Setting the record straight

[buffytvs]

I came late to the lengthy discussion of the 6D incident in New Orleans, but was concerned to see that the facts of one incident from Mr. Piltch's past were being disputed there. As publisher of 'The Lone Wolff', I drew this to the attention of Bobby Wolff, and he sent me the email that appears below, posted here at his specific request.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hi Ray,

 

Took your advice, and sure enough I got through the morass and saw more than I wanted to.

 

It seemed that Howard Piltch was the 6 diamond bidder on the subject hand. Also, whoever it was, and I couldn't determine who, was wrong in almost all or perhaps on every issue when he related the previous Howard Piltch issue of exposing the Ace of Spades. He stated that Richard Colker was the recorder and he wasn't, Bob Rosen was and was fired by the then President of the ACBL, Cecil Cook. This person said a person by the name of Brown was President of the ACBL. He said the year was 1996 and I do not remember which year it was, but it was the year Cecil Cook was President. He stated that Piltch never was tried by the Ethical Oversight Committee and I was a member of that committee with Edgar Kaplan presiding when we found Howard guilty. I took our verdict to the BOG at the next Nationals where Howard, who was at the time running for President and winning was at the podium denying that the EOC ever took jurisdiction or heard the case. I went to the microphone and read the verdict which was met by complete silence as many of the BOD's were at that meeting.

 

You have my permission, as a matter of fact, desire for you to somehow get this letter on that site for those people to at least read it and then go from there. It seems that Howard's opponents in that Spingold match were the Lalls, Hemant and Justin and they want to right the wrong.

 

I am including Joan Gerard in this correspondence who is now on the ACBL BOD's and was then when the Ace of Spades incident occurred and also she was, no doubt, at the BOG meeting which was related by me above.

 

 

Bobby

[PassedOut]

He stated that Richard Colker was the recorder and he wasn't, Bob Rosen was and was fired by the then President of the ACBL, Cecil Cook. This person said a person by the name of Brown was President of the ACBL. He said the year was 1996 and I do not remember which year it was, but it was the year Cecil Cook was President.

Cecil Cook was ACBL president in 1995, Dudley Brown was in 1996, and Howard Piltch was in 1997.

[TimG]

I believe the results of the EOC hearing were reported in the Daily Bulletin at whatever NABC the hearing took place. Some research could uncover the article (though I have not been able to locate it online). My guess would be that the hearing took place at New Orleans (summer 1995) or Atlanta (fall 1995), the Bulletins from these NABCs do not appear to be in the ACBL's online archive.

 

Wolff's autobiography states: "The unsurprising result was that Cook fired Rosen as National Recorder and the Board of Directors exonerated Piltch without a hearing." Whatever you may think of that action, it would appear accurate that the incident is no longer part of Piltch's ACBL disciplinary record.

[BudH]

I believe the results of the EOC hearing were reported in the Daily Bulletin at whatever NABC the hearing took place.  Some research could uncover the article (though I have not been able to locate it online).  My guess would be that the hearing took place at New Orleans (summer 1995) or Atlanta (fall 1995), the Bulletins from these NABCs do not appear to be in the ACBL's online archive. 

 

Wolff's autobiography states: "The unsurprising result was that Cook fired Rosen as National Recorder and the Board of Directors exonerated Piltch without a hearing."  Whatever you may think of that action, it would appear accurate that the incident is no longer part of Piltch's ACBL disciplinary record.

The November 26, 1995 Atlanta NABC Daily Bulletin appears to be where the publishing of the committee decisions occurred, according to this posting by Jonathan Steinberg on December 12, 1995 on newsgroup rec.games.bridge:

 

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge

From: Jonathan Steinberg <am...@torfree.net>

Date: 1995/12/12

"The second committee, consisting of Richard Colker, Howard

Weinstein, and Jan Cohen examined the allegations concerning

Howard Piltch's behaviour and unanimously found no evidence upon

which to lay charges against him. I urge all interested parties

to read the complete article found in the November 26 Atlanta

Daily Bulletin."

[blackshoe]

Apparently the conclusion we are supposed to draw from all this is that Piltch was guilty as sin and the committee and Cecil Cook are corrupt.

