[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.

[G_R__E_G]

One thing is for certain; assuming it was cheating his partner wasn't in on it. If he could have trusted his partner to answer 4♦ to a double then this wouldn't have raised many eyebrows.

[pretender]

jdonn, on Jul 27 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

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.

Well that's good to know. Although I still think the score is relevant. It could be a "either we get this or we withdraw" type of thing, especially for a pro team. Unlike most people who only know the bidder by reputation, I actually know him and have played with him. I know he is capable of both making the bid for state-of-the-match reasons and for other "extra" reasons.

I'm not defending him per se, but rather defending the bid. I feel that there is a need for all the circumstances to be known, before forum people start bashing players who are actually capable of thinking outside the box for being lunatics or cheats.

[ArtK78]

Mike:

I am not a trial lawyer, but I am aware of how judicial notice operates. I was just making a point that there is quite a history here for this player, and anyone who would be in a position to adjudicate this matter in the bridge world would be aware of it and it would not and should not be ignored.

As for the mechanics of the bidding, if the bidding went all pass and the final contract became known to this player, I believe he would still have the opportunity to call the TD and correct his mechanical error if, in fact, the bid that he made was a mechanical error. And I am also reasonably sure that this player would be aware of his right to correct a mechanical error.

Yes, I was not present, and the first time I became aware of this incident was several hours ago when I read this thread for the first time. But it seems apparent from the presentation of the facts that the declarer never indicated that his bid was anything other than intentional.

My conclusions are based on bias - if one defines bias as years of experience with this particular player. But the facts do speak for themselves, and I made a post to that effect prior to learning the identity of the 6♦ bidder. The revelation of his identity only sealed the deal as far as I am concerned.

[pretender]

From what I recall you can correct a mechanical error only before your partner has made a call.

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on Jul 27 2010, 07:21 PM, said:

Mechanical errors are correctible.

True, but mental abberations are not. I once conducted an entire auction thinking that my clubs were diamonds and my diamonds were clubs.

I have also seen players make bizarre bids simply because they are annoyed about something their partner had said, or because they have lost interest in the event.

[Fluffy]

TimG, on Jul 27 2010, 02:38 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 27 2010, 07:50 AM, said:

Regardless of how bizarre the action was, and regardless of how bad a reputation the player has, I think it would be quite wrong (and I hope illegal) to rule that UI had been made available when there was no evidence of this other than that the opponents don't think much of the bidding.

I agree: it seems wrong, and I hope it is illegal.

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.

More acting is something very wellcome, obviously it has some flaws, but some I am very willing to assume.

[JLOGIC]

This was one of the first boards of the second set, so basically ~board 20 of a 64 board match.

This did not happen at my table, it was at my teammates table. They think it is likely that he did not shuffle and just dealt once they got there.

I understand your post gnasher, at some point it just seems messed up but the laws have to bend over backwards to protect the innocent I guess.

[neilkaz]

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.

I am also absolutely amazed that at this level of play in this prestigious event, players are preparing boards. While most everyone is usually honest, there's always a few that are tempted otherwise.

I do wonder what the player in question didn't offer up a straight forward explanation like " I meant 6♣ but pulled the wrong card".

Anyhow..if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck....it probably is a duck, and if it also quacks like a duck.

.. neilkaz ..

[Cyberyeti]

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

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.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FksZwNV...heating&f=false

This from Wolff's autobiography will give you an idea of the guy's track record. Scroll down a couple of paragraphs.

[jdonn]

pretender, on Jul 27 2010, 02:00 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 27 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

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.

Well that's good to know. Although I still think the score is relevant. It could be a "either we get this or we withdraw" type of thing, especially for a pro team.

They were down much more than this with much fewer boards to go before the start of the 4th quarter and didn't withdraw.

[JoAnneM]

Good luck in the rest of the tournament and I hope you don't run into any further unpleasantness....

[hrothgar]

I've played against (this guy) a number of times.

Say what you will about his past behavior, the guy never struck me as an idiot AND the 6♦ bid is completely idiotic.

In all seriousness, if he was going to cheat, I'd expect him to cheat in a somewhat more intelligent manner. Then again, if he were bidding normally, I'd expect something more intelligent as well.

Any chance he was on happy happy pills?

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2010-July-27, 15:55

[jdonn]

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.

It's not like knowing your partner's hand and having to come up with a plausible auction to a very difficult contract to reach is a familiar position for anyone.

[gnasher]

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.

[hrothgar]

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 started "Listen here, lardass..."

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