Setting the record straight

[PassedOut]

If you had a disaster at your table and an improperly boxed card from that deal was then faced at the other table, wouldn't you be the first to demand that the result stand? So would I, and (I presume) so would Edgar Kaplan and Bobby Wolff.

[barryallen]

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.

 

How can you treat the Ace of Spades incident as anything other than a run of the mill boxed card situation? Unless you are going to back that up with other similar reported incidents or reprimands. What you are in effect saying is the gain shall be a deciding factor in the relative merits of whether the person is innocent or guilty, irrespective that it is the duty of another party to stop this from occurring?

 

You are then left with an infringement under what can be worst described as suspicious circumstances, nothing more. Then go through the rules and see what penalty you can apply and it soon becomes clear everything is addressed at the persons now playing the hand. You now want to disregard all these rules and manufacture a penalty of your own liking. Not impossible, but trying to do that alone without the backing of further data would be extremely harsh. I can understand why the original decision was thrown out and it would not surprise me as being the reason someone was subsequently sacked. I just cannot see how this is warranted under these rules and regulations.

 

 

 

 

2. Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen;

after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards

1. When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a

board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand;

by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table;

or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before

the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably

by the recipient of the information.

2. If the Director considers that the information could interfere with

normal play he may, before any call has been made:

(a) adjust the players’ positions at the table, if the type of contest and

scoring permit, so that the player with information about one hand

will hold that hand; or

(B) if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for

those contestants; or

© allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award

an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may

have affected the result; or

(d) award an artificial adjusted score.

[ArtK78]

How can you treat the Ace of Spades incident as anything other than a run of the mill boxed card situation?

The score adjustment at the table was only one aspect of the case. That was dealt with by an award of an adjusted score. That is not being discussed here, so the discussion who was responsible and how to handle the situation is really irrelevant.

 

The matter that is being discussed is the disciplinary matter relating to the accusation that the Ace of Spades was boxed intentionally for the purpose of making the board unplayable.

[hrothgar]

The matter that is being discussed is the disciplinary matter relating to the accusation that the Ace of Spades was boxed intentionally for the purpose of making the board unplayable.

I find the similarities between the two cases interesting.

 

Both cases involved an incident at the table

 

Case 1: The Ace of Spades was boxed

Case 2: A bizarre 6♦ bid

 

Both cases (essentially) boil down to

 

1. Something weird happened

2. I think that is the sort of person who would cheat

3. I think that Piltch should be punished

 

Both cases were thrown out.

 

Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that "I think that Pitch is the sort of person who would cheat" does not rise to the standards of evidence...

[ArtK78]

Both cases were thrown out.

The circumstances of the first case "being thrown out" are certainly a subject of debate.

 

As for the second case, it is not clear that it was ever actually heard. There is a distinction.

[kenberg]

I am still struggling here. This thread is primarily about the first case so I will mostly address just that one.

 

I am wondering if the Colker committee supplied any details on their thinking, and I am wondering about the history of similar cases, I assume there are some.

 

 

If I have it right a professional player boxed a card (I was unaware of the expression, but I guess it was faced wrong in the holder). The card was the ace of spades which, if on display, would make it particularly difficult to play the board "naturally".

 

"Professional" is relevant, I think. I cannot recall boxing a card. No one mistakes me for a pro. I have had cards arrive at the table that way, but usually it's a club game with not very serious players. So for me, boxing a card would be very highly unusual, boxing a high card would be even less likely just because there are fewer of them, and doing so on a board where I got a very bad result, I gather this is what happened, would be so weird that I am not sure that I would believe my own explanation of coincidence.

 

So I would be interested in the reasons of the Colker committee in overturning. I suppose it's on the order of "coincidence happens".

 

If we accept "coincidences happen" and say not guilty, where does it leave us? In criminal law, I think not guilty is not guilty. OJ walks. (Well, I guess he is in jail. Never mind.) In bridge, I am not so sure it should be that way. Maybe at some point a guy uses up his allotment of coincidences.

[mikeh]

I think that it is so very difficult to prove deliberate misconduct, and the consequences of being branded a cheat are so devestating, that the League (properly in my view, when it hasn't impacted me personally....at which point objectivity tends to evaporate) leans over backwards to acquit.

 

Years ago, in a Regional KO, I was East. North, a player with a dubious reputation but, to my knowledge, no actual history, kept the played boards on a table to his right.

 

He and his partner passed out a board....his partner said that he should have opened..a discussion ensued from which it became apparent that they had missed a cold vulnerable game. North was not amused and berated his partner about throwing 12 imps away.

 

Next hand, South was declarer and went into the tank. I saw North put the previous board on his lap and withdraw S's hand to look at it...and then looked at his own hand...mumbling and shaking his head. I wasn't paying a lot of attention.

 

The boards were taken away a little while later...shortly thereafter a Director returned, announcing that the N-S hands were 12-14...the result had to be thrown out.

 

I almost lost it....I suspect I was very close to being in front of a C & E committee myself....but all the directors could or would do was to assess the N-S pair (and team) a 3 imp procedural penalty.

