[MickyB]

There was a UK player who was known for making remarkable plays as declarer, despite not seeming to be that good. He was caught when he used the same hand twice and they both got reported to Patrick Jourdain!

[Ant590]

It seems to me that people who fix hands like (as suspected) this character are really dumb. Surely you'd make a more simple hand like a 2-way finesse, which would be far less hard to notice but be a +EV over quite a short time.

[jdonn]

I assume the boards were pre-duped in the 4th quarter.

[NickRW]

ArtK78, on Jul 27 2010, 02:59 PM, said:

There has to be a line where the bidding and the result speak for themselves, absent clear and convincing evidence that no UI could have taken place.

This hand crosses that line.

I agree. Though, in the more general case, it seems harder to define exactly where that line should be.

[peachy]

tgoodwinsr, on Jul 27 2010, 05:21 AM, said:

Matmat seems to have it right: a bidding-box fumble, not caught in time. If that is it, it sets a new record for serendipity -- and I would have expected that explanation to be included in the original report.

Apparently you missed the sign that it was a joke.

[pooltuna]

peachy, on Jul 27 2010, 01:41 AM, said:

I hope you filled out a recorder form. This is two continents beyond strange.

I would think at least 2 galaxies away

[pooltuna]

Hanoi5, on Jul 27 2010, 05:20 AM, said:

I'm amazed that ACBLand allows people to shuffle boards in that kind of tournament. IMO what happened is that he prepared the cards but what is more amazing is that he didn't even made up some kind of 'story' to back up the fancy contract. I think it's amazing 'cause it means that he knows he can get away with it or even, he has gotten away with it before.

Of course he lost but I wonder how many non-Jlall's have suffered and lost to this player, I hope Jlall's action end up in something.

The problem is not in the shuffling & dealing of the cards as the opponent MUST be present during this process. This does not always occur and opponents are fairly lax about enforcement ... i.e. trusting.

[ArtK78]

Hanoi5, on Jul 27 2010, 11:19 AM, said:

Original post deleted by administrator

Really? Are you sure?

Now that explains everything.

Assuming that you are correct, my contempt for this action by this player is total.

EDIT: I see from the opening round matchups that the player pictured did indeed play against Justin's team in the opening round of the Spingold.

I have had extensive dealings with this person. No amount of showering or scrubbing can remove the stench. Amazingly enough, my regular partner played on pro teams with him for years despite being told by many people that he should steer clear of him. My partner's wife is a better judge of character - she told him not to have him in their home.

To say that this player has a history of disciplinary actions against him is like saying that Jeffrey Dahmer had some personality flaws.

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2010-July-27, 15:50

[aguahombre]

He is sure. (if this link is sure)

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=40635

[cherdanno]

[deleted]

[mikeh]

I can empathize with Justin and I fully support him in his determination to pursue this matter as far as he can, subject only to cautioning him that the ACBL treats accusations of cheating extremely seriously...almost, it seems, as seriously as actually cheating..that is...if you accuse someone of cheating, you face a very difficult task in proving it and if you fail, you get punished.

I also want to say that while the call is absurd, it IS possible, at least from the perspective of those of us not at the table, that it WAS a mistake...he meant to make the overbid of 6♣ (not that bad a tactic when outgunned by the other team) and pulled the 6♦ card.

Most players would give that away at some point....or admit to it, with embarrassment, once they made the contract....we don't know what actually happened.

And while the player in question MAY have a dubious track record, that doesn't mean that he should be presumed guilty by those of us who have only what has so far been posted on which to base our views. I rode motorcycles for years, and very rarely obeyed the speed limit....my only really serious accident happened when I was obeying the limit...and it would have been unfair for the court to have decided, in my lawsuit, that I was speeding at the time because I had been a frequent speeder in the past....the court would need evidence of what I was actually doing at the time.

