[mikeh]

JLOGIC, on Jul 30 2010, 04:12 PM, said:

None of my posts were edited FWIW as far as I know, as I never mentioned names (until the players partner came and posted his name and it was ok), and have never directly said that my opponent cheated.

I didn't read your initial post until the thread was already several pages in length, but if you look at it, I think you will see the word: 'Edit' followed by 'additional information'. That is the editing to which I refer.

And for my last word on this thread, while I have both sympathy for and empathy with you, my experience, particularly as a litigator in which I see all sides to some very strange disputes (I could write a book but no-one would believe some of the stories, and I am barred by various forms of privilege), suggests that the human capacity for irrational acts is almost infinite. Incompetence is a far more probable explanation for virtually everything that goes wrong in life than is conspiracy or malice...not that the latter don't happen...they do but not as often as we tend to believe when we are the 'victims'.

[jlw77]

My stance has softened on this one; initially I was as ready to convict as anyone. But I have changed my opinion from guilty to maybe guilty, and I now think it would be wrong to convict with no other evidence.

The simulations are interesting, but not ultimately relevant, because it doesn't matter if the bid was sane or even if it was state-of-the-match sane (I don't think it was; there will be many superior ways to swing in 40 boards.) It only matters if *this* player might have done something this weird without a wire. Although I'm suspicious, I can't say *for sure* he wouldn't. It also doesn't matter if *we* all think it was poor tactics to start swinging for the fences with 40 boards left; the question is whether HP might have thought otherwise. It's possible, and it's also possible that once he visualized the winning scenario he overrated its likelihood.


One final point which was being discussed on-site but I haven't seen here: if you want to swing, why not bid 4nt planning to raise 5d to slam? This will earn you 90% of the plus swings available by bidding 6d. It might lose on this hand since partner happens to be 4-4 and might bid 5c. Suspicious, right? But then, if the hand was fixed, why not give partner 4-3 minors so the 4nt plan works?


Of course, this doesn't close the case--HP *could* have just not thought of 4NT. People who are swinging definitely don't always do so in the most intelligent manner.

We are left with two possibilities:

1. HP fixed the deal, but failed to come up with a way to do so that didn't involve making a bizarre bid that was sure to cause an uproar, thereby showing a distinct failure of creativity in his evil-doing.

2. HP visualized a scenario where 6D would work, wanted it to work, talked
himself into thinking it was higher-percentage than it is, didn't think of 4nt, and got lucky.

Both involve irrational behavior. But notice that #1 requires *cold-blooded* irrational behavior, while #2 involves *warm-blooded* irrational behavior. Psychologically, the latter is more likely. Though, I will say that many cheaters are not that clever, so we can’t just routinely acquit on the basis of “no one would cheat that stupidly.” #1 is possible, I just no longer consider it much more likely than #2.

So, I now have come a long way from my initial (nauseated) reaction to this story, and I now think as a C&E committee member I wouldn’t vote to suspend the player based solely on the hand. However, I would tell him that if he intends to often make bizarre bids no one else would consider, he really needs to keep a record of when they fail spectacularly. Otherwise, if they succeed spectacularly more than a few times, the statistical evidence against him will be very strong. I do not agree with Justin that “1 for 1” is significant enough…the chances of success appear to be in the 10% range. The usual scientific standard for statistical significance is 5%, and a much stricter cutoff is needed for criminal convictions.

Thanks to my friend “pretender” for influencing my thinking about this.

By the way, isn’t there video surveillance for NABC+ events? I hope that there is video and it is helpful, otherwise we will never know what happened.

--Jonathan Weinstein

[the hog]

TimG, on Jul 30 2010, 08:30 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 30 2010, 08:19 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 30 2010, 06:11 AM, said:

I wonder if this will result in a public apology?

Well, why would it - neither side has won, neither side has lost.

I think both sides have lost: Justin has lost because he made a public accusation of cheating, Piltch has lost because he has been accused of cheating and lots of misinformation about the past has been tossed about.

Yes Tim, but the problem is that Piltch has lost through no fault of his own and only because of someone else's hot headed and apparently incorrect action.
Actually a number of people are now suggesting that the ACBL should take action against the other party.

