[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on Jul 28 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 28 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

I appreciate his partner coming forward to post these facts. Btw #14 is such a dispicible and dumb thing to do, why do people think things like that are a good idea??? Hemant was kind to let him say anything before hanging up.

I agree that it was probably unwise, but why is it despicable? Or, at least, supposing that he were innocent, why woud it be despicable?

Umm because he called at 9:30 AM and I have to play the round of 16 today? Guess what, I was SLEEPING, and sleeping is nice before an important match. Sleeping is a normal thing to do when it it is 3 and a half hours before game time, especially when I sit out the first set.

Can't really respond to any of this yet because I have to play, all I'm going to say is I don't see any new "facts" that have been presented. Mr Piltch says he only dealt board 8, ok. What a weird thing to remember, which exact board you dealt, and how convenient. I know personally that I don't ever know what exact board number I dealt, but it would be very convenient to do so if someone thought maybe I rigged a board.

Also, lol at a lie detector test. How about this, we ask all of the people on the top 20 seeds of the spingold whether or not they think that Mr. Piltch had some kind of UI in order to bid 6D. If less than 95 % of these people think he did, I will write a public apology. If more than 95 % did, he will resign from the ACBL.

[pretender]

JLOGIC, on Jul 28 2010, 01:58 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 28 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 28 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

I appreciate his partner coming forward to post these facts. Btw #14 is such a dispicible and dumb thing to do, why do people think things like that are a good idea??? Hemant was kind to let him say anything before hanging up.

I agree that it was probably unwise, but why is it despicable? Or, at least, supposing that he were innocent, why woud it be despicable?

Umm because he called at 9:30 AM and I have to play the round of 16 today? Guess what, I was SLEEPING, and sleeping is nice before an important match. Sleeping is a normal thing to do when it it is 3 and a half hours before game time, especially when I sit out the first set.

Can't really respond to any of this yet because I have to play, all I'm going to say is I don't see any new "facts" that have been presented. Mr Piltch says he only dealt board 8, ok. What a weird thing to remember, which exact board you dealt, and how convenient. I know personally that I don't ever know what exact board number I dealt, but it would be very convenient to do so if someone thought maybe I rigged a board.

Also, lol at a lie detector test. How about this, we ask all of the people on the top 20 seeds of the spingold whether or not they think that Mr. Piltch had some kind of UI in order to bid 6D. If less than 95 % of these people think he did, I will write a public apology. If more than 95 % did, he will resign from the ACBL.

But that's the whole thing about this, isn't it?

It's irrelevant whether any of the top 20 seeds THINK Piltch did something wrong. Cheating is a very very serious accusation in the ACBL. Accusing someone of cheating is almost just as serious as someone actually cheating. Put aside the personal feelings. It's about facts. Again, you're the one who's accusing him, in a public forum no less.

"Can't really respond to any of this yet because I have to play" Then please wait until you're finished (and I wish you best of luck), have time to process all that's being said, and respond with an understanding of the gravity of the situation, the accusations, and the consequences.

[Phil]

I sympathize with Justin, but I wouldn't feel the need to air this publicly, even if I felt 100% about my position. I think its normal to be pissed off about it, although trouncing the (alleged) perp by 150 would be apt retribution. After the match, I would quietly but forcefully advise conduct and ethics about the matter. If I were in his position and I lost the match, and this result was the swing, I would feel righteous indignation.

Its been only 48 hours, and right or wrong, this story has gone viral. I'm sure the damage this person is suffering is as bad as anything a C and E committee can dish out. Who would want to associate themselves with him? Who would want to hire him? Perhaps he's already p.n.g. when people play against him, but I haven't heard anything good or bad about the guy, although I'm on the opposite coast unlike Richard. As an observer, I would be interested in what Justin's teammates had to say in rebuttal to what his partner's statement.

I had no idea this person was a former ACBL president. Quite a story brewing here.

