[Phil]

junyi_zhu, on Jul 31 2010, 05:24 PM, said:

Anyway, 6D is certainly not a logical alternative IMO.

I think we are using the term 'logical alternative' a bit loosely here.

[the hog]

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

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.

If you don't think the comments made are a blatant straight out accusation of cheating, then you speak a different form of English to mine.
Perhaps you have learned your English from Lewis Caroll. If you think it is reasonable to damage a person's reputation by making these accusations is acceptable, then I have nothing more to say to you as our moral code is streets apart.
In case you think these are my sentiments alone, I suggest you re read some of the posts here and also take a look at rgb where some have made very unflattering comments about the way this issue was handled.

[ggwhiz]

The points have been made, the sims have been um simmed.

I think it truly belongs behind closed doors with an expert panel that simply announces a conclusion and always did.

[qwery_hi]

gnasher, on Jul 31 2010, 09:35 AM, 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.

You got that one right.

The older crowd have to accept the fact that with the internet, news of incidents like this will spread much faster. I guess 30 years ago, after about an year, most top players and people with access to them would know about a hand like this. How? Through word of mouth.

Posting it in a forum is much better than that in a way since everyone can have their say, indeed the partner of the guy also made a post. Do you think 30 years ago he would even have a chance to say anything much?

[gnasher]

qwery_hi, on Aug 1 2010, 07:29 AM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 31 2010, 09:35 AM, 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.

You got that one right.

The older crowd have to accept the fact that with the internet, news of incidents like this will spread much faster. I guess 30 years ago, after about an year, most top players and people with access to them would know about a hand like this. How? Through word of mouth.

Posting it in a forum is much better than that in a way since everyone can have their say, indeed the partner of the guy also made a post. Do you think 30 years ago he would even have a chance to say anything much?

OK, and, just so that I understand the point of the link that you posted, are you saying that those people who disagree with Justin's actions are (in addition to being old, stupid and ignorant of modern technology):
- opposed to gay marriage
- in favour of drug prohibition
- opposed to filesharing (supposing that they knew what it was)

[jeremy69]

Quote

Posting it in a forum is much better than that in a way since everyone can have their say

I can see a whole new legal concept developing here which will certainly lower the costs associated with courts and trials.

[qwery_hi]

gnasher, on Aug 1 2010, 12:46 AM, said:

qwery_hi, on Aug 1 2010, 07:29 AM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 31 2010, 09:35 AM, 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.

You got that one right.

The older crowd have to accept the fact that with the internet, news of incidents like this will spread much faster. I guess 30 years ago, after about an year, most top players and people with access to them would know about a hand like this. How? Through word of mouth.

Posting it in a forum is much better than that in a way since everyone can have their say, indeed the partner of the guy also made a post. Do you think 30 years ago he would even have a chance to say anything much?

OK, and, just so that I understand the point of the link that you posted, are you saying that those people who disagree with Justin's actions are (in addition to being old, stupid and ignorant of modern technology):
- opposed to gay marriage
- in favour of drug prohibition
- opposed to filesharing (supposing that they knew what it was)

The point of the link that I posted was to ask if, as Bridge starts becoming more modern, e.g. with the electronic pads, and with internet vugraphs, indeed with internet bridge and bridge forums, there will emerge a generational divide over what proper ethics and such stuff are in this different world of bridge.

The age divide over gay marriage is well known - "According to the Field Poll, support for same-sex marriage in California reached a majority for the first time in 2008, with 51% in support, 42% opposed, and 7% with no opinion.[61] The poll also showed majority support among those under 50 years of age, with 68% of 18 to 29 year olds supporting it. Among those 65 or older, support drops to 36%. Majorities in support of same sex marriages were also found among those living in Los Angeles County, the San Francisco Bay Area and other more urban parts of Northern California, while a majority of those in the Central Valley and areas of Southern California outside Los Angeles County were opposed." - http://en.wikipedia....e_in_California

Re Marijuana legalization - Men slightly favor Prop. 19, 48-47, but women disapprove, 50-41. The Field Poll also confirms the pattern of young voters under the age of 30 heavily supporting marijuana legalization, 52-39, but those over 65 opposing it strongly, 57-33. Support divides fairly evenly for voters between 30 and 65. - http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/07/0...ng-with-voters/

With filesharing, it is even more obvious to me, with some of the judges who ruled in these cases not even knowing what the underlying technology was, just like in software patents.

The author is deliberately provocative, and I'm pretty sure the author meant it to be provocative, and in that I think there are some neat parallels between that and the OP in this thread.

