[jkdood]

TimG, on Aug 3 2010, 03:12 PM, said:

jkdood, on Aug 3 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

No matter how you want to play it because he used an example that has now become legend, Justin's initial post explicitly poses the thought that some sort of rule or law might be called for to address incidents like the example.

I, for one, couldn't agree more, although I understand the problems and issues with the RofC and other suggestions.  Maybe bringing this thread into beneficial discussion of other alternatives (rather than "closing it") makes even more sense?

It may well be something that is worthy of discussion. The discussion could have been initiated with a hypothetical or with the actual hand some days/weeks removed from the time of its occurrence with specifics of the parties involved left out.

Good points although it belies what might be the major problem with any sort of RofC:
What review and determination is appropriate for consideration of the player(s) involved?
Are they a rank beginner?
Was an ace hidden?
Was the state of the match involved?
Were they mad at their partner?
Did an opp flash a card inadvertently?
Have they done this (successfully, unsuccessfully) before?
Have they read a similar BBO post recently?
Etc.
No easy, perhaps no good answers.
But maybe someone has a workable idea, and wouldn't that be nice?

[Cascade]

JLOGIC, on Aug 4 2010, 01:42 AM, said:

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.

Evidence sure.

Sufficient evidence on its own to adjust a score definitely not.

[jdonn]

This thread may set an all time record for "I will post many times and say a ton on the topic, then request the thread be closed and/or others stop posting".

[jkdood]

At the risk of being off-topic by being on-topic - -

I am sure most posters know that on BBO, especially in tournaments, and on other online venues like OKB (and perhaps even at the club level,) calls and actions that smell of UI are made far too often for most players comfort or enjoyment.

Possibly due to income or membership considerations, but more likely due to the time and energy required to review and resolve this in individual circumstances with limited tools and success, it continues unabated.

The "Recorder system" shows promise but has fallen far short for the benefit of most venues.

To call a spade a spade, there seems to be a lot of cheating, and the processes for addressing it are not user-friendly, painless, or even reasonably fruitful on most levels.

Some tool, like a RofC in concept, would be a welcome addition to a well-needed arsenal of possible resolution.

[Elianna]

jdonn, on Aug 3 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

This thread may set an all time record for "I will post many times and say a ton on the topic, then request the thread be closed and/or others stop posting".

What I say is clearly the only thing right, and the thread should be closed after it. After all, who can argue with me, since my view is the only correct one?

And so I demand that this thread be closed now.

[TimG]

jkdood, on Aug 3 2010, 03:22 PM, said:

TimG, on Aug 3 2010, 03:12 PM, said:

jkdood, on Aug 3 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

No matter how you want to play it because he used an example that has now become legend, Justin's initial post explicitly poses the thought that some sort of rule or law might be called for to address incidents like the example.

I, for one, couldn't agree more, although I understand the problems and issues with the RofC and other suggestions.  Maybe bringing this thread into beneficial discussion of other alternatives (rather than "closing it") makes even more sense?

It may well be something that is worthy of discussion. The discussion could have been initiated with a hypothetical or with the actual hand some days/weeks removed from the time of its occurrence with specifics of the parties involved left out.

Good points although it belies what might be the major problem with any sort of RofC:
What review and determination is appropriate for consideration of the player(s) involved?
Are they a rank beginner?
Was an ace hidden?
Was the state of the match involved?
Were they mad at their partner?
Did an opp flash a card inadvertently?
Have they done this (successfully, unsuccessfully) before?
Have they read a similar BBO post recently?
Etc.
No easy, perhaps no good answers.
But maybe someone has a workable idea, and wouldn't that be nice?

I think all these variables could be discussed -- they would have to be discussed if there were ever to be a rule allowing for action to be taken on suspicion only -- without naming names in a specific case.

For starters:

1) Where beginners are involved, the assumption should generally be that they just don't know what they are doing. In a highly suspicious situation, the goal ought to be education rather than accusation.

2) Where a mechanical error -- hidden cards, wrong card pulled, opponent inadvertently exposing a card, etc. -- the matter ought to be dropped, though the incident may be recorded in case a series of convenient excuses appears. Of course, the offender ought to be given warning so that they can record their mechanical errors that don't work out so well.

3) Incidents of angry players taking action to spite their partner (teammates or opponents) are covered by some Law about taking the game seriously and not doing random things to jeopardize another player's enjoyment of the game.