 

Hm.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, I found a report from 1995 by Jonathan Steinberg:

 

"Special Committees investigating allegations against District 25 board member Howard Piltch and the removal of Bob Rosen as ACBL National Recorder released their findings. No charges were laid against Mr. Piltch. The removal of Bob Rosen was upheld. "

 

Found at http://www3.sympatico.ca/jonathan.st/board953.html

 

I also found this 1995 commentary on rec.games.bridge:

 

"I have no knowledge of the merits of the complaints brought against Mr.

Piltch. The Recorders' panel (Bramley, Clerkin, Meckstroth, Rosen,

Sutherlin) found the evidence insufficient to bring the matter to the

Ethical Oversight Committee but recommended that some action be taken in

light of the fact that Mr. Piltch "is in a position of trust [and] has a

repsonsibility not only to himself but to the people he represents [as a

member of the Board of Directors]." The subsequent committee appointed

by Pres. Cook to look into the charges (Cohen, Colker, Weinstein) found

insufficient evidence and expressed "mild concerns regarding Mr. Piltch's

behavior..."

 

"It sounds to me like the two groups were essentially of the same mind

about Mr. Piltch's alleged offenses. This isn't what's causing the

controversy over the matter. That has to do with Pres. Cook's response

to Mr. Rosen's letter to the Board in which the Recorders' position was

stated. First he asked Mr. Rosen not to send the letter. When Mr. Rosen

attempted to do so anyhow, Pres. Cook ordered Gary Blaiss (at ACBL HQ)

not to forward the letter to the Board in the usual way. When Mr. Rosen

persisted, and sent the letter directly to the individual Board members,

Pres. Cook fired him.

 

"These actions smack of blatant politics at the highest levels of the ACBL,

and raise several questions:

 

"Since Pres. Cook is a close personal friend of Mr. Piltch (Mr. Piltch was

Mr. Cook's "campaign manager" when Mr. Cook was elected President), why

didn't Mr. Cook recuse himself from involvement in Mr. Piltch's case

initially, and turn his participation in the matter over to a

disinterested party?

 

"The offense for which Mr. Rosen was fired was that of informing the

entire Board of the recorders' views and recommendations. Was this

wrong? Aren't the National Recorders responsible to the Board as a

whole, not to the President personally? Shouldn't they be reporting to

the Board as a whole? Does the President have the authority to keep such

matters a secret from the other elected members of the Board?

 

"The problem, of course, as Mr. Wood reports, is that "mail[ing] copies

directly to the Board members ... ensured that Mr. Piltch would become

the subject of gossip across North America, with hundreds of players

speculating upon his ethics." Why is this? Can't our 25-member Board of

Directors act with appropriate discretion in matters of this sort? Why

should their being informed of an ethical accusation "ensure" that

hundreds of other players would hear about it? Is the President

justified in withholding information to which they are entitled from the

other members of the Board by the fact that he realizes that they won't

be able to keep their mouths shut about it? And if they can't keep their

mouths shut about such sensitive matters, how is that Mr. Rosen's fault?

 

"Mr. Wood writes, "When the recorder opts to refer an ethical situation to

the President and/or Board, IT HAS TO BE DONE IN PRIVATE [emphasis Mr.

Wood's] -- so that if nothing is proven against a person, his/her good

name remains unsullied." I agree. But it was the Board members that

permitted the gossip to be spread; they were the guilty parties with

respect to the damage done to Mr. Piltch's reputation. Wasn't Mr. Rosen

just doing his job by bringing the matter to their attention? Why should

it be Mr. Rosen who takes the fall because the Board couldn't keep the

matter appropriately private?

 

"The letter from Mr. Rosen to the Board was read and approved unanimously

by the five-member Recorders' panel. Mr. Rosen, as the head of that

panel, sent the letter, not on his own authority, but on the authority of

the Recorders acting as a group. So why was Mr. Rosen singled out to be

disciplined (i.e. fired) by Mr. Cook? Why weren't the other (Assistant

National) Recorders similarly disciplined? A case of executing the

messenger? Or was Mr. Rosen singled out to serve as a blatantly

political example to others who might attempt to "cross" Mr. Cook in the

future? BTW, at least one of the other recorders, Mr. Meckstroth, has

since resigned his position in protest of Mr. Cook's actions.

