[matmat]

qwery_hi, on Aug 3 2010, 01:43 AM, said:

Yeah, like BBO forums is the only place where hands like these would be discussed. News and discussions of such hands cannot be censored.

qwery_hi, meet foo.

[foo]

[quote name='qwery_hi' date='Aug 3 2010, 01:43 AM'] [quote name='foo' date='Aug 2 2010, 09:15 PM'] [quote name='The_Hog' date='Aug 3 2010, 12:00 AM']
My hopefully constructive suggestion as to how BBO should handle this kind of stuff in the future is that BBO should simply censor public accusations of cheating in these forums where the accused can be identified.

We have policies and procedures, including for when and how such information should be made public.
This forum, particularly before due process has been observed, is not and should not be one of them. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, like BBO forums is the only place where hands like these would be discussed. News and discussions of such hands cannot be censored. [/quote]
Maybe not. But just because someone else is going to gossip or backbite or slander or libel does not mean we should feel it's appropriate to do so.

...and by behaving "properly" we, and this site,
a= avoid being engulfed in the flames or other nasties of the controversy
b= avoid potential legal problems

[fuburules3]

It seems silly to judge the merit of the bid by saying 6D makes X percent of the time etc. It should be judged based on how often 6D is the best contract and there is no other way to get there except bidding it immediately.

Someone has probably mentioned this somewhere in this massive thread though . . .

[rhm]

fuburules3, on Aug 3 2010, 03:14 AM, said:

It seems silly to judge the merit of the bid by saying 6D makes X percent of the time etc.  It should be judged based on how often 6D is the best contract and there is no other way to get there except bidding it immediately. 

Someone has probably mentioned this somewhere in this massive thread though . . .

If this is your criteria you could accuse at least 90% of all bridge players (including me) of cheating.

For example, did you never jump to 3NT, where thorough investigation (an alternative way) would have told you that the opponents can cash the first 5 tricks in a suit?

While I admit that bidding "what you think you can make" is nowadays out of favor and in this case a bit unusual, it is not clear that thorough investigation in the bidding will always lead to better results.

Though I do not recommend the unorthodox jump to 6♦, because of its obvious risks, there are many arguments in favor of it:

1.) LHO may have a very difficult decision at favorable vulnerability whether to take a (phantom) save or not. (Give opponents the last guess)
2.) The defense is usually much more difficult when you hide the nature of your hand. For example 6♦ might be beatable on a ♥ lead.
3.) If RHO Lightner doubles it may be anything but obvious to LHO that his partner has a void in ♣ instead of in ♥.
4.) Bidding directly 6♦ may be the best way of reaching a lay-down 7♦ when partner decides to raise with an appropriate hand. (long diamonds including the king; nothing else is needed). ( 6♣ is the most likely small slam to make, but the most likely grand seems to be 7♦)

It all boils down to judgment.

But to believe you can have an unimpeded bidding dialog over 3♠, particularly at unfavorable vulnerability, at no cost is just a little bit naive.

Rainer Herrmann

[qwery_hi]

[quote name='foo' date='Aug 3 2010, 12:04 AM'] [quote name='qwery_hi' date='Aug 3 2010, 01:43 AM'] [quote name='foo' date='Aug 2 2010, 09:15 PM'] [quote name='The_Hog' date='Aug 3 2010, 12:00 AM']
My hopefully constructive suggestion as to how BBO should handle this kind of stuff in the future is that BBO should simply censor public accusations of cheating in these forums where the accused can be identified.

We have policies and procedures, including for when and how such information should be made public.
This forum, particularly before due process has been observed, is not and should not be one of them. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, like BBO forums is the only place where hands like these would be discussed. News and discussions of such hands cannot be censored. [/QUOTE]
Maybe not. But just because someone else is going to gossip or backbite or slander or libel does not mean we should feel it's appropriate to do so.

...and by behaving "properly" we, and this site,
a= avoid being engulfed in the flames or other nasties of the controversy
b= avoid potential legal problems [/quote]
AFAIK gossip is allowed, and the OPost was not libel, nor was a public accusation of cheating made. And seeing how the thread has not been censored by the powers of BBO, who I think are quite conservative, I don't think they consider this a public accusation of cheating either.

[gnasher]

qwery_hi, on Aug 3 2010, 04:14 AM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 1 2010, 11:48 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Aug 2 2010, 07:36 AM, said:

Anyhow, given your and gnashers stubbornness to see the opposing position, I shouldn't expect any better.

Which position do you think I am opposed to?

That posting this on the forum was in some ways good for the guy who made the 6D call.

In fact, the position I am stubbornly maintaining is that it is unreasonable to impose this supposed benefit on Mr Piltch against his will. I don't know him personally, but his picture suggests that he's old enough to make his own decisions.

