[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Jul 28 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

It's harrassment. There already will be a formal hearing where I'm sure he can offer any remedy he would like. But calling Justin's room (in the morning!) to try and make a side deal almost makes me think he is innocent, not because he is willing to submit to a lie detector test (that everyone knows are not reliable at all), but because it shows approximately the same level of judgment as bidding 6♦ over 3♠.

Perhaps despicable is not the right word, but whatever the right word is would be no more complimentary.

I'm torn on this one:

How many times have we seen a case where something spirals completely out of control and the only answer seems to be "Lawyers, Guns, and Money". In retrospect, it turns out that everything could have been smoothed over with a simple, direct conversation between the principals.

On the other hand, I know that lawyers often advise their clients to avoid anything like simple, direct conversation in cases like this one. (There is always the potential for things to spin further out of control)

I'm really not sure what I'd do if I were in Howard's position (thankfully, I'm not). Then again, on Monday morning I sent an email to my lawyer with "Let loose the Dogs of War" as a subject line, so I guess I know which side of the fence I lend to lean towards.

[peachy]

BudH, on Jul 28 2010, 10:46 AM, said:

At 9:38 a.m. CDT this morning (28 July 2010), Mr. Piltch called Justin Lall's room at the host Marriott hotel and was informed by Justin's father that Justin was asleep. Justin's father was informed

That was a bad idea. Posting a third-party report about the alleged call here is an even worse idea.

[hrothgar]

manudude03, on Jul 28 2010, 07:59 PM, said:

I do wonder why Mr. Piltch is so desperate to avoid a C&E committee.

Because the ACBL is an incredibly political place?

Because Howard has a very strong personality and a rather colorful history?

Because this has a very real potential to spiral completely out of control and end up costing everyone enormous amounts of time, money, and political capital?

The evil, dark, malicious side of me is highly intriqued by the possibilty of a bloody knock down fight between Piltch and Wolff. "Let's you and he fight" has always been a favorite spectator sport...

The more mature, mellow, and enlightened individual currently typing at this keyboard wishes that this would all just go away.

[peachy]

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

 

I admire your standing by your bridge partner but the two District 24 disciplinary cases are public knowledge.

Edit: I deleted incorrect information. My apologies.

[pretender]

When I wrote earlier I mentioned that we needed more information. I think we now have that and it feels like there are more objective posts on this thread than there were before.

With regards to the phone call, I do not comment on whether it is "despicable" or "unwise". What I will say is that it is Justin, who went to a public forum, and wrote things such as "Something is wrong with bridge that this can happen." This to me is fairly strong accusatory language. I think it is perfectly human to feel the need to defend yourself and speak directly to your accuser.

As far as trying to avoid a committee hearing of any sort. The ACBL really is a very political place. It is clear the bidder wishes to avoid having anything decided by the powers that be at the ACBL. Remember, this is also a person's livelihood at stake, which explains the urgency of the bidder's responses.

[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".