Piltch revisited

[tim_delane]

I looks like this thread has been closed, but having read every post in the thread spawned by Justin Lall--a daunting task to be sure--I can offer an insight or two that might be relevant.

 

I am personally acquainted with both Bud Hinckley and Howard Piltch. I know things about them that nobody here could possibly know. They are both members of the club I belong to.

 

To start with the easiest issue to dispose of, I can tell you that Howard is not physically capable of fixing the deck. His manual dexterity is severely compromised by medical issues. It is so bad that the directors in the local club have asked Howard not to keep score. His handwriting is so bad that we cannot read it. I'm not sure if even Bud Hinckley is aware of that, but as a club director, I certainly am. So, you can simply discount any thought that Howard dealt the hand in question to his advantage. He is no more a card mechanic than Steven Hawking is a marathon runner.

 

Second, I have absolute confidence in Bud's integrity. He is a personal friend, and you might suppose that that I would say this simply on that basis. But I have many friends at the local club who, although I would not have the slightest reason to doubt their ethics, I do not have any affirmative reason to vouch for them. But I feel I have reason to vouch for Bud. If you do not know me, that may not be worth very much; I offer it for what it may be worth.

 

Third, I have had occasion to discuss at great length with Howard his table demeanor and his ethics in a meeting between him, his attorney, our club president and myself. (You might read between the lines that this was not a meeting I was particularly thrilled with.) It's my opinion that Howard is not a cheat. True, he can be abrasive. He is not considered lovable by many people I know. But in spite of all his bad press (mostly self-inflicted), he is an honest player. He is, let us say, imaginative. But let me draw a parallel between Howard and Fred Gitelman. (Sorry Fred)

 

On board 63 of the Spingold final, Fred made a (self-admitted) psych of 1NT in 4th seat balancing, based partly on the SotM. (Well, perhaps semi-psych) It was a spectacular success, as we all know. Who knows? Had Fred bid 2C, perhaps Brad would not have doubled 3S. How many people questioned the ethics of Gitelman-Moss based on the very fortunate result they obtained? Zero, and rightfully so. They played bridge, and they won. It's the nature of the game.

 

Now, if Fred Gitelman can psych a 1NT balancing bid that happened to work, why is Justin so bent out of shape when a psych by Howard Piltch (psychs don't always imply weakness) results in a good score? Piltch's bid was based on the SotM, just as was Fred's. It may not be to everybody's taste (certainly not to mine), but it's perfectly legal. All contestants are allowed to bid as the choose. (They paid their entry fee, to coin a phrase.)

 

Justin, who is IMHO the future of American bridge, needs to chill out (to coin another phrase).

[655321]

But let me draw a parallel between Howard and Fred Gitelman.

I have never heard of Mr Piltch before. It sounded plausible to me that somebody I have never heard of might have cheated, however, the world is a big place, and it also sounded plausible to me that somewhere in the world there exists a bridge player who thinks that jumping to 6♦ on the given hand is a worthwhile gamble. I have no idea what really happened, so I managed to avoid posting on the locked thread. (!)

 

But equating a slightly out of range 1NT bid with the 6♦ bid strikes me as being even more ridiculous than all of rhm's attempts to deny that the 6♦ bid was absurd and illogical. Your post would have lost nothing if you had just told us your personal knowledge of the players and left it at that.

[blackshoe]

The specific example may not be the greatest, but the point is valid.

[inquiry]

I have to agree with prisoner alex from clockwork orange.... you can not compare fred's 1NT to the 6♦ bid. In the locked thread (I did not lock it, but I think that was a good idea), I never expressed my personal view other than saying it was either crazy reckless or the product of UI. But if it makes you feel better tim, I also don't believe it was the product of UI. I could explain why, but my opinion doesn't really matter one way or the other.

[lmilne]

Wow - there are so many things wrong with this comparison.

 

1. Gitelman's bid was not a psych. It wasn't a gross misrepresentation of his hand; a mild overbid at best. This sort of thing happens all the time, and there were several ways for it to work (or not work). Piltch's bid, on the other hand, was not only completely bizarre considering what he held, but had to find a specific, very lucky layout to work.

