[ArtK78]

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.

[hrothgar]

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?

[Stephen Tu]

To me it is clear that 6♦ is a crazy bid in the view of most decent players. But it is also to me crazy to believe that a devious person setting out to cheat would do so in such an outlandish manner sure to draw attention. Wouldn't most cheats try to stay under the radar?

Unless there is video evidence of board fixing, or pattern of repeated crazy actions from supposed offender that work, not accompanied by a history of crazy actions from same person that backfire, hanlon's razor should apply ("don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity").

[awm]

hrothgar, on Aug 2 2010, 02:46 PM, said:

People are very, very good at identifying patterns. We're so good at identifying patterns that we often see them when nothing is there.

One of the trickiest parts of data analysis is not jumping to conclusions.
Learning not to on spectacular singletons is a really important skill.

Sure, we agree that having a large database of hands would be very helpful here, and that we could determine whether this person bids this way often and has an abnormally high success rate.

However, I think there are times when you can analyze an action without such a database. For example, suppose I jump out of an airplane. My parachute opens and I land safely on the ground. Do you think that:

(1) When I jumped, I had no idea that I was wearing a parachute. It was extremely fortuitous that I happened to have one this time.

(2) When I jumped, I knew that I had a parachute.

Or do you decide that either is possible, and that you need to observe a large sample of other times that I have jumped out of airplanes in order to determine which is more likely?

The claim is that bidding 6♦ on this hand is akin to jumping out of a plane. It will quite often be an utter disaster, and is not something that a rational person would do without the safety of a parachute (here, the UI that it would succeed). Further, we can assume based on my survival up to this point (alternately my prior degree of success in bridge) that I am not in the habit of jumping out of planes randomly and just hoping that I happen to have a parachute (I don't randomly make such bids all the time and just happened to get lucky this once).

[MickyB]

I gave this hand to a good player (European Teams silver medallist), along with the state-of-the-match. He went for 7♦.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Aug 3 2010, 01:03 AM, said:

However, I think there are times when you can analyze an action without such a database. For example, suppose I jump out of an airplane. My parachute opens and I land safely on the ground. Do you think that:

(1) When I jumped, I had no idea that I was wearing a parachute. It was extremely fortuitous that I happened to have one this time.

(2) When I jumped, I knew that I had a parachute.

Or do you decide that either is possible, and that you need to observe a large sample of other times that I have jumped out of airplanes in order to determine which is more likely?

The claim is that bidding 6♦ on this hand is akin to jumping out of a plane. It will quite often be an utter disaster, and is not something that a rational person would do without the safety of a parachute (here, the UI that it would succeed). Further, we can assume based on my survival up to this point (alternately my prior degree of success in bridge) that I am not in the habit of jumping out of planes randomly and just hoping that I happen to have a parachute (I don't randomly make such bids all the time and just happened to get lucky this once).

Comment 1: If you jump out of a plane without a parachute, you expect to die. Sims suggest that this bid is quite a bid better than "expect to die", especially given the sate of the match.

Comment 2: The player in question has a history in and around District 25 of making strange, unilateral bids when down in a match. Simply put, the player had a history of jumping out of planes (especially when said planes are on fire at the time)

[awm]

hrothgar, on Aug 2 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

Comment 1: If you jump out of a plane without a parachute, you expect to die. Sims suggest that this bid is quite a bid better than "expect to die", especially given the sate of the match.

Comment 2: The player in question has a history in and around District 25 of making strange, unilateral bids when down in a match. Simply put, the player had a history of jumping out of planes (especially when said planes are on fire at the time)

Fine, we can disagree about the merits of this particular bid.

Suppose the player in question had bid 7NT and found partner with the magic hand. Can we agree that this call is strongly suggestive of UI without an immense database search? Further, suppose he did it when his team held a small lead.

Or is there no level of "weirdness" where you would accept such an argument?

[gwnn]

Is 40 imps really impossible to recover in 40 boards?! Two vulnerable games and a slam in 40 boards???? am I some sort of absolute idiot for not understanding how 40 imps is an insurmountable mammoth disadvantage?

