Piltch revisited

[rhm]

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

And there was a time, when this overcall would not have been espoused, not to mention replicated, by any experts of that time gone bye.

And many at that time would have considered it very suspicious, if this bid would have been a success, miraculously finding partner with enough in the suit so that the suit turned out to be blocked. B)

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

I once raised my partner's 1M bid with less than 6 high-card points.

[JLOGIC]

Once I opened One No Trump with SEVEN. Yeah, high cards. My partner transferred, and I super accepted! The kicker -- I wasn't even balanced!

[wclass___]

Once i opened 4♥ in 3rd seat with singleton♥, scored -500....

[Cyberyeti]

A partner of mine who I didn't feel was capable of such things opened a gambling 3N in 3rd seat non vul. I was confused and looking at xxx, xxx, Kxx, Qxxx or similar so passed.

 

Turned out partner had xx, KQxxxxx, xx, xx or similar, and the man on lead did what you're supposed to do in these circumstances and led his ace ... followed by another heart, -150 was lots of IMPS.

[the hog]

The fact is that this sort of stuff does happen,despite some stupid mocking posts above which contribute jack ***** to any meaningful discussion, but only show that some posters are full of wind.

 

Many years ago, and in a club competition, we played a Forcing Pass system. Partner opened 1S, showing any 0-4. Nv vs vul I bid 6H with

x KQJxxxx xxx xx

Next hand holding a 4144 and a 24 count bid 6S. His S were AKxx. He found pd with QJxx of S and a few other assorted goodies. 6S was absolutely on ice. I was ropeable

Now this player was no bunny. Granted, he was not an expert either, but he did go on to represent his state year later.

 

Did he cheat? No, of course not. He got lucky and that pissed me off. I didn't go around accusing him of cheating though.

[ArtK78]

The fact is that this sort of stuff does happen,despite some stupid mocking posts above which contribute jack ***** to any meaningful discussion, but only show that some posters are full of wind.

 

Many years ago, and in a club competition, we played a Forcing Pass system. Partner opened 1S, showing any 0-4. Nv vs vul I bid 6H with

x KQJxxxx xxx xx

Next hand holding a 4144 and a 24 count bid 6S. His S were AKxx. He found pd with QJxx of S and a few other assorted goodies. 6S was absolutely on ice. I was ropeable

Now this player was no bunny. Granted, he was not an expert either, but he did go on to represent his state year later.

 

Did he cheat? No, of course not. He got lucky and that pissed me off. I didn't go around accusing him of cheating though.

I suspect that if you gave that hand to a number of experts and asked them to choose their top 3 calls, 6♠ would be mentioned by almost all of them. Probably not as their first choice, but it would be in their top 3 calls.

 

Such is not the case with the call that engendered this topic.

[TimG]

3. No one 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.

I believe there have been those who have questioned the ethics of Gitelman-Moss (in the area of proper disclosure of 1NT openings). I say this only to show that no one is immune to suspicion.

 

There have been numerous references to Mr. Piltch's disciplinary record, yet they have been rather lacking in specifics. Are you sure that Mr. Piltch has been disciplined twice for ethics violations rather than conduct violations?

 

I do not know whether a player's ACBL disciplinary record is open to the membership. If it is, perhaps someone ought to take a look at it and put an end to the speculation regarding what it contains.

[JLOGIC]

If Fred overcalled 6D everyone I know who thought there was UI in this case (which includes all people in the top 100 players in the world that I know) would probably think he had some UI unless he had a very good reason (such as OMG I PULLED THE WRONG CARD). You can substitute Fred with any other player who has a pristine record for ethics (Hamman, Versace, etc), and that would still be true.

 

The point is moot since I doubt Fred will ever overcall 6D on such a hand, so we should stop saying stuff like if Fred or Zia or Hamman or whoever did this. It's like starting something with "If a unicorn came to your house..." and then continuing on in seriousness. It's pointless to debate impossible hypotheticals, even if it may be amusing.

 

Edited because I said "everyone I know" with no qualifier

Edited August 6, 2010 by JLOGIC

[ArtK78]

If Fred overcalled 6D everyone I know who thought there was UI in this case (which includes all people in the top 100 players in the world that I know) would probably think he had some UI unless he had a very good reason (such as OMG I PULLED THE WRONG CARD). You can substitute Fred with any other player who has a pristine record for ethics (Hamman, Versace, etc), and that would still be true.

