[inquiry]

I have tried to edit out all direct references to who made the bid against Justin. The policy of the forum does not allow public lynching -- even of the guilty. Should a committee rule against the person who made the 6♦ bid and it become public record, then and only then can we mention his name and/or show his photograph.

[peachy]

gnasher, on Jul 27 2010, 04:42 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Jul 27 2010, 08:13 PM, said:

I understand you logic Andy & Tim, but let me tell you that you didn't have to deal with Buratti-Lanzarotti for 2 years where they stole you price after price.

Yes, I understand that this sort of thing is even harder to accept in a jurisdiction where the authorities are unwilling to act. I don't think that the ACBL falls into that category, though - they have video cameras at every NABC, and some kind of stratgey for monitoring particular suspects.

Who knows, maybe the camera was on, I hope so. Behavioral psychologists know full well (not that I know whether there are any at ACBL) that past behavior id a good predictor of future behavior; someone who has a been ***Edit: disciplined and put on probation*** twice in the past should be seen as the obvious choice of subject for future monitoring.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on Jul 27 2010, 04:42 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Jul 27 2010, 08:13 PM, said:

I understand you logic Andy & Tim, but let me tell you that you didn't have to deal with Buratti-Lanzarotti for 2 years where they stole you price after price.

Yes, I understand that this sort of thing is even harder to accept in a jurisdiction where the authorities are unwilling to act. I don't think that the ACBL falls into that category, though - they have video cameras at every NABC, and some kind of stratgey for monitoring particular suspects.

But they take a long time (not that I am criticizing that...it takes time to make sure one has one's tackle in order when accusing someone of cheating.

Years ago, a woman was suspected of stacking hands in team games. What was happening was that in swiss events at nationals and, I understand, some regionals, a very unusual pattern was detected.....there would be 3 or even 4 hands dealt where one player held 27 or more hcp...always the same seat.

Monitoring was undertaken and it was learned that the woman made a habit of getting to her assigned table as soon as possible, and then shuffling the decks...but she would take time to place as many high cards as possible into her partner's hand. There was no organization and no attempt to memorize the cards...just dealing partner as many points as possible.

When finally confronted, with video evidence, she confessed. Her partner, a male, was always extremely abusive towards her, especially if she played the hand. So, in an attempt to make him declarer as often as possible, she dealt him huge hands. it was not done to win....it was done to save her some abuse.

My friend, on the committee, felt incredibly sad about it, while not able to do anything other than punish her (and her partner who had to have known what was happening altho he denied it, if memory serves). But it took a number or tournaments after the first reports came in of strange goings-on. Thus in this case, it is unlikely that the ACBL can really do anything now. Even if the player cheated, since the hand is now in the public domain, he isn't going to be doing anything like this again for a long time.

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on Jul 27 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 28 2010, 12:35 AM, said:

I think people give someone who hypothetically is cheating in this spot WAY too much credit. For example maybe such a person only knows their partner's hand but not how the auction will go, and they weren't prepared for the high preempt on their right. Maybe he thought if he doubled his partner would respond 4♦ but later had second thoughts and worried he would respond 4♣. Maybe he had a little panic since he was down in the match.

Even so, there is always the option NOT to make a bonehead 6♦ bid.

Assume for the moment that I rigged the deck AND
I got surprised by an unexpected 3♠ bid.

I have the choice of either

1. Trying to ignore my knowledge of the hand and bidding as normally as possible
2. Bid normally and look for an opportunity to take advantage of the information
3. Punting 6♦

The last choice just doesn't make sense...

For what its worth, I have no great love for Howard.
The last sentence I spoke to him start "Listen here, lardass..."

However, I can't picture him doing something this dumb...

I don't deny that it's a dumb bid to make whether you are cheating or not. I suppose my point is, since it's a dumb bid to make whether you are cheating or not, just the fact that it would be a dumb way to cheat doesn't make it any less likely that the player was cheating (since it's also a dumb way to not cheat).

