[G_R__E_G]

One thing is for certain; assuming it was cheating his partner wasn't in on it. If he could have trusted his partner to answer 4♦ to a double then this wouldn't have raised many eyebrows.

[pretender]

jdonn, on Jul 27 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

pretender, on Jul 27 2010, 01:27 PM, said:

From a bridge perspective, I think most of the people who are bashing the bid tend to just think too much down the middle. Asking 1000 experts is irrelevant. If I told you you were behind by 100 imps with 10 boards to go, you might give way different bids. So I would actually like to know the score situation when this hand came up.

Justin posted this at halftime of his match, so it occured during the first half. I think it's fair to assume the opponents weren't in "jump to slam on 4 card suit and pray" mode just yet.

Well that's good to know. Although I still think the score is relevant. It could be a "either we get this or we withdraw" type of thing, especially for a pro team. Unlike most people who only know the bidder by reputation, I actually know him and have played with him. I know he is capable of both making the bid for state-of-the-match reasons and for other "extra" reasons.

I'm not defending him per se, but rather defending the bid. I feel that there is a need for all the circumstances to be known, before forum people start bashing players who are actually capable of thinking outside the box for being lunatics or cheats.

[ArtK78]

Mike:

I am not a trial lawyer, but I am aware of how judicial notice operates. I was just making a point that there is quite a history here for this player, and anyone who would be in a position to adjudicate this matter in the bridge world would be aware of it and it would not and should not be ignored.

As for the mechanics of the bidding, if the bidding went all pass and the final contract became known to this player, I believe he would still have the opportunity to call the TD and correct his mechanical error if, in fact, the bid that he made was a mechanical error. And I am also reasonably sure that this player would be aware of his right to correct a mechanical error.

Yes, I was not present, and the first time I became aware of this incident was several hours ago when I read this thread for the first time. But it seems apparent from the presentation of the facts that the declarer never indicated that his bid was anything other than intentional.

My conclusions are based on bias - if one defines bias as years of experience with this particular player. But the facts do speak for themselves, and I made a post to that effect prior to learning the identity of the 6♦ bidder. The revelation of his identity only sealed the deal as far as I am concerned.

[pretender]

From what I recall you can correct a mechanical error only before your partner has made a call.

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on Jul 27 2010, 07:21 PM, said:

Mechanical errors are correctible.

True, but mental abberations are not. I once conducted an entire auction thinking that my clubs were diamonds and my diamonds were clubs.

I have also seen players make bizarre bids simply because they are annoyed about something their partner had said, or because they have lost interest in the event.

[Fluffy]

TimG, on Jul 27 2010, 02:38 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 27 2010, 07:50 AM, said:

Regardless of how bizarre the action was, and regardless of how bad a reputation the player has, I think it would be quite wrong (and I hope illegal) to rule that UI had been made available when there was no evidence of this other than that the opponents don't think much of the bidding.

I agree: it seems wrong, and I hope it is illegal.

I understand you logic Andy & Tim, but let me tell you that you didn't have to deal with Buratti-Lanzarotti for 2 years where they stole you price after price.

More acting is something very wellcome, obviously it has some flaws, but some I am very willing to assume.

[JLOGIC]

This was one of the first boards of the second set, so basically ~board 20 of a 64 board match.

This did not happen at my table, it was at my teammates table. They think it is likely that he did not shuffle and just dealt once they got there.

I understand your post gnasher, at some point it just seems messed up but the laws have to bend over backwards to protect the innocent I guess.

[neilkaz]

Hanoi5, on Jul 27 2010, 05:20 AM, said:

I'm amazed that ACBLand allows people to shuffle boards in that kind of tournament. IMO what happened is that he prepared the cards but what is more amazing is that he didn't even made up some kind of 'story' to back up the fancy contract. I think it's amazing 'cause it means that he knows he can get away with it or even, he has gotten away with it before.

Of course he lost but I wonder how many non-Jlall's have suffered and lost to this player, I hope Jlall's action end up in something.

I am also absolutely amazed that at this level of play in this prestigious event, players are preparing boards. While most everyone is usually honest, there's always a few that are tempted otherwise.

I do wonder what the player in question didn't offer up a straight forward explanation like " I meant 6♣ but pulled the wrong card".

Anyhow..if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck....it probably is a duck, and if it also quacks like a duck.

.. neilkaz ..