 

"Mr. Cook's firing of Mr. Rosen was subsequently reviewed by a committee

(Chandross, Morse, Treadwell) that backed his action. But that committee

was hand-picked and appointed solely by Mr. Cook! Given the personal

relationships involved, it's hardly a surprise that Mr. Cook's hand-

picked committee would back him up. Is this legal? Even if so, is it

appropriate? Does the President have the (legal and/or moral) right to

appoint a committee of his own friends to "resolve" disputes between

himself and another party?

 

"Is this kind of politicking at the top of the ACBL interfering with the

running of the ACBL in the interests of its general membership? Should

the ACBL be more open and helpful in shedding some light on such

incidents? Should the election (and perhaps appointment) of our top

officials be made more democratic? IMO, this affair suggests that the

answers to these questions might be yes, yes, and yes."

 

I have no particular position on any of this. I just was curious and found these hits.

[hrothgar]

I came late to the lengthy discussion of the 6D incident in New Orleans, but was concerned to see that the facts of one incident from Mr. Piltch's past were being disputed there.  As publisher of 'The Lone Wolff', I drew this to the attention of Bobby Wolff, and he sent me the email that appears below, posted here at his specific request.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hi Ray,

 

Took your advice, and sure enough I got through the morass and saw more than I wanted to.

 

It seemed that Howard Piltch was the 6 diamond bidder on the subject hand.  Also, whoever it was, and I couldn't determine who, was wrong in almost all or perhaps on every issue when he related the previous Howard Piltch issue of exposing the Ace of Spades.  He stated that Richard Colker was the recorder and he wasn't, Bob Rosen was and was fired by the then President of the ACBL, Cecil Cook.  This person said a person by the name of Brown was President of the ACBL.  He said the year was 1996 and I do not remember which year it was, but it was the year Cecil Cook was President.  He stated that Piltch never was tried by the Ethical Oversight Committee and I was a member of that committee with Edgar Kaplan presiding when we found Howard guilty.  I took our verdict to the BOG at the next Nationals where Howard, who was at the time running for President and winning was at the podium denying that the EOC ever took jurisdiction or heard the case.  I went to the microphone and read the verdict which was met by complete silence as many of the BOD's were at that meeting.

 

You have my permission, as a matter of fact, desire for you to somehow get this letter on that site for those people to at least read it and then go from there.  It seems that Howard's opponents in that Spingold match were the Lalls, Hemant and Justin and they want to right the wrong.

 

I am including Joan Gerard in this correspondence who is now on the ACBL BOD's and was then when the Ace of Spades incident occurred and also she was, no doubt, at the BOG meeting which was related by me above.

 

 

Bobby

So predictable...

 

The whole thing was dying down and now Wolff decides to insert himself into the mess and stir up the pot.

 

I seem to recall commenting in the original thread that this would degenerate into a pissing match between Wolff and Piltch

[kenrexford]

It sounded to me like Wolff was asked to respond, partially because Wolff was dragged into the discussion. Seems kind of unfair to characterize that as injecting himself into the discussion.

[jjbrr]

didnt this topic run its course a long time ago? are the rest of us ever going to be able to escape it?

[tgoodwinsr]

hrothgar: "I seem to recall commenting in the original thread that this would degenerate into a pissing match between Wolff and Piltch."

 

 

Rexford: "It sounded to me like Wolff was asked to respond, partially because Wolff was dragged into the discussion. . . ."

 

 

Rexford is right: Wolff was asked to respond, and did so. His response purported to correct factual inaccuracies in someone else's post(s), and it doesn't appear that he was pissing on Piltch or anybody else. [it should be possible to determine who is right on the facts, if this matters.]

 

Further, hrothgar, there hasn't been anything at all in these threads from Piltch, so it is a little hard on him to say that he is engaged in a pissing contest. Yes, Piltch has had supporters here, including BudH and TimD. But Bud's contributions seem intended to explain the factual circumstances of the Spingold deal, and Delaney's seem to be mainly an effort -- misguided, many would thing -- to provide a technical explanation for Piltch's bidding. Even if you think Bud and Tim are Piltch sycophants -- and I am pretty sure that Bud, at least, is not (I don't know TimD) -- it seems inaccurate to characterize their contributions as part of a Wolff-Piltch pissing contest.

 

I suspect that you, hrothgar, have strong feelings about (or against) both Piltch and Wolff, and you are letting those feelings obscure any analysis of what did or did not happen in New Orleans.

[whereagles]

I'm extremely careful judging people when they make a "wierd bid that happens to work charms", but here I'd consider it a clear case of the c-word.