@Josh - I don't think what he did was 'despicable' at all. Strange, ill-timed, awkward all come to mind, but not despicable. Hemant is one of the nicest guys in the bridge world, and I would expect that he would listen to what he had to say, up to a point. This 'deal' that was suggested is somewhat preposterous; frankly I think that its an attempt to postpone deliberation until this settles down.

[JLOGIC]

Also, there is a reason lie detector tests are not admissible in a court of law. If someone offered me 2:1 and some time to train I'd be willing to bet I could pass one that said I landed on the moon.

Expert testimony is admissible. The fact that every top player in the world will tell you that:

1) This bid is impossible at any state of the match by any non novice player
2) This bid is impossible without any form of UI

means that the collective wisdom and experience of all the top players in the world is that this bid was almost certainly made with UI. That is far more meaningful than a lie detector test, and is something I'm willing to back.

Re all boards being shuffled in front of everyone, you really think it would be that hard to rig a board, have it on the table and everyone is shuffling, and then when someone goes to make it say "that one's done."? Or that it would really be that hard to have that one ready and not really shuffle it and just deal? Most people are not going to notice such a thing. Just because you say this, and I'm sure you believe it, does not mean it is proof of fact.

The only fact I posted in the OP was the hand, and the history of the player involved. The hand is so extremely "unusual" that it is damning evidence to almost everyone, that was the point of the thread. I never named who the player was. What exactly would Mr Piltch like an apology for, the implications I have made? If so I stand by them, as I feel all top bridge players would. It is not like I am alone in my feeling or sentiment.

It is absolutely ridiculous and unwanted for Mr Piltch to call me ever, let alone early in the morning, and if that continues I would like it on public record that I will take action.

[TimG]

peachy, on Jul 28 2010, 12:55 PM, said:

BudH, on Jul 28 2010, 02:06 AM, said:

 

I admire your standing by your bridge partner but the two District 24 disciplinary cases with suspension and subsequent probation are public knowledge.

I suspect you mean District 25.

Edit: I should add that I think you're off in your facts.

[JLOGIC]

pretender, on Jul 28 2010, 02:13 PM, said:

JLOGIC, on Jul 28 2010, 01:58 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 28 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 28 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

I appreciate his partner coming forward to post these facts. Btw #14 is such a dispicible and dumb thing to do, why do people think things like that are a good idea??? Hemant was kind to let him say anything before hanging up.

I agree that it was probably unwise, but why is it despicable? Or, at least, supposing that he were innocent, why woud it be despicable?

Umm because he called at 9:30 AM and I have to play the round of 16 today? Guess what, I was SLEEPING, and sleeping is nice before an important match. Sleeping is a normal thing to do when it it is 3 and a half hours before game time, especially when I sit out the first set.

Can't really respond to any of this yet because I have to play, all I'm going to say is I don't see any new "facts" that have been presented. Mr Piltch says he only dealt board 8, ok. What a weird thing to remember, which exact board you dealt, and how convenient. I know personally that I don't ever know what exact board number I dealt, but it would be very convenient to do so if someone thought maybe I rigged a board.

Also, lol at a lie detector test. How about this, we ask all of the people on the top 20 seeds of the spingold whether or not they think that Mr. Piltch had some kind of UI in order to bid 6D. If less than 95 % of these people think he did, I will write a public apology. If more than 95 % did, he will resign from the ACBL.

But that's the whole thing about this, isn't it?

It's irrelevant whether any of the top 20 seeds THINK Piltch did something wrong. Cheating is a very very serious accusation in the ACBL. Accusing someone of cheating is almost just as serious as someone actually cheating. Put aside the personal feelings. It's about facts. Again, you're the one who's accusing him, in a public forum no less.

"Can't really respond to any of this yet because I have to play" Then please wait until you're finished (and I wish you best of luck), have time to process all that's being said, and respond with an understanding of the gravity of the situation, the accusations, and the consequences.

I made no direct accusation of cheating. The point of this post is that:

The laws of bridge should be changed so that a hand like this is evidence enough of UI, so that there can be an adjustment. When zero players of someones level will bid 6D, and zero players think 6D can be bid without UI, that should be enough for an adjustment.

