[fred]

I don't have an opinion on how such things *should* be handled (I haven't really thought about it nor do I care to) and I don't want to get involved in a public discussion about my guess as to the likelyhood of UI, but I will say this:

1) In our investigations of potential cheaters on BBO, one outlandish hand is not even close to enough for us to convict regardless of how outandlish that hand happens to be. I am certain that this is a wise policy for BBO.

2) My bridge opinion of the 6D bid is similar to Justin's. I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about an expert player intentionally doing anything even remotely similar. IMO not only is bidding 6D an obviously terrible, terrible, way to swing, but I have been in this situation many times (where a clearly superior team is up 40ish IMPs early in a long match) and, in my experience, pretty much nobody ever swings (to say nothing of swinging for the fences) under these circumstances.

So, in my world, 6D is both very bad from a pure bridge/swinging point of view and very bizarre from a real world point of view. IMO these are not matters that are even worthy of discussion for "serious" players.

3) I believe that virtually all "top 100 players" would agree with my opinions on the quality and the degree of strangeness of the 6D bid. Maybe it was not necessary to include the word "virtually", but given the rarity of unanimous expert panels in the Master Solvers' Club, I chose to play it safe.

4) I have played against Howard Piltch many times over the past 30 years and I was even his partner for one day when I was very young. Although Howard has offended me (more than once) with his behavior at the table, I have never seen him do anything that made me question his bridge ethics. I would describe his style of play as "active but not insanely so". He has significant skill as a bridge player. He is also a very smart man.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jkdood]

a) ...don't recall ever seeing or hearing about an expert player intentionally doing anything even remotely similar. IMO not only is bidding 6D an obviously terrible, terrible, way to swing...

b ) ...I would suggest to some who think 6♦ was a sensible bid to remain silent...

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

But many have suggested that to say 6D was "impossible without UI" is not correct, and it seems that getting even the Top 20 players to all say that in no uncertain terms, isn't going to happen.

Not that ACBL rules or TD policies suggest that such a determination by itself is currently worthy of an adjustment, C&E hearing, or otherwise.

I think Mr. P. might very well be deserving of benefit of the doubt, at the very least, for this single "lucky strike".

[hrothgar]

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

Take a look at the UI cases in published appeals hearings. Every time you see a UI case there is an explicit description of the nature of the UI. (For example, "Break in Tempo" seems to be a very popular offense)

How would you propose that we write this one up in such a way that we clearly distinquish between being "too lucky" and "cheating"...

[jdonn]

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

How would you propose that we write this one up in such a way that we clearly distinquish between being "too lucky" and "cheating"...

You have asked this question a few times in several forms, but why do you think it matters at all how they write it up? It could be a lousy write up like so many others for all it matters to me.

[jdonn]

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.

[jkdood]

Josh you are right. Several really did try to justify the choice of 6D, as if they would also (under the same conditions) make the same bid. (Not that I believe it.)

I actually lean towards the "impossible without UI" feelings. But I can also feel someone is likely guilty when the jury says otherwise. In such a case I respect the official judgement, NOT GUILTY. Of course, that's not the same as INNOCENT, blah blah blah.

Based upon the current rules, standards, treatments, and lack of condemning unanimity, I give him a reluctant PASS.

[mikeh]

Has no-one here but me ever done on impluse something that was particularly stupid?

I did insanely dangerous things when I was younger. I mean truly idiotic things, that I did on impulse....usually involving motorcycles.

Cannot anyone even consider that this man, a skilled but 'imaginative' player, heavily out-gunned, saw at the table a chance to do an irrational action that, if it worked, would have all kinds of positive effects. That he acted on impulse before reasoning that if it worked he'd be called a cheat?

This is a man who has been villified by a lot of people but NONE of the accusations, other than from Wolff....and he is hardly the most reliable source of gossip imo...suggest that his ethics have ever been challenged. So, in the pressure of the moment, with this unusual hand, if it occurred to him, no matter how foolishly and in principle erroneously, that he should make a silly bid....how likely is it that he'd do the rexford analysis......oh...if this works, everyone will think I'm a cheat?

