[PassedOut]

I've read all the posts in both threads on this deal and find the incident very troubling. I certainly agree that players should not have to face allegations of cheating absent very compelling evidence.

Nevertheless, that successful 6♦ bid smells so fishy that people really need to know about it. I can say that I would never (knowingly) play on a team with a player who made a bid like that. And even more emphatically so if that bid turned out to hit the optimum contract.

[Lobowolf]

peachy, on Aug 6 2010, 10:24 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 6 2010, 08:11 PM, said:

FWIW, I think the relevant comparison group for people who think the bid is good/reasonable/rational/stupid/impossible is really players of his caliber, not the top players in the world.  This may be another distinction without a difference.

I see nothing wrong with consulting top level experts how a different level player might act. Because: Top experts are experienced, often over decades and/or over tens of thousands of hands. They are usually also teachers [and even if not teachers, they often have clients whom they coach] and as such quite familiar with how various level players act/bid/play/defend. They have encountered thousands of all level players at the table. They were once themselves "not-top-level-expert" etc. etc.

I don't think anything's wrong with consulting top level experts, either; I just pointed out that what they would do isn't the point - the point is what players at the level of the player in question would do.

I do, though, think it's better practice to consult players at that level rather than one step removed, particularly when one of the question might be "What bids would you consider?"

[barmar]

Piltch is generally considered an expert. He was #194 in ACBL masterpoints last year (higher than a number of world champions -- Chip Martel was #221) and #88 in all-time masterpoints (Fred trails him by over 6,000, but Howard has many years on him, and I'll bet Howard plays in lots more club games and sectionals than Fred has time for). He just needs a national win to become a Grand Life Master. He needs it in the worst way, and that's apparently how he was going about it last week.

[jdonn]

Yes why are people talking like he's some intermediate player prone to crazy decisions. It took google about 1 second to inform me he has the second most masterpoints in New England! He was the president of the ACBL! I think he knows a thing or two!

[JoAnneM]

I was wondering why someone with over 18,000 master points was being talked about as almost an intermediate player, and being on a "weak " team. I have no idea what did or did not go on at that table but those players deserve some respect.

[Cascade]

jkdood, on Aug 7 2010, 12:34 PM, said:

If this indeed applies to UI and the TDs can determine via expert player consulting that there is 100% agreement that the bid "is not possible without UI", it seems they surely went astray in not referring to C&E.

I don't think "is not possible without UI" is equal to "the 'n' best experts would not bid this way".

[tim_delane]

barmar, on Aug 7 2010, 03:38 AM, said:

The problem with this hand is that almost nothing makes sense. As the poll points out, it's an incredibly crazy bid. But it's also a stupid way to cheat, because it's so blatant; whatever anyone thinks of his character, no one has ever accused him of being stupid.  And if he'd pulled the wrong card, why wouldn't he have admitted it?

Maybe temporary insanity is the best explanation.

And despite what Justin claims, I do think many people allow their opinion of Howard's character to color their opinion of this action.  Had Zia done it, there would be some people applauding his "flair".  It's much harder to give someone the benefit of the doubt when you think poorly of them in general.

I think Justin was saying that this consideration did not influence him. I've no reason to doubt that.

The reason I doubt that Howard had a wire on the board is simple. He is smart enough to realize that a successful 'operation' would be looked upon with suspicion. Had he cheated, he could easily have immunized himself by claiming that he really intended to bid 6C. He could have even claimed this after the bid was questioned, saying that he was too embarrassed by having committed a silly mechanical error to own up to it at the time. The medical fact of his manual dexterity issues would have provided adequate cover.

He did neither. Why not? Was he too stupid to claim an "alibi" that could not be refuted? I doubt that. If he is indeed entirely innocent, then what can you say about his having told the plain truth, even though a convenient (and obvious) lie would have deflected suspicion?

Several people have opined, as you have, that the incident just doesn't make sense. I agree. However I don't reflexively assume that something is rotten in Denmark. But that's just me.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Aug 7 2010, 02:09 AM, said:

jkdood, on Aug 7 2010, 12:34 PM, said:

If this indeed applies to UI and the TDs can determine via expert player consulting that there is 100% agreement that the bid "is not possible without UI", it seems they surely went astray in not referring to C&E.

