Piltch revisited

[jkdood]

Listen, if ALL the top experts (consulted or otherwise, upon more reflection or otherwise) feel this bid was "impossible without UI", then there indeed seems to be something very wrong with bridge that this can occur and not be dealt with by some version of C&E or other means, to censor, adjust, or make things right-er.

 

On the other hand, if the representation is not accurate, something else is wrong.

[hrothgar]

Listen, if ALL the top experts (consulted or otherwise, upon more reflection or otherwise) feel this bid was "impossible without UI", then there indeed seems to be something very wrong with bridge that this can occur and not be dealt with by some version of C&E or other means, to censor, adjust, or make things right-er.

This might be one of those situations where the cure is far far worse than the disease...

 

Imagine if the ACBL established the following precedent

 

If you make an outlandishly bizarre bid AND

You get lucky and said bid works in your favor

 

Then

 

The opponents get to petition the director for a C+E hearing and try to get the results tossed out.

 

Now, think about the enormous amount of outright idiocy that happens at the table especially at the lower levels of the game...

[mikeh]

Listen, if ALL the top experts (consulted or otherwise, upon more reflection or otherwise) feel this bid was "impossible without UI", then there indeed seems to be something very wrong with bridge that this can occur and not be dealt with by some version of C&E or other means, to censor, adjust, or make things right-er.

 

On the other hand, if the representation is not accurate, something else is wrong.

I wasn't for a moment suggesting that Justin misrepresented the results of his poll, What I was suggesting is that one shouldn't take the results of such an informal poll as meaning very much.

 

1. we don't know how the question was framed. Framing influences reaction, as any opinion poller will tell you. I am not suggesting any deliberate misrepresentation by Justin. Almost any event can be 'accurately' described in a number of ways. Justin was and remains clearly upset. It wouldn't be humanly possible for him (or anyone I have ever met) to have framed his questions in a neutral fashion...look at how he began the original post.

 

2. We don't know whether the polled expert simply agreed that something smelled, or whether they were expressly asked if the combination of action and outcome, all alone, warranted discipline

 

3. We don't know if the polled experts were given any view of the 'other side'of the coin

 

4. We don't know the setting...was it at a party where everyone was drinking, or a quiet meeting.

 

5. As earlier said, immediate reactions are often not the same as one's considered position. Yours may be, but I would hope that everyone here, including you, would take the opportunity to reflect if the need and opportunity arose. So the fact that within the first 24 hours, everyone said the same thing doesn't mean that everyone would say the same thing now

 

6. We don't know whether the experts merely said what they'd like to see be done or what they thought the rules mandated should be done. We know that some, including Justin, want the rules changed so that if they get 'fixed' by an action they personally consider to be irrational, absent UI, they have thr right to have an adjusted score in their favour, but I see no considered support for that proposition from anyone else....and I sure as hell hope that anyone who does think that's a good idea never gets to be in a position of power in the game. In a sense, I'd like to see the result be changed, absent a very compelling, believable explanation from the bidder, but I dread the idea of a rule change that would permit that outcome absent evidence that points to UI...evidence other than 'it happened, it worked, I got fixed...I have no idea how he did it, but he must have done it' that's argument, not evidence.

[jkdood]

If you make an outlandishly bizarre bid ...

Geesh, can you imagine if something was in place that had the effect of dissuading this?

[jkdood]

I guess we could never get totally fair and adequate standards all agree with, but:

 

If we get the so-called 20 unanimous "top experts" (it certainly wasn't unanimous on the BBO thread) into a quiet room, make them read the thread and think about it, and just one of them now decides that the bid "IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT UI"...

 

...then we give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. P, without regret, maybe with apology?

[tgoodwinsr]

Are you people acquainted with the concept of "res ipsa loquitur"? In tort law, it refers to the assumption that an injury was caused by someone's negligence, because the accident was of the kind that wouldn't have happened without somebody being negligent. The plaintiff doesn't have to prove exactly how the defendant was negligent, only that someone must have been negligent and that the defendant was that someone (or somebody legally responsible for that someone's negligence).

 

In the Spingold incident, the "plaintiffs" are arguing that the 6D bidder must have had UI, because (in their view) nobody would have bid 6D without having UI -- res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself. They are further suggesting that UI can be presumed even in the absence of proof of just how the UI came about.

