[ggwhiz]

The moment I run into a flaccid wiggling pool of gelatinous goo, I'm going to say "Josh?"

And I agree with the theory that the ♦K may have been flashed as an explanation for the bid.

When I started playing, I didn't always hold my cards up. What are the obligations when declarer saw my stiff king off-side? What are Howards obligations if it was an OPPONENT who flashed this card while dealing?

I personally would ask for a re-shuffle but I don't depend on Bridge to pay the rent.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Aug 4 2010, 10:47 AM, said:

mikeh, on Aug 4 2010, 10:42 AM, said:

As humans we tend to leap to conclusions on gut instinct and biases. I suspect, as others have suggested, that if the 6♦ call had been made by one of the game's respected superstars, and it had worked, there would a huge writeup but of an entirely, laudatory nature.

Mike I can't believe you really think this is true! You are just way too smart to post something so laughable.

If Bob Hamman (substitute favorite superstar who you think has the lowest % chance of cheating) made this bid, I would be sure he had pulled the wrong card. If he denied it I would still be sure and assume he was denying it out of pride or for some other reason.

Of course it's all completely moot, a bridge superstar would never make this bid other than pulling the wrong card. I can't even decide whether it's a worse strategy if cheating or a worse strategy (bridgewise) if not cheating.

I just can't believe so much of this thread is devoted to defending the possibility this bid could in any way be considered reasonable no matter who made it.

I am not one of those who think that the bid was in any way reasonable. I am also not one of those who thinks that everyone should share my view and that anyone who doesn't is cheating or lying.

[I know...I often come across in my posts as suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot or a liar or something, but that is merely a result of my use of language and my style of advocacy....I never (well, almost never ) mean it.]

I have studied neuropsychology since I deal, in my work, with a lot of brain damage cases and have to be able to cross-examine neuro-psychologists.

As far as I know, everything that can be measured, in terms of human thinking, can be graphed and when graphed, the results fall along the classic bell shaped distribution.

By definition, most of us fall in the normal range. Others are outliers, and their views of 'normal' will seem bizarre to us. And you can't always tell, merely from casual acquaintance, who lies where on any particular graph. And some will fall in the normal on some tests and be way out there on others. I know that I am in the extreme outlier category on some tests, and I suspect that a disproportionate number of bridge players are in similar circumstances.

All of this is by way of saying that your idea of what is reasonable, which is close to mine, I suspect, is subjective. The evidence suggests that Mr. Piltch may be an outlier in terms of bridge judgment.

The apparent 'fact' that 6♦ is a stupid swing tactic doesn't mean that everyone has to be able to come to that conclusion when at the table in a match he expects to lose. Some people may at the table give into the urge to do something they suspect won't work. The fact that you wouldn't conceive of it is NOT a valid argument for accusing someone who would of being a cheat.

It is a valid reason for wanting to find out what was going on, but that suspicion doesn't supply the answer to the question.

We are all different, but most of us who do the same thing (here, bridge) tend to cluster, in our behaviours close to the norm. We distrust those who don't. That innate distrust probably has valid evolutionary roots, but it can mislead us when we allow our gut sense to override our reason. When we allow our sense of normal to dictate that ANYONE who departs from it is a cheat in some manner.

[Lobowolf]

I think the question isn't whether 6♦ was a reasonable action, but a plausible one. Preemptively, I realize that this distinction may not change the answer.

[pretender]

jdonn, on Aug 4 2010, 10:34 AM, said:

TimG, on Aug 3 2010, 09:35 PM, said:

Phil, on Aug 3 2010, 08:50 PM, said:

Right after Piltch claimed, I wonder if he said "sorry opponents, I felt like I needed to generate a swing and this seemed like a good opportunity".

Well, you're not really sorry or you wouldn't have done it -- it's not like it was unintentional -- so it doesn't sound genuine, it just sounds like rubbing it in.

It doesn't sound like rubbing it in to me, it sounds like remorse for the fact that your opponents got fixed. Sure you may not feel bad in that someone had to get fixed but you can still feel bad for the particular pair that it happened to. Just like I may feel it's the "right" thing overall for unemployment benefits to run out after a period of time but I will still feel bad for anyone that happens to if it was no fault of their own.

MikeGill summed up my thoughts very well. People trying to actually rationalize the 6♦ call should read his point 3 in which I think his 10% estimate is extraordinarily generous. I would have guessed that parlay is more like 2%.