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on Jul 27 2010, 01:11 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Jul 27 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

Would it change your mind if this "bad reputation" has an official record that includes several suspension? (Quick Googling on the player in question found two suspensions, one of them including a 4(!)-year probationary period starting 2003.)

Suspensions for what, exactly? I know somebody who has been suspended several times from the EBU. His offences included:
- Explicitly calling an opponent a cheat.
- Having a blazing row with the manager of the tournament venue, ending with the deliberate smashing of a piece of crockery owned by the venue.
- Trying to use the EBU's PA system to organise a player walk-out.
None of these is evidence that he's a cheat.

If you're saying that the player has been suspended in the past for cheating, then I still don't believe that the TD or appeals committee should be expected to rule on the matter. This is too serious an accusation to be dealt with at that level - a finding of cheating could ruin a player's reputation for the rest of his life. It should be dealt with by a disciplinary committee appointed by, and reporting to, the Board of Directors.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FksZwNV...heating&f=false

This from Wolff's autobiography will give you an idea of the guy's track record. Scroll down a couple of paragraphs.

[jdonn]

pretender, on Jul 27 2010, 02:00 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 27 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

pretender, on Jul 27 2010, 01:27 PM, said:

From a bridge perspective, I think most of the people who are bashing the bid tend to just think too much down the middle. Asking 1000 experts is irrelevant. If I told you you were behind by 100 imps with 10 boards to go, you might give way different bids. So I would actually like to know the score situation when this hand came up.

Justin posted this at halftime of his match, so it occured during the first half. I think it's fair to assume the opponents weren't in "jump to slam on 4 card suit and pray" mode just yet.

Well that's good to know. Although I still think the score is relevant. It could be a "either we get this or we withdraw" type of thing, especially for a pro team.

They were down much more than this with much fewer boards to go before the start of the 4th quarter and didn't withdraw.

[JoAnneM]

Good luck in the rest of the tournament and I hope you don't run into any further unpleasantness....

[hrothgar]

I've played against (this guy) a number of times.

Say what you will about his past behavior, the guy never struck me as an idiot AND the 6♦ bid is completely idiotic.

In all seriousness, if he was going to cheat, I'd expect him to cheat in a somewhat more intelligent manner. Then again, if he were bidding normally, I'd expect something more intelligent as well.

Any chance he was on happy happy pills?

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2010-July-27, 15:55

[jdonn]

I think people give someone who hypothetically is cheating in this spot WAY too much credit. For example maybe such a person only knows their partner's hand but not how the auction will go, and they weren't prepared for the high preempt on their right. Maybe he thought if he doubled his partner would respond 4♦ but later had second thoughts and worried he would respond 4♣. Maybe he had a little panic since he was down in the match.

It's not like knowing your partner's hand and having to come up with a plausible auction to a very difficult contract to reach is a familiar position for anyone.

[gnasher]

Fluffy, on Jul 27 2010, 08:13 PM, said:

I understand you logic Andy & Tim, but let me tell you that you didn't have to deal with Buratti-Lanzarotti for 2 years where they stole you price after price.

Yes, I understand that this sort of thing is even harder to accept in a jurisdiction where the authorities are unwilling to act. I don't think that the ACBL falls into that category, though - they have video cameras at every NABC, and some kind of stratgey for monitoring particular suspects.

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Jul 28 2010, 12:35 AM, said:

I think people give someone who hypothetically is cheating in this spot WAY too much credit. For example maybe such a person only knows their partner's hand but not how the auction will go, and they weren't prepared for the high preempt on their right. Maybe he thought if he doubled his partner would respond 4♦ but later had second thoughts and worried he would respond 4♣. Maybe he had a little panic since he was down in the match.

Even so, there is always the option NOT to make a bonehead 6♦ bid.

Assume for the moment that I rigged the deck AND
I got surprised by an unexpected 3♠ bid.

I have the choice of either

1. Trying to ignore my knowledge of the hand and bidding as normally as possible
2. Bid normally and look for an opportunity to take advantage of the information
3. Punting 6♦

The last choice just doesn't make sense...

For what its worth, I have no great love for Howard.
The last sentence I spoke to him started "Listen here, lardass..."

However, I can't picture him doing something this dumb...

[inquiry]

I have tried to edit out all direct references to who made the bid against Justin. The policy of the forum does not allow public lynching -- even of the guilty. Should a committee rule against the person who made the 6♦ bid and it become public record, then and only then can we mention his name and/or show his photograph.

