[655321]

The_Hog, on Aug 6 2010, 09:57 AM, said:

JLOGIC, on Aug 6 2010, 09:06 PM, said:

If Fred overcalled 6D everyone I know who thought there was UI in this case (which includes all people in the top 100 players in the world that I know) would probably think he had some UI unless he had a very good reason (such as OMG I PULLED THE WRONG CARD). You can substitute Fred with any other player who has a pristine record for ethics (Hamman, Versace, etc), and that would still be true.

The point is moot since I doubt Fred will ever overcall 6D on such a hand, so we should stop saying stuff like if Fred or Zia or Hamman or whoever did this. It's like starting something with "If a unicorn came to your house..." and then continuing on in seriousness. It's pointless to debate impossible hypotheticals, even if it may be amusing.

Edited because I said "everyone I know" with no qualifier

Deleted post, so no quote available. .

As surely as a fat kid on a doughnut, hog is certain to charge into these threads. He never has first hand knowledge of the incidents, never knows the people concerned, and never has the bridge judgment where bridge judgment is necessary (example - his trying to compare this 6♦ bid with somebody with a 24 count and a 4 card suit bidding the suit at the 6 level - when the auction was already at the 6 level!). Yet, always he is there, spraying around his ignorance and abuse.

I can only suggest, hog, that you stop reading books on chivalry, and you won't imagine yourself as a knight errant, charging at the windmills to right all the wrongs in the world. I suggest that your behavior doesn't cause anyone to regard you as a noble knight, rather it causes you to be regarded as a figure of fun.

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2010-August-06, 10:54

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Aug 6 2010, 10:03 AM, said:

My favorite part was your wondering whether one of the most corrupt organizations in the world trying to make a potential huge controversy go away with one of its past presidents would result in any apologies for him. Wow way to latch onto something!

Hey...I thought the attempt to make bridge an Olympic sport failed!

Josh: i am no fan of the way the ACBL regulates the game.

I can see accusing the ACBL of being conservative, reactionary, motivated by the desire to protect what they have rather than to grow what they have, and so on. But corrupt?

if you really feel that way...run for election. I served on my district board many years ago....I felt that I should put something back to the game. i wasn't a good board member, as it turned out. I didn't have the patience to plug away at the dull jobs that have to be done. I disagreed with several members about the direction we were going, but I never once felt that those members were motivated by personal gain.

The ACBL Board is not an organization I know much about, but I see no basis for accusing them, or the management/directing staff of corruption.

[jdonn]

Thanks for the suggestion Mike, I will strongly consider it.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Aug 6 2010, 11:46 AM, said:

Thanks for the suggestion Mike, I will strongly consider it.

you'd get my vote, but one of us would have to move....a long way.

[jkdood]

A C&E deliberation would have been nice, since I think many share MFA's feelings as posted "...if that committee doesn't find anything to take action on, I will respect it 100% and never even think about using any word starting with a "c". The player (whom I don't know) will have my complete benefit of the doubt that he just chose a remarkable action with remarkable success, and it is part of the charm of the game that wild things can readily happen."

Although Justin reports that he would push for a C&E committee, he subsequently posted: "...The ruling is, there is no evidence of UI so the table result stands. The ruling as far as a C&E hearing is that there will be none, because this hand is not evidence of any misconduct."

One would also think, since many seem to concur with Justin's reporting that the Top 20 Spingold experts all agree that "... This bid is impossible without any form of UI", that there SHOULD HAVE BEEN a C&E hearing.

But there wasn't because "because this hand is not evidence of any misconduct." ???

WHO made such a determination? The TD(s)?

Why would the TD's, who frequently consult with "top players" on rulings, make such a determination that contradicts the 20 out of 20 top experts polled?

Is it because the representation of such polling is inaccurate? Or if not, are the TD's making determinations that defy the reported unanimous opinion?

I would really like to know why (or opinion on why) we hear that all the top players at NO thought the bid was "impossible without UI", yet there was no C&E convened.