In fact the fact it's a dumb way to both cheat and not cheat seems to me to make it more likely the player was cheating. We have strong evidence he is a strong bridge player (he is a medium seed in the Spingold, and though I don't want to suggest anything about his identity he has a huge masterpoint total). We have no evidence at all that he is a strong bridge cheater. So if he takes an action that is very bad from either a bridge player or bridge cheater perspective, then which do you think was more likely in any particular case?

[bidule4]

How are ACBL Presidents elected ?

"Madame la Baronne," said I, loudly and distinctly--embroidering each word, as it were--"j'ai l'honneur d'etre votre esclave."

The Gambler
Fyodor Dostoevsky

[mrdct]

gnasher, on Jul 27 2010, 01:11 PM, said:

I know somebody who has been suspended several times from the EBU.  His offences included:
- Explicitly calling an opponent a cheat.
- Having a blazing row with the manager of the tournament venue, ending with the deliberate smashing of a piece of crockery owned by the venue.
- Trying to use the EBU's PA system to organise a player walk-out.
None of these is evidence that he's a cheat.

I think I'd rather play against cheats than have a douche like this hanging around the club.

gnasher, on Jul 27 2010, 01:11 PM, said:

If you're saying that the player has been suspended in the past for cheating, then I still don't believe that the TD or appeals committee should be expected to rule on the matter.  This is too serious an accusation to be dealt with at that level - a finding of cheating could ruin a player's reputation for the rest of his life.  It should be dealt with by a disciplinary committee appointed by, and reporting to, the Board of Directors.

It is still the TD's job to determine the facts at the table and make a decision about whether or not there has been an infraction (i.e. illegal use of extraneous UI). The TD should not be asked to make a finding of cheating, he should be asked to determine whether or not there is a greater that 50% chance ("balance of probabilities") that the 6♦ bid was informed by extraneous information to which John Dough was not legally privy. If and when the matter gets referred to a discipinary hearing the burden of proof become more arduous as the test there will be "preponderance of the evidence" which I think is little bit stronger. It's defined in the ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations as

Quote

Evidence that is more convincing than the evidence opposed to it.

[mrdct]

inquiry, on Jul 27 2010, 04:57 PM, said:

I have tried to edit out all direct references to who made the bid against Justin.  The policy of the forum does not allow public lynching -- even of the guilty. Should a committee rule against the person who made the 6♦ bid and it become public record, then and only then can we mention his name and/or show his photograph.

I've edited my last post to name the player as "John Dough" but it seems a bit pointless as the player's name is well and truly on the public record. Justin's opponents from the round in question are clearly reported in the Daily Bulletin and some quick googling of the players therein will soon cast the spotlight on one player in particular.

Bobby Wolff's account of an incident in a semi-final KO match at a Regional was most interesting where "John Dough" went down in a bad slam after a bidding misunderstanding and somehow a card in his hand (the ♠A) became boxed when he put his cards back in the board. Naturally, when the board got to the other table the ♠A was exposed and the TD initially decided to throw the board out and ordered a substitute board to be played instead. After some objections by John Dough's opponents, the TD changed his mind and assigned a score of game making in the other room for an 11 imp loss to John Dough's team who went on to unsuccessfully appeal the ruling and lose the match by 10 imps.

Quite a curfuffle followed with disciplinary charges brought against John Dough which initially found him guilty of intentionally facing the ♠A, but with apparent friends in high places the ACBL Board of Directors sacked the National Recorder and exonerated John Dough without hearing.

[inquiry]

mrdct, on Jul 27 2010, 07:27 PM, said:

inquiry, on Jul 27 2010, 04:57 PM, said:

I have tried to edit out all direct references to who made the bid against Justin.  The policy of the forum does not allow public lynching -- even of the guilty. Should a committee rule against the person who made the 6♦ bid and it become public record, then and only then can we mention his name and/or show his photograph.

I've edited my last post to name the player as "John Dough" but it seems a bit pointless as the player's name is well and truly on the public record. Justin's opponents from the round in question are clearly reported in the Daily Bulletin and some quick googling of the players therein will soon cast the spotlight on one player in particular.