[jkdood]

rhm, on Aug 3 2010, 04:23 AM, said:

fuburules3, on Aug 3 2010, 03:14 AM, said:

It seems silly to judge the merit of the bid by saying 6D makes X percent of the time etc.  It should be judged based on how often 6D is the best contract and there is no other way to get there except bidding it immediately. 

Someone has probably mentioned this somewhere in this massive thread though . . .

If this is your criteria you could accuse at least 90% of all bridge players (including me) of cheating.

For example, did you never jump to 3NT, where thorough investigation (an alternative way) would have told you that the opponents can cash the first 5 tricks in a suit?

While I admit that bidding "what you think you can make" is nowadays out of favor and in this case a bit unusual, it is not clear that thorough investigation in the bidding will always lead to better results.

Though I do not recommend the unorthodox jump to 6♦, because of its obvious risks, there are many arguments in favor of it:

1.) LHO may have a very difficult decision at favorable vulnerability whether to take a (phantom) save or not. (Give opponents the last guess)
2.) The defense is usually much more difficult when you hide the nature of your hand. For example 6♦ might be beatable on a ♥ lead.
3.) If RHO Lightner doubles it may be anything but obvious to LHO that his partner has a void in ♣ instead of in ♥.
4.) Bidding directly 6♦ may be the best way of reaching a lay-down 7♦ when partner decides to raise with an appropriate hand. (long diamonds including the king; nothing else is needed). ( 6♣ is the most likely small slam to make, but the most likely grand seems to be 7♦)

It all boils down to judgment.

But to believe you can have an unimpeded bidding dialog over 3♠, particularly at unfavorable vulnerability, at no cost is just a little bit naive.

Rainer Herrmann

When I first heard of the 6D call, like most I hated it and was thoroughly bemused.
After much discussion and consideration, however; as a creative imaginative swing-potential call, it seems probably more "thoughtful" than irrational...

...there's also the increased likelihood that LHO would take a rewarding favorable-vul sac of 6S with something like Kxxx Qxxxx Kxx x over a 6C call, which is everyone's favorite "flyer" on this hand. Over 6D, he might not.

Besides hands where only 6D makes (but not 6C) - when BOTH MAKE opposite something like xx KJx Jxxx Jxxx, well - isn't the 6D call going to create a swing when 6Sx is the contract in the other room after a scientific 6C is reached, but the LHO here might very well pass out 6D some days?

Maybe the example hand for LHO is a "clear" 6S bid, but you could modify it to be "less clear" to achieve the same purpose.

[foo]

qwery_hi, on Aug 3 2010, 05:44 AM, said:

AFAIK gossip is allowed, and the OPost was not libel, nor was a public accusation of cheating made. And seeing how the thread has not been censored by the powers of BBO, who I think are quite conservative, I don't think they consider this a public accusation of cheating either.

a= some gossip is far more dangerous than others.
As I said previous, just the ACCUSATION that someone has cheated at Bridge can destroy their reputation irrepairably. For teachers and pros, that literally means destroying their source of income and livelihood.

For a Bridge pro, a cheating accusation is every bit as nasty as taking a club to the knees or hands of a professional athlete. Either can permanently cripple or destroy the career of the sportsman in question.

For that reason, accusations of cheating MUST be handled extremely carefully and not as an exercise in public lynching.


b= "...nor was a public accusation of cheating made"? Who are you trying to kid, yourself or the rest of us? The Hog and others have posted the quotes that make it very obvious that Justin felt he was robbed by unethical behavior that he felt could only have resulted from someone being in possession of information they could not possibly have legitimately.
...and that he "shopped" that opinion very aggressively both at the tournament and online (both here and on rgb).
IOW, Justin accused Mr Piltch of cheating. To a =world wide= public audience.

I am sure that one of his motives for doing so was to "blow off steam". I am also sure that one of his motives was to use the court of public opinion to "nail" Mr Piltch and "see justice done".

I'll leave it to the professional lawyers here to discuss the finer points of what constitutes slander or libel. I am not a lawyer.

However, the major point remains that as of now, the entire process of investigating this incident is tainted. Worse, to some degree so are any possible future investigations into the accused's Bridge actions.
The pool of objectivity has been tainted. The tree of logic and evidence poisoned by so many having a pre-set bias.

...and all of that could have been prevented if there had not been public accusations of cheating and attempts to use "the court of public opinion" rather than the established due process.

[jkdood]

I dunno, as Justin knows, I can be an "M" (for Moron), but I can't help but think that if the real "M" (Zia M.) (for Master) bid 6D in some successful match saving or comeback ploy, he might get the Bols award for brilliancy.