[the hog]

655321, on Aug 6 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 6 2010, 09:57 AM, said:

JLOGIC, on Aug 6 2010, 09:06 PM, said:

If Fred overcalled 6D everyone I know who thought there was UI in this case (which includes all people in the top 100 players in the world that I know) would probably think he had some UI unless he had a very good reason (such as OMG I PULLED THE WRONG CARD). You can substitute Fred with any other player who has a pristine record for ethics (Hamman, Versace, etc), and that would still be true.

The point is moot since I doubt Fred will ever overcall 6D on such a hand, so we should stop saying stuff like if Fred or Zia or Hamman or whoever did this. It's like starting something with "If a unicorn came to your house..." and then continuing on in seriousness. It's pointless to debate impossible hypotheticals, even if it may be amusing.

Edited because I said "everyone I know" with no qualifier

Deleted post, so no quote available. .

As surely as a fat kid on a doughnut, hog is certain to charge into these threads. He never has first hand knowledge of the incidents, never knows the people concerned, and never has the bridge judgment where bridge judgment is necessary (example - his trying to compare this 6♦ bid with somebody with a 24 count and a 4 card suit bidding the suit at the 6 level - when the auction was already at the 6 level!). Yet, always he is there, spraying around his ignorance and abuse.

I can only suggest, hog, that you stop reading books on chivalry, and you won't imagine yourself as a knight errant, charging at the windmills to right all the wrongs in the world. I suggest that your behavior doesn't cause anyone to regard you as a noble knight, rather it causes you to be regarded as a figure of fun.

***** off ****** .I am prepared to accept a comment like this from someone who has half a brain or more; however it is hard to take from a total ****wit. So crawl back into your hole.

[Moderator Note: I edited Ron's comments, but in all fairness, I overlooked the actual response to his earlier post that said he was spraying ignorance and abuse == which I should have editted out ==, so his response was provoked...but then he provoked the first response, which was provoked by.... . This is why we don't allow person attacks which have gotten out of hand, yet again. Sigh. ]

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2010-August-06, 13:47

[hrothgar]

jkdood, on Aug 6 2010, 08:48 PM, said:

I would really like to know why (or opinion on why) we hear that all the top players at NO thought the bid was "impossible without UI", yet there was no C&E convened.

I would really like to understand turbulence...
Somehow, I don't think that I am ever going to get any real satisfaction.

I suspect that you and I are in much the same boat...

I can think of a lot of good reasons why the ACBL wouldn't want to air this laundry out in the open ranging from

1. Setting a very dangerous precedent
2. Desire to avoid a lawsuit
3. Desire to sweep this all under the rug
4. Inability to prove this claim

I can think of a lot of equally valid reasons why a bunch of "Top Players" wouldn't want to go on the record regarding their personal beliefs on this topic.

I don't doubt that Justin polled a large number of top players.
I don't doubt that many, perhaps all, were very sympathetic to his claim.

However, there is a big difference between an informal poll and openly stating that there should be a C+E hearing.

[mikeh]

jkdood, on Aug 6 2010, 12:48 PM, said:

A C&E deliberation would have been nice, since I think many share MFA's feelings as posted "...if that committee doesn't find anything to take action on, I will respect it 100% and never even think about using any word starting with a "c". The player (whom I don't know) will have my complete benefit of the doubt that he just chose a remarkable action with remarkable success, and it is part of the charm of the game that wild things can readily happen."

Although Justin reports that he would push for a C&E committee, he subsequently posted:  "...The ruling is, there is no evidence of UI so the table result stands. The ruling as far as a C&E hearing is that there will be none, because this hand is not evidence of any misconduct."

One would also think, since many seem to concur with Justin's reporting that the Top 20 Spingold experts all agree that "... This bid is impossible without any form of UI",  that there SHOULD HAVE BEEN a C&E hearing.

But there wasn't because "because this hand is not evidence of any misconduct." ???

WHO made such a determination? The TD(s)?

Why would the TD's, who frequently consult with "top players" on rulings, make such a determination that contradicts the 20 out of 20 top experts polled? 

Is it because the representation of such polling is inaccurate?  Or if not, are the TD's making determinations that defy the reported unanimous opinion?

I would really like to know why (or opinion on why) we hear that all the top players at NO thought the bid was "impossible without UI", yet there was no C&E convened.