I named no names. The bar for being suspended for cheating should clearly be higher than the bar for adjusting a board based on possible UI. To me the difference is like civil court vs criminal court, I doubt anyone would argue that this hand alone is not a preponderance of evidence of UI, and thus an adjustment should be awarded even if the player involved is not punished criminally.

[JLOGIC]

Also I assume Mr Piltch does not want to go into detail on a public forum about his disciplinary/ethical history wrt Rosen/Bramley/Wolff etc. I am willing to not go there as it pretty much amounts to mud slinging, and is hearsay on my part (albeit from much more reputable people than Mr. Piltch who were involved). Let's keep it to this hand.

[peachy]

Edit: I should add that I think you're off in your facts. [/QUOTE]
Yes, 25. Typo
What do you mean "off in your facts", other than the typo.

Edit: I removed the incorrect statement. You are right. My apologies.

[pretender]

JLOGIC, on Jul 28 2010, 02:33 PM, said:

pretender, on Jul 28 2010, 02:13 PM, said:

JLOGIC, on Jul 28 2010, 01:58 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 28 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 28 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

I appreciate his partner coming forward to post these facts. Btw #14 is such a dispicible and dumb thing to do, why do people think things like that are a good idea??? Hemant was kind to let him say anything before hanging up.

I agree that it was probably unwise, but why is it despicable? Or, at least, supposing that he were innocent, why woud it be despicable?

Umm because he called at 9:30 AM and I have to play the round of 16 today? Guess what, I was SLEEPING, and sleeping is nice before an important match. Sleeping is a normal thing to do when it it is 3 and a half hours before game time, especially when I sit out the first set.

Can't really respond to any of this yet because I have to play, all I'm going to say is I don't see any new "facts" that have been presented. Mr Piltch says he only dealt board 8, ok. What a weird thing to remember, which exact board you dealt, and how convenient. I know personally that I don't ever know what exact board number I dealt, but it would be very convenient to do so if someone thought maybe I rigged a board.

Also, lol at a lie detector test. How about this, we ask all of the people on the top 20 seeds of the spingold whether or not they think that Mr. Piltch had some kind of UI in order to bid 6D. If less than 95 % of these people think he did, I will write a public apology. If more than 95 % did, he will resign from the ACBL.

But that's the whole thing about this, isn't it?

It's irrelevant whether any of the top 20 seeds THINK Piltch did something wrong. Cheating is a very very serious accusation in the ACBL. Accusing someone of cheating is almost just as serious as someone actually cheating. Put aside the personal feelings. It's about facts. Again, you're the one who's accusing him, in a public forum no less.

"Can't really respond to any of this yet because I have to play" Then please wait until you're finished (and I wish you best of luck), have time to process all that's being said, and respond with an understanding of the gravity of the situation, the accusations, and the consequences.

I made no direct accusation of cheating. The point of this post is that:

The laws of bridge should be changed so that a hand like this is evidence enough of UI, so that there can be an adjustment. When zero players of someones level will bid 6D, and zero players think 6D can be bid without UI, that should be enough for an adjustment.

I named no names. The bar for being suspended for cheating should clearly be higher than the bar for adjusting a board based on possible UI. To me the difference is like civil court vs criminal court, I doubt anyone would argue that this hand alone is not a preponderance of evidence of UI, and thus an adjustment should be awarded even if the player involved is not punished criminally.

The problem here with "expert" testimony is that this is not a science. I've been known to many of my partners and opponents over the years to have made bids that wouldn't occur to most players and yet I never make such bids without bridge reasons, whether others agree with those reasons or not. When you just assign a "top players" group to such a question, you also have strong possibilities for groupthink.

If your intention is that there should be a civil/criminal court resolution to such matters, then I really think you should have made it clear that that was the purpose of this discussion thread. As someone who read the post objectively, it sounded fairly accusatory enough, let alone if I was the one who was being addressed.

