Setting the record straight

[hrothgar]

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.

What do you think does more to quell rumors:

 

Condoning players spreading anonymous innuendo?

Requiring that players do so on the record?

[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.

What do you think does more to quell rumors:

 

Condoning players spreading anonymous innuendo?

Requiring that players do so on the record?

I did not condone the spreading of anonymous innuendo; I said these things should be done through official channels.

 

I think the spreading of rumors is a bad idea, one not made better if people put their names behind the rumor.

[whereagles]

Rumors are inevitable if you make bids like 6♦ :)

[xcurt]

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.

The losers were blown out in the 4th quarter. I don't recall the gap after 48 boards offhand, but it was posted earlier. The deficit was of a size that was certainly within the realm of reason to continue.

[TimG]

The losers were blown out in the 4th quarter. I don't recall the gap after 48 boards offhand, but it was posted earlier. The deficit was of a size that was certainly within the realm of reason to continue.

Even though they thought down 40-something with 40-something boards to go was enough of a deficit to shoot 6♦?

[dburn]

I don't think anyone would deliberately bid six diamonds. But I could easily imagine someone intending to bid six clubs, and bidding six diamonds by mistake.

 

Mind you, I would find it hard to imagine someone who bid six diamonds by mistake not saying afterwards that this was what he had done. Hard but not impossible - if six diamonds made when six clubs would have failed, and if the person in question judged that he might gain a psychological advantage by keeping his own counsel about his reasons for bidding as he did...

 

I am a very late comer to this thread, but I have heard it all before, and so had the bard who wrote:

 

Nothing is more ungentlemanly than

Exaggeration causing needless pain.

It's worse than spitting, and it stamps a man -

Quite properly - with other men's disdain.

Weigh human actions carefully. Explain

The worst of them with charity. Mayhap

There were two sides to that affair of Cain,

And Judas was a tolerable chap.

 

Hilaire Belloc, Ballade of Gentlemanly Feeling and Railway Strikes

[jjbrr]

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.

lol you can't be serious.

 

several people in this thread have admitted that they heard first-hand the experts' opinions on this matter. sounds like they were pretty open to me! just because you weren't there for the conversations doesn't mean they didn't happen.

 

maybe "cheat" is too strong a word, but it seems pretty clear from what's been said that they think the bid is pretty remarkable.

[Mbodell]

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.

This wasn't a mid stage match. This was the first round match between the 45 seed and the 19 seed. The final margin was 234-97 which is an 137 IMP margin.

 

All the matches in the Spingold are 64 boards (excluding 3-ways or 4-ways, and this year there was only one 3-ways).

 

This was the third largest margin of victory in the first round, but there were a number of teams that were around 100 IMP winners (and some of those may have withdrawn after 2 or 3 quarters).

 

One can be on a low seed because ones teammates don't have many master points. I don't know the person or their strength (nor am I good enough to judge people at that level even if I knew them), and heaven knows that master points aren't perfect ratings, but there are only 481 people in the entire ACBL who have 10,000 or more master points. The 6♦ bidder has 18,800+ master points. That's got to be way, way, way, way closer to "top expert" than the terms "bad player" or "average joe".

[Mbodell]

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?

Funny, I had this happen today in a sectional swiss. My partner frequently boxes his cards when we finish playing the board last (so that people know to shuffle the board in the next round, since swisses here are nearly always hand shuffled). We had just had a marginal bad result on the 4th board of a 7 board set and we were the first to play the board. My partner thought we were the second to play and put his cards in upside down with the ♦Q exposed (we were E/W). The N player didn't notice as she was collecting the boards (she only puts one board on the table at a time and moves the others off the table). The caddy had already just delivered us the new 3 boards and passed our 3 boards and came by shortly after we finished the 4th board to pass it to the other table, and the caddy didn't notice the boxed card. When it arrived at the other table, however, the other table noticed the boxed card. I'm not sure exactly what happened but they played the board and I'm pretty sure we ended up pushing the board.

