[kenrexford]

Mike, as a lawyer, I would think you would figure out this riddle.

Give two people the same problem. One knows that 6♦ is the right contract; the other is desperate for a swing and can see from looking at his hand that 6♦ may be the golden spot.

The second person is in fear because he is about to try something wild that may fail miserably. So, he thinks through the auction possibilities to come up with a means of finding out if partner might have the golden hand, a course that will validate the devil on his shoulder. It dawns on him to try the gambit of the 4NT call, which is not really that unusual of an idea. So, his motivation being to gather the necessary information, he figures out the call likely to work and tries it.

The first person also is in fear, but his fear has nothing to do with figuring out how to discover what he needs to know -- he already has the necessary information. His fear is in being caught. With that motivation, his bridge logic goes out the window, and he just blasts 6♦, with a plan on how to explain his bid. His explanation will concern what partner might have, and what the defense likely will be, and the state of the Match, etc. The part he forgets is that the person in his seat with such a wild idea would never miss the "find out the story" bid, because that is problem is not in his mind.

[JLOGIC]

It should be obvious why I have to keep saying "all of the top 100 players in the world that I know and have talked to about this."

I cannot mention people by name, I doubt many want part of this. Even those that do, it's not like I'm going to call them and ask them to register for the BBO forums and find this thread, and make what might be seen as a public accusation of cheating.

Yes, you will have to take my word for it that all of those people feel the same way about the 6D bid as me. I'm sorry it's hearsay, but at least consider that it's not something I would make up since it would just take one person (like Fred) to come post that I am off base to discredit it.

Hopefully Fred's post is affirmation of what I have said. Fred has no vested interest in this matter. Thanks Fred for taking time to post that.

I am surprised that it is not so blindingly obvious that this is true just based on the 6D bid, but it's gotten to the point where some people have rationalized it in their mind as a normal/good bid that happens all the time, and they are just looking at the hand and thinking of a 4-4 diamond fit.

Ok, but I will keep repeating that I doubt anything like this has ever happened in any top level match. Since I haven't played bridge that long I'll qualify it with "in the last 15 years." Seriously, if it had happened, everyone would know. It would be written about...talked about...much like this hand.

@Jay:

The point I've taken from all of this is one weird hand with no evidence of how UI was obtained, or that it was obtained at all, no matter how weird, is not enough to bring someone to a C&E committee and convict them, despite what all polled players say etc etc. Honestly, this seems like a reasonable policy, but it does seem like there should be some common sense rule or something that changes that. Regardless, I wouldn't read so much into it or infer that I am mistaken about the opinion of every top player on this issue because of it. At least this policy goes out of its way to protect the innocent.

[jkdood]

I just don't see why the TD's can't go up to their expert player consultants as they often do, and ask:

Conditions are as follows... 6D is bid... is this bid "possible without UI"? Y/N?

If they all say N, Voila, adjustment, C&E review, etc...
Or not.

Why someone won't answer (y/n) as Fred didn't, is another matter.

[tim_delane]

I always seem to get into trouble when I assume that people will draw reasonable inferences from what I say. I must get used to the fact that it's wise to to be explicit in my arguments, even at the risk of insulting the intelligence of the reader. Mea culpa.

When I suggested that there was a comparison between Fred's 1NT bid and Howard's 6D bid, I never meant to suggest that they were similar in terms of bridge wisdom. I meant to point out that both were psychs, nothing more. If you wish to demolish the straw man that I consider the bridge merits of both bids to be similar, have at it.

Fred's 1NT bid on board 63 was a psych by his own testimony (though I would call it semi-psychic, and others would call it a tactical overbid--YMMV). Howard's 6D bid, by any sane definition, qualifies as a psych. True, it's very offbeat in that it figures to be followed by three passes, but nonetheless it's a psych. It grossly misrepresents his length in the minor suits.

It is a player's absolute right to to psych. That right would be worth nothing if a favorable result were automatically cancelled. The ruling that many people here want to propose is that the favorable result must be due to UI. But there is no concrete evidence of UI other that the argument from credulity.