[peachy]

gnasher, on Jul 27 2010, 04:42 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Jul 27 2010, 08:13 PM, said:

I understand you logic Andy & Tim, but let me tell you that you didn't have to deal with Buratti-Lanzarotti for 2 years where they stole you price after price.

Yes, I understand that this sort of thing is even harder to accept in a jurisdiction where the authorities are unwilling to act. I don't think that the ACBL falls into that category, though - they have video cameras at every NABC, and some kind of stratgey for monitoring particular suspects.

Who knows, maybe the camera was on, I hope so. Behavioral psychologists know full well (not that I know whether there are any at ACBL) that past behavior id a good predictor of future behavior; someone who has a been ***Edit: disciplined and put on probation*** twice in the past should be seen as the obvious choice of subject for future monitoring.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on Jul 27 2010, 04:42 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Jul 27 2010, 08:13 PM, said:

I understand you logic Andy & Tim, but let me tell you that you didn't have to deal with Buratti-Lanzarotti for 2 years where they stole you price after price.

Yes, I understand that this sort of thing is even harder to accept in a jurisdiction where the authorities are unwilling to act. I don't think that the ACBL falls into that category, though - they have video cameras at every NABC, and some kind of stratgey for monitoring particular suspects.

But they take a long time (not that I am criticizing that...it takes time to make sure one has one's tackle in order when accusing someone of cheating.

Years ago, a woman was suspected of stacking hands in team games. What was happening was that in swiss events at nationals and, I understand, some regionals, a very unusual pattern was detected.....there would be 3 or even 4 hands dealt where one player held 27 or more hcp...always the same seat.

Monitoring was undertaken and it was learned that the woman made a habit of getting to her assigned table as soon as possible, and then shuffling the decks...but she would take time to place as many high cards as possible into her partner's hand. There was no organization and no attempt to memorize the cards...just dealing partner as many points as possible.

When finally confronted, with video evidence, she confessed. Her partner, a male, was always extremely abusive towards her, especially if she played the hand. So, in an attempt to make him declarer as often as possible, she dealt him huge hands. it was not done to win....it was done to save her some abuse.

My friend, on the committee, felt incredibly sad about it, while not able to do anything other than punish her (and her partner who had to have known what was happening altho he denied it, if memory serves). But it took a number or tournaments after the first reports came in of strange goings-on. Thus in this case, it is unlikely that the ACBL can really do anything now. Even if the player cheated, since the hand is now in the public domain, he isn't going to be doing anything like this again for a long time.

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on Jul 27 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 28 2010, 12:35 AM, said:

I think people give someone who hypothetically is cheating in this spot WAY too much credit. For example maybe such a person only knows their partner's hand but not how the auction will go, and they weren't prepared for the high preempt on their right. Maybe he thought if he doubled his partner would respond 4♦ but later had second thoughts and worried he would respond 4♣. Maybe he had a little panic since he was down in the match.

Even so, there is always the option NOT to make a bonehead 6♦ bid.

Assume for the moment that I rigged the deck AND
I got surprised by an unexpected 3♠ bid.

I have the choice of either

1. Trying to ignore my knowledge of the hand and bidding as normally as possible
2. Bid normally and look for an opportunity to take advantage of the information
3. Punting 6♦

The last choice just doesn't make sense...

For what its worth, I have no great love for Howard.
The last sentence I spoke to him start "Listen here, lardass..."

However, I can't picture him doing something this dumb...

I don't deny that it's a dumb bid to make whether you are cheating or not. I suppose my point is, since it's a dumb bid to make whether you are cheating or not, just the fact that it would be a dumb way to cheat doesn't make it any less likely that the player was cheating (since it's also a dumb way to not cheat).

In fact the fact it's a dumb way to both cheat and not cheat seems to me to make it more likely the player was cheating. We have strong evidence he is a strong bridge player (he is a medium seed in the Spingold, and though I don't want to suggest anything about his identity he has a huge masterpoint total). We have no evidence at all that he is a strong bridge cheater. So if he takes an action that is very bad from either a bridge player or bridge cheater perspective, then which do you think was more likely in any particular case?

[bidule4]

How are ACBL Presidents elected ?

"Madame la Baronne," said I, loudly and distinctly--embroidering each word, as it were--"j'ai l'honneur d'etre votre esclave."

The Gambler
Fyodor Dostoevsky