 

The point is moot since I doubt Fred will ever overcall 6D on such a hand, so we should stop saying stuff like if Fred or Zia or Hamman or whoever did this. It's like starting something with "If a unicorn came to your house..." and then continuing on in seriousness. It's pointless to debate impossible hypotheticals, even if it may be amusing.

 

Edited because I said "everyone I know" with no qualifier

Not that Justin needs me to back him up on this, but I stated this in my original post in the now closed thread. In my post, dated July 27, 2010, at 9:59AM, I stated that there had to be a point at which the bidding and the result speak for themselves absent clear and convincing evidence that there was no UI. I posted this before the identity of the perpetrator of the 6♦ call was made public. So, had the bid been made by Fred, Zia, Charles Goren or anyone else, it makes no difference to me.

[jdonn]

The fact is that this sort of stuff does happen,despite some stupid mocking posts above which contribute jack ***** to any meaningful discussion, but only show that some posters are full of wind.

Coming from you this is one of the most amazing things I have ever read. Shall we go back and examine the level of your contributions to the thread, which as far as I can tell consists 80% of hypocritical veiled shots at people who disagree with you (me?!?!)

 

This just continues your 100% past track record of contributing nothing, then scolding others for not contributing, then replying to the first post that contributes something which you have no decent argument against with an insult or rude comment (see post prior to this one).

 

My favorite part was your wondering whether one of the most corrupt organizations in the world trying to make a potential huge controversy go away with one of its past presidents would result in any apologies for him. Wow way to latch onto something!

[gwnn]

The Hog may I ask you a few simple questions: do you really think that about 40 imps with 40 boards to go is a special, normally insurmountable difference? Also do you think that guessing to do something on this hand (say, x, 3NT, 4♣, 4NT, 5♣, 6♣) is not in itself a swingy action? What percentage of the time would you consider that the final contract at this table would not coincide with the other table (given no desire at all to swing on either table) and if they do not coincide, what IMP swing would be generated?

 

I hope it's not too much; I would be interested in your position on these matters.

 

It is crystal clear that you do not think there was UI, and it is likewise crystal clear that you think Justin is behaving in a less than courteous and more than inappropriate manner. I would not like to ask you about these -otherwise perfectly germane- matters.

[JoAnneM]

The ACBL is corrupt? How?

[pooltuna]

The Hog may I ask you a few simple questions: do you really think that about 40 imps with 40 boards to go is a special, normally insurmountable difference? Also do you think that guessing to do something on this hand (say, x, 3NT, 4♣, 4NT, 5♣, 6♣) is not in itself a swingy action? What percentage of the time would you consider that the final contract at this table would not coincide with the other table (given no desire at all to swing on either table) and if they do not coincide, what IMP swing would be generated?

 

I hope it's not too much; I would be interested in your position on these matters.

 

It is crystal clear that you do not think there was UI, and it is likewise crystal clear that you think Justin is behaving in a less than courteous and more than inappropriate manner. I would not like to ask you about these -otherwise perfectly germane- matters.

God I hate to enter into this debate. Nevertheless when do you start swinging to a team you expect to thrash you? Do you wait until you are down or is a particularly swingy hand enough? I mean how many hands do you expect in a 64 board match that are of a nature that can generate large swings? Is it a good strategy to try to swing them when you get them or do you wait til the last 16 boards?

[aguahombre]

At what point will we try to move on? I keep reading this thread because, dwarfed by the rhetoric directed back and forth, there are new situations introduced which seem worthy of new threads in the Laws and Rulings ---and rational discussion of them --- not of the personalities involved.

 

But, as Dennis Miller says, "It's just my opinion; I could be wrong."

[655321]

If Fred overcalled 6D everyone I know who thought there was UI in this case (which includes all people in the top 100 players in the world that I know) would probably think he had some UI unless he had a very good reason (such as OMG I PULLED THE WRONG CARD). You can substitute Fred with any other player who has a pristine record for ethics (Hamman, Versace, etc), and that would still be true.

 

The point is moot since I doubt Fred will ever overcall 6D on such a hand, so we should stop saying stuff like if Fred or Zia or Hamman or whoever did this. It's like starting something with "If a unicorn came to your house..." and then continuing on in seriousness. It's pointless to debate impossible hypotheticals, even if it may be amusing.

 

Edited because I said "everyone I know" with no qualifier

Deleted post, so no quote available. .

As surely as a fat kid on a doughnut, hog is certain to charge into these threads. He never has first hand knowledge of the incidents, never knows the people concerned, and never has the bridge judgment where bridge judgment is necessary (example - his trying to compare this 6♦ bid with somebody with a 24 count and a 4 card suit bidding the suit at the 6 level - when the auction was already at the 6 level!). Yet, always he is there, spraying around his ignorance and abuse.