I'd be the first to agree that the incident merits a recorder entry. But there is nothing I have read that suggests anything more. I believe that subjecting the incident to public scrutiny does a great disservice to bridge. I think this incident has gathered momentum because Howard is not ... um, ...universally regarded as a paragon of congeniality.

As a final note to this post, I am dismayed at the number of posts that generate heat, but no light.

[jdonn]

tim_delane, on Aug 6 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

I believe that subjecting the incident to public scrutiny does a great disservice to bridge.

And therefore you started this thread!

[CSGibson]

tim_delane, on Aug 6 2010, 04:10 PM, said:

I always seem to get into trouble when I assume that people will draw reasonable inferences from what I say. I must get used to the fact that it's wise to to be explicit in my arguments, even at the risk of insulting the intelligence of the reader. Mea culpa.

When I suggested that there was a comparison between Fred's 1NT bid and Howard's 6D bid, I never meant to suggest that they were similar in terms of bridge wisdom. I meant to point out that both were psychs, nothing more. If you wish to demolish the straw man that I consider the bridge merits of both bids to be similar, have at it.

Fred's 1NT bid on board 63 was a psych by his own testimony (though I would call it semi-psychic, and others would call it a tactical overbid--YMMV). Howard's 6D bid, by any sane definition, qualifies as a psych. True, it's very offbeat in that it figures to be followed by three passes, but nonetheless it's a psych. It grossly misrepresents his length in the minor suits.

It is a player's absolute right to to psych. That right would be worth nothing if a favorable result were automatically cancelled. The ruling that many people here want to propose is that the favorable result must be due to UI. But there is no concrete evidence of UI other that the argument from credulity.

I'd be the first to agree that the incident merits a recorder entry. But there is nothing I have read that suggests anything more. I believe that subjecting the incident to public scrutiny does a great disservice to bridge. I think this incident has gathered momentum because Howard is not ... um, ...universally regarded as a paragon of congeniality.

As a final note to this post, I am dismayed at the number of posts that generate heat, but no light.

yeah, it's not a psych. Just like bidding 7N with Axx Axxx Axxx Ax is not a psych. He was bidding to make, not to mislead opponents (psych being short for psychological bid).

[JLOGIC]

tim_delane, on Aug 6 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

I think this incident has gathered momentum because Howard is not ... um, ...universally regarded as a paragon of congeniality.

This is simply not true. I know I personally would have pursued this matter as far as I could (as I did here) no matter who it was who made this bid. It would not matter if Jesus Christ himself bid 6D. So my steps would have been exactly the same.

I am SURE that the public outcry that happened at the nationals would have been just as loud no matter who made this bid. You don't seem to understand exactly how incredible this bid was!

You don't have to believe me, but I know that much is true true.

As far as gaining traction on the forums, well I'm sure most people don't have any idea who Mr. Piltch is on here, and the name of hte person was not mentioned in the OP of the original thread (though I think it was outted pretty early, honestly can't remember at this point). I'm pretty sue something like this would always gain traction on an internet forum no matter who was involved though, and I'm absolutely sure (since I was the OP), the thread would have been made no matter who had bid 6D.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Aug 6 2010, 05:13 PM, said:

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....

Istly, in my post I state, clearly, that it seems a safe inference that partner held fewer than 4 clubs.

In that case, it becomes irrelevant whether most, all or any experts would bid clubs rather than diamonds. No expert with whom I am familiar would bid clubs with diamonds both longer and stronger than clubs.

And whose fault is it that we don't know how many clubs he held? It is the prosecution: the player who started all this by insinuating that the 6♦ call was cheating.

If the hand was 4-4 minors, I withdraw my recent arguments. I would go further....I would accept that the 6♦ call becomes even more suspicious than I had earlier thought.

Will you accept that if partner were 4=3 or 4=2 or 4=1 in the minors, my argument that a cheater could safely show a minor 2-suiter is valid? In the sense that he'd be assured of 'finding' diamonds?