 

So: do i think that some players are capable of screwing with a board on which they got a bad result....hell, yes. Could I prove it happened...well, in my case, the hands were never bid, dummy was never laid down, so only N-S can say if they counted their cards.

 

I have often wondered what S felt about this situation.

[peachy]

I think that it is so very difficult to prove deliberate misconduct,

Very true. But let's not get overboard!

In cases involving unethical conduct in bridge, "proof" is not necessary. Sufficient evidence is, and what "sufficient" is, is a matter of degree and that determination rests with the C&E Committee.

[TimG]

As for the second case, it is not clear that it was ever actually heard.  There is a distinction.

Yeah, in criminal terms, HP wasn't even indicted in the second case; it was determined there was insufficient evidence to hold a hearing.

[xcurt]

I think that it is so very difficult to prove deliberate misconduct, and the consequences of being branded a cheat are so devestating, that the League (properly in my view, when it hasn't impacted me personally....at which point objectivity tends to evaporate) leans over backwards to acquit.

 

Years ago, in a Regional KO, I was East. North, a player with a dubious reputation but, to my knowledge, no actual history, kept the played boards on a table to his right.

 

He and his partner passed out a board....his partner said that he should have opened..a discussion ensued from which it became apparent that they had missed a cold vulnerable game. North was not amused and berated his partner about throwing 12 imps away.

 

Next hand, South was declarer and went into the tank. I saw North put the previous board on his lap and withdraw S's hand to look at it...and then looked at his own hand...mumbling and shaking his head. I wasn't paying a lot of attention.

 

The boards were taken away a little while later...shortly thereafter a Director returned, announcing that the N-S hands were 12-14...the result had to be thrown out.

 

I almost lost it....I suspect I was very close to being in front of a C & E committee myself....but all the directors could or would do was to assess the N-S pair (and team) a 3 imp procedural penalty.

 

So: do i think that some players are capable of screwing with a board on which they got a bad result....hell, yes. Could I prove it happened...well, in my case, the hands were never bid, dummy was never laid down, so only N-S can say if they counted their cards.

 

I have often wondered what S felt about this situation.

you could have protected yourself here. not that it excuses anything if your N did foul the board deliberately

 

also the director should attempt to reconstruct the board

[Rossoneri]

The boards were taken away a little while later...shortly thereafter a Director returned, announcing that the N-S hands were 12-14...the result had to be thrown out.

I might have missed something, but I'm wondering: didn't the players at the other table count their cards? I am guessing the director threw the board out because the other table saw their cards before counting them?

[3for3]

As I understood it, and according to Wolff's book, the Ace of Spades was face up as the top card. No chance for someone to hide that...

[jkdood]

Yeah, in criminal terms, HP wasn't even indicted in the second case; it was determined there was insufficient evidence to hold a hearing.

We were told in no uncertain terms, with reiterated confirmations that begged to be believed, that 20 of the Top 20 Spingold experts when queried all agreed without exception, that "The 6D was not possible without UI."

 

If we accept this, then it boggles the mind that the recorder, in concert maybe with the TD(s), somehow ignored or avoided this unanimous frame of thought, such that they judged that "there was insufficient evidence to hold a hearing."!

 

Who is minding the store???

[the hog]

We were told in no uncertain terms, with reiterated confirmations that begged to be believed, that 20 of the Top 20 Spingold experts when queried all agreed without exception, that "The 6D was not possible without UI."

Where is the evidence that this statement is true? We were only told this by one person. The comment was undoubtedly self serving as it was made by a member of the opposing team.

[hrothgar]

We were told in no uncertain terms, with reiterated confirmations that begged to be believed, that 20 of the Top 20 Spingold experts when queried all agreed without exception, that "The 6D was not possible without UI."

I saw a report that Pitch's team lost by ~ 140 IMPs.

 

I'm not sure how many boards are played during this round, but it looks like this team was averaging at least -2 IMPs per board.

 

Out of curiosity, how many of the top 20 experts drop a mid stage match by this type of margin?

 

I accept that the "Top 20 experts in the Spingold" are experts regarding bidding, card play, and defense. However, their level of play might be significantly too high to evaluate this sort of incident.

[kenberg]

What I come to out of all of tis is the utter futility of entering into a quarrel where you were not there and you get the facts, or perhaps facts, spilling out a bit at a time.

 

This thread purports to set the record straight regarding the earlier incident. I suppose that the facts, as stated, are facts but while one might draw one conclusion from the guilty verdict one might then have to rethink, at least a bit, upon learning, later in the thread, that the verdict was overturned. Further down, we learn that the faced ace of spades was the top card. What to make of this? I guess I would want to know how this came about. I cannot recall ever getting a set of boards with a top card faced. Was everyone drunk, not noticing a hand placed back in the board with a top card faced? Did the pro pull the board out of the stack at some point, fool with the cards, and slide the board back into the middle of the stack? These two extreme scenarios lead to vastly different conclusions as to culpability. Probably it is somewhere in between but who knows?

