[MFA]

This is not just taking a swinging action. 6♦ is an almost unreal bid that catches a model-perfecto scenario. xx, xxx, Kxxx, xxxx. Not even a jack to spare anywhere. It's not just outside my box, the whole thing is far and away the most spectacular thing I have ever seen at a serious tournament.

Sure, 6♦ might work out. Of course. It is a strong hand and we have AQxx of trumps. We might buy well.

I don't think it is a surprise that such a board gives cause to suspicion, and having a committee to review the happenings seems logical.

When that has being said, 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.

[mikeh]

I still have sympathy for Justin, and I mean no criticism of him at all when I say that I think he is too emotionally involved in this incident to be capable of any degree of objectivity. Given what happened, I don't blame him one bit...and the player calling him early in the a.m. no doubt compounded the situation.

We will probably never 'know' what happened. Justin's suggestion (and he wasn't saying it happened here) that it is possible for a cheater to slip in a rigged deck, even while appearing to shuffle, is plausible. In matchpoint games with hand records and boards made at the table, I find it faster to deal the hands out, and as those of us who do this invariably do, I deal face down. Sometimes EW move down a table for the duplication, and I make a show of 'shuffling' the deck, but of course I don't meld the cards. I then proceed to deal the hands facedown....you should see the looks on some players' faces, as they try to stop me from doing it:)

So the fake shuffle is easy: I get away with it doing it while trying to attract attention, so imagine how easy it is to do with one board while the other 3 are dealing with 2 boards each.

I have far less sympathy for his notion that the honesty of the bid should be gauged by polling real experts. As Adam (and others) have pointed out, the reason Justin is so peeved is precisely because this was an action that would never occur to most players, let alone the best players in the world, who are never going to be tempted to do this for several reasons.

1. It will usually be a disaster
2. They have reputations to think of....imagine their sponsor's reaction to this tyoe of action....let alone partners and teammates current and prospective
3. they expect to have a chance to win, even against a better team, through their skill and talent...their confidence in their own abilities would stop them from doing this

No...the 'pool' you need to consult would be players of the general skill and experience level of the player in question and even that would be problematic. In my area, I can think of maybe a dozen players who are, in my view, decent but non-expert...they win the occasional sectional but rarely a regional and never compete far in large events. They are, therefore, more or less equivalent in overall skill. Yet one of them is incredibly conservative, another is very seat of the pants, and is more akin to (my idea of) a poker player than a bridge player, and so on.

The only real 'pool' is the player himself.....and this thread is intself one reason why that pool can no longer be tested.

What should have happened is that the ACBL should have been notified, quietly, of the concern. The ACBL, if it chose, could have started a watching brief...even quiet conversations with other players who faced the player in other events, and/or video monitoring of his shuffling in team games and so on.

It seems to me to be at least as likely that this approach would have revealed him to be an honest but idiosyncratic player, of a type that many of us would prefer not to play with, rather than expose him as a cheat. Indeed, it seems to me, based on what we know so far, that this is highly likely.

In a small way, this reminds me of the foot-soldiers incident from some 35 years ago...Lew Mathe (I think) blew up on learning of the alleged cheating and the result was that the opportunity to nail it down was lost....I think a similar problem may have arisen with the Katz-Cohen scandal from the mid 70s as well.

When one thinks that another player is cheating, the outrage that one feels makes it hard to act in a thoughtful manner, but rushing off to make one's outrage public isn't the best way to react. I should know...I tend to become hotheaded myself. The only reason I am at all objective here is that I wasn't involved.

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Jul 28 2010, 05:42 PM, said:

I have far less sympathy for his notion that the honesty of the bid should be gauged by polling real experts.

Wasn't that just a response to the notion that the honesty of the bid should be gauged by a lie detector test?

[jkdood]

I am too fond of Justin to extensively comment on what might be justifiable but perhaps a wee bit "too harsh and public" reaction. And by reaction I refer not only to the incident, but to some defenders' remarks, the inane rationalizers, and to early morning phone calls while trying to get rest before the next session (boy do I really hate that!)