 

Maybe that is right, and maybe it is enough to support a "civil judgment" -- that is, a score adjustment. That would depend on just how strong the inference is, that the bid is impossible without UI. (Pursuing the tort-law analogy, some accidents happen without negligence by anyone: they are just accidents. "Res ipsa" doesn't apply in such cases.)

 

A civil judgment is one thing, but a criminal conviction is another. For the latter, you should be required to produce proof -- and proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- of just what the defendant is alleged to have done. It is one thing to find that there must have been UI (res ipsa loquitur), but quite another to find that C&E should be involved (because disciplinary action should require concrete proof of what was actually done).

 

I am not expressing an opinion about whether the inference of UI is strong enough to be treated as res ipsa in this case; I guess reasonable minds can disagree about that. But I am expressing the opinion that without more than has been revealed in this forum, there isn't enough there for what amounts to a criminal conviction.

[jkdood]

...that without more than has been revealed in this forum, there isn't enough there for what amounts to a criminal conviction.

Well, Justin did say up front that something like a "civil conviction" not rising to the standards of a "criminal convction" might be called for.

 

Whether or not this would be good for bridge and workable, seems a valid discussion point.

[Lobowolf]

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.

I think that a good deal of relevant evidence has been noted on this thread, on both sides. Inadmissible evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

[jkdood]

Inadmissible evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

Well, you are certainly right about that!

 

"Reporting" that 20 of the top 20 experts asked termed the bid "impossible without UI" must be one of the biggest examples of heresay ever made.

[kenrexford]

Geez! I missed quite the controversy. My take (maybe someone said this already?) is as follows:

 

Bridge is an ego game. I would never trot out this sick of a random call because:

 

(1) Normally I look like an idiot, but

(2) If it works, I look like a cheat.

 

So, the person who bid 6♦ is either a blathering fool who got lucky, a cheat who is a blathering idiot for thinking this would work without public ridicule, or a blathering fool who doesn't realize that he would look like a cheat if it worked and look like a blathering fool if it didn't.

 

This much is clear.

 

I also believe that there are two methods of handling this sort of incident. One is through proper procedures and rules and evidence. The other is by the trial of light. The punishment that comes from the trial of light (having what happened made public) is that your ego and reputation takes a hit, in that public opinion of you becomes that you are a blathering fool who got lucky, a cheat, or a blathering fool who doesn't realize that he would look like a cheat if it worked and look like a blathering fool if it didn't.

 

So, good for prosecutor jlogic (when did THAT name pop up???). State the case, and let the "punishment" fall where it may.

 

Debates as to which of the three possibilities is correct, or debates suggesting that there are alternative possibilities, serve little purpose other than to expose other people as blathering idiots, as well. At this point, the counselor at law in me kicks in. I would suggest to some who think 6♦ was a sensible bid to remain silent, as the words you are using to explain this are definitely being used against you in the public opinion of your status as a possible blathering idiot.

[fred]

I don't have an opinion on how such things *should* be handled (I haven't really thought about it nor do I care to) and I don't want to get involved in a public discussion about my guess as to the likelyhood of UI, but I will say this:

 

1) In our investigations of potential cheaters on BBO, one outlandish hand is not even close to enough for us to convict regardless of how outandlish that hand happens to be. I am certain that this is a wise policy for BBO.

 

2) My bridge opinion of the 6D bid is similar to Justin's. I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about an expert player intentionally doing anything even remotely similar. IMO not only is bidding 6D an obviously terrible, terrible, way to swing, but I have been in this situation many times (where a clearly superior team is up 40ish IMPs early in a long match) and, in my experience, pretty much nobody ever swings (to say nothing of swinging for the fences) under these circumstances.

 

So, in my world, 6D is both very bad from a pure bridge/swinging point of view and very bizarre from a real world point of view. IMO these are not matters that are even worthy of discussion for "serious" players.

 

3) I believe that virtually all "top 100 players" would agree with my opinions on the quality and the degree of strangeness of the 6D bid. Maybe it was not necessary to include the word "virtually", but given the rarity of unanimous expert panels in the Master Solvers' Club, I chose to play it safe.