 

2. The causal link between overcalling 1NT and getting to 3SX (which, incidentally was cold after 5 tricks - how many would be calling Gitelman's bid a psych if it had led to -730?) was very tenous. There were other possible sequences leading to the result, which also depended on many defensive and declarer play decisions.

 

Compare Piltch's bid, which would either work or not, most of the time simply depending on the dummy he got. He bid 6♦, with no information about his partner's hand, and it worked. There is a strong direct link there.

 

3. Noone would question the ethics of Gitelman, because his track record speaks for itself. On the other hand, Piltch has been disciplined (at least twice, from memory) for ethics violations.

 

So, to sum up, not only is your comparison pretty flawed (as 655321 said), but your presentation of Piltch as a player of which his ethics you "have had occasion to discuss at great length with" simply increases the already fairly strong evidence that he had unauthorised information and abused it.

[JLOGIC]

Yes it is of course possible that:

 

1) Someone chooses to make a bid so crazy that no other top player would even consider, and of a type that I doubt has EVER happened even once in an event like the spingold (a leap to slam on a medium unbid 4 card suit), like I doubt it's happened even once.

 

2) They happen to catch a miraculous, almost textbook, layout where 6C is down and 6D makes when partner is 4-4 in the minors. They also catch a layout where 7D does not make, and where partner will not raise to 7. Because partner is 4-4 in the minors, it is almost impossible via normal bidding to otherwise find diamonds (since over a X or 4N partner will bid clubs). Basically, the precisely perfect layout for bidding 6D, where other normal methods would not work.

 

3) Despite being a "pro" and experienced player, they do this because they think 45 imps in 45 boards is so much that they should start swinging so crazily that they make a bid that no other top player would even consider.

 

4) After this board they stop swinging, until the 4th quarter (when they are actually down an amount that most players of his level would consider enough to start going crazy).

 

5) They happen to be a person with a horrible reputation in bridge with respect to both conduct and ethics. I mean lets be frank, someone even wrote openly in a book about this player doing something that would be considered illegal! Bob Rosen resigned his post as national recorder because nothing would be done about this person! I will not speak to what has formally happened to this person ever, but I am sure about what his reputation is like in the bridge world

 

And of course point 5 does not mean someone is guilty, and I'm not saying it does.

 

I have no evidence that this bid was based on UI, and I'm not saying it was. It is always possible that points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 happening at the same time is a coincidence.

 

If I had to guess myself whether 1+2+3+4+5 coincidentally all were happening and led to a bid that looked suspicious, or if something sketchy actually happened, I would view it as infinitely more likely that something sketchy happened.

 

But since I have no proof, I respect those that give the player the benefit of the doubt, and I respect that the conduct and ethics people do not view this hand as enough evidence to convict someone. But pardon me if I am not willing to personally believe in this coincidence, or if I offered the facts to the open forum (without naming names), for others to decide for themselves. I do not feel bad at all that everyone has heard about this hand and can make their own judgments.

 

Again, I have no idea what happened, but I do know what I make of it all. Everyone else can rationalize anything however else they want. I do know what the view of almost every top bridge player is. I do know what most people of the forums think, and what many think of me and how I handled this. I am fine with all of that.

 

BTW, hopefully nobody thinks I was accusing BudH of anything, he seems like a nice guy and obviously if he was in on some hypothetical nefarious plot they could have just Xed, and had him bid diamonds (his better 4 card suit). Hopefully no one thinks I was accusing BudH of anything at all, or calling into question his integrity.

 

I don't really have anything else to say. I am genuinely sorry if you view me as the future of bridge and I have disappointed you with how I handled this though (even though that sounds sarcastic). To me it would be more disappointing if the facts of this hand were not well known to all bridge players, and brushed away.

[jdonn]

Sorry, your intentions are surely good, but reopening this thread was such a crazy thing to do. That said I'm sure me replying is crazy too, what can I say once it's here I definitely can't help myself.

 

Your first point about he couldn't have fixed the deck, is utterly moot. It would be like me saying I couldn't have broken into someone's house and robbed it because the gate was closed. There are plenty of ways of coming into possession of UI, both accidental and on purpose.