4) If you are talking about adjusting for a single case, I don't think history should play any role, the case at hand should speak for itself. If you are talking about a charge of cheating, then I think history should play a role. (It is my opinion that there must be evidence of the means by which the cheating took place, a series of questionable actions that turn out successful should not be sufficient. But, there is plenty of support for conviction based upon results only. This is a good area for discussion, though it seems to me that there isn't a whole lot of chance of changing people's minds -- people seem pretty strong in their opinions on this.)

4a) Individual cases ought to be judged blind whenever possible. In a court of law it may be possible to select a jury that is unfamiliar with the principals, but in the small world of high level bridge, it is highly unlikely that any panel can be selected that does not have some prior knowledge of the parties involved. A combination of not using names and limiting discussion of the incident to official channels would significantly increase the chances of finding an impartial panel.

5) In any given case, tactical consideration should be taken into account. What is bizarre under one set of circumstances might be considered reasonable under another. Similar to vulnerability and type of scoring, things like state of match or game should be considered when attempting to determine whether an action might be based upon UI.

Score adjustments based upon suspicion of UI, judged by an appointed panel, is too Orwellian for my tastes. But, I am in favor of recording such instances to establish a pattern which would prompt closer monitoring.

Tim

[Phil]

[quote name='TimG' date='Aug 3 2010, 11:58 AM'] Right after Piltch claimed, I wonder if he said "sorry opponents, I felt like I needed to generate a swing and this seemed like a good opportunity". [/QUOTE]
Either of these could easily be seen as gloating. I think best to say nothing. [/quote]
I suppose sitting there and staring at the ceiling could be misconstrued too. If an opponent said this to me, gloating would never cross my mind TBH.

I might be more self-aware than most, but after this thread if I chose to make a call like 6[di], I would be be preparing my defense right after I claimed LOL.

[TimG]

Phil, on Aug 3 2010, 08:50 PM, said:

Right after Piltch claimed, I wonder if he said "sorry opponents, I felt like I needed to generate a swing and this seemed like a good opportunity".

Well, you're not really sorry or you wouldn't have done it -- it's not like it was unintentional -- so it doesn't sound genuine, it just sounds like rubbing it in.

[mikegill]

Some thoughts I've had while reading this thread (and up until now resisting the urge to get involved)

1) While I still strongly suspect that something fishy went on here, I agree with the view that this incident alone is insufficient information to take any action, particularly at the table. Obv it should be recorded. The question that remains in my mind (which I believe was posited earlier but nobody sufficiently answered): Is there any successful call or play anyone could make such that we would overturn the table result on the basis that there must have been UI? What if he'd bid 7♥ instead of 6♦ and it rolled home, or led from AQ tight of clubs against 1N - 3N and found partner with KJTxx? To my mind the answer is yes, at least in a serious event like the Spingold - it seems insufficient to simply call a committee meeting and discipline the person and allow the table result to stand - imagine if something like that decided a match! Even if the person was excused from bridge permanently as a result of his/her actions the other team shouldn't be punished. I will say that I think the context of both the event and the player are crucial here.

1b) Are some actions so ridiculous that they just shouldn't be allowed in a NABC+ event (or any official event for that matter)? For example if I just go open 3n on every hand and redouble, should I even be allowed to play the next time? I think there is a level at which it is no longer acceptable to play wildly beyond a certain standard (I would bet the rules stipulate something about this but I'm too lazy to look it up) . Surely if in a Swiss or RR I give up completely and start opening 3n and rewinding each hand that would be cause for action since that affects the whole event. In a KO this seems less clear to me - while ostensibly I'm only hurting myself, I suppose I'm doing an injustice to all the other high seeds who have to play a real match in that round.

2) I think we should take from this to be equally conscious of the opponents' ridiculous actions when they don't work. If he jumped to slam in a 4-card suit on other occasions and it didn't work that's something that should be written down. If the accused were well-known for making this kind of ridiculous action (and usually failing) when down (even when it seems like not that much to others) then surely this entire discussion would be completely unwarranted. Sometimes people get lucky.

3) I think those who have argued that this is in any way a reasonable swinging tactic have lost it a little. There are soooo many opportunities for this to be a swing already that overcalling 6♦ is just silly. Your RHO preempted and you have a great 6430! You could hardly pick a better scenario when hoping for a swing. The fact that 6♦ makes ~30% double dummy or whatever is irrelevant. It has to make AND be unbiddable at the other table AND have other slams go down if they are biddable to gain, and surely that parlay is nowhere near 30%. My guess is it's way below 10%, and nobody who is trying to reasonably win a match is knowingly taking 10% shots in the 2nd quarter down less than an IMP a board.

