent manner.

 

We are left with two possibilities:

 

1. HP fixed the deal, but failed to come up with a way to do so that didn't involve making a bizarre bid that was sure to cause an uproar, thereby showing a distinct failure of creativity in his evil-doing.

 

2. HP visualized a scenario where 6D would work, wanted it to work, talked

himself into thinking it was higher-percentage than it is, didn't think of 4nt, and got lucky.

 

Both involve irrational behavior. But notice that #1 requires *cold-blooded* irrational behavior, while #2 involves *warm-blooded* irrational behavior. Psychologically, the latter is more likely. Though, I will say that many cheaters are not that clever, so we can’t just routinely acquit on the basis of “no one would cheat that stupidly.” #1 is possible, I just no longer consider it much more likely than #2.

 

So, I now have come a long way from my initial (nauseated) reaction to this story, and I now think as a C&E committee member I wouldn’t vote to suspend the player based solely on the hand. However, I would tell him that if he intends to often make bizarre bids no one else would consider, he really needs to keep a record of when they fail spectacularly. Otherwise, if they succeed spectacularly more than a few times, the statistical evidence against him will be very strong. I do not agree with Justin that “1 for 1” is significant enough…the chances of success appear to be in the 10% range. The usual scientific standard for statistical significance is 5%, and a much stricter cutoff is needed for criminal convictions.

 

Thanks to my friend “pretender” for influencing my thinking about this.

 

By the way, isn’t there video surveillance for NABC+ events? I hope that there is video and it is helpful, otherwise we will never know what happened.

 

--Jonathan Weinstein

[the hog]

I wonder if this will result in a public apology?

Well, why would it - neither side has won, neither side has lost.

I think both sides have lost: Justin has lost because he made a public accusation of cheating, Piltch has lost because he has been accused of cheating and lots of misinformation about the past has been tossed about.

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

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

[aguahombre]

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

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

You are doing the same thing in the other direction. Just because the org chose to take no formal action against a player does not exonerate him, any more than a circumstantial accusation would convict.

[NickRW]

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

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

 

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

 

Nick