That may be all well and true, but it does not change the rules of THIS site. I would llike to be able to control everything on the internet, but sadly I don't have that power.

On the otherhand, there is another thread on this incident which links to a webpage. On that webpage, the rules are not as strict as on our about this. I did not block that link or edit it out. If fred or uday were here, I could ask their opinion about posting this, but they are busy right now. So I go with the meta rules and not allow it for now.

[Elianna]

inquiry, on Jul 27 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

mrdct, on Jul 27 2010, 07:27 PM, said:

inquiry, on Jul 27 2010, 04:57 PM, said:

I have tried to edit out all direct references to who made the bid against Justin.  The policy of the forum does not allow public lynching -- even of the guilty. Should a committee rule against the person who made the 6♦ bid and it become public record, then and only then can we mention his name and/or show his photograph.

I've edited my last post to name the player as "John Dough" but it seems a bit pointless as the player's name is well and truly on the public record. Justin's opponents from the round in question are clearly reported in the Daily Bulletin and some quick googling of the players therein will soon cast the spotlight on one player in particular.

That may be all well and true, but it does not change the rules of THIS site. I would llike to be able to control everything on the internet, but sadly I don't have that power.

On the otherhand, there is another thread on this incident which links to a webpage. On that webpage, the rules are not as strict as on our about this. I did not block that link or edit it out. If fred or uday were here, I could ask their opinion about posting this, but they are busy right now. So I go with the meta rules and not allow it for now.

I think you're absolutely right in what you're doing. Both in asking people not to publish names in thread, and for leaving the link up to another site.

[the hog]

My take:
This would be an incredibly stupid way to cheat. The "perpetrator" must have known that this bid would be subject to scrutiny. Further, looking at the full hand it is possible, (though unlikely) to get to 6D after a x. What was the auction at the other table.

From what I have read, the person making the bid is not stupid.

The action is certainly suspicious however.

This forum is probably not the correct place to discuss such a suspicious action surely the issue should be raised with a recorder and a committee. If the person really did make a "misbid", then there will always be some suspicion, especially as everyone know knows this person's name. Was the person given a chance to explain the bid?

Andy and Richard have both injected a semblance of sanity into this question.

[jdonn]

I'm reiterating my last post, but this is the argument that I think is wrong:

"This person is not stupid, this would be a stupid way to cheat, therefore this person likely did not cheat."

After all, I could make this equivalent argument:

"This person is not stupid, this would be a really stupid bid to make in bridge, therefore this person likely did not play honest bridge."

Furthermore, let's suppose we want to gather the evidence that this person is good at cheating and weigh it against the evidence that he is good at bridge.

Good at cheating: He isn't stupid.
Good at bridge: He isn't stupid, and he has a number of bridge-related accomplishments.

Clearly there is more evidence that he is good at bridge than there is that he is good at cheating. So I conclude he is more likely to be good at bridge than at cheating, and that therefore if he does something that would be stupid at either bridge or cheating it is more likely to be at cheating than at bridge.

I don't claim that is any kind of proof. I simply claim that an argument which it seems to me is being used to suggest he didn't cheat is actually a stronger argument that he did cheat.

[BudH]

Being the partner of the player being discussed during this hand, I have received approval from this individual to post the following facts. I have done my best to not have opinions be part of any of the information below, just facts.

1. All of the 8 boards shuffled at that table at the start of the second quarter were shuffled with all four players present. (North: Bud Hinckley, South: Howard Piltch, East: Jim Krekorian, West: Judith Bianco. I believe the Lall's were playing North/South at the other table.)

2. Mr. Piltch did make and shuffle Board 8 only out of the 8 boards. Board 5 was the board being discussed.

3. As Mr. Piltch's partner, I probably shuffled three of the 8 boards and have no idea if I shuffled Board 5 or if it was one of the two opponents that shuffled it.

4. When I shuffle boards, it is always with a minimum of five shuffles, then I place the cards on the table in clear view of all at the table, make a clear cut of the cards so that I don't know what the bottom card is, then deal the cards in a normal fashion of four piles of cards in rotation.