[aguahombre]

The_Hog, on Jul 30 2010, 06:33 PM, said:

but the problem is that Piltch has lost through no fault of his own and only because of someone else's hot headed  and apparently incorrect action.
Actually a number of people are now suggesting that the ACBL should take action against the other party.

You are doing the same thing in the other direction. Just because the org chose to take no formal action against a player does not exonerate him, any more than a circumstantial accusation would convict.

[NickRW]

The_Hog, on Jul 31 2010, 12:33 AM, said:

Actually a number of people are now suggesting that the ACBL should take action against the other party.

IMO that would be quite ridiculous. People have already mentioned "bringing the game into disrepute" in this thread - but for the ACBL (or any other similar body) to act as you suggest would only add fuel to the fire and render them as guilty as those they might charge. People would be muttering that Mr P. has friends in high places and all manner of extra unnecessary and unhelpful rumour.

IMO the ACBL would do best to do as the Queen does - no comment.

Nick

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Jul 30 2010, 07:33 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 30 2010, 08:30 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 30 2010, 08:19 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 30 2010, 06:11 AM, said:

I wonder if this will result in a public apology?

Well, why would it - neither side has won, neither side has lost.

I think both sides have lost: Justin has lost because he made a public accusation of cheating, Piltch has lost because he has been accused of cheating and lots of misinformation about the past has been tossed about.

Yes Tim, but the problem is that Piltch has lost through no fault of his own and only because of someone else's hot headed and apparently incorrect action.
Actually a number of people are now suggesting that the ACBL should take action against the other party.

Yes the ACBL just loves mountains of unnecessary legal fees!

Btw what makes you think Piltch was faultless and that the action was "apparently incorrect"?

[cherdanno]

Of course the accused doesn't come out looking good from this. I mean, if I believe everything he says that means
- he thinks lie detectors can win you an argument (ok, I admit that's a common fault in some circles)
- he is either clueless enough (as a former ACBL director!) to think 9.30 am is a normal time to call a bridge pro during a tournament, or malicious enough to do so as a revenge and clueless enough that he thinks that's a good thing to mention in his public defense
- he thought 6♦ was a reasonable attempt to swing 40 IMPs down with more than 40 boards left in the match, etc.

(Maybe I should add though that an earlier post of mine regarding suspensions was incorrect. I will go and delete it as many others in this thread would be better informed than me to correct it.)

[the hog]

NickRW, on Jul 31 2010, 07:55 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 31 2010, 12:33 AM, said:

Actually a number of people are now suggesting that the ACBL should take action against the other party.

IMO that would be quite ridiculous. People have already mentioned "bringing the game into disrepute" in this thread - but for the ACBL (or any other similar body) to act as you suggest would only add fuel to the fire and render them as guilty as those they might charge. People would be muttering that Mr P. has friends in high places and all manner of extra unnecessary and unhelpful rumour.

IMO the ACBL would do best to do as the Queen does - no comment.

Nick

Nick, it is not my suggestion, I don't even play in the ACBL so that would have nothing to do with me. For what its worth, I agree with shutting up and doing nothing exceptt offer an apology for the cheating accusation. (Regardless of how you twist and turn, that is what it was).

Josh, I did say "Apparently incorrect". I read Bud's account as well as you did. If you accept that account as being correct - and there has been nothing presented to counter those comments - then it would indeed appear that a wrongful accusation was made.

A couple of other comments: had this happened to me, I would probably have been annoyed as well. However I would certainly have dealt with the situation in a totally different manner, certainly not publicly; in fact as it happened at my teammate's table, it would probably have been more appropriate for them to deal with it.
To say that Piltch is "clueless" for calling at 9.30, (actually 9.45), is very unfair. If you believe you have been unfairly accused, you want to clear the air as soon as possible.

[NickRW]

The_Hog, on Jul 31 2010, 01:12 AM, said:

Nick, it is not my suggestion, I don't even play in the ACBL so that would have nothing to do with me. For what its worth, I agree with shutting up and doing nothing exceptt offer an apology for the cheating accusation. (Regardless of how you twist and turn, that is what it was).

Yeah - sorry - I did imply it was your suggestion when that isn't quite what you said.

I agree with you it might have been better had Justin not mentioned this publicly - but I can understand him doing so. Never the less, I wouldn't be apologising if I were in his shoes. While I agree with some other posters that there is not evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict anyone of cheating, I stand by my first comment - essentially that the 6♦ bid stinks - or - more politely - on the balance of probabilities I think it more likely that there was UI than not.