This board you can simply try to guess what the other table does (5♣, 6♣ or 7♣ or 3NT) and try to do something else. If you're smart and a little lucky you have only about 28 imps remaining for 39 boards!

[bill1157]

This unfortunate occurrence happened early in the event and the offender's team was eliminated. Too big a deal is being made about this. As we all know even very good players will, under pressure or losing badly do outlandish things (I played against a very good pair in a Swiss yesterday and they did stuff equally as stupid:I don't think they were cheating, just frustrated and having a bad day).
Since Justin's team won anyway where is the harm?
oh that's right: the sacred game...

Bill

[hrothgar]

awm, on Aug 3 2010, 01:30 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 2 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

Comment 1:  If you jump out of a plane without a parachute, you expect to die.  Sims suggest that this bid is quite a bid better than "expect to die", especially given the sate of the match.

Comment 2:  The player in question has a history in and around District 25 of making strange, unilateral bids when down in a match.  Simply put, the player had a history of jumping out of planes (especially when said planes are on fire at the time)

Fine, we can disagree about the merits of this particular bid.

Suppose the player in question had bid 7NT and found partner with the magic hand. Can we agree that this call is strongly suggestive of UI without an immense database search? Further, suppose he did it when his team held a small lead.

Or is there no level of "weirdness" where you would accept such an argument?

I think that it is highly inappropriate to try to evaluate anything this complex using a single data point;

Even more so when this involves what is, for all intents and purposes, a public accusation of cheating.

[jdonn]

MickyB, on Aug 2 2010, 05:10 PM, said:

I gave this hand to a good player (European Teams silver medallist), along with the state-of-the-match. He went for 7♦.

He wanted to make sure it would be appropriate to concede at the half?

[foo]

1= In all of this, I keep seeing folk ignoring the most important fact of this whole situation.

The State of the Match.

As a pro, you are hired to do everything legally within your power to win for your client. When you are behind, it is your =JOB= to "swing" as hard as you think you can to try and get back in contention.
It's a standard tactic of pros.

If you are -40whatever vs a team better than yours, there is very little to lose by swinging and a potential huge gain.

I am confident that Mr Piltch would not consider an action like the 6D bid if his team was merely -20.
-40 is a whole other kettle of fish.

2= Nor have people taken enough note of the fact that Mr Piltch's opponents were at Favorable Vul ratio with The Master suit.
"space conserving" calls like X or 4N could very easily get "stomped" on:
(3S)-X-(5S)
(3S)-X-(6S)
replace "X" with "4N" for similar lessons.
...and given that Justin's team as +40 something, the risk to them of such action is minimal at best.
That means that Mr Piltch's best chance is to jam the auction as much and as fast as possible in one bid.
IOW, bid at the odds on 6 level.
6D rather than 6C is definitely imaginative, but that's a different issue.

3= People need to note and consider the difference between "illegal" and "unethical". Cheating is certainly illegal. By defintion.
But many of the examples being discussed here are issues of =ethics=, not =legality=.

4= A cheating accusation, and let's make NO pretence that Justin did not make such, he most certainly did, is the worst accusation one can make in Bridge.
The accusation, in and of itself regardless of any other factor, can and has destroyed the careers of players.
Such accusations should NEVER be made in a public forum for that very reason.

5= I find it interesting that no one has tried the obvious other tactic here.
Proof by contradiction.
Let's assume that Mr Piltch was =not= cheating any more than Coon, Shapiro, Reese, Zia, or any of a number of other players famous for "flare" in bidding style.
And try to see if we can duplicate their logic and board visualization skills.
(I'll skip "table feel" since the younger non rubber bridge players might consider that "unethical" .... ;-) )
Maybe, just maybe, they know something of legitimate skill that the rest of us could learn from.

[jkdood]

jdonn, on Aug 2 2010, 06:39 PM, said:

MickyB, on Aug 2 2010, 05:10 PM, said:

I gave this hand to a good player (European Teams silver medallist), along with the state-of-the-match. He went for 7♦.