 

4) I have played against Howard Piltch many times over the past 30 years and I was even his partner for one day when I was very young. Although Howard has offended me (more than once) with his behavior at the table, I have never seen him do anything that made me question his bridge ethics. I would describe his style of play as "active but not insanely so". He has significant skill as a bridge player. He is also a very smart man.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jkdood]

a) ...don't recall ever seeing or hearing about an expert player intentionally doing anything even remotely similar. IMO not only is bidding 6D an obviously terrible, terrible, way to swing...

 

b ) ...I would suggest to some who think 6♦ was a sensible bid to remain silent...

 

NO one has really suggested that 6D was sensible, less than bizarre, terrible, etc.

 

But many have suggested that to say 6D was "impossible without UI" is not correct, and it seems that getting even the Top 20 players to all say that in no uncertain terms, isn't going to happen.

 

Not that ACBL rules or TD policies suggest that such a determination by itself is currently worthy of an adjustment, C&E hearing, or otherwise.

 

I think Mr. P. might very well be deserving of benefit of the doubt, at the very least, for this single "lucky strike".

[hrothgar]

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

 

By any other name would smell as sweet;

 

Take a look at the UI cases in published appeals hearings. Every time you see a UI case there is an explicit description of the nature of the UI. (For example, "Break in Tempo" seems to be a very popular offense)

 

How would you propose that we write this one up in such a way that we clearly distinquish between being "too lucky" and "cheating"...

[jdonn]

How would you propose that we write this one up in such a way that we clearly distinquish between being "too lucky" and "cheating"...

You have asked this question a few times in several forms, but why do you think it matters at all how they write it up? It could be a lousy write up like so many others for all it matters to me.

[jdonn]

NO one has really suggested that 6D was sensible, less than bizarre, terrible, etc.

That's not true at all, many people have. The first example in this thread is hotshot, and there were a number of others in the first thread. It boggles the mind but there are certainly those who believe it.

[jkdood]

Josh you are right. Several really did try to justify the choice of 6D, as if they would also (under the same conditions) make the same bid. (Not that I believe it.)

 

I actually lean towards the "impossible without UI" feelings. But I can also feel someone is likely guilty when the jury says otherwise. In such a case I respect the official judgement, NOT GUILTY. Of course, that's not the same as INNOCENT, blah blah blah.

 

Based upon the current rules, standards, treatments, and lack of condemning unanimity, I give him a reluctant PASS.

[mikeh]

Has no-one here but me ever done on impluse something that was particularly stupid?

 

I did insanely dangerous things when I was younger. I mean truly idiotic things, that I did on impulse....usually involving motorcycles.

 

Cannot anyone even consider that this man, a skilled but 'imaginative' player, heavily out-gunned, saw at the table a chance to do an irrational action that, if it worked, would have all kinds of positive effects. That he acted on impulse before reasoning that if it worked he'd be called a cheat?

 

This is a man who has been villified by a lot of people but NONE of the accusations, other than from Wolff....and he is hardly the most reliable source of gossip imo...suggest that his ethics have ever been challenged. So, in the pressure of the moment, with this unusual hand, if it occurred to him, no matter how foolishly and in principle erroneously, that he should make a silly bid....how likely is it that he'd do the rexford analysis......oh...if this works, everyone will think I'm a cheat?

 

And we can add to this mix, the fact that on what we have learned about him, he doesn't give a rat's ass about what people think of him anyway.

 

You may feel that this is unlikely, but if you for a moment concede that it MIGHT have happened, then I think you have to recognize that he can't be even tried for cheating absent a shred of evidence of how he came to the presumed UI.

 

And that's where the hang'em high crowd fails. All of the evidence so far identified on this forum as to who did what, saw what, said what, etc is to the effect that there was no apparent opportunity for him to acquire UI, let alone that he did acquire UI.

 

Res ipsa, to which another poster made reference, wouldn't apply. It is a rule that has extremelyy narrow application in tort law....I think I have seen it argued less than hafl a dozen times in 30 years....and now, in my jursidiction, it has been eliminated. It wouldn't apply here even if it were a live doctrine. It is not a factor to be weighed against other evidence...it is used only when, for good reason, no evidence on a point is available. Here, we have lots of evidence about the circumstances that led up the bid and none of that evidence suggests cheating. All of it tends to rule out cheating, and res ipsa cannot be used to discard that evidence.