Nick

[peachy]

I have deleted what I said about suspensions. I was wrong, only discipline and probation, no suspension. My apologies to all.

[jkdood]

peachy, on Jul 30 2010, 08:53 PM, said:

I have deleted what I said about suspensions. I was wrong, only discipline and probation, no suspension. My apologies to all.

Well thank goodness for that! We can cancel the lie detector test planned for you and the 9:30 AM breakfast meeting with G!!!!

[TimG]

peachy, on Jul 30 2010, 08:53 PM, said:

I have deleted what I said about suspensions. I was wrong, only discipline and probation, no suspension. My apologies to all.

I'm sure everyone who read your post that included reference to a suspension is still following this thread and has now read your retraction. No harm done.

[mrdct]

NickRW, on Jul 30 2010, 08:47 PM, said:

I stand by my first comment - essentially that the 6♦ bid stinks - or - more politely - on the balance of probabilities I think it more likely that there was UI than not.

We shouldn't lose sight of this point. The original post was about seeking an adjustment for UI on the board and suggesting that a law change was necessary to allow for adjustments on boards like this. The problem was, nobody actually called the director so we will never know how the director might have gone about establishing the facts and determining whether or not there was a >50% chance that the 6♦ was based on UI. You do not need iron-clad proof of cheating to award an adjusted score, simply the balance of probabilities needs to be satisfied (just ask OJ Simpson).

It does seem pretty silly to be complaining about inadequate laws when they weren't actually brought into play in the case at hand as there was no ruling and no appeal.

[mike777]

mrdct, on Jul 30 2010, 10:28 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 30 2010, 08:47 PM, said:

I stand by my first comment - essentially that the 6♦ bid stinks - or - more politely - on the balance of probabilities I think it more likely that there was UI than not.

We shouldn't lose sight of this point. The original post was about seeking an adjustment for UI on the board and suggesting that a law change was necessary to allow for adjustments on boards like this. The problem was, nobody actually called the director so we will never know how the director might have gone about establishing the facts and determining whether or not there was a >50% chance that the 6♦ was based on UI. You do not need iron-clad proof of cheating to award an adjusted score, simply the balance of probabilities needs to be satisfied (just ask OJ Simpson).

It does seem pretty silly to be complaining about inadequate laws when they weren't actually brought into play in the case at hand as there was no ruling and no appeal.

excellent points.....

However the elephant in the room was stated but undiscussed.

-----------


To put it another way we can have all the laws and regulations in the world but enforcement and more is another step........


--------------------------


Why with real experts...wc players is it so hard to actually have the laws "brought into play"?


----------------


I fully grant this is an issue with all laws and regulations in the world......to just have them is step one.....not the last step....

[JLOGIC]

mrdct, on Jul 30 2010, 10:28 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 30 2010, 08:47 PM, said:

I stand by my first comment - essentially that the 6♦ bid stinks - or - more politely - on the balance of probabilities I think it more likely that there was UI than not.

We shouldn't lose sight of this point. The original post was about seeking an adjustment for UI on the board and suggesting that a law change was necessary to allow for adjustments on boards like this. The problem was, nobody actually called the director so we will never know how the director might have gone about establishing the facts and determining whether or not there was a >50% chance that the 6♦ was based on UI. You do not need iron-clad proof of cheating to award an adjusted score, simply the balance of probabilities needs to be satisfied (just ask OJ Simpson).

It does seem pretty silly to be complaining about inadequate laws when they weren't actually brought into play in the case at hand as there was no ruling and no appeal.

The director was called after the set. I don't understand why people keep saying the director was never called. The directors discussed this and ruled that there should be no adjustment.

[mrdct]

I was just going on Bud's account:

BudH, on Jul 28 2010, 10:46 AM, said:

12.  The director was not called to the table at any time following or during this board.  A recorder form was completed and the National Recorder spoke with Mr. Piltch just before the play of the last board of the third quarter and later Mr. Krekorian spoke with the National Recorder.

I'm not 100% sure of what the rules are as it may be a conditions of contest matter, but I would've thought calling the director at the time of the infraction was the correct procedure.