He wanted to make sure it would be appropriate to concede at the half?

Sorry for repeating this, but I am fairly certain that if you gave this hand as a bidding problem to 100 reasonable (Flight A? Thoughtful? Decent? Not always crazy? u-pick...) players, with the premise/conditions being that you are down in a match against a superior team and want to make a speculative bid that might work out well and might create a positive swing...

....at least 1, and probably 5 to 10 or even more, would select 6D.

Sure, other speculative bids would be popular. Sure, it is debatable whether this was a good time for the player to be so pessimistic/so speculative. Sure, it was "amazingly" successful.

But because it is (IMHO) not totally illogical and irrational under the stated premises and facts presented, some amount of doubt in my mind about there being inarguable UI remains, and apparently that's true for several other posters.

[foo]

MickyB, on Aug 2 2010, 05:10 PM, said:

I gave this hand to a good player (European Teams silver medallist), along with the state-of-the-match. He went for 7♦.

OOPS!! If the bid works, they obviously have a wire on the board and should be publically lynched, tried, convicted, and thrown out of bridge forever by a mob.

Not.

[qwery_hi]

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.

When I was told about this hand over dinner that day, I was 100% convinced that there must have been UI. Then I came back to the hotel and read some of the posts here, and now I think there is reasonable doubt as to whether there was UI or not.

One other poster here has said the same thing, that he changed his mind after reading the forums.

[the hog]

qwery_hi, on Aug 3 2010, 10:14 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.

Yes sure! Silly comment! Many had never even heard of Mr. Piltch before. Now if you mention the name, it is "Oh yes, the guy who cheated", or something similar. Mud sticks when it is thrown. The only good thing here is that a lot of it has also stuck to the person who did the throwing.

[foo]

The_Hog, on Aug 3 2010, 12:00 AM, said:

...Mud sticks when it is thrown. The only good thing here is that a lot of it has also stuck to the person who did the throwing.

On that note, it is NOT IMNSHO any more appropriate for Justin to be brought before a commitee, or "tried by the public" than it was or would have been of Mr Piltch.

Some seem to think that because Justin made inappropriate public comments, =he= should be before a C & E.
That is at least as ludicrous as the other call for a C&E was.

Justin was put in a situation that charged him emotionally and he said and did some overly emotional things because of it.

He overreacted a bit. We all do that. Particularly when we are younger.
I'm not sure what the proper way to address that is, but I =am= sure that a "reciprocal witch hunt" is not the proper way.


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.

[the hog]

foo, on Aug 3 2010, 12:15 PM, said:

snipped

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.

"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly"
Macbeth. Act 1 scene 7.

I think Ben made the best of an unfortnate situation, but such a thread would have to be removed extremely quickly and this is often difficult.

[foo]

The_Hog, on Aug 3 2010, 12:44 AM, said:

foo, on Aug 3 2010, 12:15 PM, said:

snipped

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.

"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly"
Macbeth. Act 1 scene 7.

I think Ben made the best of an unfortnate situation, but such a thread would have to be removed extremely quickly and this is often difficult.

100% agree.

But there should be a way to stop inappropriate posts ASAP.

...and a BBO policy about what happens to you if make such.

[qwery_hi]

foo, on Aug 2 2010, 09:15 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 3 2010, 12:00 AM, said:

...Mud sticks when it is thrown. The only good thing here is that a lot of it has also stuck to the person who did the throwing.

On that note, it is NOT IMNSHO any more appropriate for Justin to be brought before a commitee, or "tried by the public" than it was or would have been of Mr Piltch.

Some seem to think that because Justin made inappropriate public comments, =he= should be before a C & E.
That is at least as ludicrous as the other call for a C&E was.

Justin was put in a situation that charged him emotionally and he said and did some overly emotional things because of it.

He overreacted a bit. We all do that. Particularly when we are younger.
I'm not sure what the proper way to address that is, but I =am= sure that a "reciprocal witch hunt" is not the proper way.


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.

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