Nothing I write here is intended to criticize Justin. And just as I say we shouldn't convict the player without knowing more, including any explanation and all the circumstances (including body language, facial expression, tone of voice, and so on) of the explanation, I also say that my starting point, in sitting in judgment, if I were ever to do so, would be a high degree of scepticism aimed at the 6♦ bidder.

Justin already knows most or all of this...and it may well be that the player's post bidding conduct was such as to entirely justify his 'conviction'. But anyone in the position of Justin would likely be so (justifiably) outraged, that they may not be capable of being objective....speaking from slightly similar experience, I know that I wouldn't be objective at all...I'd be boiling mad.

[ArtK78]

Mike, with all due respect, if I were a judge in a bridge matter and the facts as presented came before me to make a ruling without revealing the identity of the 6♦ bidder, I would be highly doubtful that there could be any innocent explanation of the events that unfolded.

And, if I was told that the person who bid 6♦ on this hand was the person who is being discussed above, that would end all doubt for me.

I apologize if this seems like I am jumping to a conclusion, but this comes from a track record dating back over 25 years. I am very confident in my conclusion.

[gnasher]

cherdanno, on Jul 27 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

Would it change your mind if this "bad reputation" has an official record that includes several suspension? (Quick Googling on the player in question found two suspensions, one of them including a 4(!)-year probationary period starting 2003.)

Suspensions for what, exactly? 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.

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.

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on Jul 27 2010, 07:03 PM, said:

Mike, with all due respect, if I were a judge in a bridge matter and the facts as presented came before me to make a ruling without revealing the identity of the 6♦ bidder, I would be highly doubtful that there could be any innocent explanation of the events that unfolded.

I think that would probably render you unfit to act as a judge in such a matter.

[jdonn]

JLOGIC, on Jul 27 2010, 05:13 AM, said:

The player in question never said he pulled the wrong card (though I said to someone that this is their best play).

What did he say, and you? How did events transpire as soon as you saw what he had?

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on Jul 27 2010, 01:03 PM, said:

Mike, with all due respect, if I were a judge in a bridge matter and the facts as presented came before me to make a ruling without revealing the identity of the 6♦ bidder, I would be highly doubtful that there could be any innocent explanation of the events that unfolded.

And, if I was told that the person who bid 6♦ on this hand was the person who is being discussed above, that would end all doubt for me.

I apologize if this seems like I am jumping to a conclusion, but this comes from a track record dating back over 25 years.  I am very confident in my conclusion.

You've never pulled the wrong bid from the bidding box???? I have! Bidding boxes generate mechanical errors....we all know that, and we don't always see them in time to catch them.

In fact, absent any other 'fact', I'd presume that had happened. The 'fact' that dummy meshed well is not a strong argument.

Some small number of mistakes result in fortuitous outcomes...that is inarguable.

We don't get worked up over the mistakes that result in horrible outcomes...thus we don't pay much attention to and often won't long remember or even discuss such hands.

But inevitably we will remember and get worked up over the minority where the outcome seems unfair, especially if it happened to us or to people for whom we root.

It is wrong to reason backwards from the result to say that it 'couldn't' have been a mistake. Of course it could have been a mistake...the alternative is cheating....presumably by stacking the hand. I am not saying it wasn't done...I know it has been done in the past (a friend of mine was on a C & E committe that sanctioned a player for doing that, in one of the saddest cases I've ever heard about). But deciding whether it was a lucky mistake or an egregious cheat should depend on the evidence of everything that happened...from the dealing to the response to the director call.

Since the consequences of cheating are harsh (not always harsh enough in my view), the onus rests upon the prosecution. Many find that to be wrong, in a moral sense, but it is fundamental to the way we work as a society and I suggest that we should accept that principle here even tho we support Justin. IOW, let the C & E committee do its job and await its verdict rather than rushing to a conclusion based on incomplete information.

[ArtK78]

gnasher, on Jul 27 2010, 01:14 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 27 2010, 07:03 PM, said:

Mike, with all due respect, if I were a judge in a bridge matter and the facts as presented came before me to make a ruling without revealing the identity of the 6♦ bidder, I would be highly doubtful that there could be any innocent explanation of the events that unfolded.