Possibly because the Directors are concerned with the application of principles of what is called, in my country at least, 'natural justice'. This is analogous to but not the same as, as I understand it, to concepts of due process in the US.

The Directors are concerned with evidence of wrong-doing and despite the apparent conviction of many non-legally trained posters, the existence of the hand and the making of the bid and the fortuitous outcome are not evidence of UI.

Arguing that such matters are evidence reveals primarily the arguer's ignorance of basic rules of evidence.

Any player being polled, by someone they respect who is obviously pissed off, is likely to have the same instinctive reaction that I and many others had on first reading the original post. It smells. It is suggestive of UI.

My suggestion: repoll the top 100 players, or so many of them as were consulted, and invite them to read the non-flame parts of the thread and then offer their opinion. Several posters here backed away from their initial reaction...I know I did.

While some will probably remain convinced that there must have been cheating involved, I suspect that many would change their minds....and I doubt that any with actual training in these sorts of issues would remain of the view that there should be a committee hearing.

There has to be EVIDENCE before a player is subjected to a committee. There was none, as least as far as we can tell from what has been posted here. Indeed, it seems that there was likely very strong evidence negating the most probable suspicious possibility...a stacked deck.

Saying that there was evidence doesn't make it so, not matter how vehemently one believes in one's argument. I know, the same can be said for my point of view....the difference is that I can point to decades of experience dealing with the rules of evidence, which are largely the same in the US as they are in Canada (one of the most authoritative texts on evidence used in Canada is US)

Whether you think the 'smell' remains or not is another story entirely....but the 'smell' is not evidence.

[jkdood]

I guess one of the purposes of the closed thread, is that there should be some new or different applicable rules (why else is something otherwise "wrong with bridge") when a so-called "impossible without UI" call is made.

I guess after 30 pages and 20,000 views, no consensus was reached on that.

But here's a friendly challenge. Fred was surely polled, and absorbed the closed thread's arguments. Does Fred think now this 6D call should be judged "impossible without UI"?

[gwnn]

He has implied that he does not want to be a part of this. He joined only to say that he thinks Justin is talented and he likes Justin. He said that this is a topic that he has an opinion on this (as opposed to the main topic, would be the implication).

[jkdood]

Listen, if ALL the top experts (consulted or otherwise, upon more reflection or otherwise) feel this bid was "impossible without UI", then there indeed seems to be something very wrong with bridge that this can occur and not be dealt with by some version of C&E or other means, to censor, adjust, or make things right-er.

On the other hand, if the representation is not accurate, something else is wrong.

[hrothgar]

jkdood, on Aug 6 2010, 09:50 PM, said:

Listen, if ALL the top experts (consulted or otherwise, upon more reflection or otherwise) feel this bid was "impossible without UI", then there indeed seems to be something very wrong with bridge that this can occur and not be dealt with by some version of C&E or other means, to censor, adjust, or make things right-er.

This might be one of those situations where the cure is far far worse than the disease...

Imagine if the ACBL established the following precedent

If you make an outlandishly bizarre bid AND
You get lucky and said bid works in your favor

Then

The opponents get to petition the director for a C+E hearing and try to get the results tossed out.

Now, think about the enormous amount of outright idiocy that happens at the table especially at the lower levels of the game...

[mikeh]

jkdood, on Aug 6 2010, 01:50 PM, said:

Listen, if ALL the top experts (consulted or otherwise, upon more reflection or otherwise) feel this bid was "impossible without UI", then there indeed seems to be something very wrong with bridge that this can occur and not be dealt with by some version of C&E or other means, to censor, adjust, or make things right-er.

On the other hand, if the representation is not accurate, something else is wrong.

I wasn't for a moment suggesting that Justin misrepresented the results of his poll, What I was suggesting is that one shouldn't take the results of such an informal poll as meaning very much.

1. we don't know how the question was framed. Framing influences reaction, as any opinion poller will tell you. I am not suggesting any deliberate misrepresentation by Justin. Almost any event can be 'accurately' described in a number of ways. Justin was and remains clearly upset. It wouldn't be humanly possible for him (or anyone I have ever met) to have framed his questions in a neutral fashion...look at how he began the original post.