5. The 6D bid made by Mr. Piltch was deliberate over the opening 3S bid. It was NOT the result of pulling the wrong cards out of the bidding box.

6. Our team started the second quarter 46 imps behind.

7. This was Board 5 of the set, and we had picked up a likely small to moderate gain on the first board with likely pushes thereafter on the next three boards before Board 5 was played.

8. Mr. Piltch's reason for the 6D bid, due partly to the state of the match, was that partner was likely to not have much club length and would often have some diamond length, and that with an expected spade lead and not a heart lead, that if dummy comes down with any five diamonds or four diamonds to the king that a diamond slam would have at least fair chances with heart losers being pitched on the club suit. Also, if dummy had a doubleton club, Kxx of diamonds and the heart king, that 6C would not normally make, either.

9. The only disciplinary action taken against Mr. Piltch by the ACBL or any other bridge organization in the past was due to a sexual comment deemed politically incorrect about a lady in the presence of only three male bridge players at the table during a tournament. This occurred during the 1990s. Mr. Piltch's discipline was expunged when the finding was reversed upon appeal. Furthermore, Mr. Piltch has never been disciplined for matters of ethics.

10. The reference to the boxed card in 1996 happened AFTER Richard Colker became National Recorder, so no recorder was "sacked" due to this incident. Mr. Rosen who was the previous recorder was sacked, but not because of this incident which happened the year after Mr. Rosen was sacked. Mr. Pitch never appeared before the Ethical Oversight committee due to this incident or at any other time. Mr. Brown was ACBL president at the time and not Mr. Cook as has been alleged.

This post has been edited by BudH: 2010-July-28, 11:19

[Cascade]

BudH, on Jul 28 2010, 07:06 PM, said:

8. Mr. Piltch's reason for the 6D bid, due partly to the state of the match, was that partner was likely to not have much club length and would often have some diamond length, and that with an expected spade lead and not a heart lead, that if dummy comes down with any five diamonds or four diamonds to the king that a diamond slam would have at least fair chances with heart losers being pitched on the club suit. Also, if dummy had a doubleton club, Kxx of diamonds and the heart king, that 6C would not normally make, either.

These are the frequencies in 100000 hands for partner's diamond and club length:

0 515
1 4598
2 16761
3 29768
4 28423
5 14926
6 4283
7 670
8 56
9 0
10 0
11 0
12 0
13 0
Frequency :
0 2053
1 13066
2 29777
3 32061
4 17570
5 4830
6 615
7 28
8 0
9 0
10 0
11 0
12 0
13 0

The problem that I have with this sort of argument is that when diamonds is wrong and you are doubled there is nowhere to go.

[mrdct]

As always, it's extremely useful to hear the other side of the story - so thanks for that Bud.

If I have misrepresented the facts of the boxed-card incident, which was entirely based on my reading of Bobby Wolff's published account, I sincerely apolgise.

A point of fact that I'm interested to hear about is whether or not the director was called at your table and, if so, what transpired?

[rhm]

I think nothing so far brought forward justifies the suspicion that cheating or UI took place.

Given the bidding it is clear that the chance that partner has 4 or more diamonds is substantial and I am not even sure whether it is an underdog. (Slam still maybe)
It is also clear that in this case a diamond slam will require least from partner to make (particularly single dummy after this bidding), but may be hard to reach and this action is very likely to create a swing. LHO may also have a very difficult decision whether to sacrifice or not.

I can not judge whether the action taken was

dumb or brilliant or something in between

However , being a lot of IMPs behind, I admire the creativeness of the action taken and it does not look dumb to me.

I did a simulation (1000 deals)
I specified for RHO:
Exactly 7 cards in spades headed by either two of the top three honors or three out of the top five honors
At most 10 HCP

result: slam in diamonds made in 38.7 % of the deals double dummy.
For a shooting action against superior opponents this looks reasonable to me.