As someone who prides himself on thinking outside the box, especially at bridge, I hate when people use something along the lines of "no one else would do that" as a "reason". I once played on a team in a side swiss event with a teammate whom I'm pretty sure you know, who knew he was so far ahead in the match that he made a red on white psych and it worked. Again, another case of something "zero people polled would do", but it worked. Are you to punish him for that?

[awm]

CSGibson, on Jul 28 2010, 08:48 AM, said:

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?

This is a very good point.

As Hrothgar pointed out (perhaps indirectly) these types of incidents suffer from a form of selection bias. We tend to notice/report/complain about "crazy" seeming actions which work out, whereas similarly crazy actions which end in disaster for the perpetrators don't get recorder forms filed (or posts on BBF).

It's worth noting that Justin's team still had a big lead after this board happened. If the person in question is just trying to create action to get back in the match (rather than having some UI on the particular board), he would probably try a few more "offbeat" calls. It seems likely that many of them would backfire. Did this happen?

[TimG]

awm, on Jul 28 2010, 03:33 PM, said:

It's worth noting that Justin's team still had a big lead after this board happened. If the person in question is just trying to create action to get back in the match (rather than having some UI on the particular board), he would probably try a few more "offbeat" calls. It seems likely that many of them would backfire. Did this happen?

They lost by over 125 IMPs; I'm sure there were plenty of actions taken by the Piltch team that didn't work out so well.

[jdonn]

LOL at "I have made bids that wouldn't have occured to anyone too" or "I psyched once in 1953 does that make me a cheater?" or all other stupid comparisons made in this thread.

I also do not recall ever knowing the board number(s) I shuffled after any match was over. I can assure anyone that I have a far above average memory. Take it for whatever you want, maybe Mr. Piltch and his partner are very special in this regard, I don't know. There are plenty of other ways to get UI about a board other than shuffling and dealing it so I think that whole aspect is a bit of a red herring.

[awm]

TimG, on Jul 28 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

They lost by over 125 IMPs; I'm sure there were plenty of actions taken by the Piltch team that didn't work out so well.

Sure, but there are many ways to lose IMPs. The question is whether there were other actions taken which were crazy enough that they might seem like "cheating" (or at least be worth filing a recorder form about) if they had worked but which actually didn't work.

[TimG]

awm, on Jul 28 2010, 03:42 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 28 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

They lost by over 125 IMPs; I'm sure there were plenty of actions taken by the Piltch team that didn't work out so well.

Sure, but there are many ways to lose IMPs. The question is whether there were other actions taken which were crazy enough that they might seem like "cheating" (or at least be worth filing a recorder form about) if they had worked but which actually didn't work.

Is it crazy to take an inferior line that will sometimes gain? Stretch to bid games? Stay out of games that others will bid?

All of these things could be done as the result of illegally obtained information. This sort of investigation will require a definition of "crazy" and that relies upon the opinion of players and you're right back to the beginning.

It is my opinion that this sort of investigation is fine for raising suspicion, but for conviction there needs to be evidence of just how the alleged information was obtained.

[pretender]

jdonn, on Jul 28 2010, 03:41 PM, said:

LOL at "I have made bids that wouldn't have occured to anyone too" or "I psyched once in 1953 does that make me a cheater?" or all other stupid comparisons made in this thread.

I also do not recall ever knowing the board number(s) I shuffled after any match was over. I can assure anyone that I have a far above average memory. Take it for whatever you want, maybe Mr. Piltch and his partner are very special in this regard, I don't know. There are plenty of other ways to get UI about a board other than shuffling and dealing it so I think that whole aspect is a bit of a red herring.

See, I don't care about Howard's guilt or innocence. My point is that Justin's view, that certain bids are soooo suspicious (and as discussed there's selection bias because they're only suspicious when they work out) that they must be punished, is very dangerous groupthink.

That's why "I have made bids that wouldn't have occurred to anyone too" matters to me.

To me, it's like the guy playing online poker who runs into someone making an atrocious bet or call, hits runner runner, and then feels online poker is rigged because the other guy "must have known".