4) I think it would have been easier to create UI such that 6♦ becomes a reasonable bid than people are suggesting. For example, suppose that you just knew partner had the dK before the bidding. I'm not going to run a sim but I'm sure it makes 6♦ much better relative to 6♣ than with no information, and maybe even makes it a favorite. If you simply are sitting E-W and deal the board 180 degrees off, when you put cards into the slot facing partner the bottom card (which is one of yours) will be visible to him unless you're very careful not to angle the cards too high. Anyway, obv I'm not saying I think this is what happened, just pointing out that they didn't have to fix the whole board.

[PeterGill]

Did Elianna close the thread for anyone whose surname is not Gill?

Say that you deal only one of the 8 boards. It's possible that with less to do than the other three players, you might see the bottom card of a hand, while some cards are put in a slot. Thus one might see a card like DK. This could happen.
Or something like that might not have happened.
This hand imo is one of those "innocent until proven guilty" scenarios.
There is some evidence but not enough evidence.

[Cascade]

mikegill, on Aug 4 2010, 05:06 PM, said:

suggesting.  For example, suppose that you just knew partner had the dK before the bidding.

This is an interesting thought.

Just knowing that partner has the ♦K bumps up the chance that partner has 4+ diamonds from under 50% to over 60%.

Diamond Frequency given partner is known to the the ♦K
0 0
1 1372
2 10078
3 25863
4 32525
5 21357
6 7436
7 1252
8 117
9 0
10 0
11 0
12 0
13 0

[mrdct]

mikegill, on Aug 4 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

1) While I still strongly suspect that something fishy went on here, I agree with the view that this incident alone is insufficient information to take any action, particularly at the table.

Does "strongly suspect" mean you think it is a greater than 50% chance?

I admit that this is somewhat of a strawman arguement, but if so you seem to be advocating a change in the laws to require a higher standard of proof that "balance of probabilities" to award an adjustment for apparent use of unauthorised information.

[mrdct]

Cascade, on Aug 4 2010, 04:25 PM, said:

mikegill, on Aug 4 2010, 05:06 PM, said:

suggesting.  For example, suppose that you just knew partner had the dK before the bidding.

This is an interesting thought.

Just knowing that partner has the ♦K bumps up the chance that partner has 4+ diamonds from under 50% to over 60%.

What are the respective success rates for 6♣ and 6♦ now?

[ggwhiz]

Quote

suppose that you just knew partner had the dK before the bidding.

I actually had a situation in a Regional Swiss where an opponent actively looked at the bottom card (or three) of each hand she shuffled before putting the cards in the board. Our villain didn't make this board but the ♦K may have been flashed even accidentally by an opponent?

I re-shuffled that one and reported it to the Director after the match.

My teammates were in close range of their table for the next match and watched her do it again, reported that to the DIC as well and the result was NOTHING!

Mind you, that team was so bad they couldn't win anything anyway but the procedure and laws type debate going on here may yield some positive value despite the initial danger of it sinking into a witch hunt.

I agree 100% that in an event of this stature, the boards should be pre-duped and ready to go. For the $$ paid in entry fees, hand shuffling is really G'sie and cheap.

[jdonn]

TimG, on Aug 3 2010, 09:35 PM, said:

Phil, on Aug 3 2010, 08:50 PM, said:

Right after Piltch claimed, I wonder if he said "sorry opponents, I felt like I needed to generate a swing and this seemed like a good opportunity".

Well, you're not really sorry or you wouldn't have done it -- it's not like it was unintentional -- so it doesn't sound genuine, it just sounds like rubbing it in.

It doesn't sound like rubbing it in to me, it sounds like remorse for the fact that your opponents got fixed. Sure you may not feel bad in that someone had to get fixed but you can still feel bad for the particular pair that it happened to. Just like I may feel it's the "right" thing overall for unemployment benefits to run out after a period of time but I will still feel bad for anyone that happens to if it was no fault of their own.

MikeGill summed up my thoughts very well. People trying to actually rationalize the 6♦ call should read his point 3 in which I think his 10% estimate is extraordinarily generous. I would have guessed that parlay is more like 2%.

[mikeh]

mrdct, on Aug 4 2010, 07:47 AM, said:

mikegill, on Aug 4 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

1) While I still strongly suspect that something fishy went on here, I agree with the view that this incident alone is insufficient information to take any action, particularly at the table.

