[peachy]

jkdood, on Aug 6 2010, 05:47 PM, said:

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.

The bridge laws, L85 for example. This is not restricted to UI rulings.

[JLOGIC]

tim_delane, on Aug 6 2010, 07:09 PM, said:

JLOGIC, on Aug 6 2010, 11:52 PM, said:

tim_delane, on Aug 6 2010, 06:46 PM, said:

What you have written (not just above, but in the totality of your posts), IMO, comes very close to a public accusation of cheating.

You seem to be publicly accusing me of publicly accusing someone of cheating! I'll sue!

But seriously, throughout all of this with respect to the piltch related posts (yes I got into some flamewarz in the middle, but not really related to this incident at all, and more related to personal arguments with other posters), I have followed BBF rules, had no posts edited or deleted, and been informed by a moderator that everything I have said and done has been perfectly in line and fine.

And AFAIK, public accusations of cheating are against BBF rules. So at the very least the moderators (or at least the one I've been in contact with), do not view anything I have posted as a public accusation of cheating. You might, but you are not a moderator of this forum.

I thought I quoted the entirety of your post, but I never saw the part that starts: "But seriously ... " Maybe I'm ignorant about how this forum works.

Do I still need to consult my lawyer?

If that's true I probably edited while you were replying. My bad, I should have included "edited" but I generally only do if there's been a reply since then, so we probably replied/edited simultaneously (obv I wouldn't edit after a direct reply heh).

Anyways I guess you're just pissed off at me and this thread is going to end up like the last one and not end up constructive. You didn't even laugh a little at my joke? Oh well, can't win em all I guess

[mrdct]

What seems to happen in practice, however, is that when the alleged use of UI crosses the line to be cheating directors tend to apply a higher standard of proof giving more benefit of the doubt to the alleged offender. I understand the practical reasons why this is this the case, but it doesn't really have any foundation in the Laws of Bridge.

[jkdood]

What seems equally important to the public debate here, is the notion that presumably 20 of 20 top expert players believe the bid is "not possible without UI" and the TD's are in a position to determine this to some extent.

Yet that doesn't rise to the level of being sent to a C&E or other formal inquiry.

Something is way wrong with that picture!

[junyi_zhu]

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

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

(maybe a poll....)

Well, in a perfect rational world, it's impossible because player would certainly try to find the sensible way to place the best contract. However, human are not that rational and sometimes we are just emotional. When the player is emotional, this kind of behaviors are certainly possible, because emotional people may ignore a lot of things and just to tilt the machine. In money bridge, I sometimes found people overbid 10 points than they actually have and found some lucky slams. Of course that's life and we have to accept the results. In this case, the bid is certainly very strange and anti-common sense. Still, if there is some evidence that the player was quite emotional, the bid is possible without UI. Otherwise, it may prove the the player is rather a poor bidder in that certain hand or he does have UI. I don't really know the player, so I have nothing to say. I did read Wolff's book chapter. Of course that accusation in the book shows that the play did have some ethic related incident in history. Still, if I am a juror, I may vote that this case is lack of important evidence to show that the player cheats. However, as a player, I strongly doubt that the player might not be innocent at all and will try not to play against him if possible.

[tim_delane]

JLOGIC, on Aug 7 2010, 12:13 AM, said:

tim_delane, on Aug 6 2010, 07:09 PM, said:

JLOGIC, on Aug 6 2010, 11:52 PM, said:

tim_delane, on Aug 6 2010, 06:46 PM, said:

What you have written (not just above, but in the totality of your posts), IMO, comes very close to a public accusation of cheating.

You seem to be publicly accusing me of publicly accusing someone of cheating! I'll sue!

But seriously, throughout all of this with respect to the piltch related posts (yes I got into some flamewarz in the middle, but not really related to this incident at all, and more related to personal arguments with other posters), I have followed BBF rules, had no posts edited or deleted, and been informed by a moderator that everything I have said and done has been perfectly in line and fine.

And AFAIK, public accusations of cheating are against BBF rules. So at the very least the moderators (or at least the one I've been in contact with), do not view anything I have posted as a public accusation of cheating. You might, but you are not a moderator of this forum.

I thought I quoted the entirety of your post, but I never saw the part that starts: "But seriously ... " Maybe I'm ignorant about how this forum works.

Do I still need to consult my lawyer?

If that's true I probably edited while you were replying. My bad, I should have included "edited" but I generally only do if there's been a reply since then, so we probably replied/edited simultaneously (obv I wouldn't edit after a direct reply heh).

Anyways I guess you're just pissed off at me and this thread is going to end up like the last one and not end up constructive. You didn't even laugh a little at my joke? Oh well, can't win em all I guess

I'm not at all pissed off. Actually, I suspected you were spoofing from the exclamation mark in "I'll sue!"

I agree that this discussion is not constructive. I only entered it because a good friend (Bud Hinckley) was potentially tarred by the broad brush of innuendo.

[TimG]

mrdct, on Aug 6 2010, 07:08 PM, said:

jkdood, on Aug 7 2010, 08:47 AM, said:

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.

Law 85A1.

There are two separate issues under discussion:

1) Score adjustment; and
2) Convicting a player of cheating.

It does seem that the Laws would allow a score adjustment based upon the "balance of probabilities".

I don't think that means that a cheating conviction can also be based upon the "balance of probabilities". Wouldn't the ACBL Disciplinary Code be the document that needs referencing for a cheating conviction in the case at hand?

[jkdood]

mrdct, on Aug 6 2010, 07:21 PM, said:

What seems to happen in practice, however, is that when the alleged use of UI crosses the line to be cheating directors tend to apply a higher standard of proof giving more benefit of the doubt to the alleged offender.  I understand the practical reasons why this is this the case, but it doesn't really have any foundation in the Laws of Bridge.

