[hrothgar]

ArtK78, on Jul 28 2010, 05:40 PM, said:

You missed the point.

Suppose this were partner's hand and the player holding the 0-3-4-6 hand bid 6♥.

You can take it from there.

Art, while your writing may be labored, none of your "points" are particularly hard to grasp.

If the person hold the 0=3=4=6 hand had bid 6♥

1. I would expect 6♥ to go down opposite most hands that partner tabled

Moreover, I would be shocked if the opposing pair called the director to complain about this insane action. Indeed, I would expect that none of us would ever be aware that the 6♥ bidder made some insane bid

2. If the partner of the 6♥ bidder had some miracle holding in which

6♥ makes AND
6 minor goes down

I suspect that the opposing team would almost certainly raise a complaint. Here, once again, you'd start jumping to conclusions based on a biased sample.

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

From my perspective, any "real" analysis regarding this incident needs to incorporate at least three different elements.

1. A serious analysis of the hand in question that attempts to establish to categorize

The expected value for a 6♣ and 6♦ overcall
The variance and covariance for these two bids.

Simply put, how much worse of a call is 6♦ compared to 6♣?
How often does 6♦ succeed when 6♣ fails?

2. Some explanation how the board was rigged.

Did Howard deal the hand in question?
Did Howard substitute a rigged board?
Did Howard and Bud have some kind of wire?

Please note: I played with Bud as a partner on a couple occasions (though I doubt that he remembers this). I have very high respect for his ethics and his level of play and would be completely shocked to discover that he was involved in anything untoword)

3. A more balanced understanding of the history of the individual in question. Howard has certainly had run ins with the ACBL regarding Conducts and Ethics. At the same time, he also is a very "creative" bidder, particularly when he feels that he needs to generate swings.

As I said before, I would not be shocked to find out that Howard had a run in with the C+E committtee. However, in this case, I think that it is much much more likely that he was seeking to generate a swing rather than cheating.

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on Jul 28 2010, 02:38 PM, said:

As for the post by Mr. Hinckley, these arguments are best presented in front of any disciplinary committee duly convened to hear charges brought in this matter.

So it's OK for you to give us your uninformed opinion of what happened, but it's not OK for somebody who was actually present to try to refute your arguments?

[TimG]

Ant590, on Jul 28 2010, 08:04 AM, said:

BudH, on Jul 28 2010, 08:06 AM, said:

1.  All of the 8 boards shuffled at that table at the start of the second quarter were shuffled with all four players present.  (North: Howard Piltch, South: Bud Hinckley, West: Jim Krekorian, East: Judith Bianco.  I believe the Lall's were playing East/West at the other table.)

2.  Mr. Piltch did make and shuffle Board 8 only out of the 8 boards.  Board 5 was the board being discussed.

3.  As Mr. Piltch's partner, I probably shuffled three of the 8 boards and have no idea if I shuffled Board 5 or if it was one of the two opponents that shuffled it.

4.  When I shuffle boards, it is always with a minimum of five shuffles, then I place the cards on the table in clear view of all at the table, make a clear cut of the cards so that I don't know what the bottom card is, then deal the cards in a normal fashion of four piles of cards in rotation.

Was Mr. Piltch late to the table then, or did he deal one board in the time you took to deal 3?

It would seem weird for neither side to mention that Mr. Piltch was absent for the majority of the dealing.

If he dealt only the one, it seems mighty fishy that he remembers which one it was so well when no one else at the table did.

#1 which you quoted says that all four players were present for the shuffling of all eight boards. It seems strange that you would then presume Mr Piltch was "late to the table" or "absent for the majority of the dealing". It seems to me that the correct conclusion is that Mr Piltch is a slow dealer.

What in Mr Hinckley's post suggests that Mr Piltch was the only one to remember which board he dealt, or even that he remembered at all? All we know from Mr Hinckley's post is that someone remembered. That having been said, I would not be surprised to find that Mr Piltch keeps track of which boards he deals as a result of the experiences of another professional from Indiana.