Does "strongly suspect" mean you think it is a greater than 50% chance?

I admit that this is somewhat of a strawman arguement, but if so you seem to be advocating a change in the laws to require a higher standard of proof that "balance of probabilities" to award an adjustment for apparent use of unauthorised information.

A huge problem in this post is that people seem to conflate two topics: suspicion and evidence.

So when Peter says he strongly suspects something fishy, others seem to think that this means that he sees evidence of UI. Maybe he thinks this way, but I suspect he doesn't.

The fortuitous outcome of the bid, combined with it's bizarre nature, gives rise to a suspicion that the bidder knew something about the hand.

But it is not evidence that he knew anything.

Evidence would be something like: he shuffled that board while no-one else was at the table. His partner coughed in an unusual fashion after sorting his hand. His partner moved the pencils on the table to line up in a particular fashion, after sorting his hand. (Note: these two mechanisms are said by some to be the means by which two of the most notable ACBL cheating scandals came about and I stress I mean no suggestion that Mr. Piltch's partner was involved in anything....or that Mr. Piltch was either).

The fact is (apparently) that there was NO evidence of wrongdoing but SOME reason to be suspicious.

Such suspicion should generate an investigation. I assume such an investigation took place....certainly the directing staff seems to have been notified and a C & E committee may have looked at it.

I also assume that neither the directing staff nor the committee found any evidence of wrongdoing.

As humans we tend to leap to conclusions on gut instinct and biases. I suspect, as others have suggested, that if the 6♦ call had been made by one of the game's respected superstars, and it had worked, there would a huge writeup but of an entirely, laudatory nature.

It is no answer to simply state that no such superstar would make the call. Do a thought experiment: imagine your bridge hero....someone you know with utter conviction is someone of great integrity....and imagine he or she did this. Would your reaction be one of betrayal...my hero is a cheat? Or one of...wow....how did he figure that out? He or she is either brilliant or incredibly lucky?

The player who made the bid is no-one's superstar and I doubt that he is anyone's hero. Moreover he is apparently widely disliked and has some history, the true nature of which is likely obscured by issues about the facts and the nature of his accusers...Wolff is someone for whom I have zero respect as a human being.

So feel free to be suspicious, but don't start substituting those feelings for facts....for evidence. The McCarthy era in US politics demonstrates what happens once that becomes the accepted standard for conviction.

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Aug 4 2010, 10:42 AM, said:

As humans we tend to leap to conclusions on gut instinct and biases. I suspect, as others have suggested, that if the 6♦ call had been made by one of the game's respected superstars, and it had worked, there would a huge writeup but of an entirely, laudatory nature.

Mike I can't believe you really think this is true! You are just way too smart to post something so laughable.

If Bob Hamman (substitute favorite superstar who you think has the lowest % chance of cheating) made this bid, I would be sure he had pulled the wrong card. If he denied it I would still be sure and assume he was denying it out of pride or for some other reason.

Of course it's all completely moot, a bridge superstar would never make this bid other than pulling the wrong card. I can't even decide whether it's a worse strategy if cheating or a worse strategy (bridgewise) if not cheating.

I just can't believe so much of this thread is devoted to defending the possibility this bid could in any way be considered reasonable no matter who made it.

[Phil]

jdonn, on Aug 4 2010, 10:34 AM, said:

It doesn't sound like rubbing it in to me, it sounds like remorse for the fact that your opponents got fixed. Sure you may not feel bad in that someone had to get fixed but you can still feel bad for the particular pair that it happened to.

Josh you clearly lack killer instinct! You are a flaccid wiggling pool of gelatinous goo.

After work, do us all a favor, and go out into the desert and hunt down a javelina with your bare hands.

[jeremy69]

Quote

You are a flaccid wiggling pool of gelatinous goo.

Please don't copyright this phrase. Phrase of the month and I want to save it and use it at a later date.

[gwnn]

For whoever said that declarer might have seen the ♦K: I think you are a genius. I really like this explanation, it fits the case extremely well. Please don't misunderstand me: I am not saying that this happened or that this would be cheating or evil behaviour (and I am not saying the opposite either). However, this is a possible explanation that is intellectually pleasing and I am very happy to have read it. Maybe this is just me being a Sherlock Holmes fan but there is something great when after a long wait someone comes up with a new and better theoretical answer.

edit: mikegill was the one. thanks and please don't think that the above is in any way overstated or facetious.