I don't think "is not possible without UI" is equal to "the 'n' best experts would not bid this way".

What does that have to do with the comment you replied to?

[kenrexford]

BudH, on Aug 6 2010, 10:25 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 6 2010, 09:46 PM, said:

I'm not so sure that a story about a freak auction years ago really bolsters the argument in FAVOR of ethical bidding.

First, the strange auction from years ago sounds like a set-up hand from years ago.

Second, the knowledge of this strange occurrence suggests how this strange incident arose.  Someone who years ago saw a nearly identical hand that was quite the story for the exact same reason might be inclined to repeat that exact same story by stacking the cards to meet the same conditions that he saw years ago.

In fact, your defense of pointing out that this is not the first time that an identical call worked an identical result with a nearly identical hand makes me even more convinced that the instant occurrence is suspicious.

In case there is ANY question about this hand from decades ago in the Boston area - Mr. Piltch was NOT one of the players involved in this hand where 6D was bid by Clint Morrell against Lloyd Arvedon. So the comment about the hand being "rigged" is likely unfounded and Mr. Piltch was not in any way involved in the game. He just happened to be elsewhere in the club and heard about it after it happened.

You are missing my point.

Power of suggestion. On the one hand, one might have heard about a deal that was funny, might see the same situation later, and might therefore be drawn to the same solution. Or, one might rig a hand later to match a tricky swingy hand from years ago. On-the-spot deriving of a good rigging hand is really tough, unless you have one in mind.

[barmar]

JoAnneM, on Aug 7 2010, 01:49 AM, said:

I was wondering why someone with over 18,000 master points was being talked about as almost an intermediate player, and being on a "weak " team. I have no idea what did or did not go on at that table but those players deserve some respect.

Everything is relative. He may be a high-ranked player overall, but in the Spingold field he, and his team, are below average. They were seeded 45 in the event.

[gnasher]

peachy, on Aug 6 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 6 2010, 04:08 PM, said:

jkdood, on Aug 6 2010, 03:53 PM, said:

NO one has really suggested that 6D was sensible, less than bizarre, terrible, etc.

That's not true at all, many people have. The first example in this thread is hotshot, and there were a number of others in the first thread. It boggles the mind but there are certainly those who believe it.

But none of those are top level experts or people who would even try to play in Spingold. Right?

Probably wrong. I don't know Rainer Herrmann, but I suspect that he'd choose to play in the Spingold rather than some lesser event.

[jonottawa]

I missed all the fun ...

This saga remind anyone else of Twelve Angry Men? We even have Mike ably filling in as Henry Fonda.

Entirely too much use of the 'c' word for my taste. I'm more than willing to give the accused the benefit of the doubt.

Have there been any more developments?

[nige1]

I agree with MrDict: Obviously, a Bridge ruling has more in common with a Civil than a Criminal judgement. The preponderance of evidence is sufficient. Hence, I think the director should rule against the player who overcalled 6♦ pour encourager les autres i.e.

• not because he thinks that player is a cheat (on the contrary, he presumes him to be pure as the driven snow).
  
• but because he believes that others of more doubtful ethics might take that action, perhaps in receipt of unauthorised information; and such players should not be encouraged and rewarded.

I applaud this approach. Most players, however, refuse to accept that one swallow can make a summer. Two examples:

• In a famous case, a player was on lead against a slam after his partner had doubled a splinter. The double was not alerted but the doubler had recently written a book advocating that such a double should ask for the lead of another specified suit. When that suit was led and defeated the slam, declarer called the director. The author explained that he and his partner had no special agreement about the double and the director ruled that the result stood. Declarer appealed. The committee's only consideration was whether to keep the deposit. The pair's ethics are not in question but I contend that had the author been on the committee, he would have ruled against himself.
  
• Another example is the English Bridge Union attitude to red psyches where an isolated case of apparent fielding may attract an adverse ruling. I think the EBU are correct in law and common sense but most other nationals disagree.

Loony actions are not necessarily evidence of cheating. In a match my RHO opened 1♦ third in hand. I overcalled 6N. Dummy appeared with an Ace and other goodies but I still had difficulty making my contract. Shocked opponents were somewhat reassured when my partner explained that we were playing weak jump overcalls (and they realised that the board had been dealt at the table).