Now, to knowing that "he" shuffled just board 8 of 8. Ha ha. I confess to being an ardent N-S-sitter who likes to "manage the boards". I confess to saying to an E-W opp that grabs the next one off the side-chair: "you wanna handle the boards? sit N/S". And if that's not enough "mea culpa", I confess to shuffling and dealing the highest number board first so that it can be placed face up on the bottom of the stack of boards on the table, assuring at least one is in proper order to start the stack. (So I would know this also.)

Now about that bid. Well, yes, it seems rather hard to imagine it was made without UI, despite absence of any real evidence of UI.

But if you took some 100 Flight A players, told them they were down a bunch in the match so feel free to make an imaginative bid to create a swing, and gave them that hand, well, I would bet money more than 1 and maybe 5 or 10 might select 6D. Really. I already got one to pick it as their "third choice", using this schemed approach.

If a precedent needs to be established (or re-established) that a "0 in 100 experts would not make that call" bid that strikes gold is in itself cause for adjustment or punishment, well, let's discuss it and agree or not and then issue the proper regulation. I for one was very fond of the old "Law of Coincidence", an application of Rule 40 that would allow adjustment of a "lucky result" if both players took clearly unusual actions and the result was paydirt.

My understanding is that in the shadowy poorly-documented world of "interpretting the regulations", this "Law of Coincidence" has gone from practical acceptance to impractical disappearance over the past 2 decades. Maybe it should be reborn, with full published details that are easy to interpret and apply? I vote YEA.

[hrothgar]

jkdood, on Jul 29 2010, 02:25 AM, said:

My understanding is that in the shadowy poorly-documented world of "interpretting the regulations", this "Law of Coincidence" has gone from practical acceptance to impractical disappearance over the past 2 decades. Maybe it should be reborn, with full published details that are easy to interpret and apply? I vote YEA.

Useful quote from Kaplan

Quote

In our view, the rule of coincidence should be unfamiliar to all players since there ain't no such animal.

[bidule4]

MFA, on Jul 28 2010, 05:33 PM, said:

Sure, 6♦ might work out. Of course. It is a strong hand and we have AQxx of trumps. We might buy well.

I don't think it is a surprise that such a board gives cause to suspicion, and having a committee to review the happenings seems logical.

When that has being said, 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".

I dont see how a committee would help.

Is it unethical to make (poor) wild & gambling bid ?

RECORDING such events may help.

[ggwhiz]

Howard has an "in your face" personality that can be quite unfortunate. I don't know anyone (anymore) that would dare call me before noon, 2 p.m. on statutory holidays.

I only have a nodding aquaintance with the guy but he always reminds me of a BB King song, "Nobody loves be but my mother, and she may be jivin too".

It's hot and humid in N'awleens but can we turn down the heat? Lots of good debate on the laws and procedures but 50% or so "facts" out of thin air.

Patience please. Given the traffic here, the facts will come out without so much guessing. AND, this team went into the dustbin.

Positive insights might happen IF the personal trashing goes away.

[Siegmund]

While I freely admit that the posted hand is suspicious, and it's very possible that a single incident can be grounds for convening an ethics committee, I think it's extremely hard to imagine a law/reg that would support an adjustment in this case, but not support an adjustment in the case of beginner's errors or genuine psychs that strike gold.

Quote

The laws of bridge should be changed so that a hand like this is evidence enough of UI, so that there can be an adjustment. When zero players of someones level will bid 6D, and zero players think 6D can be bid without UI, that should be enough for an adjustment.

I see that in the past couple hours, the "Rule of Coincidence" has been mentioned by name. This hand is similar in spirit. The classic RoC situation was a hand where both partners deviated from their announced agreement (one overbidding and the other underbidding, or both playing as if they had the same alternate agreement) on the same hand. RoC said this could semi-automatically be treated as proof that a concealed agreement exists, justifying immediate adjustments and penalties.

I started directing just at the time that RoC was being carefully removed from example hands in the ACBLscore tech files and US directors were being (re-)educated to remove it from their arsenal. It's been pretty thoroughly beaten into my head that RoC is a Bad Thing that we don't want to have back. (Stand up and take a bow, bluejak.)

As for past events, I would hate to have to choose between Wolff's and Piltch's version of just about anything.

[jkdood]

Like the (convoluted?) American legal system, the laws and ordinances and such are basically shaped and shooken up by the courts and judges and precedents. In ACBLworld, we have had the texts of bridge law interpreted by the columns and articles and committee and director guidelines and handbooks and rulings that bring us to the present day...