Tim

[wclass___]

Quote

As in any war, there have been dreadful mistakes and civilian casualties.
J. D. Hayworth

(moderator note: I have removed the last part of this quote, since these forums are international and the full quote was making a clear political statement -- and one that some woudl find objectional. Also, it was somewhat of stretch to be used in this case anyway. - inquiry)

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2010-July-28, 12:36

[bb79]

rhm, on Jul 28 2010, 09:51 AM, said:

bb79, on Jul 28 2010, 09:18 AM, said:

If the goal is to swing, we also need to know the percentage 6♦ makes when 6♣ doesnt. giving individual percentages only doesnt help.

I doubt whether this is relevant, because the Bridge player choosing 6♦ had of course no access to this data at the time of the decision.
But any experienced Bridge player will tell you that 6 ♣ is more likely to be mirrored in the other room than 6 ♦ as a final contract after the ♠ preempt.

But to satisfy your curiosity:

when 6♣ is down, 6 ♦ makes in 21% of the 436 deals. --> this is what actually happened.
when 6♣ makes, 6 ♦ makes in 53% of the 564 deals
when 6 ♦ is down 6 ♣ makes in 44% of the 613 deals
when 6 ♦ makes 6♣ makes in 77% of the 387 deals

So yes, given the facts 6 ♦ is against the odds and 6♣ has better chances to succeed.

Rainer Herrmann

Thank you.
So if he thinks that other table is playing 6♣, he's playing an inferior contract and in return profitable swing chance is 21%.

if he thinks that other table is playing 6♣, he could also have bid 7♣. Maybe it makes, say, 20% of the time, even inferior than 6♦, but at least you're assured that you'll get 100% profitable swing when it makes. by bidding 6♦ you're reducing your chance to make a contract and in return profitable swing chance is low.

[pirate22]

This has generated lots of views and speculation---are we all being correct stating
our views---------There is so much information not present or yet available.
{a}what questions were asked by the TD summoned to the table.
{b}which person summoned the TD.and stated reason by them
{c} were there screens present?.
{d}Were the boards dealt in a correct and witnessed manner.
{e}The 6 d bidder has not said a word ---------YET.
{f}The 6 d bidder may have been on his way to 7cl (Tick)
{g}Ask yourselves this question---If you pulled out the wrong card from the box,
and when the hand is over-opps then the call for TD--I think you to would keep silent.
{H} was the STOP card used by the 3 spade bidder???????????? another vital piece of info not supplied.

If i was being judge and jury--lots of information needed....Regards

[TimG]

pirate22, on Jul 28 2010, 10:38 AM, said:

There is so much information not present or yet available.

Some of the information you say is not yet available has been posted in this thread.

[BudH]

Some more information which I have been authorized to present in this forum:

11. All four players were present during the shuffling of all 8 boards. Mr. Piltch shuffled only one board due to a medical problem that makes it difficult for him to shuffle and deal the cards. The reason we know it was Board 8 was that Mr. Piltch asked Mr. Krekorian not to make Board 1 until the end so that cards could simply be handed out for the first board and that Mr. Piltch starts by shuffling and dealing the highest numbered board. That's why we know the only board Mr. Piltch shuffled was Board 8.

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.

13. Mr. Piltch took a few "swinging type actions" in the first quarter which did not work out well, which was part of the reason for being down 46 after one quarter.

14. Like Justin Lall, Mr. Piltch believes that anyone that cheats should not play the game. At 9:38 a.m. CDT this morning (28 July 2010), Mr. Piltch called Justin Lall's room at the host Marriott hotel and was informed by Justin's father that Justin was asleep. Justin's father was informed that Mr. Piltch would be willing to take a lie detector test regarding this issue and would resign from the ACBL if he failed such a lie detector test. He asked that if he passed such a lie detector test that Justin write a letter of apology to Mr. Piltch and make it public. Mr. Piltch did place one condition! That the tester be trained by the FBI and that he could not be a member of the ACBL or employed by a member of the ACBL. Mr. Piltch offered to go anywhere for this test. Mr. Lall (Justin's father) then told Mr. Piltch not to call his room again and hung up.