 

In the unlikely event that someone involved actually gives a damn one way or the other about my opinion, and if they write out the full story with all of the gory details in place so that no supplemental descriptions are needed, then I will give it further consideration. But trying to evaluate an ever changing story is for the birds.

 

I will say that my default view is to not have a great deal of faith in coincidence as a plausible explanation when a player's subsequent actions lead to the fouling of a board on which he just got a crummy result. Could be true, lots of unlikely things could be. Usually they aren't.

[barryallen]

I think that it is so very difficult to prove deliberate misconduct, and the consequences of being branded a cheat are so devestating, that the League (properly in my view, when it hasn't impacted me personally....at which point objectivity tends to evaporate) leans over backwards to acquit.

Not only that, the most useful source of UI would come from the partner, so further extending the finger of rumour and suspicion. Then extending that premise, the ethics of the partner also has to be taking into consideration and the odds are extending outwards unless similar instances are highlighted.

 

The very fact the bid was so outrageous, almost puts it back into the "genius/idiot" bracket for me. Because if you did hold this UI, there are far more subtle methods you could use to come to the same contract, without setting off every alarm bell in the building!

[fred]

We were told in no uncertain terms, with reiterated confirmations that begged to be believed, that 20 of the Top 20 Spingold experts when queried all agreed without exception, that "The 6D was not possible without UI."

Where is the evidence that this statement is true? We were only told this by one person. The comment was undoubtedly self serving as it was made by a member of the opposing team.

This comment is undoubtedly self-serving as it was made by a person who clearly has an axe to grind against the "one person" he is referring to.

 

Apparently public accusasions of lying are OK even though public accusations of cheating are not.

 

Not that it should be necessary, but I will give you some more evidence: I have personally witnessed several "top experts" express "6D not possible without UI" when they were told about this hand. I have not witnessed any "top experts" express a contrary view.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[bluecalm]

I think top expert's opinion aren't very valuable when assessing what weak player may come up with. People who play bridge at high level on regular basis just don't see enough stuff your piff paff average Joe may come up with.

 

In this case though no matter what subset of bridge playing population you choose to your panel I am pretty sure 6♦ won't receive any votes (or wouldn't receive back then, now many bbo forum regulars can't resist... ;) ).

[fred]

I think top expert's opinion aren't very valuable when assessing what weak player may come up with. People who play bridge at high level on regular basis just don't see enough stuff your piff paff average Joe may come up with.

Agree, but the player in question is a lot closer to being a "top expert" than he is to being an "average Joe". He is certainly not a "weak player".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jkdood]

I had mixed feelings when it became a sort of "de facto standard" that TDs and perhaps other ruling authorities would begin making more judgement calls "in consult with appropriate top players", to lessen the abundance of appeals and committee deliberations.

 

Nonetheless, whatever one may think of experts being able to gauge lesser player's actions or motivations, even the highly capable Mr. P - this seems to be our current accepted approach. Do we wish to question that with some healthy counterpoints? Maybe.

 

But under current policies and procedures in place, it still begs the question why the authorities did not refer to C&E or similar, when this apparently overwhelming school of (UI) thought existed in the consult group.

 

If it was an attempt to "sweep the incident under the rug" to avoid a bridge world embarrassment, it failed miserably.

[jdonn]

Not that it should be necessary, but I will give you some more evidence: I have personally witnessed several "top experts" express "6D not possible without UI" when they were told about this hand. I have not witnessed any "top experts" express a contrary view.

I know the exact answers given by 3 of the people in this group and they all concur. In fact it's being generous to merely say they thought the bid impossible without UI. The strongest comment came from one who I can assure you every single person on the forum would consider a top expert. He was told about it at halftime of the match and said something to the effect of it being lucky for Justin that he won't have to play the second half, since clearly the match won't be allowed to continue.

[hrothgar]

Not that it should be necessary, but I will give you some more evidence: I have personally witnessed several "top experts" express "6D not possible without UI" when they were told about this hand. I have not witnessed any "top experts" express a contrary view.

Are any of these top experts willing to go on the record, provide their names, and state

 

1. The 6♦ bid is impossible without UI

2. What type of UI would allow the player in question to bid 6♦

 

Admittedly, my grasp of social niceties is questionable, to say the least. However, I was always taught that you should either be willing to state what you think openly and directly or shut the $%&@ up.

 

Whispering campaigns, innuendo, and talking behind people's back... This type of ***** is frowned upon in a 10th school yard. We're talking about a person's livelihood here.

 

If these experts believe strongly enough that Pitch is a cheat, they should be willing to say so openly. If they aren't willing to do so, I don't see why I should care what they have to say.

[jkdood]

...they should be willing to say so openly.  If they aren't willing to do so, I don't see why I should care what they have to say.

Just wondering...

 

...if a C&E or Ethical Oversight committee rules someone is guilty of ethical violations, do you feel the details and especially the members' names should be made public in all cases?

 

...a very slippery slope!

[TimG]

If these experts believe strongly enough that Pitch is a cheat, they should be willing to say so openly.

I think this is wrong. I think it's a terrible idea to encourage spreading of rumors, even if they are backed up by expert opinion. These things should go through official channels.