[JLOGIC]

Wow the talk of the 6D bid being a good "swing" bid is amazingly tilting.

This was the beginning of the second QUARTER. There was a lot of time to not go completely insane swinging.

But surely if the first thing you do on this hand is visualize hands where 6D makes and 6C does not, you see if partner can bid diamonds when you show the minors, or make a takeout double, or later offer a choice of slams.

Why are all the wizards who think of hands where 6D is the nut spot not thinking about hands where hearts is the nuts? If partner bids them when you give him a chance, you might just get there too.

I'm not sure why even if you were swinging with 45 boards left in a match you would choose to do so by unilaterally picking a suit that will often be wrong. This hand is swingy in and of itself, maybe your teammates opened 4S instead of 3S or the auction went differently, or maybe you will just judge it better than your opps after a normal start to the auction. After all, you are a bridge pro!

At the very least if you want to choose something unilateral you will get some info first.

It seems like the best argument is maybe the guy went insane and frustrated and visualized 6D making and "forgot" he could go slower and was on tilt, and he just got lucky.

Then after that he failed to make any similarly insane bids until the 4th quarter where he was down by like 4 imps a board, rather than 1 imp a board, with fewer boards left. I guess he just felt so good about his 6D bid working he didn't want to press his luck.

I still find it all to be implausible, but as I said in the beginning of the thread there is no evidence of UI other than the hand itself. I still think the laws ought to be altered so that the hand itself can be evidence of UI, at least for the purposes of adjusting the score. Obviously for conduct hearings/reprimands/etc there would need to be a higher bar, and since there is no other evidence I can understand why there would be no sanctions just based on the hand.

[foo]

JLOGIC, on Aug 3 2010, 08:42 AM, said:

Wow the talk of the 6D bid being a good "swing" bid is amazingly tilting.

This was the beginning of the second QUARTER. There was a lot of time to not go completely insane swinging.

No there was not when you are already -40 or worse vs a team that is objectively better skill wise.

At -20, there is "plenty of time". not at -40.

Nor, was there a reasonable chance of "going slower".
Your team had the Spades at Favorable vul and with +40 "padding".

You can, and should, stomp on any "slow" auction that you think has ANY reasonable chance of ending in the right spot for Them.

They have slow auction to 6m. you simply bid 6S on top of it anytime you think it rates to have even 1/3 of being right.

...and any decent pro KNOWS that, and is therefore not going to give you the chance to evaluate a slow auction in this situation.

[jkdood]

Well, 6D is a bit safer than 6H since if it is doubled, you can then try 6H

The above (Justin's post) opinion and bridge logic is of course accurate and thoughtful. But Justin is by far the better player, (than Mr. P or myself or others posting here)so probably can no longer put himself in an "M"'s shoes

[JLOGIC]

Hey when did foo come back? I feel like I've missed so much! No thread is epic until foo in da house!

[JLOGIC]

jkdood, on Aug 3 2010, 08:48 AM, said:

Well, 6D is a bit safer than 6H since if it is doubled, you can then try 6H

The above (Justin's post) opinion and bridge logic is of course accurate and thoughtful. But Justin is by far the better player, (than Mr. O or myself or others posting here)so probably can no longer put himself in an "M"'s shoes

Haha, by the way nice to see you posting on the forums Jay, hope you stick around for the bridge posts also you always have a....unique...view See you somewhere soon I hope.

[ArtK78]

hrothgar, on Aug 2 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Aug 3 2010, 12:40 AM, said:

I have a simple question for anyone who would care to answer it directly.

Can anyone cite one instance (prior to last Monday) of a leap to slam on a 4 card suit in direct seat over a 3 level preempt in a major competition?  I am not imposing any restriction requiring a near solid 6 card side suit, and I am, for the moment, not imposing any restrictions on the credentials of the player making the bid.

Assuming that the answer to my first quesion is no, can anyone cite one instance (prior to last Monday) in which any bridge commentator even discussed the possibility of a leap to slam on a 4 card suit in direct seat over a 3 level preempt?

This does not mean to imply that just because an action is unique that it must be based on UI or any other improper activity.

I am trying to get this discussion out of the twilight zone realm which it has moved into - the rationalization of the 6♦ call based on a simulation showing that it has some merit.

Art, if you can provide a database with the hands from the first couple rounds of the Spingold, Vanderbilt, etc. I'll cobble together a script to look for appropriate hands.

Whats that? There isn't any such database...
Its impossible to conduct such a search?

If there were a hand where a player in a major competition leapt to a slam on a four-card suit in direct seat over a 3-level preempt, you would not need to search the database of all known hands to find it. It would have been the talk of the tournament, if not the entire bridge world.

