[qwery_hi]

rhm, on Jul 31 2010, 12:43 AM, said:

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.

What percentage of those hands find partner with the King of diamonds? I'm not even close to an expert, but with the hand in the post and perhaps with most of the hands in the simulations, I'll give thought to raising partner to 7 diamonds, especially if I take partner at his word and/or swing some myself.

Imagine the problem the 6D bid gives partner on some of the hands. Surely they are as much or more than the problems LHO has.

[rhm]

qwery_hi, on Jul 31 2010, 04:21 AM, said:

rhm, on Jul 31 2010, 12:43 AM, said:

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.

What percentage of those hands find partner with the King of diamonds? I'm not even close to an expert, but with the hand in the post and perhaps with most of the hands in the simulations, I'll give thought to raising partner to 7 diamonds, especially if I take partner at his word and/or swing some myself.

Imagine the problem the 6D bid gives partner on some of the hands. Surely they are as much or more than the problems LHO has.

If your partner jumps to slam over a preempt you should not assume that your partner has 12 solid tricks in his hand and that the slam will make opposite a yarborough.
Neither should your partner assume, when he considers various actions over a preempt that you are broke. (Mike Lawrence suggested that you assume around 7 HCP for partner, maybe slightly less when you are stronger)
Otherwise you would get stolen blind far too often.

So the king of ♦ in itself, though certainly a useful card, is not enough justification to raise

Rainer Herrmann

[JLOGIC]

rhm, on Jul 31 2010, 03:43 AM, said:

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

Rainer you are a smart guy, surely you don't view this as being a reason that 6D might be a good bid to try. When it is the only making slam surely a lot of the time you will get their via normal bidding (like starting with double). Much of the time it is the only making slam, I'm sure partner has diamond length. If you start with a double and then keep bidding, if partner has diamond length he'll probably bid diamonds at some point. It will be a very very rare hand indeed that the only way to get to 6D is to overcall it.

[rhm]

JLOGIC, on Jul 31 2010, 05:31 AM, said:

rhm, on Jul 31 2010, 03:43 AM, said:

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

Rainer you are a smart guy, surely you don't view this as being a reason that 6D might be a good bid to try. When it is the only making slam surely a lot of the time you will get their via normal bidding (like starting with double). Much of the time it is the only making slam, I'm sure partner has diamond length. If you start with a double and then keep bidding, if partner has diamond length he'll probably bid diamonds at some point. It will be a very very rare hand indeed that the only way to get to 6D is to overcall it.

Agreed

I have never claimed that a direct 6♦ jump would be my choice, even if I would be desperate.

Rainer Herrmann

[mike777]

i give up...99% of bbo is..."inever said that"

[qwery_hi]

The_Hog, on Jul 31 2010, 01:11 AM, said:

"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?

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between asking the director to investigate the 6D bid and posting the hands with the associated comments here (This bid is impossible without UI).

Remember, this hand had already been discussed with most of the experts in the Spingold and would surely become the talk of the Nationals. Unlike the pre internet era, where it would probably take 6+ months for the news of this hand to reach the hog, if at all, justin was just speeding up the process.

FWIW, I think what Justin did , and by that I mean his posts in this thread and his comments, are most definitely not wrong.

Is there a age-divide emerging in Bridge like the one talked about here? - http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=588

I wonder if I will be penalized if I have that on a T shirt and wear that to my next bridge tournament.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between asking the director to investigate the 6D bid and posting the hands with the associated comments here

Maybe I am finding myself on one side of a divide then.
I think calling the director if you believe there has been or may have been an irregularity is a perfectly proper thing to do. When the director arrives if you preface with "This is what he bid and it is impossible to do this without there being UI taken advantage of" then you may get an investigation but may also get a zero tolerance penalty.
The director represents the legal route. Some postings here smear a player (and I would not know him from Adam) in a crude and unacceptable way.

If it turns out after proper investigation resulting from the director call to be a case of cheating then I would be all in favour of finding a high tree and doing some hanging but the way this has panned out it is a witch hunt (or at least that is how it appears to someone who knows none of the principals).

[blackshoe]

I only know Justin from his posts here, and as for the other guy, never heard of him until I read this thread and the link to Wolfe's book.

I don't think it was Justin's intention to smear anybody — if that was done it was done by other posters. That said, he skirted the line if he did not cross it.

As I noted upthread, the case has apparently gone to a C&E hearing. Perhaps we here ought to just STFU and let that take its course. So this will be my last post in this thread.

[TimG]

qwery_hi, on Jul 31 2010, 09:50 AM, said:

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between asking the director to investigate the 6D bid and posting the hands with the associated comments here (This bid is impossible without UI).