[the hog]

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.

lol you can't be serious.

 

several people in this thread have admitted that they heard first-hand the experts' opinions on this matter. sounds like they were pretty open to me! just because you weren't there for the conversations doesn't mean they didn't happen.

 

maybe "cheat" is too strong a word, but it seems pretty clear from what's been said that they think the bid is pretty remarkable.

Why can't he be serious? It is one thing to say something behind someone's back and quite another to say it openly.

[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.

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

Fred, I am disgusted by your comment saying that I publicly accused Justin of lying? . What i said is that he presented absolutely no evidence for his claim. Hearsay is NOT evidence, particularly when it comes form an interested party.

I would like an apology for this slur.

[kenberg]

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?

Funny, I had this happen today in a sectional swiss. My partner frequently boxes his cards when we finish playing the board last (so that people know to shuffle the board in the next round, since swisses here are nearly always hand shuffled). We had just had a marginal bad result on the 4th board of a 7 board set and we were the first to play the board. My partner thought we were the second to play and put his cards in upside down with the ♦Q exposed (we were E/W). The N player didn't notice as she was collecting the boards (she only puts one board on the table at a time and moves the others off the table). The caddy had already just delivered us the new 3 boards and passed our 3 boards and came by shortly after we finished the 4th board to pass it to the other table, and the caddy didn't notice the boxed card. When it arrived at the other table, however, the other table noticed the boxed card. I'm not sure exactly what happened but they played the board and I'm pretty sure we ended up pushing the board.

This explanation (believing that the boards had been played at both tables) crossed my mind. I would hope that if that explanation had been offered at the time and was credible then this would already have been mentioned. For the explanation to be credible there would need to be some evidence that facing the top card after the board has been played at both tables is the player's usual practice, else it becomes another of those remarkable coincidences.

 

Maybe that argument was made, maybe it wasn't. If I were on the committee, I am sure I would have considered whether this explanation was credible given the circumstances.

[kenberg]

My view of the "expert say they would not bid 6D" and stronger statements:

 

People gossip. We maybe shouldn't, but we do. Else this thread would not exist. It's one thing for me to chat with a friend and say that 6D looks fishy. It's another thing to say definitely what I would do of I were on a committee that has the authority and the responsibility to rule and impose consequences.

 

Some questions:

 

Is there a history of bids being rolled back, and perhaps further penalties imposed, on the basis that the bid, although successful, was simply so weird that it cannot be explained without assuming that somehow there was a wire?

 

If so, was this weird bid of comparable weirdness?

 

If not, do we want to go down that road now?

 

 

I know, and I imagine everyone knows, players who if they make a weird but successful bid we would accept it with confidence that the bid, however weird, was based on his judgment and no wires were attached. I also know, and I imagine everyone knows, players who would not be accorded that trust.

 

So I ask: Are we saying that some bids, regardless of any lack of evidence of a wire beyond the bid itself, are just so weird they cannot be allowed to stand? Or are we saying that when a weird bid succeeds we should at least in part take into consideration matters not directly related to the hand in question? Eg, a 15 year old disputed issue.

[mrdct]

My partner frequently boxes his cards when we finish playing the board last (so that people know to shuffle the board in the next round, since swisses here are nearly always hand shuffled).

If I ever get my time machine working and travel back 25 years in time to play in a game with hand-shuffled boards, I'll try to remind myself not to develop that habit.

[hrothgar]

Fred, I am disgusted by your comment saying that I publicly accused Justin of lying? . What i said is that he presented absolutely no evidence for his claim. Hearsay is NOT evidence, particularly when it comes form an interested party.

I would like an apology for this slur.

Hi Ron

 

Sorry dude, but I think that Fred is calling this one correctly...

 

From my perspective, the "6D bid is impossible without UI" comments are, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to an accusation of cheating.