It definitely sounds like rubbing it in to me. If our side had a bidding misunderstanding and achieved a score we had no intention of getting, then yes, I'd apologize to the opponents for fixing them. If our side intentionally took a swinging action, why would I apologize?

As for the new thoughts floating around on possible other UI constructions, how about this one: Suppose LHO had flashed his cards (or not protected them properly) and the bidder saw two or three little diamonds in LHO's hand? I'm sure this would strongly change the probabilities for 6D, probably even more than the DK in partner's hand. This, however, brings up another interesting point in that the flashing of cards by the opponent, as originally mentioned by jkdood, is in fact AUTHORIZED information.

[RMB1]

pretender, on Aug 4 2010, 06:55 PM, said:

This, however, brings up another interesting point in that the flashing of cards by the opponent, as originally mentioned by jkdood, is in fact AUTHORIZED information.

Only if the cards are visible once the hand has started.

Laws, on 2007, said:

16C1
...; 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.

If a player sees opponents cards before anyone has called, including during the deal (how quaint), then the TD should be called. Preferably the player who sees the card should call the TD even if he is a pro and owes his livelihood to otherwise squeezing every advange that the laws or the clumsiness of the opponents allows him.

If the card is seen during the deal, then Law 6D1 says there is a redeal, otherwise the TD can use Law 16C2 and Law 6D3 to cancel the board and have a redeal. The information from the opponents card is extraneous, NOT authorised.

[Phil]

The knowledge of some small diamonds in LHOs hand makes 6♦ worse not better.

Flash 4-5 spades in LHO and 6♦ becomes a lot better.

The vulnerability was r/r right? If it were r/w there's more to be said for a blast to slam to shut out a sac.

[mrdct]

gwnn, on Aug 5 2010, 02:22 AM, said:

For whoever said that declarer might have seen the ♦K: I think you are a genius.

edit: mikegill was the one. thanks and please don't think that the above is in any way overstated or facetious.

Actually it was Australian superstar Peter Gill, who is in fact a bona fide genius.

[gwnn]

embarrassing.

[inquiry]

Phil, on Aug 4 2010, 03:18 PM, said:

The knowledge of some small diamonds in LHOs hand makes 6♦ worse not better.

Flash 4-5 spades in LHO and 6♦ becomes a lot better.

The vulnerability was r/r right? If it were r/w there's more to be said for a blast to slam to shut out a sac.

It was board 5... so NS were vul and EW were not vul... since bidding went pass-3S-6D, north was dealer so 6D bidder was south, hence red versus white....

Detective work is easy sometimes.

[mrdct]

mikeh, on Aug 5 2010, 01:42 AM, said:

The fact is (apparently) that there was NO evidence of wrongdoing but SOME reason to be suspicious.

That's not quite true. There is actually quite a lot of evidence in support of both sides of the argument. I'm sure others can add to this, but I would sum up as follows:

Evidence supporting the theory that UI was used:

1. The 6♦ bid itself having so little bridge merit that it could only have been made by a player of this calibre if informed by UI.
2. The player in question has a track record of conduct and ethics issues.
3. Opportunity existed to acquire UI due to the archaic practice of hand dealing with that opportunity possibly enhanced due to the player only dealing one of the 8 boards at his table.

Evidence supporting the theory that UI was not used:

1. On reasonable simulations it turns out that the disparity in odds of success between 6♦ and other more logical alternative actions is not as profound as one might think prima facie.
2. The player in question has a track record of taking unilateral actions, particularly in pro-client partnerships.
3. The player in question has a track record of making creative and unusual bids which may not occur to many players.
4. The player in question has formally denied any wroing doing and provided an at least partially plausible rationalisation for the 6♦ bid.
5. The player in question did not deal the board in question.
6. The boards were dealt with all four players present greatly reducing the chances of any irregularity.
7. The conduct and ethics track record of the player in question pertains mostly to behavioural matters and not cheating per se.

[mikeh]

I appreciate that it may appear that I am quibbling, but your post continues to demonstrate a tendency amongst a lot of posters: conflating grounds for wanting to look into the evidence with the evidence itself.

An accident happens. Police and insurance adjusters investigate to see whose fault it was. They do not (if they know their job) take the happening of the accident as evidence of negligence on the part of anyone at all. They investigate, find the evidence of wrongdoing or carelessness leading to the accident and then assess blame, if any.