Remember, this hand had already been discussed with most of the experts in the Spingold and would surely become the talk of the Nationals. Unlike the pre internet era, where it would probably take 6+ months for the news of this hand to reach the hog, if at all, justin was just speeding up the process.

Speaking with the director and/or filing a player memo is the official course of action and is private rather than public.

Discussing the hand with "most of the experts in the Spingold" is also a public action.

I believe this hand occurred in the second quarter of the match (not at Justin's table so that he would not have known about it until halftime) and Justin posted the hand here during the halftime break of the match. The post is stamped Jul 26 2010, 05:49 PM for me, which I believe from noting time stamps on other posts is the actual Central Time Zone time that the post was made. That does not leave much time for using proper channels and privately seeking advice from a respected player or two. If it had "already been discussed with most of the experts in the Spingold" that was surely very quick, I'm surprised it would reach most of them so early in the dinner break.

In short, the rate with which the news spread was controlled largely by Justin and his teammates. If they had pursued this matter strictly through official channels, it is highly unlikely that we would be discussing the matter now or ever.

[jlw77]

The bare facts of the hand were spectacular enough that I think the story was bound to spread quickly. When I sat down for the 3rd quarter on Monday, my opponents (foreign players with, I assume, no personal connection to Justin's team) told us the story. This probably had nothing to do with the internet.

That said, I think it is much better that cheating allegations go through proper channels and not be aired publicly. If there are also, inevitably, widespread rumors, so be it, but this is different from an aggrieved party putting an accusation on a chat board.

Let me add, when I first heard the story I was angry, nauseated and probably ready to join a lynch mob. 6♦ just sounds impossible. As I endured the usual insomnia that night, I was probably thinking as much about this hand as about the big losing swings from my own match! So I have all the sympathy in the world for Justin being furious and perhaps going too far. The fact that I feel very differently a few days later is one very good reason we have a society of laws where cooler heads can prevail. One of our laws says that cheating allegations should be made confidentially via a director or recorder.

Finally, while Justin's recent post is completely right that 6♦ is *not* an intelligent way to swing because it is very likely you can get there by normal means when it's right, that's not the question. The question is whether *this* player could conceivably have convinced himself that 6♦ was a good way to swing. Considering that he spends much of his bridge life playing in side games at regionals with clients (not Bud) who would probably make any of Justin's clients look like geniuses, I'm sure he has developed an unusually strong predilection for unilateral actions. This also fits his personality. Such habits are hard to break.

A few days ago I never would have thought I'd be making the defense's argument, but there it is. Again, I really hope there is useful video that can exonerate or the reverse.

Jonathan

[gnasher]

qwery_hi, on Jul 31 2010, 03:50 PM, said:

Is there a age-divide emerging in Bridge like the one talked about here? - http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=588

Yes, that's right. The only reason that anyone might disagree with the way that Justin handled the situation is because they're too old and stupid to make rational judgements.

[Phil]

gnasher, on Jul 31 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Jul 31 2010, 03:50 PM, said:

Is there a age-divide emerging in Bridge like the one talked about here? - http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=588

Yes, that's right. The only reason that anyone might disagree with the way that Justin handled the situation is because they're too old and stupid to make rational judgements.

LOL, has there ever been a generation that didn't think they were smarter than their parents? Or their children for that matter?

When I was in my 20's, some of my prejudices I felt when I looked at 40-somethings were:

- I guess Nam really messed up your head - I feel sorry for you.
- What a bunch of stupid hippies. You must have dropped a lot of acid, which accounts for your lack of mental capacity.

Now that I am well into my 40's, I still look with disdain on the baby-boomers, especially as of late. I see the wall street greed and the public pension disasters, and the attitude of "we'll let the next generation pay for our 2nd homes and country club memberships".

My wife is constantly talking about the lousy work ethic and sense of entitlement for 20-somethings that she hires.

So in other words, I hate everyone!. Well, unless you are between 35 and 54, then you are probably OK LOL.

/rant off /threadjack off

[jdonn]

All the sims and analysis defending the bid are too much, I can't take it...

[jkdood]

Seems like some folks forgot (or missed) the early details. At 5:49PM Justin started this thread with: "Director ruling is that the table result stands. Something is wrong with bridge that this..."

So the director call and adjudication were done, and within CofC timelines. Asking for a director after your teammates relate what happened at their table is not at all uncommon, and certainly still timely. Yes, earlier would have been better.