[mikeh]

We now have some evidence, altho not inthe form in which a C&E committee would have it. We don't have any obligation to pass judgement and any judgement we do pass should be tentative, in light of the incomplete evidence we have before us.

That evidence appears to negate any suggestion that the player in question stacked the deck.

There is no evidence that there was any form of illegal communication between the bidder and eventual dummy, nor any suggestion that such happened.

Those two propositions, against which there is no shred of evidence, mean that we can effectively conclude that the deck was not rigged and the bidder made his call without outside assistance.

It is also apparent that the bidder is not arguing and has never argued that his call was a mechanical error.

So we are left with this:

1. the player in question was on an inferior team, compared to his opps, and probably knew that

2. the player in question knew that while the match was still young, he was stuck a lot to a team that was favoured to win

3. the player in question is not a leading expert..but we don't know much more than that, altho one poster says he is known for imaginative bidding (it's imaginative when it works, crazy when it doesn't....we all know players like that to some degree and most of us won't play with them...they're far more often crazy than imaginative)

4. Bidding 6♦ seems insane (to me). But it cannot be gainsayed that it MIGHT work....after all, we know in a vacuum that it could work and we know in real life it did work.

Our choices are to reject ALL the evidence so far known to us and conclude that the bid was so crazy that he HAD to be cheating, or to accept that he made a crazy bid, and got lucky in that it turned out, instead, to have been an imaginative bid.

Think of his action as a bad version of russian roulette...he had 5 bullets in the chamber....he spun it, pulled the trigger and lived. We are concluding that he knew the hammer would fall on an empty chamber, but the evidence suggests that it was random.

Since this type of russian roulette hurts teammates as well as the player, I wouldn't ever want to partner or team with someone prone to these adventures, but not because they are cheats.

This post is far more accepting of the action than my earlier contributions, when I was more sceptical, but that is because we now have more evidence.

[jdonn]

I appreciate his partner coming forward to post these facts. Btw #14 is such a dispicible and dumb thing to do, why do people think things like that are a good idea??? Hemant was kind to let him say anything before hanging up.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Jul 28 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

I appreciate his partner coming forward to post these facts. Btw #14 is such a dispicible and dumb thing to do, why do people think things like that are a good idea??? Hemant was kind to let him say anything before hanging up.

I agree that it was probably unwise, but why is it despicable? Or, at least, supposing that he were innocent, why woud it be despicable?

[manudude03]

In some ways this business with the lie detector only made things more suspicious. Maybe that's just from me being in the room when Jeremy Kyle is on, not sure.

I do wonder why Mr. Piltch is so desperate to avoid a C&E committee. I have read of ways you can get around the lie detector test, though most involve drink/drugs which I would like to think he wouldn't stoop to.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Jul 28 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 28 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

I appreciate his partner coming forward to post these facts. Btw #14 is such a dispicible and dumb thing to do, why do people think things like that are a good idea??? Hemant was kind to let him say anything before hanging up.

I agree that it was probably unwise, but why is it despicable? Or, at least, supposing that he were innocent, why woud it be despicable?

It's harrassment. There already will be a formal hearing where I'm sure he can offer any remedy he would like. But calling Justin's room (in the morning!) to try and make a side deal almost makes me think he is innocent, not because he is willing to submit to a lie detector test (that everyone knows are not reliable at all), but because it shows approximately the same level of judgment as bidding 6♦ over 3♠.

Perhaps despicable is not the right word, but whatever the right word is would be no more complimentary.

[BudH]

By the way..... some irony...

After making a vulnerable 6D contract on Board 5, on the very next board the opponents after a strong notrump opening and transfer to clubs made it into 6C, down 1 on a losing spade finesse in a 6-2 club fit.