[qwery_hi]

jeremy69, on Aug 1 2010, 01:06 AM, said:

Quote

Posting it in a forum is much better than that in a way since everyone can have their say

I can see a whole new legal concept developing here which will certainly lower the costs associated with courts and trials.

Luckily, this is the US, where the concept of free speech still has some meaning, and the libel laws are not totally insane like those over the pond - see, for e.g.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ish-courts.html

[qwery_hi]

[quote name='jkdood' date='Jul 31 2010, 12:14 PM'] [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! [/quote]
To me, this case is fundamentally different from a hesitation. To me, asking the director to review the 6D bid is basically equal to a suggestion of foul play, and funnily enough, the laws seem to allow that.

[Rossoneri]

The_Hog, on Aug 1 2010, 02:29 AM, said:

If you don't think the comments made are a blatant straight out accusation of cheating, then you speak a different form of English to mine.

Quote

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).

Quote

The rules have to be changed so that common sense can prevail that the 6D bid was based on unauthorized information imo. On the other hand that opens up another can of worms, but it just seems completely wrong to me that there can be no adjustment here if that's true.

Quote

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.

The first two are suggestive, the last one is just short of putting it in explicit terms.

[Rossoneri]

junyi_zhu, on Jul 31 2010, 11:24 PM, said:

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.

What do "logical alternatives" have to do with the situation at all?

[Rossoneri]

qwery_hi, on Aug 1 2010, 07:29 AM, said:

Posting it in a forum is much better than that in a way since everyone can have their say, indeed the partner of the guy also made a post. Do you think 30 years ago he would even have a chance to say anything much?

Definitely much better, everyone can be the prosecution, judge, jury and executor.

[Lobowolf]

jkdood, on Jul 31 2010, 02:52 PM, said:

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.)

You're not blameless just because you received the UI accidentally; Using the UI is cheating. See 16(a), which starts by defining authorized information, and continues, "No player may base a play or call on other information (such information being designated extraneous)." Moreover, assuming only the person who saw the K knows that he saw the king, he is presumably the only one who can satisfy 16©(1) ("The Director should be notified forthwith."

[qwery_hi]

Rossoneri, on Aug 1 2010, 08:05 AM, said:

qwery_hi, on Aug 1 2010, 07:29 AM, said:

Posting it in a forum is much better than that in a way since everyone can have their say, indeed the partner of the guy also made a post. Do you think 30 years ago he would even have a chance to say anything much?

Definitely much better, everyone can be the prosecution, judge, jury and executor.

and defender if they want to be. Open discussion is quite helpful for the non-guilty party. Just ask someone who changed their mind about the incident after reading the posts in this forums.

good try though, but massive fail with your sarcasm.

[gnasher]

Lobowolf, on Aug 1 2010, 08:44 PM, said:

jkdood, on Jul 31 2010, 02:52 PM, said:

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're not blameless just because you received the UI accidentally; Using the UI is cheating.

In the example given by jkdood, the information would be authorised, and it would be perfectly legal to make use of it.

[TimG]

jkdood, on Jul 31 2010, 02:52 PM, said:

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.

If it is against the rules to take advantage (or just plain unethical) and you do take advantage out of greed, isn't that the very definition of corruption?

[gnasher]

TimG, on Aug 1 2010, 10:06 PM, said:

If it is against the rules to take advantage (or just plain unethical) and you do take advantage out of greed, isn't that the very definition of corruption?

It depends upon how old you are, and whether you're using an electronic scoring device or not.

[OleBerg]

Following the logic of some posters, I think I'll make my own lottery.

There's 1 million tickets at each $1.
The first price is $2millions.

The tickets has numbers from 1 to 1.000.000

When you enter, you must specify which of the remaining numbers you want.

When the time comes for the draw, I'll simply claim that the winner has cheated; How else could he guess a one-in-a-million number???

[jeremy69]

Quote

and defender if they want to be. Open discussion is quite helpful for the non-guilty party.

Well I know from a previous post you are not that keen on the English legal system( insane, I think you said) but there is a bit of a premium on facts and evidence that might be missing from some of this discussion. I'm not sure that being able to rant on a public forum is necessarily a big advance but still get the ducking stool ready. We are going to need it!

[gnasher]

jeremy69, on Aug 1 2010, 10:58 PM, said:

get the ducking stool ready

Are you sure that's the right piece of equipment? It seems to me that a fence rail and a pot of tar would be more appropriate.