[hotShot]

NO one has really suggested that 6D was sensible, less than bizarre, terrible, etc.

That's not true at all, many people have. The first example in this thread is hotshot, and there were a number of others in the first thread. It boggles the mind but there are certainly those who believe it.

....

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

 

... without a full analysis 6♦ looks attractive ....

 

This means that 6♦ is a sensible bid?

Wow, I have to brush up my English .....

[peachy]

NO one has really suggested that 6D was sensible, less than bizarre, terrible, etc.

That's not true at all, many people have. The first example in this thread is hotshot, and there were a number of others in the first thread. It boggles the mind but there are certainly those who believe it.

But none of those are top level experts or people who would even try to play in Spingold. Right?

[jdonn]

NO one has really suggested that 6D was sensible, less than bizarre, terrible, etc.

That's not true at all, many people have. The first example in this thread is hotshot, and there were a number of others in the first thread. It boggles the mind but there are certainly those who believe it.

....

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

 

... without a full analysis 6♦ looks attractive ....

 

This means that 6♦ is a sensible bid?

Wow, I have to brush up my English .....

I said that you claimed 6♦ was any of 3 things. You partially quoted yourself and wondered how that could mean you claimed 6♦ was a particular 1 of those things. Care to try again?

[junyi_zhu]

NO one has really suggested that 6D was sensible, less than bizarre, terrible, etc.

That's not true at all, many people have. The first example in this thread is hotshot, and there were a number of others in the first thread. It boggles the mind but there are certainly those who believe it.

....

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

 

... without a full analysis 6♦ looks attractive ....

 

This means that 6♦ is a sensible bid?

Wow, I have to brush up my English .....

The bidding here is not a one shot business. It's not that if you don't bid 6D, you can't find 6D. Either double or 4NT may help players finding 6D when partner holds longer D and short C. That's actually why I reasoned that if he knows the hand, he may afraid that his partner doesn't know and doesn't cooperate. Suppose the bidding goes ...4N p 5C or x p 4C it's really not easy to pull 6D now. In that sense, 6D is a very insane bid IMO.

[kenrexford]

I think 6♦ was a particularly poor choice, when 4NT stands out as the zooming swing bid. If you want to get to a 6♦ contract because you expect diamonds to play particularly well, then show equal length in the minors and see if partner picks diamonds. If he does, bid a gambling 6. If he picks clubs, pass. What's the trick to this hand? What, you are afraid to end up in the wrong contract when partner has 4-4 in the minors? If he has THAT hand, his diamonds are better than his clubs anyway, as he lacks the Ace, King, and Queen of clubs, and will pick diamonds. In fact, on this hand, partner would in fact pick diamonds, so all is well.

 

Had the auction been P-3♠-4NT-P-5♦-P-6♦, this would be a very sensible swing auction.

 

Blasting 6♦ seems rather ignorant. If it was intended as a rational attempt to swing, it was rather inept. If it was a UI call, it was also rather inept.

 

(Just noticed the post immediately above mine, while I was typing. LOL)

[jkdood]

But Ken, Junyi, others...

Is it POSSIBLE WITHOUT UI?

Y/N

 

(maybe a poll....)

[hotShot]

I said that you claimed 6♦ was any of 3 things. You partially quoted yourself and wondered how that could mean you claimed 6♦ was a particular 1 of those things. Care to try again?

I claimed it to be any of 2 choices and gave an example how flawed reasoning could make someone think that 6♦ is a masterminding option.

[tgoodwinsr]

If it possible without UI, that ends the matter unless there is proof of UI.

 

If it is not possible without UI, then . . . res ipsa. That means you don't need proof of UI (under this alternative), because the assumption ("not possible without UI") provides the proof.

 

If you decide that UI is proven because the bid is impossible without it, you still haven't shown how the UI was obtained. And if you can't show that, you can't impose discipline (punishment), only score adjustment (like a civil remedy).

 

The principles aren't complicated, but it may not be easy to show that the bid wasn't possible in the absence of UI.