 

I can only suggest, hog, that you stop reading books on chivalry, and you won't imagine yourself as a knight errant, charging at the windmills to right all the wrongs in the world. I suggest that your behavior doesn't cause anyone to regard you as a noble knight, rather it causes you to be regarded as a figure of fun.

Edited August 6, 2010 by inquiry

[mikeh]

 

My favorite part was your wondering whether one of the most corrupt organizations in the world trying to make a potential huge controversy go away with one of its past presidents would result in any apologies for him. Wow way to latch onto something!

Hey...I thought the attempt to make bridge an Olympic sport failed!

 

Josh: i am no fan of the way the ACBL regulates the game.

 

I can see accusing the ACBL of being conservative, reactionary, motivated by the desire to protect what they have rather than to grow what they have, and so on. But corrupt?

 

if you really feel that way...run for election. I served on my district board many years ago....I felt that I should put something back to the game. i wasn't a good board member, as it turned out. I didn't have the patience to plug away at the dull jobs that have to be done. I disagreed with several members about the direction we were going, but I never once felt that those members were motivated by personal gain.

 

The ACBL Board is not an organization I know much about, but I see no basis for accusing them, or the management/directing staff of corruption.

[jdonn]

Thanks for the suggestion Mike, I will strongly consider it.

[mikeh]

Thanks for the suggestion Mike, I will strongly consider it.

you'd get my vote, but one of us would have to move....a long way.

[jkdood]

A C&E deliberation would have been nice, since I think many share MFA's feelings as posted "...if that committee doesn't find anything to take action on, I will respect it 100% and never even think about using any word starting with a "c". The player (whom I don't know) will have my complete benefit of the doubt that he just chose a remarkable action with remarkable success, and it is part of the charm of the game that wild things can readily happen."

 

Although Justin reports that he would push for a C&E committee, he subsequently posted: "...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."

 

One would also think, since many seem to concur with Justin's reporting that the Top 20 Spingold experts all agree that "... This bid is impossible without any form of UI", that there SHOULD HAVE BEEN a C&E hearing.

 

But there wasn't because "because this hand is not evidence of any misconduct." ???

 

WHO made such a determination? The TD(s)?

 

Why would the TD's, who frequently consult with "top players" on rulings, make such a determination that contradicts the 20 out of 20 top experts polled?

 

Is it because the representation of such polling is inaccurate? Or if not, are the TD's making determinations that defy the reported unanimous opinion?

 

I would really like to know why (or opinion on why) we hear that all the top players at NO thought the bid was "impossible without UI", yet there was no C&E convened.

[the hog]

If Fred overcalled 6D everyone I know who thought there was UI in this case (which includes all people in the top 100 players in the world that I know) would probably think he had some UI unless he had a very good reason (such as OMG I PULLED THE WRONG CARD). You can substitute Fred with any other player who has a pristine record for ethics (Hamman, Versace, etc), and that would still be true.

 

The point is moot since I doubt Fred will ever overcall 6D on such a hand, so we should stop saying stuff like if Fred or Zia or Hamman or whoever did this. It's like starting something with "If a unicorn came to your house..." and then continuing on in seriousness. It's pointless to debate impossible hypotheticals, even if it may be amusing.

 

Edited because I said "everyone I know" with no qualifier

Deleted post, so no quote available. .

As surely as a fat kid on a doughnut, hog is certain to charge into these threads. He never has first hand knowledge of the incidents, never knows the people concerned, and never has the bridge judgment where bridge judgment is necessary (example - his trying to compare this 6♦ bid with somebody with a 24 count and a 4 card suit bidding the suit at the 6 level - when the auction was already at the 6 level!). Yet, always he is there, spraying around his ignorance and abuse.

 

I can only suggest, hog, that you stop reading books on chivalry, and you won't imagine yourself as a knight errant, charging at the windmills to right all the wrongs in the world. I suggest that your behavior doesn't cause anyone to regard you as a noble knight, rather it causes you to be regarded as a figure of fun.

***** off ****** .I am prepared to accept a comment like this from someone who has half a brain or more; however it is hard to take from a total ****wit. So crawl back into your hole.