I think that would probably render you unfit to act as a judge in such a matter.

There is a legal principal known as judicial notice. A judge is permitted to take into account things that are known to be facts in the real world, like the sun rising and setting, etc.

In this case, this player's past actions rise to the level of judicial notice.

EDIT: If the bid in question were, in fact, a mistake, such as pulling the wrong card out of the bidding box, it is easily correctible. Mechanical errors are correctible.

I am sure that after the 6♦ bid was made there was a considerable pause before the next call, as the 6♦ call must have come as a surprise to the other players. The bidder would have had ample opportunity to correct his mechanical error if, in fact, that were the case. And, if he didn't correct it, but it was a mechanical error, no doubt he would have announced at some time thereafter that there was a mechanical error despite the serendipitous result.

[pretender]

I understand the suspiciousness of the call itself, and I certainly understand the skepticism given the perpetrator of the bid. However, I would like to know the conditions when the board came up. Was the bidder's team already be behind by a lot? If so, bidding 6♦ seems to me an adequate gamble. You need to be in a slam that makes (and diamonds is as likely to make as any other strain) and to get the actual swing, you need the slam to not actually be biddable by your very competent opponents.

From a bridge perspective, I think most of the people who are bashing the bid tend to just think too much down the middle. Asking 1000 experts is irrelevant. If I told you you were behind by 100 imps with 10 boards to go, you might give way different bids. So I would actually like to know the score situation when this hand came up.

The more important question probably comes from whether the director has the right to ask for an immediate explanation, instead of waiting for a C&E committee to deal with all the possibilities way after the fact.

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on Jul 27 2010, 01:21 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 27 2010, 01:14 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 27 2010, 07:03 PM, said:

Mike, with all due respect, if I were a judge in a bridge matter and the facts as presented came before me to make a ruling without revealing the identity of the 6♦ bidder, I would be highly doubtful that there could be any innocent explanation of the events that unfolded.

I think that would probably render you unfit to act as a judge in such a matter.

There is a legal principal known as judicial notice. A judge is permitted to take into account things that are known to be facts in the real world, like the sun rising and setting, etc.

In this case, this player's past actions rise to the level of judicial notice.

EDIT: If the bid in question were, in fact, a mistake, such as pulling the wrong card out of the bidding box, it is easily correctible. Mechanical errors are correctible.

I am sure that after the 6♦ bid was made there was a considerable pause before the next call, as the 6♦ call must have come as a surprise to the other players. The bidder would have had ample opportunity to correct his mechanical error if, in fact, that were the case. And, if he didn't correct it, but it was a mechanical error, no doubt he would have announced at some time thereafter that there was a mechanical error despite the serendipitous result.

I assume that you are not a trial lawyer. I am. Judicial notice doesn't operate the way you seem to think it does. In particular, what may be viewed as 'similar fact' evidence is never, to my knowledge, admissible under the doctrine of judicial notice. Nor is evidence of 'bad character' so admissible.

There are cogent reasons for this, tho it is far beyond the scope of BBF to expound upon them.

As for an opportunity to recognize the error...again, you are getting into the realm of speculation about facts unknown to you (and me) but presumably ascertainable by the committee......one obvious question is whether screens were in use, in which case the 6♦ bidder may not even have had much chance to see his bid on the tray before it disappeared from sight....and, if my understanding is correct, he couldn't change it if he noticed it when the tray came back with 2 or 3 passes on it.

[jdonn]

pretender, on Jul 27 2010, 01:27 PM, said:

From a bridge perspective, I think most of the people who are bashing the bid tend to just think too much down the middle. Asking 1000 experts is irrelevant. If I told you you were behind by 100 imps with 10 boards to go, you might give way different bids. So I would actually like to know the score situation when this hand came up.

Justin posted this at halftime of his match, so it occured during the first half. I think it's fair to assume the opponents weren't in "jump to slam on 4 card suit and pray" mode just yet.