A history of having caused three accidents in the past 4 years is grounds for looking hard at the conduct of that driver, but is not evidence that he caused the latest accident.

Anymore than a history of speeding tickets is evidence of always speeding. It may be grounds for being sceptical and for doing more digging, but it is not evidence.

So the 'evidence' for inferring UI is not evidence at all. Those points raise suspicion and warrant searching for evidence.

That search turned up actual evidence, much of which you have accurately summarized in the second list of points. The result of that search is that there was no evidence that any UI was possessed by the bidder.

Yes, others have speculated that maybe he saw a card dealt to his partner. But that speculation is not evidence.

I appreciate that as a trial lawyer my understanding of evidence may differ from what a non-lawyer or non-jurist would understand. But I deal with the real life importance of these distinctions every day. There are very powerful reasons why in a civilized society we ought not to conflate grounds for investigation as equivalent to reasons to convict. While we are not talking about criminal sanctions here, we are talking about a man's reputation, battered tho it may already be, and to some degree his livelihood.

I have personally been attacked (on the internet) by disgruntled sore losers and can tell you that it is very painful to be wrongly accused of unethical behaviour. As our reactions on this thread demonstrate (and I include my initial post), many of us are eager to conclude that someone else is guilty of horrible conduct, even tho the 'evidence' is lacking. We ought to resist that urge.

[mrdct]

Evidence comes in many shapes and sizes and will include witness testimony, expert opinions, circumstantial factors and history of prior conduct by the accused.

In the example that you cite from the hypothetical motor vehicle accident, the driver's poor driving history is most relevant evidence towards the issue of whether or not he is more likely than not to have caused this accident. All of the evidence would need to be examined and weighed-up and it is perfectly plausible that the person's poor driving record may be the factor that tips the scale towards a conclusion of guilt.

In this case all three of the points I listed under the "for" case are clearly evidence supporting that postion. They don't prove anything of themselves, but they are still evidence.

[inquiry]

I have read every post in this thread, some more than once.

First to foo. No this thread will not be closed. I do expect, however, that interest in it will die off, and it has about run its course.

To Ron, thanks. Censoring a thread is tough. The hard call was what to do with Bud's post that mentioned Piltch by name. In final analysis since Bud says he was posting with approval from the players involved, that allowed the name to appear in teh thread from then on.

Before Bud's post, the guiding rules of the website still stood. Justin's initial post passed these guidelines.

First, he posted a hand and the bidding (he left off an initial pass by the 6D bidders partner).
Second, he implied strongly that UI existed ("something is wrong with bridge that this can happen" followed by the edit "This person has been disciplined before for ethical reasons").

There has been some discussion over the disciplined issue. There are (allegedly?) at least two prior cases where investigations have come up (one discussed in the this thread), and in at least one of them, the 6D bidder, like here, offered to take a lie detector test to prove he did not cheat. I don't know if he took the lie detector then. I got that information from ancient post on rec.games.bridge (from early 1990's to late 1990's) so the accuracy of the reports can be questioned. However, it seems Justin was wrong when he said he was disciplined for ethical reasons. To be accurate, it might have said he was "suspected" of ethical violations, or perhaps better, "accused but not proven of prior ethical violations."

As for the debate beween mikeh and mrdct over evidence and what the arguements are, and without getting into the details and consideration of slander or degree that his hand supports the evidence of UI, the arguments in this thread go something like this:

Background

• Player was way behind (46 but with a small pickup on one of four boards in the 2nd segment, so lets assume down by 40)
  
• Player is on an inferior team (I will accept the final score as proof of this)
  
• Player was smart enough or crazy enough to realize 40%* of the hands will make 6♦ and thought that would be a great final contract
  
• And of course, there is the case that the player in question is a "pro" and is use to masterminding hands [\LIST]
  
  (* I think some simulations that have been run don't take into account this players partner was a passed hand, the actual percentage is lower, something closer to 35% than 40%).
  
  Arguments:
  
  [LIST=1]
  
• The main defense is that this bid was a careful considered decision based upon a.)experience of the pro involved, and b.) the state of the match factoring in relative skill levels of the two teams, however,
  
  Counter Argument
  
• a similar number of hands make 6H, which raises a question why guess diamonds over hearts?
  
• Around 11% make 7NT and 16% or so make 7♥, so why not really go for it?
  