But - they had a side 4-4 diamond fit, and a vulnerable 6D contract would have made.

[mikeh]

The main problem with lie detectors is, as far as I know (I haven't read up on the topic in a number of years and maybe things have changed) is not that they are easy to beat (tho apparently sociopaths glide through since they really don't have any sense of lying) but that they may give false positives, since they measure physiological stress responses. In theory, one is not stressed when telling the truth, but in reality when one's truth is believed by one's interrogators to be false, there is often considerable stress...one feels one is not being believed, and this makes giving the answer more stressful.

As for the phone call: when one is accused by a respected figure of cheating and one is innocent....well....I have been accused of unethical conduct (not cheating) in a smear campaign on the internet and can tell you that it makes rational thinking difficult to maintain. I am NOT suggesting that Justin has tried to smear anyone: he obviously and understandably felt that something ugly had happened. But IF the player was innocent, and my view of it is that, based on the limited information we have, he was....then his attempt to speak to Justin, altho unwise, was entirely human.

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Jul 28 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

It's harrassment. There already will be a formal hearing where I'm sure he can offer any remedy he would like. But calling Justin's room (in the morning!) to try and make a side deal almost makes me think he is innocent, not because he is willing to submit to a lie detector test (that everyone knows are not reliable at all), but because it shows approximately the same level of judgment as bidding 6♦ over 3♠.

Perhaps despicable is not the right word, but whatever the right word is would be no more complimentary.

I'm torn on this one:

How many times have we seen a case where something spirals completely out of control and the only answer seems to be "Lawyers, Guns, and Money". In retrospect, it turns out that everything could have been smoothed over with a simple, direct conversation between the principals.

On the other hand, I know that lawyers often advise their clients to avoid anything like simple, direct conversation in cases like this one. (There is always the potential for things to spin further out of control)

I'm really not sure what I'd do if I were in Howard's position (thankfully, I'm not). Then again, on Monday morning I sent an email to my lawyer with "Let loose the Dogs of War" as a subject line, so I guess I know which side of the fence I lend to lean towards.

[peachy]

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

At 9:38 a.m. CDT this morning (28 July 2010), Mr. Piltch called Justin Lall's room at the host Marriott hotel and was informed by Justin's father that Justin was asleep. Justin's father was informed

That was a bad idea. Posting a third-party report about the alleged call here is an even worse idea.

[hrothgar]

manudude03, on Jul 28 2010, 07:59 PM, said:

I do wonder why Mr. Piltch is so desperate to avoid a C&E committee.

Because the ACBL is an incredibly political place?

Because Howard has a very strong personality and a rather colorful history?

Because this has a very real potential to spiral completely out of control and end up costing everyone enormous amounts of time, money, and political capital?

The evil, dark, malicious side of me is highly intriqued by the possibilty of a bloody knock down fight between Piltch and Wolff. "Let's you and he fight" has always been a favorite spectator sport...

The more mature, mellow, and enlightened individual currently typing at this keyboard wishes that this would all just go away.

[peachy]

BudH, on Jul 28 2010, 02:06 AM, said:

 

I admire your standing by your bridge partner but the two District 24 disciplinary cases are public knowledge.

Edit: I deleted incorrect information. My apologies.

[pretender]

When I wrote earlier I mentioned that we needed more information. I think we now have that and it feels like there are more objective posts on this thread than there were before.

With regards to the phone call, I do not comment on whether it is "despicable" or "unwise". What I will say is that it is Justin, who went to a public forum, and wrote things such as "Something is wrong with bridge that this can happen." This to me is fairly strong accusatory language. I think it is perfectly human to feel the need to defend yourself and speak directly to your accuser.

As far as trying to avoid a committee hearing of any sort. The ACBL really is a very political place. It is clear the bidder wishes to avoid having anything decided by the powers that be at the ACBL. Remember, this is also a person's livelihood at stake, which explains the urgency of the bidder's responses.