And if you do.....will you go further and accept that showing a minor 2-suiter with AQxx AKQJxx is a more plausible, if still weird, way to swing...that is: the only way it loses is if advancer has fewer than 4 diamonds and longer diamonds than clubs? On your own post, with Kxx xxx, he bids clubs.

I am not going to do a simulation...no-one has suggested that Piltch did one...so it is a matter of feel...my feeling is that the odds are very high that showing both minors will land one in clubs or a playable diamond fit, and that a playable diamond fit will almost always produce more tricks than clubs.

if you are with me so far...then I hope you see that arguing that 'he bid 6♦...he had to have known the hand and couldn't risk his partner bidding clubs' makes no sense.


What it seems to me to be is a case where it is a bizarre way to bid without cheating. It is a bizarre way to bid with cheating.

So the nature of the bid itself is inconsistent both with rational but honest bidding and rational and dishonest cheating. Why, then draw the inference that it was more likely cheating than not?

We know he is skilful...but 'imaginative'...so he could think of showing a minor 2-suiter. While you say we know nothing about his skill at cheating....that is because with the exception of Wolff....my opnion of him is uncomplimentary based on reading his writings and some limited personal experience with him....everyone who has commented on Piltch has been at pains to say that they have NEVER seen any indication that he was ethically challenged at the bridge table. So you may not have direct knowledge of his 'skill' at cheating but we have a lot of evidence that this may be because....drum roll please....he doesn't cheat.

Edit: i did a quick simulation: i gave opener 4-10 hcp, 7 spades and advancer 0-11 hcp and eliminated a couple of heart preempts from the resulting sample. Of the first 53 hands (55 in sample, 2 rejected) and assuming that advancer would only bid diamonds with longer diamonds than clubs, we land in a 4-3 (in one case a 4-2) diamond fit 3 times....3 out of 55. So, yes...if this is a fair sample....and you are welcome to run your own....this is a fairly low-risk way to swing. I wouldn't do it...but I don't have a reputation for trying to win imps by swinging, ever.

[JLOGIC]

Mikeh, I think with 4-4 in the minors bidding clubs is pretty normal over 4N (or a takeout X).

Always doing the same thing with equal length allows partner to make some inferences in case he wants to go on (like over 4N if you bid 5D he can expect to buy 3-2, so he can more accurately guage slam decisions). It also allows partner 1 more extra bid over the cheaper bid, in case he wants to bid that ever (eg 4N-5C-5D, whatever that would mean). It also allows partner to bid 4N with 1 more club than diamond freely knowing that you can get to the right one. With 1 more diamond than club he might be able to try 4D then 5C (if his hand is not that strong he can expect more bidding), in order to get to the right fit that way.

Yes none of that is a perfect science but there are a lot of small plusses to always bidding clubs, and it's not clear you gain often at all by bidding the stronger one (we all know of the vondracek phenomenon after all!).

Certainly in some auctions bidding the cheaper one is a more useful concept than in others (like over 5N you should probably just bid the stronger one...because I think 5N should show equal length, but who knows? 5N would probably be a good bid if you had UI, but a lot of people wouldn't think of it).

At the very least I would not be 100 % that over 4N my partner would bid diamonds. I know some people think like me (bid the cheaper one) and some people think like you (bid the better one). So let's make it 50 % that my partner will bid diamonds, maybe you wouldn't be willing to risk that 50 % that he bids clubs? I don't think it is irrational to not take that risk if you have UI, all hypothetically speaking.

[JLOGIC]

Yes, the hand was 4-4 in the minors. The hand also had 2 spades and 3 hearts (with 3S and 2H of course, 6C is the right spot).

I posted that in my original post, it was really a perfect dummy to catch for bidding 6D rather than 4N (or double). It is a completely textbook hand.

[JLOGIC]

mikeh, on Aug 6 2010, 06:21 PM, said:

Will you accept that if partner were 4=3 or 4=2 or 4=1 in the minors, my argument that a cheater could safely show a minor 2-suiter is valid? In the sense that he'd be assured of 'finding' diamonds?