...while the "Law of Coincidence" was apparently just a name for a state of interpretation of the laws, it was definitely once in play. You can find it referenced per se by National Appeals committees in casebooks (Weinstein, 1989) or simply applied when North opened 1S with 9HCP, South bid 2H with AQxxxx and out, and it went pass-pass-pass and later the opps called the TD for redress, which they sometimes got.

Yes, Kaplan and other "authorities on the laws" bemoaned this and over time, it seemed to fully retreat into the shadows (of which for my taste there were far too many of.)

Whatever comes about from the vibrant discussion of you-know-who's 6D call, I hope it leads to some clearly defined precedent or regulation that applies, and is made public for all to rely UPON.

[mrdct]

JLOGIC, on Jul 28 2010, 02:33 PM, said:

The laws of bridge should be changed so that a hand like this is evidence enough of UI, so that there can be an adjustment. When zero players of someones level will bid 6D, and zero players think 6D can be bid without UI, that should be enough for an adjustment.

Which laws do you think need changing?

The existing laws deal with situation perfectly, the only thing is it's hard for the TD to exercise his powers under the laws if nobody calls him to the table to make a ruling.

If a director has been called to the table he would be required to go through the process of establishing the facts in a disputed fact situation and determining whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, the 6♦ bid was based on extraneous UI. If the TD determines as such, he would have no option but to award an adjusted score. The hand itself would form part of the evidence, as would representations and rationalisations from the 6♦ bidder. The threshold the TD needs to get over is a 50.01% likelihood that the bid was based on extraneous UI.

[bluecalm]

Just as a side note. In Poland in every local event we have computer dealt hands with live scores available on the internet etc.

I know this case is very bad but what you Americans really should focus on is to pressure td's to organize tournament in normal modern way or just to stop choosing retards who are responsible for the way American tournaments are organized.
Last time it was different boards in every match at the same stage, then it's hand dealing in major tournament. I mean what the ***** ?

[the hog]

I find the behaviour of some of the posters in this thread to be absolutely disgusting. Perhaps they are just supporting a friend, but some of the comments and allegations that have been made are appalling.

There appears to be a some evidence that the bid was the result of wild swinging. We have already seen statistics that show that there was some logic in the madness. Sure it is still possible that a deck may have been slipped in, but it is just as possible not.

What is unfortunate is that this issue was aired on a public forum and while the op did not come out directly and say "cheating", there were so many references and allusions that it is largely irrelevent whether he did or not. Actually I have reread the posts; my previous comment is incorrect - note the following:

Quote:
"I made no direct accusation of cheating." Really! See the quotes below.

Then:
"As some know I often get disheartened by the ethics of top players, let alone less than top players. I love bridge but it will never be played for a ton of money or on TV because cheating is too easy. But this just shocked me. I mean wow."

And later:
"Expert testimony is admissible. The fact that every top player in the world will tell you that:

1) This bid is impossible at any state of the match by any non novice player
2) This bid is impossible without any form of UI

means that the collective wisdom and experience of all the top players in the world is that this bid was almost certainly made with UI."

I feel sorry for the person accused of this action, and yes accused is the correct term. The issue should have been raised before a committee and not on an open forum like this, where the braying wolf pack comes out of the cave and destroys a person's reputation with howls of indignation.

It is naive to say that the op did not name the individual involved; it is trivial to find out the person's name.

Yes, Mr Piltch's action in phoning in the morning was naive, but to say this is suggestive that his action at the table was suspect is the height of idiocy.

A person's reputation is at stake here; before this thread I had never heard of this individual, but it is unlikely that I will now forget his name.
This whole issue has been handled extremely badly probably due to an, (understandable but not excusable), hot headed reaction after the event.
Meanwhile there are some people on this board who should be ashamed of themselves. I, like Richard, would also be in touch with my solicitor. This could prove to be a very costly exercise for those throwing around wild accusations if they prove to be unfounded.

Finally, I agree with Dave's comment above, "Why on earth are they using hand-dealt boards in such a prestigious event?"