 

Regarding your second and third points about their integrity, I have a general point to offer. I work in a casino and a large part of my job is catching thieves, which in my case are almost always employees. In many cases I have spoken to their friends and coworkers either during an investigation or afterwards. And without fail, to a person, every single person either swore it was impossible their friend could have "done it" or claimed they couldn't believe it. Sometimes after it was essentially proven they still didn't believe it! So if there is one thing that means nothing at all to me, it's a character witness who is a friend or acquaintence.

 

Regarding your last point, my vocabulary is fairly good. And yet I can think of no combination of words that approach doing justice to the ridiculousness of your comparison. Fred stretching by a point in a competitive auction down 12 with 2 boards to go. And someone with the questionable history and reputation of Howard's jumping to slam in a 4 card suit in the second quarter of a match with a nearly solid 6 card suit on the side! Please pretend your readers have more than a couple brain cells.

[JLOGIC]

Also, I think your example is ridiculous as others have said. If you really dont see the difference in bidding 1N on Qx of spades and slightly light on board 63 (of 64) of a match, and overcalling 6D on AQxx on board 20 (of 64), I don't know what to tell you.

 

One is extremely common, near the end of the match, and will swing imps much more subtle/normally.

 

One is something that at the very least has never happened against me and have never heard of happening (and you can be sure if it happened to anyone in the spingold or vandy, you'd hear about it! Spreading the bridge world is indicitave of being very abnormal and spectacular).

 

I think the fact that you know the person involved is biasing your view. Or maybe you just believe that there should be 100 % evidence in order to convict someone, even in public opinion. Of course the fact that it happened against me biases me, but I can tell you that my view is very common with people who play a lot of bridge/spingolds/etc (more than me).

 

That doesn't make that view right necessarily obviously, and probably at this point most people from both forums agree with the thought that we should give him the benefit of the doubt, that it is a plausible bid to make, and that if anyone should be hung for this one it's me. That doesn't make that view right either. I don't know where else this can go though, seems like everyone has said all there is to say.

[JLOGIC]

Please pretend your readers have more than a couple brain cells.

I don't know tim very well, but I have read his posts and he is in general a logical and fair person from what I've seen.

 

IMO he was not trying to insult/fool anyone, and thinks that his comparison is a reasonable one.

 

To me this implies either a lack of bridge experience with stuff like this (if you don't play much, you don't realize how different these are), or simply a person who is close to someone who is in their view wrongly accused and just making a bad argument that they believe. Probably the latter in this case, but also probably some of the former (not that tim is a bad player but maybe he does not play all the time, and has rarely seen either tactic [i'm sure never in the case of the 6D overcall!]).

[Rodney26]

Third, I have had occasion to discuss at great length with Howard his table demeanor and his ethics in a meeting between him, his attorney, our club president and myself. (You might read between the lines that this was not a meeting I was particularly thrilled with.) It's my opinion that Howard is not a cheat. True, he can be abrasive. He is not considered lovable by many people I know. But in spite of all his bad press (mostly self-inflicted), he is an honest player. He is, let us say, imaginative.

 

Is it me Tim, or should it be fairly normal to play bridge without having to lawyer up? There's something ridiculous about the organized legal response every time there is a question of Mr. Piltch's behavior/actions.

[blackshoe]

After a while, even those whose ethics are impeccable will "lawyer up" when the wolves keep howling.

[jdonn]

After a while, even those whose ethics are impeccable will "lawyer up" when the wolves keep howling.

Do wolves randomly howl at trees and rocks or only things that catch their attention?

[blackshoe]

Depends. Are we speaking of canis lupus or some human analog?

[Lobowolf]

No wolf would even consider howling at a rock.

[the hog]

Based on what I have seen over the last week or so, I would say that coyotes howl randomly at trees and rocks. I won't say wolves, as wolves have class.

[CSGibson]

Based on what I have seen over the last week or so, I would say that coyotes howl randomly at trees and rocks. I won't say wolves, as wolves have class.

More class than hogs, apparently (or me, I freely admit, since I couldn't resist).

[JLOGIC]

Based on what I have seen over the last week or so, I would say that coyotes howl randomly at trees and rocks. I won't say wolves, as wolves have class.

Yes I know I have no class and I'm horrible and apparantly I'm the only one who thinks something sketchy happened and I'm a horrible classless person for posting the hand without giving the name of my opponent. I just accuse people of cheating baselessly all the time. I am worse than a wolf. You are right hog I am the worst. I should be more like you.