[gnasher]

mrdct, on Jul 31 2010, 09:00 AM, said:

I'm not 100% sure of what the rules are as it may be a conditions of contest matter, but I would've thought calling the director at the time of the infraction was the correct procedure.

Yes, that must be it. The director said it was too late to ask for a ruling, but rather than tell us that Justin thought it would be more fun to create a 250-post thread about (or possibly not about) cheating.

The CoC for the Spingold aren't hard to find, by the way.

Spingold CoC said:

1. The period for an appeal for or of a director's ruling expires 30 minutes after each session or when the auction begins at either table of a play-off whichever is earlier.

[rhm]

jdonn, on Jul 30 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 30 2010, 07:33 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 30 2010, 08:30 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 30 2010, 08:19 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 30 2010, 06:11 AM, said:

I wonder if this will result in a public apology?

Well, why would it - neither side has won, neither side has lost.

I think both sides have lost: Justin has lost because he made a public accusation of cheating, Piltch has lost because he has been accused of cheating and lots of misinformation about the past has been tossed about.

Yes Tim, but the problem is that Piltch has lost through no fault of his own and only because of someone else's hot headed and apparently incorrect action.
Actually a number of people are now suggesting that the ACBL should take action against the other party.

Yes the ACBL just loves mountains of unnecessary legal fees!

Btw what makes you think Piltch was faultless and that the action was "apparently incorrect"?

I can not see what the 6♦ bidder did wrong. Faultlessness can not be proven, faults have to be.

6♦ was a perfectly legal bid.

Justin thought it was bizarre

Closer inspection shows (according to my simulations with dealmaster pro) that after the 3♠ preempt

6♦ has close to a 40% chance of making
It will be the only making slam in about 10% of all deals

( There was at least one other independent simulation which came to similar conclusions)

Now the hand is difficult to bid over a 3♠ preempt and ♦ as the right strain may often be hard to reach by "normal" methods.

6♦ over 3♠ will sometimes put LHO in a difficult position.

In my opinion 6♦ is eccentric (I would not choose it, but of course I also have my flights of fancy), but 6♦ is neither absurd nor illogical and not bizarre given the state oft the match.

Justin may disagree, but this is his assessment.

It is not unknown that even experts grossly misjudge the merits and disadvantages or what the probability are, that a bid may gain or loose.

There was nothing wrong bringing the board itself into the public domain.
But Justin clearly accused his opponent of unethical behavior and came at least close of accusing him implicitly of cheating.

Where do we end up with if people accuse their opponents of unethical behavior, whenever an eccentric bid (which may look bizarre on first inspection) happens to be successful?

In my opinion this is not acceptable.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

cherdanno, on Jul 31 2010, 02:05 AM, said:

Of course the accused doesn't come out looking good from this. I mean, if I believe everything he says that means
- he thinks lie detectors can win you an argument (ok, I admit that's a common fault in some circles)
- he is either clueless enough (as a former ACBL director!) to think 9.30 am is a normal time to call a bridge pro during a tournament, or malicious enough to do so as a revenge and clueless enough that he thinks that's a good thing to mention in his public defense

Or maybe:
- He was horrified to learn that he'd been accused of cheating, and still more horrified to find that everybody at the event and almost the entire internet bridge community seemed to have convicted him, without even waiting to hear if he had anything to say.
- He was awake all night thinking about it, feeling completely helpless in the face of the online and offline lynch mobs, distraught at the injustice of the situation, and wondering whether he'd ever be able to get partners, teammates or dinner companions again.
- In the small hours of the morning, he thought of a possible way to restore his reputation which, at the time and in his current mental state, seemed a good idea.
- Having resolved upon a course of action, he decided that it was best to act as quickly as possible, before the damage got any worse.
- He tried to choose a time when Justin would already be up, but still early enough for them to have time to reach an agreement before any more damage was done.

Quote

- he thought 6♦ was a reasonable attempt to swing 40 IMPs down with more than 40 boards left in the match, etc.

Given the eventual losing margin, maybe he was right to choose such a desparate action?

[the hog]

"But Justin clearly accused his opponent of unethical behavior and came at least close of accusing him implicitly of cheating."

It was more than coming "close". It was an implicit accusation of cheating.
I have already posted these extracts, to reiterate:

"cheating is too easy. But this just shocked me. I mean wow."

This bid is impossible without any form of UI"

If this isn't calling someone a cheat, what is?