[TimG]

As an aside of sorts, I think it is much more likely that information is gained from boards that are shuffled and dealt by others than from boards that you shuffle and deal. Next time you're kibitzing an event with hand dealt boards, watch carefully and I bet you can gain a lot of information during the shuffle and deal from at least one player at the table. (I'd suggest doing it in an event you are playing in, but that would be improper.)

[TimG]

Fluffy, on Jul 28 2010, 10:18 AM, said:

rhm, on Jul 28 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

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)

lol?

According to Cascade's figures, partner rates to have 4+ diamonds 48.4% of the time.

rhm's "I'm not even sure whether it is an underdog" is pretty close.

I'd say the answer to "lol?" is "no".

[awm]

TimG, on Jul 28 2010, 03:49 PM, said:

Is it crazy to take an inferior line that will sometimes gain? Stretch to bid games? Stay out of games that others will bid?

All of these things could be done as the result of illegally obtained information. This sort of investigation will require a definition of "crazy" and that relies upon the opinion of players and you're right back to the beginning.

It is my opinion that this sort of investigation is fine for raising suspicion, but for conviction there needs to be evidence of just how the alleged information was obtained.

I think it's fine to call a bid or play "crazy" if very few players of comparable skill would even consider them (even given the state of the match). I agree with Justin that this bid meets the standard.

However, making crazy bids or plays doesn't mean you have UI. And even crazy bids or plays sometimes work out. The suspicious behavior is the individual who only makes crazy bids/plays when they work out.

I do not think it's necessary to determine how the alleged information was obtained. A subtle cheater is hard to catch "red-handed." Once suspicion is raised (as per this incident) the right thing to do is try to observe this person's actions on future boards. If he's innocent, he will be observed making other similarly anti-percentage calls in similar match situations, and many of them will not work out. If he's guilty, we will find that his anti-percentage calls seem to always (or almost always) hit the jackpot. Of course, if we had a detailed prior record of all hands he has played (i.e. on BBO) we could just go through them... but the selection bias makes the recorder system substantially less useful for such a process.

[jdonn]

pretender, on Jul 28 2010, 03:49 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 28 2010, 03:41 PM, said:

LOL at "I have made bids that wouldn't have occured to anyone too" or "I psyched once in 1953 does that make me a cheater?" or all other stupid comparisons made in this thread.

I also do not recall ever knowing the board number(s) I shuffled after any match was over. I can assure anyone that I have a far above average memory. Take it for whatever you want, maybe Mr. Piltch and his partner are very special in this regard, I don't know. There are plenty of other ways to get UI about a board other than shuffling and dealing it so I think that whole aspect is a bit of a red herring.

See, I don't care about Howard's guilt or innocence. My point is that Justin's view, that certain bids are soooo suspicious (and as discussed there's selection bias because they're only suspicious when they work out) that they must be punished, is very dangerous groupthink.

That's why "I have made bids that wouldn't have occurred to anyone too" matters to me.

To me, it's like the guy playing online poker who runs into someone making an atrocious bet or call, hits runner runner, and then feels online poker is rigged because the other guy "must have known".

That is still a very bad comparison and you really should be able to figure out why...

[xcurt]

hrothgar, on Jul 28 2010, 09:38 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 28 2010, 04:38 PM, said:

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?

This is a perfect example why your line of reasoning is so flawed...

...

I sure would call -- nay, scream -- for the director if this happened to me. I'd be about 99% sure that my expert opponent got his wires confused, and so would almost everyone else.

TimG, on Jul 28 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Jul 28 2010, 10:18 AM, said:

rhm, on Jul 28 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

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)

lol?

According to Cascade's figures, partner rates to have 4+ diamonds 48.4% of the time.

rhm's "I'm not even sure whether it is an underdog" is pretty close.

I'd say the answer to "lol?" is "no".

This also means LHO is likely to have 4+ diamonds 48.4% of the time (at least to a reasonable approximation, since LHO wasn't passed and CHO was, if I recall).