[the hog]

Based on what I have seen over the last week or so, I would say that coyotes howl randomly at trees and rocks. I won't say wolves, as wolves have class.

Yes I know I have no class and I'm horrible and apparantly I'm the only one who thinks something sketchy happened and I'm a horrible classless person for posting the hand without giving the name of my opponent. You are right hog I am the worst. I should be more like you.

That post was not aimed at you but rather those who jumped on the lynch Piltch bandwagon.

[kfay]

No wolf would even consider howling at a rock.

Dude. Awesome.

[hotShot]

Justin,

 

the 6♦ bid is not good bridge, but it is by far less crazy than you imply.

 

The fact that a number of top player would not choose that bid, suggests that they have better bidding tools available or that the person in question is not a top player.

 

If you assume that RHO has the ♠ values, than LHO and your partner share ♥KJ and ♦KJ. Slam is easy if partner has both kings.

Since it is more likely that RHO does not have the red kings and partner is more likely to be to short in ♣ to ruff the 4th ♦, you need partner to have 4♦ cards (Xxxx) or ♦JTx +♣xxx. If you need partner to have 4♦ anyway, without a full analysis 6♦ looks attractive because you can ruff ♥ in dummy once you dropped dummies ♥ on ♣.

 

You think that logic is flawed, well you won so obviously you are a better player.

[rhm]

I have to agree with prisoner alex from clockwork orange.... you can not compare fred's 1NT to the 6♦ bid. In the locked thread (I did not lock it, but I think that was a good idea), I never expressed my personal view other than saying it was either crazy reckless or the product of UI.  But if it makes you feel better tim, I also don't believe it was the product of UI. I could explain why, but my opinion doesn't really matter one way or the other.

Years ago a leading German pair was invited to the prestigious Sunday Times invitational pairs at that time in London.

Late in the tournament when this pair was not any more in contention for winning the tournament they played against opponents, who were.

 

The German player opened 3♦ non vulnerable on KQJxx in ♦ and out.

 

The bid was a success, but came under criticism for "randomizing" the event.

It actually cost the opponents the first place.

 

Maybe you can call such a perfectly legal bid "crazy reckless".

 

But in a teams knock-out event?.

 

I have problems defining perfectly legal bids as "reckless" (reckless to whom?) or in any other way as improper, as long as the player tries to serve what he considers his best chance to win.

 

You may decide not to team up with such a person, because your bidding philosophies are at odds. Fine. But there is no such animal as a reckless bid to the opponents.

 

I maintain, my opinion, that a bid is not illogical or bizarre if it has a relative high chance of success, no matter whether you consider other bidding strategies to be less risky and more likely to be successful. (In fact I am with you in this particular case)

I do not care. That is why we all bid differently.

I do not care whether no leading player would choose this bid.

On many master solver's type bidding problems you quite frequently find a leading expert, who happens to be the "odd man out".

The bid did not find a miraculous lie of the cards, if about 10% of the deals will find 6♦ the only making contract and many of them would be difficult to find by other means.

Every single deal is of course unique and extremely unlikely to occur again.

But miraculous in my dictionary is certainly not a 10% chance.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[JLOGIC]

So far we have compared overcalling 6D on AQxx with balancing with 1N a little light, and opening 3D non vul with KQJxx. I don't even really know what to say to that, other than the fact that you guys can find no analogies that are even close to this bid just shows quite how special it was. Probably nothing like this has ever happened. Like...ever.

[rhm]

So far we have compared overcalling 6D on AQxx with balancing with 1N a little light, and opening 3D non vul with KQJxx. I don't even really know what to say to that, other than the fact that you guys can find no analogies that are even close to this bid just shows quite how special it was. Probably nothing like this has ever happened. Like...ever.

 

Just to clarify:

 

I have not compared a 3♦ preempt on KQJxx with the 6♦ bid and I do not claim that they are.

 

In fact they are not (even though a preempt on a 5 card suit in a top level tournament was virtually unheard of 30 years ago)

 

I spoke about that I have difficulties when somebody calls legal bids "reckless"

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

I once doubled for takeout without 4 in the other major.

[Hanoi5]

Once I overcalled in NT without a stopper in the opponent's suit.