And we can add to this mix, the fact that on what we have learned about him, he doesn't give a rat's ass about what people think of him anyway.

You may feel that this is unlikely, but if you for a moment concede that it MIGHT have happened, then I think you have to recognize that he can't be even tried for cheating absent a shred of evidence of how he came to the presumed UI.

And that's where the hang'em high crowd fails. All of the evidence so far identified on this forum as to who did what, saw what, said what, etc is to the effect that there was no apparent opportunity for him to acquire UI, let alone that he did acquire UI.

Res ipsa, to which another poster made reference, wouldn't apply. It is a rule that has extremelyy narrow application in tort law....I think I have seen it argued less than hafl a dozen times in 30 years....and now, in my jursidiction, it has been eliminated. It wouldn't apply here even if it were a live doctrine. It is not a factor to be weighed against other evidence...it is used only when, for good reason, no evidence on a point is available. Here, we have lots of evidence about the circumstances that led up the bid and none of that evidence suggests cheating. All of it tends to rule out cheating, and res ipsa cannot be used to discard that evidence.

[hotShot]

jdonn, on Aug 6 2010, 10:08 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.

hotShot, on Aug 6 2010, 09:09 AM, said:

....
the 6♦ bid is not good bridge, but it is by far less crazy than you imply.

... without a full analysis 6♦ looks attractive ....

This means that 6♦ is a sensible bid?
Wow, I have to brush up my English .....

[peachy]

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?

[jdonn]

hotShot, on Aug 6 2010, 04:22 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 6 2010, 10:08 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.

hotShot, on Aug 6 2010, 09:09 AM, said:

....
the 6♦ bid is not good bridge, but it is by far less crazy than you imply.

... without a full analysis 6♦ looks attractive ....

This means that 6♦ is a sensible bid?
Wow, I have to brush up my English .....

I said that you claimed 6♦ was any of 3 things. You partially quoted yourself and wondered how that could mean you claimed 6♦ was a particular 1 of those things. Care to try again?

[junyi_zhu]

hotShot, on Aug 6 2010, 09:22 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 6 2010, 10:08 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.

hotShot, on Aug 6 2010, 09:09 AM, said:

....
the 6♦ bid is not good bridge, but it is by far less crazy than you imply.

... without a full analysis 6♦ looks attractive ....

This means that 6♦ is a sensible bid?
Wow, I have to brush up my English .....

The bidding here is not a one shot business. It's not that if you don't bid 6D, you can't find 6D. Either double or 4NT may help players finding 6D when partner holds longer D and short C. That's actually why I reasoned that if he knows the hand, he may afraid that his partner doesn't know and doesn't cooperate. Suppose the bidding goes ...4N p 5C or x p 4C it's really not easy to pull 6D now. In that sense, 6D is a very insane bid IMO.

[kenrexford]

I think 6♦ was a particularly poor choice, when 4NT stands out as the zooming swing bid. If you want to get to a 6♦ contract because you expect diamonds to play particularly well, then show equal length in the minors and see if partner picks diamonds. If he does, bid a gambling 6. If he picks clubs, pass. What's the trick to this hand? What, you are afraid to end up in the wrong contract when partner has 4-4 in the minors? If he has THAT hand, his diamonds are better than his clubs anyway, as he lacks the Ace, King, and Queen of clubs, and will pick diamonds. In fact, on this hand, partner would in fact pick diamonds, so all is well.

Had the auction been P-3♠-4NT-P-5♦-P-6♦, this would be a very sensible swing auction.

Blasting 6♦ seems rather ignorant. If it was intended as a rational attempt to swing, it was rather inept. If it was a UI call, it was also rather inept.

(Just noticed the post immediately above mine, while I was typing. LOL)

[jkdood]

But Ken, Junyi, others...
Is it POSSIBLE WITHOUT UI?
Y/N

(maybe a poll....)

[hotShot]

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

I said that you claimed 6♦ was any of 3 things. You partially quoted yourself and wondered how that could mean you claimed 6♦ was a particular 1 of those things. Care to try again?