2. We don't know whether the polled expert simply agreed that something smelled, or whether they were expressly asked if the combination of action and outcome, all alone, warranted discipline

3. We don't know if the polled experts were given any view of the 'other side'of the coin

4. We don't know the setting...was it at a party where everyone was drinking, or a quiet meeting.

5. As earlier said, immediate reactions are often not the same as one's considered position. Yours may be, but I would hope that everyone here, including you, would take the opportunity to reflect if the need and opportunity arose. So the fact that within the first 24 hours, everyone said the same thing doesn't mean that everyone would say the same thing now

6. We don't know whether the experts merely said what they'd like to see be done or what they thought the rules mandated should be done. We know that some, including Justin, want the rules changed so that if they get 'fixed' by an action they personally consider to be irrational, absent UI, they have thr right to have an adjusted score in their favour, but I see no considered support for that proposition from anyone else....and I sure as hell hope that anyone who does think that's a good idea never gets to be in a position of power in the game. In a sense, I'd like to see the result be changed, absent a very compelling, believable explanation from the bidder, but I dread the idea of a rule change that would permit that outcome absent evidence that points to UI...evidence other than 'it happened, it worked, I got fixed...I have no idea how he did it, but he must have done it' that's argument, not evidence.

[jkdood]

[quote name='hrothgar' date='Aug 6 2010, 02:01 PM'] [/QUOTE]
If you make an outlandishly bizarre bid ... [/quote]
Geesh, can you imagine if something was in place that had the effect of dissuading this?

[jkdood]

I guess we could never get totally fair and adequate standards all agree with, but:

If we get the so-called 20 unanimous "top experts" (it certainly wasn't unanimous on the BBO thread) into a quiet room, make them read the thread and think about it, and just one of them now decides that the bid "IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT UI"...

...then we give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. P, without regret, maybe with apology?

[tgoodwinsr]

Are you people acquainted with the concept of "res ipsa loquitur"? In tort law, it refers to the assumption that an injury was caused by someone's negligence, because the accident was of the kind that wouldn't have happened without somebody being negligent. The plaintiff doesn't have to prove exactly how the defendant was negligent, only that someone must have been negligent and that the defendant was that someone (or somebody legally responsible for that someone's negligence).

In the Spingold incident, the "plaintiffs" are arguing that the 6D bidder must have had UI, because (in their view) nobody would have bid 6D without having UI -- res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself. They are further suggesting that UI can be presumed even in the absence of proof of just how the UI came about.

Maybe that is right, and maybe it is enough to support a "civil judgment" -- that is, a score adjustment. That would depend on just how strong the inference is, that the bid is impossible without UI. (Pursuing the tort-law analogy, some accidents happen without negligence by anyone: they are just accidents. "Res ipsa" doesn't apply in such cases.)

A civil judgment is one thing, but a criminal conviction is another. For the latter, you should be required to produce proof -- and proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- of just what the defendant is alleged to have done. It is one thing to find that there must have been UI (res ipsa loquitur), but quite another to find that C&E should be involved (because disciplinary action should require concrete proof of what was actually done).

I am not expressing an opinion about whether the inference of UI is strong enough to be treated as res ipsa in this case; I guess reasonable minds can disagree about that. But I am expressing the opinion that without more than has been revealed in this forum, there isn't enough there for what amounts to a criminal conviction.

[jkdood]

tgoodwinsr, on Aug 6 2010, 02:32 PM, said:

...that without more than has been revealed in this forum, there isn't enough there for what amounts to a criminal conviction.

Well, Justin did say up front that something like a "civil conviction" not rising to the standards of a "criminal convction" might be called for.

Whether or not this would be good for bridge and workable, seems a valid discussion point.

[Lobowolf]

mikeh, on Aug 6 2010, 01:25 PM, said:

jkdood, on Aug 6 2010, 12:48 PM, said:

A C&E deliberation would have been nice, since I think many share MFA's feelings as posted "...if that committee doesn't find anything to take action on, I will respect it 100% and never even think about using any word starting with a "c". The player (whom I don't know) will have my complete benefit of the doubt that he just chose a remarkable action with remarkable success, and it is part of the charm of the game that wild things can readily happen."