I absolutely accept this argument, accept that a (normal) takeout double works just as well. You double, and partner bids 4D. That's a normal auction then.

The problem with a normal auction possibly finding diamonds is that the other 2 players (my father and myself), might also find diamonds in that case.

That is just another coincidence of this hand, the right contract had no chance to be found on normal bidding at the other table.

So on top of 4-4 in the minors (making 6D impossible on normal bidding whereas 4-3 could go X-4D-5S or whatever), partner happened to have 3 hearts and 2 spades (the perfect amount, because with 3 spades and 2 hearts, 6C is fine). It's just really remarkable that when you choose to make this 6D bid, this is the layout you catch. Of course that in and of itself proves nothing.

So far Rainer has been computing how often the 6D bid is good, and coming up with some arbitrary 10 % and 40 % numbers. He doesn't seem to realize just how unlikely a layout is where you have to jump to 6D in order to find diamonds. As if you cannot play diamonds when partner is 4-3 in the minors and you make a takeout double and partner bids diamonds.

[jdonn]

Mike the original hand was posted in the first post of the first thread, it seems you missed it. xx xxx Kxxx Txxx I believe.

[mikeh]

JLOGIC, on Aug 6 2010, 06:32 PM, said:

Yes, the hand was 4-4 in the minors. The hand also had 2 spades and 3 hearts (with 3S and 2H of course, 6C is the right spot).

I posted that in my original post, it was really a perfect dummy to catch for bidding 6D rather than 4N (or double). It is a completely textbook hand.

Thanks...when I went to look at it, uday had reconstructed the post...which had been lost... and I either didn't see or he hadn't remembered that part...besides which he gave a 12 card holding for the 6♦ bidder.

When facts change, my opinions change.

My argument that 6♦ was a bizarre way to cheat evaporates, and my suspicions re-emerge, as they did re my first post.

But I think your last-but-one post is a good reflection of why I still wouldn't pronounce him as a cheat or even as someone who should face a hearing...but definitely, imo, he should go on a watch list....so long as being on a watch list is NOT confused with 'we know you're a cheat, we just haven't caught you yet'...more....'this does't look good....too many more of these and you're gonna be in trouble'.

[JLOGIC]

mikeh, on Aug 6 2010, 06:40 PM, said:

But I think your last-but-one post is a good reflection of why I still wouldn't pronounce him as a cheat or even as someone who should face a hearing...but definitely, imo, he should go on a watch list....so long as being on a watch list is NOT confused with 'we know you're a cheat, we just haven't caught you yet'...more....'this does't look good....too many more of these and you're gonna be in trouble'.

That is effectively what has happened, it was recorded and similar incidents will probably be viewed under more scrutiny, but he has not been convicted or even deemed to have enough evidence to be tried of anything.

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.

[tim_delane]

JLOGIC, on Aug 6 2010, 11:18 PM, said:

tim_delane, on Aug 6 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

I think this incident has gathered momentum because Howard is not ... um, ...universally regarded as a paragon of congeniality.

This is simply not true. I know I personally would have pursued this matter as far as I could (as I did here) no matter who it was who made this bid. It would not matter if Jesus Christ himself bid 6D. So my steps would have been exactly the same.

I am SURE that the public outcry that happened at the nationals would have been just as loud no matter who made this bid. You don't seem to understand exactly how incredible this bid was!

Oh, but I do. You don't seem to understand my point: incredible is not the same as cheating. What you have written (not just above, but in the totality of your posts), IMO, comes very close to a public accusation of cheating.

[JLOGIC]

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.

[tim_delane]

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!

Since you omitted a smiley, I assume you are serious.
Have at it. Perhaps this will help:

Tim DeLaney
5719 Aberdeen ct
South Bend, IN 46614

[JLOGIC]

tim_delane, on Aug 6 2010, 07:01 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!

Since you omitted a smiley, I assume you are serious.
Have at it. Perhaps this will help:

Tim DeLaney
5719 Aberdeen ct
South Bend, IN 46614

?? lol lighten up man. Or maybe you're joking heh

[mrdct]

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.

[tim_delane]

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?