• What isn't given, is that 18% will not make 3♦ (so 6♦x is down 4),
  
• 42% will not make 11 tricks, those likely to be doubled and down two or more.
  
• More recently totally unsupported and reckless speculation that somehow the 6D bidder found out his partner had the diamond king, essentially (roughly) doubling the odds 6{di] makes (65% making with the king). Note odds of making 7D goes up to 42% if you know about the diamond king--even given that north is a passed hand.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and no one except the 6D bidder knows for sure if UI existed or not.

For me, I have a very hard time overlooking the likelyhood of a double and nowhere to run when 6♦ when it is in trouble. That and the the fact that if you were going to pick a hand to create a swing on, this setting is not ideal (contrary to a recent statement that is the ideal hand to try for a swing on). Most swing attempts come when you can control the difference in the percentage between your action and the normal action. Thinks like playing for 3-1 split with Queen with the 3, bidding a slightly less than 50% slam (not 15% less) when the opponents will stay out of it. Not inviting game, or accepting a game invite with slightly less than normal values. Compare those controllable swing issues to what happened here: First, NS are vul, partner is a passed hand, and LHO has yet to have a chance to bid yet, we don't even know if we have a fit in diamonds yet. Assuming the correct percentage for 6♦ making is 35%, you are looking at 65% going down, and many of those might be doubled and vulnerable, maybe against nothing making the other way, or worse, 6♣ making or even 6♥ (how can partner pull?). In addition, when 6♦ is making, partner might very well raise to 7♦ that has no chance. For instance if partner has any of these hands..
♠A85 ♥Q85 ♦KJT ♣JT75
♠A632 ♥KQ8 ♦J542 ♣JT
♠A2 ♥QT85 ♦KJ7 ♣J986

He would be justified to bid 7♦ after a leap to 6♦ which will obviously be a huge disaster since you could make a slam.

Taken all together, even considering the defense of the 6♦ bid a lot of people here and on rec.games.bridge have made, bidding 6♦ is a reckless gamble at best if not based on UI. Of course people have the right to make such bids, but I have to agree with Mike that we don't need bad bid police running around taking the occassional great board people earn for bad bids.

But I have concluded the following. 1) Justin probably should not have mentioned where this hand was played or added the comments about prior ethical issues (or at least stated it more precisely), 2) I would have felt better if the name never appeared in the forum, because we don't want such accusations (and this clearly turned into a lot of "I believe UI existed" kind of comments) unless such a finding was obtained by a "legal" (C&E committee or similiar) ruling. 3) We have no way to tell from this one hand if UI existed or not, and the speculation about seeing the DK is just that, speculation, but we can each draw upon our own experiences and decide what we believe happened -- but we simply will not know for sure, and finally for me.... 4) I know for a fact that I would never want to play with someone on my team who bid like this. Either he recklessly didn't care about the outcome of match to risk throwing away so much on this one board (and I have had other mavericks on my teams in the past I don't want either), or he had and took advantage of UI. Either way, I would not want him as a team-mate. Somehow, I think my not wanting him on my team will not cost him any sleep at nights -- as I am sure he would not want me on his either.

[qwery_hi]

PeterGill, on Aug 3 2010, 09:02 AM, said:

- that in the bridge world and on BBO Forums, evidence provided by a less well- known person (Bud Hinckley) can be just as influential as the evidence provided by well-known leading bridge players/writers whom almost all of us admire very much.

If I were on trial, I would choose 12 bridge players to be on the jury. While this post may be naive and the butt of many jokes, this is how I sincerely fell.

[JLOGIC]

I AM A PSYCHOPATH BUT MIKEH IS GIVING ME THE HELP I NEED

[JLOGIC]

I AM A PSYCHOPATH BUT MIKEH IS GIVING ME THE HELP I NEED

[jdonn]

I'm 28 and have been single for almost 2 years, of course I'm too nice. Even being a serial killer wouldn't cause that lol.

I wouldn't apologize for something I did on purpose though, I just wouldn't (automatically) take it like they are trying to rub it in, you have to be there to tell.

[JLOGIC]

I AM A PSYCHOPATH BUT MIKEH IS GIVING ME THE HELP I NEED

[jdonn]

Mod please prevent this thread hijack, ty

[JLOGIC]

I AM A PSYCHOPATH BUT MIKEH IS GIVING ME THE HELP I NEED