Although Justin reports that he would push for a C&E committee, he subsequently posted:  "...The ruling is, there is no evidence of UI so the table result stands. The ruling as far as a C&E hearing is that there will be none, because this hand is not evidence of any misconduct."

One would also think, since many seem to concur with Justin's reporting that the Top 20 Spingold experts all agree that "... This bid is impossible without any form of UI",  that there SHOULD HAVE BEEN a C&E hearing.

But there wasn't because "because this hand is not evidence of any misconduct." ???

WHO made such a determination? The TD(s)?

Why would the TD's, who frequently consult with "top players" on rulings, make such a determination that contradicts the 20 out of 20 top experts polled? 

Is it because the representation of such polling is inaccurate?  Or if not, are the TD's making determinations that defy the reported unanimous opinion?

I would really like to know why (or opinion on why) we hear that all the top players at NO thought the bid was "impossible without UI", yet there was no C&E convened.

Possibly because the Directors are concerned with the application of principles of what is called, in my country at least, 'natural justice'. This is analogous to but not the same as, as I understand it, to concepts of due process in the US.

The Directors are concerned with evidence of wrong-doing and despite the apparent conviction of many non-legally trained posters, the existence of the hand and the making of the bid and the fortuitous outcome are not evidence of UI.

Arguing that such matters are evidence reveals primarily the arguer's ignorance of basic rules of evidence.

Any player being polled, by someone they respect who is obviously pissed off, is likely to have the same instinctive reaction that I and many others had on first reading the original post. It smells. It is suggestive of UI.

My suggestion: repoll the top 100 players, or so many of them as were consulted, and invite them to read the non-flame parts of the thread and then offer their opinion. Several posters here backed away from their initial reaction...I know I did.

While some will probably remain convinced that there must have been cheating involved, I suspect that many would change their minds....and I doubt that any with actual training in these sorts of issues would remain of the view that there should be a committee hearing.

There has to be EVIDENCE before a player is subjected to a committee. There was none, as least as far as we can tell from what has been posted here. Indeed, it seems that there was likely very strong evidence negating the most probable suspicious possibility...a stacked deck.

Saying that there was evidence doesn't make it so, not matter how vehemently one believes in one's argument. I know, the same can be said for my point of view....the difference is that I can point to decades of experience dealing with the rules of evidence, which are largely the same in the US as they are in Canada (one of the most authoritative texts on evidence used in Canada is US)

Whether you think the 'smell' remains or not is another story entirely....but the 'smell' is not evidence.

I think that a good deal of relevant evidence has been noted on this thread, on both sides. Inadmissible evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

[jkdood]

Lobowolf, on Aug 6 2010, 02:47 PM, said:

Inadmissible evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

Well, you are certainly right about that!

"Reporting" that 20 of the top 20 experts asked termed the bid "impossible without UI" must be one of the biggest examples of heresay ever made.

[kenrexford]

Geez! I missed quite the controversy. My take (maybe someone said this already?) is as follows:

Bridge is an ego game. I would never trot out this sick of a random call because:

(1) Normally I look like an idiot, but
(2) If it works, I look like a cheat.

So, the person who bid 6♦ is either a blathering fool who got lucky, a cheat who is a blathering idiot for thinking this would work without public ridicule, or a blathering fool who doesn't realize that he would look like a cheat if it worked and look like a blathering fool if it didn't.

This much is clear.

I also believe that there are two methods of handling this sort of incident. One is through proper procedures and rules and evidence. The other is by the trial of light. The punishment that comes from the trial of light (having what happened made public) is that your ego and reputation takes a hit, in that public opinion of you becomes that you are a blathering fool who got lucky, a cheat, or a blathering fool who doesn't realize that he would look like a cheat if it worked and look like a blathering fool if it didn't.

So, good for prosecutor jlogic (when did THAT name pop up???). State the case, and let the "punishment" fall where it may.

Debates as to which of the three possibilities is correct, or debates suggesting that there are alternative possibilities, serve little purpose other than to expose other people as blathering idiots, as well. At this point, the counselor at law in me kicks in. I would suggest to some who think 6♦ was a sensible bid to remain silent, as the words you are using to explain this are definitely being used against you in the public opinion of your status as a possible blathering idiot.