I claimed it to be any of 2 choices and gave an example how flawed reasoning could make someone think that 6♦ is a masterminding option.

[tgoodwinsr]

If it possible without UI, that ends the matter unless there is proof of UI.

If it is not possible without UI, then . . . res ipsa. That means you don't need proof of UI (under this alternative), because the assumption ("not possible without UI") provides the proof.

If you decide that UI is proven because the bid is impossible without it, you still haven't shown how the UI was obtained. And if you can't show that, you can't impose discipline (punishment), only score adjustment (like a civil remedy).

The principles aren't complicated, but it may not be easy to show that the bid wasn't possible in the absence of UI.

[mikeh]

Wait a second. If he knew the hand, that means that he knew that his partner held Kxxx in diamonds and fewer than 5 clubs (I think we can infer fewer than 4) and that his clubs were no better than 10xxx.

So IF he knew that hand and wanted to cheat...i.e. he is being rational about this....why on earth wouldn't he bid 4N and raise or 5N immediately??? (assuming that these calls show minors...some might prefer 4♠) Even if partner were 4-4 minors, wouldn't he choose kxxx over at best 10xxx, and if,a s seems very probable from the original post, he held fewer than 4 clubs wtf would be be bidding clubs on?????? IOW, if Piltch knew the hand, he would never rationally bid 6♦ and would have no f*%king reason to do so. Yet you guys 'reason' from the fact that he did bid 6♦ that he had to have known the hand...he was taking out insurance that his partner with, for example, Kxxx xx in the minors would prefer clubs!!!!! Heaven help us all. Well, I don't believe in god, so that was rhetorical

Sure, we'd all think the 2-suiter bid was weird, but our smell detectors would surely not be blasting all over the place: the 3♠ bid combined with no weak 2 from partner makes it fairly likely that he has a 4 card minor, and if he 3-3 we play in clubs, while if he prefers diamonds, we have an even stronger inference that he has 4 of them....at least that's how I'd defend my choice if I were trying to pull this off.

Of course, if he didn't know his partner's holdings, he wasn't cheating.

I don't get it. You say that his action is so bizarre he has to be cheating....and that cheating is by him having knowledge that gives him a 100% bullet-proof uncontested way of getting to the right spot while looking only moderately lunatic as opposed to utterly lunatic.

It seems to me that you guys are so emotionally committed to the truth of your conclusions that you can't see straight anymore.

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Aug 6 2010, 05:11 PM, said:

It seems to me that you guys are so emotionally committed to the truth of your conclusions that you can't see straight anymore.

Interesting you should be the one to say this...

Btw do you think 100% bullet proof means something that I don't think it means? Because I'm quite sure the majority of experts would bid clubs over a bid that shows both minors with Kxxx Txxx since the 2 suited bid is more often longer in the lower suit.

Anyway it goes back to my argument in the first thread. Very briefly, this would be a very bad way to play bridge (meaning without cheating), and a very bad way to cheat. We have strong evidence the player is not a very bad bridge player and no evidence of his skill level in cheating. So....

[mrdct]

mikeh, on Aug 7 2010, 04:25 AM, said:

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.

You keep running this same silly arguement.

These things are clearly "evidence" of UI, just not conclusive evidence to a burden of proof sufficient for the directing staff to have found there was an infraction.

"Rules of evidence" will determine what evidence is admissable or not and what evidence will be given lower or higher weight, but will have no bearing on what constitutes evidence.

The smoking gun does not prove that a person shot his wife, but it will certainly be introduced at his murder trial. One does not need to be legally trained to understand this concept.

[mrdct]

tgoodwinsr, on Aug 7 2010, 05:32 AM, said:

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.

The burden of proof for a UI ruling is "balance of probabilities" so the level of proof required is far more similar to that required in a civil matter than a criminal matter.

[jkdood]

mrdct, on Aug 6 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

The burden of proof for a UI ruling is "balance of probabilities" ...

Reference please? Is this in writing anywhere? TY.