In my opinion people jump to conclusion that something is fishy far too fast for no good reason. I deplore the fact that you can get a "reputation" rather quickly if you are not a famous expert and take creative actions, which are not considered standard in this game.
So I am anything but surprised that some claim this player, who I do not know, has a "reputation".

How would people have reacted if say Zia, being 100 IMPs down, would have taken this action? Probably most would have called the action "brilliant" and printed it in the newspaper.

This is a creative game and this is a major reason why I like this game.
I would love to be more creative and less rule based.
I see no good reason to call even the director
It is good sportsmanship to take such a result with a poker face or a good laugh and congratulate the opponents for their judgment.

Rainer Herrmann

[mrdct]

rhm, on Jul 28 2010, 07:47 AM, said:

I did a simulation (1000 deals)
I specified for RHO:
Exactly 7 cards in spades headed by either two of the top three honors or three out of the top five honors
At most 10 HCP

result: slam in diamonds made in 38.7 % of the deals double dummy.

How did 6♣ go on those same parameters?

[Ant590]

BudH, on Jul 28 2010, 08:06 AM, said:

1.  All of the 8 boards shuffled at that table at the start of the second quarter were shuffled with all four players present.  (North: Howard Piltch, South: Bud Hinckley, West: Jim Krekorian, East: Judith Bianco.  I believe the Lall's were playing East/West at the other table.)

2.  Mr. Piltch did make and shuffle Board 8 only out of the 8 boards.  Board 5 was the board being discussed.

3.  As Mr. Piltch's partner, I probably shuffled three of the 8 boards and have no idea if I shuffled Board 5 or if it was one of the two opponents that shuffled it.

4.  When I shuffle boards, it is always with a minimum of five shuffles, then I place the cards on the table in clear view of all at the table, make a clear cut of the cards so that I don't know what the bottom card is, then deal the cards in a normal fashion of four piles of cards in rotation.

Was Mr. Piltch late to the table then, or did he deal one board in the time you took to deal 3?

It would seem weird for neither side to mention that Mr. Piltch was absent for the majority of the dealing.

If he dealt only the one, it seems mighty fishy that he remembers which one it was so well when no one else at the table did.

[ArtK78]

I suppose that if partner held:

xxx KQJxx xxx xx

then a 6♥ bid would have been the right call instead of 6♦.

How would we feel about that one? I am sure an argument can be made that partner rates to hold 5 or more hearts a good portion of the time. Whether partner's hearts are good enough for slam is another issue.

But I am being facetious.

In any event, I find any attempt at justification of the 6♦ bid by posters to be naive.

As for the post by Mr. Hinckley, these arguments are best presented in front of any disciplinary committee duly convened to hear charges brought in this matter.

I am done posting on this thread. The whole situation sickens me. I leave it to the proper authorities to deal with this, and I am sure we all anxiously await a resolution of this matter.

[CSGibson]

BudH, on Jul 28 2010, 12:06 AM, said:

8. Mr. Piltch's reason for the 6D bid, due partly to the state of the match, was that partner was likely to not have much club length and would often have some diamond length, and that with an expected spade lead and not a heart lead, that if dummy comes down with any five diamonds or four diamonds to the king that a diamond slam would have at least fair chances with heart losers being pitched on the club suit. Also, if dummy had a doubleton club, Kxx of diamonds and the heart king, that 6C would not normally make, either.

Were any additional "state of the match" bids/plays made by this individual, or did they play down the middle bridge the rest of the time? If there were other wild and gambling actions, how did they work out?

[rhm]

mrdct, on Jul 28 2010, 08:01 AM, said:

rhm, on Jul 28 2010, 07:47 AM, said:

I did a simulation (1000 deals)
I specified for RHO:
Exactly 7 cards in spades headed by either two of the top three honors or three out of the top five honors
At most 10 HCP

result: slam in diamonds made in 38.7 % of the deals double dummy.

How did 6♣ go on those same parameters?

6C made on 56.4% of all deals double dummy (same parameter).

But 6C is a much more likely contract to be reached in the other room.
It is not such a swingy action

Rainer Herrmann