 

In much the same vein, your are essentially accusing Justin of either

 

1. Lying

2. Misrembering what actually happened

 

Both you and Juston are playing little games trying to avoid direct attacks, but the implications are very clear.

 

Personally, I think that both lines of attack are inappropriate. However, if folks do want to go down this path, please have the balls to state things directly rather than relying on snide comments and above all, spare us the fake outrage when folks call a spade a spade...

[billw55]

I know, and I imagine everyone knows, players who if they make a weird but successful bid we would accept it with the confidence that absolutely the bid, however weird, was based on his judgment and no wires attached. I also know, and I imagine everyone knows, players who would not be accorded that trust.

Actually it seems to me that is happening in this very case. Many are suspicious of the 6♦ bidder, but not one of his partner. This is surely due, at least in part, to their respective reputations.

 

Right? Let's follow some of the logic (?) in these threads to its conclusion. The bid could not be made without UI .. but the bidder could not have gained UI on his own .. .. but it had to come from somewhere .. well who made the board .. ?

 

[/witchhunt satire]

 

I think I've seen enough of this.

[uday]

Well, I'm glad we set the record straight. Jeez.

 

Anyway, what say we talk about something else?

[barryallen]

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

If those same top experts were given that same UI and sporting their Dick Dastardly cloak, how many do you believe would come up with the same 6♦ bid then? If this answer and their previous varies, then I would venture there is some bias (or UI) present.

[ArtK78]

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

If those same top experts were given that same UI and sporting their Dick Dastardly cloak, how many do you believe would come up with the same 6♦ bid then? If this answer and their previous varies, then I would venture there is some bias (or UI) present.

I don't understand what is meant by this post. For the benefit of those who are as dense as I am, please clarify.

[kenberg]

Well, I'm glad we set the record straight. Jeez.

 

Anyway, what say we talk about something else?

Sounds like a plan

[barryallen]

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

If those same top experts were given that same UI and sporting their Dick Dastardly cloak, how many do you believe would come up with the same 6♦ bid then? If this answer and their previous varies, then I would venture there is some bias (or UI) present.

I don't understand what is meant by this post. For the benefit of those who are as dense as I am, please clarify.

Apologies.

Take those same 20 top experts who unanimously define the 6D bid as UI, and pose this question.

 

"If you were going to cheat and had possession of the same UI, how many of you would have made the same direct bid of 6D?"

[vuroth]

Well, I'm glad we set the record straight.  Jeez. 

 

Anyway, what say we talk about something else?

Sounds like a plan

Put my name on that petition.

[VMars]

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

If those same top experts were given that same UI and sporting their Dick Dastardly cloak, how many do you believe would come up with the same 6♦ bid then? If this answer and their previous varies, then I would venture there is some bias (or UI) present.

I don't understand what is meant by this post. For the benefit of those who are as dense as I am, please clarify.

Apologies.

Take those same 20 top experts who unanimously define the 6D bid as UI, and pose this question.

 

"If you were going to cheat and had possession of the same UI, how many of you would have made the same direct bid of 6D?"

The point you seem to be trying to make has already been addressed by, I believe, Jdonn in the first, locked, thread.

[TimG]

"If you were going to cheat and had possession of the same UI, how many of you would have made the same direct bid of 6D?"

If bidding 6♦ directly would remove suspicion because it is too crazy for a cheat, I guess it would be a good way to cheat. No?

[ArtK78]

Assume that one knew that 6♦ were the right contract on this hand. How would one go about bidding it to conceal the prior knowledge of the right contract?

 

I don't know if you could get any firm opinions on how best to go about doing this because most players do not think about how to do this. After the fact, with a lot of time to think about it (like on these Fora) it is easy to say that a leap to 6♦ was naive and that there are better ways to cover one's tracks and still arrive at a 6♦ contract. But, if one did not have a lot of time to lay the groundwork for reasons for the bid but one knew what the final contract should be, it is probably difficult to avoid the temptation of just bidding the final contract.