 

[Moderator Note: I edited Ron's comments, but in all fairness, I overlooked the actual response to his earlier post that said he was spraying ignorance and abuse == which I should have editted out ==, so his response was provoked...but then he provoked the first response, which was provoked by.... . This is why we don't allow person attacks which have gotten out of hand, yet again. Sigh. ]

Edited August 6, 2010 by inquiry

[hrothgar]

I would really like to know why (or opinion on why) we hear that all the top players at NO thought the bid was "impossible without UI", yet there was no C&E convened.

I would really like to understand turbulence...

Somehow, I don't think that I am ever going to get any real satisfaction.

 

I suspect that you and I are in much the same boat...

 

I can think of a lot of good reasons why the ACBL wouldn't want to air this laundry out in the open ranging from

 

1. Setting a very dangerous precedent

2. Desire to avoid a lawsuit

3. Desire to sweep this all under the rug

4. Inability to prove this claim

 

I can think of a lot of equally valid reasons why a bunch of "Top Players" wouldn't want to go on the record regarding their personal beliefs on this topic.

 

I don't doubt that Justin polled a large number of top players.

I don't doubt that many, perhaps all, were very sympathetic to his claim.

 

However, there is a big difference between an informal poll and openly stating that there should be a C+E hearing.

[mikeh]

A C&E deliberation would have been nice, since I think many share MFA's feelings as posted "...if that committee doesn't find anything to take action on, I will respect it 100% and never even think about using any word starting with a "c". The player (whom I don't know) will have my complete benefit of the doubt that he just chose a remarkable action with remarkable success, and it is part of the charm of the game that wild things can readily happen."

 

Although Justin reports that he would push for a C&E committee, he subsequently posted:  "...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."

 

One would also think, since many seem to concur with Justin's reporting that the Top 20 Spingold experts all agree that "... This bid is impossible without any form of UI",  that there SHOULD HAVE BEEN a C&E hearing.

 

But there wasn't because "because this hand is not evidence of any misconduct." ???

 

WHO made such a determination? The TD(s)?

 

Why would the TD's, who frequently consult with "top players" on rulings, make such a determination that contradicts the 20 out of 20 top experts polled? 

 

Is it because the representation of such polling is inaccurate?  Or if not, are the TD's making determinations that defy the reported unanimous opinion?

 

I would really like to know why (or opinion on why) we hear that all the top players at NO thought the bid was "impossible without UI", yet there was no C&E convened.

Possibly because the Directors are concerned with the application of principles of what is called, in my country at least, 'natural justice'. This is analogous to but not the same as, as I understand it, to concepts of due process in the US.

 

The Directors are concerned with evidence of wrong-doing and despite the apparent conviction of many non-legally trained posters, the existence of the hand and the making of the bid and the fortuitous outcome are not evidence of UI.

 

Arguing that such matters are evidence reveals primarily the arguer's ignorance of basic rules of evidence.

 

Any player being polled, by someone they respect who is obviously pissed off, is likely to have the same instinctive reaction that I and many others had on first reading the original post. It smells. It is suggestive of UI.

 

My suggestion: repoll the top 100 players, or so many of them as were consulted, and invite them to read the non-flame parts of the thread and then offer their opinion. Several posters here backed away from their initial reaction...I know I did.

 

While some will probably remain convinced that there must have been cheating involved, I suspect that many would change their minds....and I doubt that any with actual training in these sorts of issues would remain of the view that there should be a committee hearing.

 

There has to be EVIDENCE before a player is subjected to a committee. There was none, as least as far as we can tell from what has been posted here. Indeed, it seems that there was likely very strong evidence negating the most probable suspicious possibility...a stacked deck.

 

Saying that there was evidence doesn't make it so, not matter how vehemently one believes in one's argument. I know, the same can be said for my point of view....the difference is that I can point to decades of experience dealing with the rules of evidence, which are largely the same in the US as they are in Canada (one of the most authoritative texts on evidence used in Canada is US)

 

Whether you think the 'smell' remains or not is another story entirely....but the 'smell' is not evidence.

[jkdood]

I guess one of the purposes of the closed thread, is that there should be some new or different applicable rules (why else is something otherwise "wrong with bridge") when a so-called "impossible without UI" call is made.

 

I guess after 30 pages and 20,000 views, no consensus was reached on that.

 

But here's a friendly challenge. Fred was surely polled, and absorbed the closed thread's arguments. Does Fred think now this 6D call should be judged "impossible without UI"?

:rolleyes:

[gwnn]

He has implied that he does not want to be a part of this. He joined only to say that he thinks Justin is talented and he likes Justin. He said that this is a topic that he has an opinion on this (as opposed to the main topic, would be the implication).