It is not hard to engage a bunch of experts in a few minutes time with a "what would you bid (or not bid) with the following hand? Clearly the amazingly successful 6D call, even with personality and state of match considered, is a call from beyond left field, and at the very least suggestive of UI.

Posing the thought (by posting) that bridge rules policy should maybe allow for an adjustment if and when something of this nature occurs, is not a cheating accusation or IMHO untoward behavior. Things did get out of hand when a lynch mob mentality formed, but thankfully (again IMHO) folks on the other side came forth with reasonable defensive comments.

I do think consideration of some sort of RofC revival is timely and worthy of vibrant discussion. I do think Mr. P unfairly got the raw deal of a lynch mob attack that included inaccurate reports and biased opinions. But equally offensive is some suggestion now that Justin's start to this thread was out of line or something that would require public apologies.

[jkdood]

jkdood, on Jul 31 2010, 02:30 PM, said:

...that bridge rules policy should maybe allow for an adjustment if and when something of this nature occurs, is not a cheating accusation or...

Someone just asked me how requesting an adjustment for an action "suggestive of UI" is not tantamount to an accusation of cheating. Well, maye an example:

You are declaring 6S holding xxxx of trump versus AQJT in dummy, with plenty of safe entries to both hands. RHO has a coughing fit, and in their discomfort, pretty much exposes their entire hand just to you, and the K of spades flashes by before you can avert your eyes...

You are playing with a client, and decide to (rightly or wrongly ethically) take advantage, and play low to the ace, landing your slam.

An opp asks for an RofC adjustment (should rules policy allow that) for an action "suggestive of UI"; (perhaps you accidentally overhead a discussion and improperly didn't report it, or? )

You respond (to a director) that you couldn't help but note the exposed card and felt obliged by dedication to your client (and/or simple greed) to act on it.

The TD rules there is no UI and no C&E (but perhaps a recorder form) and life goes on, (tarnished or not.)

[NickRW]

jkdood, on Jul 31 2010, 07:52 PM, said:

Someone just asked me how requesting an adjustment for an action "suggestive of UI" is not tantamount to an accusation of cheating. Well, maye an example....

Even so much as reserving your rights for a BIT or whatever comes across as an accusation of (potential) cheating. Experienced players get used to it and the lawmakers and enforcers are at great pains to point out that it isn't - but that doesn't alter that the implication is exactly that - and inexperienced people react as such.

[jkdood]

[quote name='NickRW' date='Jul 31 2010, 03:05 PM'] [/QUOTE]
Even so much as reserving your rights for a BIT or whatever comes across as an accusation of (potential) cheating. Experienced players get used to it and the lawmakers and enforcers are at great pains to point out that it isn't - but that doesn't alter that the implication is exactly that - and inexperienced people react as such. [/quote]
Matmat's comments upthread about teaching newcomers fully and correctly regarding such things, sure comes back to mind!

[mrdct]

jkdood, on Jul 31 2010, 02:30 PM, said:

Seems like some folks forgot (or missed) the early details. At 5:49PM Justin started this thread with: "Director ruling is that the table result stands. Something is wrong with bridge that this..."

So the director call and adjudication were done, and within CofC timelines. Asking for a director after your teammates relate what happened at their table is not at all uncommon, and certainly still timely. Yes, earlier would have been better.

With Bud having represented that "the director was not called to the table at any time following or during this board", does this mean that the consultation with the director after the segment did not involve the director quizing Justin's opponents before making his ruling (which I find almost as extraordinary as the 6♦ bid and the use of hand-dealt boards)?

Does anyone know if the director ruled under L85A2 (concluded that on balance of probabilities there was no use of UI) or L85B (was unable to determine the facts)?

[blackshoe]

I would love to hear directors consistently and regularly specify under what laws they are ruling. They don't.

[junyi_zhu]

JLOGIC, on Jul 26 2010, 10:49 PM, said:

In the spingold our experienced opp had:

--- Axx AQxx AKQxxx.

RHO opened 3S, he overcalled 6D. His dummy was xx xxx Kxxx xxxx, diamonds are 3-2 so 6D makes and 6C has no play.

Director ruling is that the table result stands. Something is wrong with bridge that this can happen (and I'm not criticizing/faulting the directors at all here).

Edit:

Some more info for those curious:

-This person has been disciplined before for ethical reasons.
-These boards are hand dealt not pre duplicated. This board comes from the set of boards made at his table (not the other table).

Strange, a direct 6D seems very insane when he can double then raise partner's possible 4D to 6D, suppose he makes this hand. So probably his partner doesn't know this hand and he worries that his partner may bid 4C if he doubles. Anyway, 6D is certainly not a logical alternative IMO.