Thanks all for Law85a1:
1. In determining the facts, the Director shall base
his view on the balance of probabilities, which is
to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence
he is able to collect.

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.

EDIT: "Or adjusting!"

2ND EDIT: In which case, there's nothing "wrong with bridge", just some timid, uninformed, or otherwise not-up-to-par TDs here.

[mrdct]

TimG, on Aug 7 2010, 10:27 AM, said:

There are two separate issues under discussion:

1) Score adjustment; and
2) Convicting a player of cheating.

It does seem that the Laws would allow a score adjustment based upon the "balance of probabilities".

I don't think that means that a cheating conviction can also be based upon the "balance of probabilities".  Wouldn't the ACBL Disciplinary Code be the document that needs referencing for a cheating conviction in the case at hand?

The ACBL test for conduct and ethics violations is "preponderance of evidence" which I guess is a little bit stronger than "balance of probabiities" but is certainly nowhere near "beyond reasonable doubt".

Preponderance of evidence is defined in the ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations as "Evidence that is more convincing than the evidence opposed to it" which sounds fairly similar to "balance of probabilities" to me.

[peachy]

jkdood, on Aug 6 2010, 07:34 PM, said:

mrdct, on Aug 6 2010, 07:21 PM, said:

What seems to happen in practice, however, is that when the alleged use of UI crosses the line to be cheating directors tend to apply a higher standard of proof giving more benefit of the doubt to the alleged offender.  I understand the practical reasons why this is this the case, but it doesn't really have any foundation in the Laws of Bridge.

Thanks all for Law85a1:
1. In determining the facts, the Director shall base
his view on the balance of probabilities, which is
to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence
he is able to collect.

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.

EDIT: "Or adjusting!"

2ND EDIT: In which case, there's nothing "wrong with bridge", just some timid, uninformed, or otherwise not-up-to-par TDs here.

The standard of making a charge of unethical conduct is higher than "balance of probabilities" so adjust could have been made on the score, but not a charge of unethical conduct because the strength of evidence the way ACBL regulations have set it, is lacking. If expert testimony is qualified evidence, then there is that, but there is no other evidence. So any charge of that kind would be unfounded on the basis of "insufficient evidence". Besides, it is not the TD who makes such charge, it is the C&E committee who examines any case brought to them and decides the outcome.

[mrdct]

Another useful quote out of the ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations:

Quote

5.1.4 The Committee shall not be bound by legal rules, whether of substantive law, evidence or procedure, and shall be liberal in receiving evidence. The receipt of evidence is not necessarily indicative of the weight or the credit which the Committee may give it in their ultimate determination; thus, hearsay evidence and written statements may be admitted and given such weight as the Committee deems appropriate.

So one can heavily discount the nonsense that has been espoused about the appication of Rules of Evidence applicable to courts of law.

[Lobowolf]

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.

[jkdood]

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 think many TDs tend NOT to consult with less than top expert players available, in practice, most of the time. IMHO, I think they prefer to hob-nob with the creme de la creme, human nature being what it is...

...but you brought up an excellent point. From what I know of the bridge level of many of the posters here, they me be more aligned with Mr. P's level than Justin's Spingold-poll.

And as we have seen, they are far from in any total agreement bout the 6D call being impossible without UI. Maybe the TD did do their own poll as a evidence gathering effort, of like players, and found opinion similar to what these threads offer? Hmmn.

[BudH]

There have been comments on how someone could have the imagination to find a 6D bid holding

void Axx AQxx AKQxxx

over a 3S preemptive opening bid.

A significant contributor to Mr. Piltch deciding to bid 6D was because he had seen a hand very similar to this one decades in the past.

Mr. Piltch was at the old Boston Chess Club on Beacon Street in Brookline, Massachusetts in the late 1970s or early 1980s when the late Clint Morrell (known as Uncle Clint, who was runner-up in the von Zedtwitz Gold Cup and third in a Blue Ribbon Pairs in 1991) opened 6D as the dealer with a hand very similar to the one being discussed (it had 4-6 in the minors) and Clint's left hand opponent was Lloyd Arvedon, a notable expert player from the Boston area.

Clint held a hand that looked like this for his 6D bid

x
AQ
AQTx
AKQxxx

and dummy came down with a stiff club with KJxxx of diamonds and nothing else of note. Diamonds were 2-2 and clubs were 5-1 so a diamond slam was cold and a club slam could not be made.

Clint chortled loudly afterward about how he had bid this hand against Mr. Arvedon such that most everyone at the club knew what had happened. That night at dinner at Brown's Steak House, "Uncle Clint" regaled people with an imitation of Mr. Arvedon's reaction to this hand.

Clint's rational had nothing to do with the state of the match. Rather, it was used to serve notice to Mr. Arvedon that Clint would do anything in his power to play with his mind.

Mr. Arvedon and possibly others at the Boston Chess Club when this happened can corroborate this story.

[kenrexford]

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.

[barmar]

JLOGIC, on Aug 6 2010, 07:44 PM, said:

Formally, I took all the measures I could, and that was the final verdict. I do not even think it is a bad process we have in theory. I do think that it errs extremely on the side of caution, but who says that's a bad thing, obv that's how it's supposed to be.

"Better that 10 guilty men go free than convict a single innocent man." This is the basis of our philosophy of due process.

[peachy]

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.

[BudH]

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.

[ggwhiz]

Quote

stacking the cards

This part did not happen and was physically imposible. If there was a wire, Bud had to be in on it and and that possibility has been dismissed by many if not all.

The ♦K may have been flashed by accident by any of the other 3 players that made the board but basically we have two choices.

Howard is a cheater (but we don't know how) or he is crazy as a loon.

OK, all of the above is in play as choice #3.

[barmar]

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.