[bab9]

As a B/I player, I must be missing something (I am not referring to the implication of possible cheating, but the bid itself). The reason being the rules of thumb that I was taught.

1. The declare has a 3 loser hand. I was taught to expect 2 tricks from your partner. Hence would make the contract at the 6 level.

2. If you have a solid suit, it is best not to make it the trump suit as once the trumps are drawn it will generate clear winners. A possible explanation why ♦s were bid instead of ♣s. With the length of the ♣ suit, the declarer could dump losers.

3. After the 3♠ opening, it is likely that partner is short in ♠, and hence has support for the other suits. Given that declarer has a long suit in ♣s and RHO has a long suit in ♠, this leaves the likelihood that partner will have a red hand; with ♦s being declarers better red suit.


I have seen no mention of the system the declarer and partner play.
a. Do they play canape bids?
b. Is a double of 3♠ for takeout or penality?

Also, what system are the opponents playing. More specifically, what was the explanation / meaning of 3♠.

What was the vulnerability of the hand?

[mrdct]

bab9, on Jul 28 2010, 10:10 PM, said:

2. If you have a solid suit, it is best not to make it the trump suit as once the trumps are drawn it will generate clear winners.  A possible explanation why ♦s were bid instead of ♣s.  With the length of the ♣ suit, the declarer could dump losers.

Most beginner courses also push the concept that the trump suit should be a suit in which you and your partner have a known fit.

[awm]

I'm not sure why the dealing of hands is particularly relevant.

It seems to me that with pre-dealt hands that are the same at all tables, it is easier for someone to see something at another table or overhear something discussed by members of another team and thereby obtain UI on a board.

Obtaining UI about a hand-dealt board that is played only by your team would require intentional cheating (fixing the deck) and would also be particularly tough to manage if the opponents were at the table at the time of the shuffling/dealing.

[the hog]

awm, on Jul 29 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

I'm not sure why the dealing of hands is particularly relevant.

Yes that is true; it has little to do with similar scenarios. You also get the problem of some players walking around the room, sometimes trying to catch a peek, as well as the problem of maintaining security for hand records for pre dealt boards.
However to those of us who have played for years with pre dealt boards, it seems incomprehensible that pre dealt boards are not used together with hand records. You can compare how pairs did on the same boards, and taking a hand record to dinner for a post mortem is something many players enjoy.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I'm not sure why the dealing of hands is particularly relevant.

a)hand dealing is not random enough comparing to computer dealing; hand dealing in general generates more flat layouts

b)you can cheat when dealing hands; even if you don't "fix" the deck it's easy to have a pick or two when you deal or when someone else deals

c)it's just waste of time

d)it's not attractive for players/kibitzers as you can't compare scores with others nor have nice paper sheet with layouts/double dummy results after you play

As to your concerns about predealing. The deals can be prepared 5 minutes before the event that's not a problem at all.
To me playing with hand dealing is like coming back to stone age but I admit c) and d) are only luxuries which are not necessary but hard to live with once you are used to them.
Standard tournament here offers you all the layouts after the tourney so you can have a chat about hands during the dinner/on the way back home. When you arrive there are all the scores/protocols waiting for you on the internet so you can see what every other pair did on given board. I mean do people really play bridge without those things ?

[gnasher]

awm, on Jul 29 2010, 07:00 AM, said:

I'm not sure why the dealing of hands is particularly relevant.

The two highest profile cheating cases (in the ACBL) in recent years both involved hand-dealing. It's been suggested in this case is that if cheating occurred it was probably done during the dealing.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-July-29, 05:23

[hrothgar]

gnasher, on Jul 29 2010, 11:48 AM, said:

awm, on Jul 29 2010, 07:00 AM, said:

I'm not sure why the dealing of hands is particularly relevant.

The two highest profile cheating cases in recent years both involved hand-dealing. It's been suggested in this case is that if cheating occurred it was probably done during the dealing.

With this said and done...

If the same bid had been made using computer dealt hands, people would simply have suggested that Howard listened on the results at another table

I think its inane that the ACBL still uses manual dealing, however, I don't think that they are any kind of panacea.

[Fluffy]

I am not following all the trash in this thread, but Richard, didn't Ben clearly ask us to not let the player's name appear here?, maybe it has changed and I missed it, if that's the case sorry.