 

Back in 1956 or something, Reese/Shapiro were deemed guilty on much lighter charges. Remember this one? Reese had something like

 

Axx

Axx

xxxx

xxx

 

OP1 Shap. OP2 Reese

pass pass 3♣ pass

4♣ pass pass dbl

 

Shapiro had 2 aces and it went 1 down. Later is was argued that Reese could not have doubled without knowing pard had 2 aces. Sure, this one is fishy, but waaaaay less than the 6♦ bid.

[ONEferBRID]

Sure, this one is fishy, but waaaaay less than the 6♦ bid.

Has Howard Piltch ever explained the reasoning behind the astonishing 6♦ bid ?

[tgoodwinsr]

Howard may have been -- probably was -- well advised not to make any statements about this matter. You shouldn't draw any inference, whether favorable or adverse, from his silence.

[gwnn]

Sure, this one is fishy, but waaaaay less than the 6♦ bid.

Has Howard Piltch ever explained the reasoning behind the astonishing 6♦ bid ?

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=481703

 

and in particular, point 8. from this post.

 

BudH is the partner of Mr. Piltch and it is quite certain that the reasoning written by him is the actual one used by Mr. Piltch.

[whereagles]

You shouldn't draw any inference, whether favorable or adverse, from his silence.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Where I live you have the right not to speak at all during the instructory stage of an inquiry, but hey I don't agree with the law either lol.

[hrothgar]

hrothgar: "I seem to recall commenting in the original thread that this would degenerate into a pissing match between Wolff and Piltch."

 

 

Rexford: "It sounded to me like Wolff was asked to respond, partially because Wolff was dragged into the discussion. . . ."

 

 

Rexford is right: Wolff was asked to respond, and did so. His response purported to correct factual inaccuracies in someone else's post(s), and it doesn't appear that he was pissing on Piltch or anybody else. [it should be possible to determine who is right on the facts, if this matters.]

 

Further, hrothgar, there hasn't been anything at all in these threads from Piltch, so it is a little hard on him to say that he is engaged in a pissing contest. Yes, Piltch has had supporters here, including BudH and TimD. But Bud's contributions seem intended to explain the factual circumstances of the Spingold deal, and Delaney's seem to be mainly an effort -- misguided, many would thing -- to provide a technical explanation for Piltch's bidding. Even if you think Bud and Tim are Piltch sycophants -- and I am pretty sure that Bud, at least, is not (I don't know TimD) -- it seems inaccurate to characterize their contributions as part of a Wolff-Piltch pissing contest.

 

I suspect that you, hrothgar, have strong feelings about (or against) both Piltch and Wolff, and you are letting those feelings obscure any analysis of what did or did not happen in New Orleans.

I don't disagree with anything that has been said here.

I'm simply note that it is still early in the day...

[ONEferBRID]

thx, Gwnn...

[barryallen]

Apparently the conclusion we are supposed to draw from all this is that Piltch was guilty as sin and the committee and Cecil Cook are corrupt.

 

Hm.

I can never understand that if you box a card, you should automatically get an adjusted bad score for your error.

 

The problem of highlighting someone's erratic bid, is that it is virtually impossible for third parties not to interpret that as cheating. Always accompanied by the success of the bid, never the failure. Once you go down that road Pandora's box is well and truly open and very little can be done to redress the situation from irreparable damage.

 

When you make an outrageous bid that is successful, you rightly come under suspicion unless your name is Zia. When you ratch the outrageous up a further order of magnitude along with the success, you are getting yourself back into the realms of unconventional rather than cheat.

[buffytvs]

Not to flog a dead horse, I received an email from Joan Gerard today, which included the line "Bobby is, of course, quite correct, as to what happened when the A of S was flipped up and sent to the other table." So enough on that.

 

I have other thoughts on the issues of evidence,and prior record, which can be found here.

[Cyberyeti]

Apparently the conclusion we are supposed to draw from all this is that Piltch was guilty as sin and the committee and Cecil Cook are corrupt.

 

Hm.

I can never understand that if you box a card, you should automatically get an adjusted bad score for your error.

 

To exaggerate, but if you box a card after you've just gone for 3000+ redoubled in a cuebid, your actions are going to be viewed with a lot of suspicion.