If there were any prior instance of an action such as this in any major tournament, it would have been brought to light during the course of this thread. Someone would have said that "Joe Smith made a similar call holding XYZ in the 1951 Tibet Team Championship" or something along those lines. But it seems that no one has heard of anything like the action taken at the table against Justin's team.

One has to admire such a unique action and the success it enjoyed.

[jkdood]

Thanks M. I feel your frustration and indignation greatly. Especially at first! And you probably are aware I am no fan of Mr. P (or Mr. O or whatever I call him.)

Maybe it was just a "tilt". And when it worked and when he had a C&E director visit/discussion at the break, he decided to take it easy from then on. I dunno.

I do know you won the match (Yea!) and had some great results in Nawlins! Congrats!

[foo]

JLOGIC, on Aug 3 2010, 08:48 AM, said:

Hey when did foo come back? I feel like I've missed so much! No thread is epic until foo in da house!

This incident and the furor it has created in both real life and online is what brought me back Justin.

I do not know if it is still in print, but if people want lot's of examples of unusual bridge actions and the controversy they inspired, I highly recommend
_Fair Play or Foul?_ by Cathy Chua (I may have mispelled the author's name)

What Mr Piltch did is not anywhere as unique, or even extreme, as some things that have happened in high level bridge over the years.

Terrence Reese, IIRC, once underled AQx on opening lead vs a suit contract. It was the only lead that could set the contract.

the 3-3 fit is called "The Rodwell", and Support Doubles exist, because Eric used to so aggressively insert =3= card suits into some auctions that he often ended up playing his 3-3 "fit".

etc etc.

High level players have always done things based on Table Feel, visualization, and sheer gall that the rest of us simply do not consider.

[PeterGill]

Either the 6D bidder is highly imaginative, or else he did something wrong.

As a newbie to this thread who has just completed a marathon read, I think the initial reactions are understandable and human, but the obvious conclusion 24 pages later is that the 6D bidder is highly imaginative and has a brain type that is not afraid to depart (considerably) from the mainstream. Einstein had his hecklers too.

About 5 years ago, a highly imaginative client of mine (who liked to make bids that shock) held 10, AKQJ, void, AKQ109542. 1S on her right, Dbl by her, 1NT by her LHO, Pass by me ... I passed a lot in this partnership ....

Pass by her RHO, 7C, down one. She reasoned correctly that we needed a top, and with her marked spade void on this bidding, there was no way that her LHO would lead a spade. She got that right, but forgot there was nowhere for the spade loser to go in 7C. I had 9xxxx, 9xxx, 10xx, x. Hearts were 3-2. I have to admit that it didn't occur to boring me at the time to correct to 7H. I'm not that imaginative. Our partnership has won three National Championships, including two Open Pairs titles.

Being a dutiful pro, I said nothing at the table (of course), but after the game I pointed out that she might have done better to try 7H, as that contract provides more opportunity for the spade loser to vanish, when I'm marked on the bidding to have few high cards.

Returning to the Spingold, it is the visible Axx holding in hearts that makes 6D non-loony to those who think very differently from the mainstream. I personally regard the 6D call in a similar category to displaying a placard "We did not vote for Bush" at a dinner and expecting no repercussions. Unusual actions attract discussion. That does not necessarily make the unusual action bad. although many will criticize unusual actions.

6D might also make opposite AKxx, xxxxxx, Kx, x or the like, when 6C fails on a club lead with clubs 4-2 and diamonds 4-3. My clients have made stranger bids than the 6D bid. Not this week, but there was one a few months ago.

Someone asked: "Can anyone cite one instance (prior to last Monday) in which any bridge commentator even discussed the possibility of a leap to slam on a 4 card suit in direct seat over a 3 level preempt?"

No, but perhaps after my post mortem above, my then partner may have tried this stunt with another partner? I certainly fit the description of "bridge commentator", being a frequent BBO Vugraph Commentator.

[jkdood]

[quote name='foo' date='Aug 3 2010, 09:06 AM'] [quote name='JLOGIC' date='Aug 3 2010, 08:48 AM'] ... I highly recommend
_Fair Play or Foul?_ by Cathy Chua (I may have mispelled the author's name) [/quote]
"Chua" is correct. Book (and info about author) is available. see for example [url="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2963978.Cathy_Chua"]http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2963978.Cathy_Chua[/url]

[ArtK78]

foo, on Aug 3 2010, 09:06 AM, said:

JLOGIC, on Aug 3 2010, 08:48 AM, said:

Hey when did foo come back? I feel like I've missed so much! No thread is epic until foo in da house!

What Mr Piltch did is not anywhere as unique, or even extreme, as some things that have happened in high level bridge over the years.

OK, foo. You have the book. Please provide an example of an action similar to the one taken by Mr. Piltch in a serious tournament.