 

If you have dexterity problems and occasionally box cards after good and bad boards that's one thing, but doing it only after a really bad board is going to encourage whispers, and you should keep your element of a bad result to protect against this. Basically not a real adjustment, just assuming a normal result from the other table.

[mrdct]

Whilst not founded in the laws of bridge, the recipient of a hand with a boxed card should bear some responsibility to count their cards out of sight of partner and opponents.

 

I play in a club duplicate at the local senior citizens centre once a week with my son (who incidentally is their youngest card-carrying member at 13 and is able to claim his seniors discount in some places) and it's quite rare to go through a session without receiving a hand with a boxed card, so I'm now well and truly in the habit of counting my cards under the table and checking that there are no boxed cards before I sort my hand.

[barryallen]

Whilst not founded in the laws of bridge, the recipient of a hand with a boxed card should bear some responsibility to count their cards out of sight of partner and opponents.

 

I play in a club duplicate at the local senior citizens centre once a week with my son (who incidentally is their youngest card-carrying member at 13 and is able to claim his seniors discount in some places) and it's quite rare to go through a session without receiving a hand with a boxed card, so I'm now well and truly in the habit of counting my cards under the table and checking that there are no boxed cards before I sort my hand.

I have seen this dealt with in so many different manners, depending upon the flight and the timing of the error, I am unsure what the definitive course of action is for the TD.

 

Quickly back tracking and looking at the rules, it appears the onus is totally upon the person receiving the cards. With the only possible exception being that the board is presented with one of the top cards having the face exposed, then that responsibility would lie with North, or whoever's duty it is to pass on the board.

 

As had previously happened, I assumed an incorrect position based upon others reactions. In fact Pilch had no reason to be addressed with any penalty when the law states it is the responsibility of the person receiving the cards. The only responsibility Pilch had would be if he delivered the board with a top card exposed. The then loose definition of the TD's discretionary powers become logical, allowing several adjustments to be made in the name of common sense.

 

When you belated read the rules, it appears incredulous of the reaction from this isolated case of a boxed card. Now if you were to couple that with previous examples of the same thing, a warning of future punishment would be fully warranted. Even various irregularities combined could justify requiring an explanation or possible sanctions. This is just smacking too much of a witch hunt for my liking, along with the middle age laws for dealing with such issues.

[ArtK78]

I want to make it clear to those who are treating the Ace of Spades incident as a run of the mill boxed card situation.

 

The issue was whether Mr. P. intentionally boxed the Ace of Spades with the intention of having the board thrown out, thereby eliminating an adverse swing.

 

Therefore, the normal rules putting the responsibility for correctly sorting the hand on the corresponding player at the other table is not relevant.

[kenberg]

I have zero status in bridge and I know none of the principals. I dislike judging people unless I have to, but the issue is up for discussion and the thread is titled "Setting the record straight" so I want to pull out some of the comments and try to understand if there is some universal agreement on at least some of the facts:

 

A. From the Wolff letter I conclude that there was a hearing, Wolff and Kaplan on the committee, and that Mr. Piltch was judged guilty (or responsible or whatever the phrasing was) at that hearing.

 

B. See TimG correction below.

 

C. From the PassedOut note, and from Wolff, it appears that Mr. Cook was president at that time.

 

D. From the BudH reference to the r.g.b note it appears that there was a review of the decision by Colker et al. Wolff, in his note, says the decision was overturned without a hearing. I suppose a hearing involves testimony (something is actually heard at a hearing) but perhaps there may be agreement that Colker et al reviewed he mattert and overturned the decision.

 

The above is what I can gather from the notes submitted on this thread and the references. The firing of Rosen is a matter that perhaps is unsettled. I gather that it is a fact that Rosen was fired by Cook. There seems to be some dispute in the references as to when and why. Possibly that part of the record could also be set straight but also perhaps it need not be.

 

Do I have this about right?

 

As for my own thoughts, they are not conclusive. Correcting slightly what I said about not knowing the principals, I live in the D.C. area and know Colker in the sense that I recognize him when I see him. I respect his dedication to bridge and I respect Wolff's dedication to bridge. I think I know enough to know that I don't know enough to weigh in further on this.

[TimG]

B. From the BudH letter, referring to r.g.b in '95, it appears that the incident was at the Atlantic Nationals in '95.

I believe the Spade Ace incident took place at a Las Vegas regional and that the EOC hearing took place in Atlanta.