[Rossoneri]

jeremy69, on Aug 1 2010, 10:58 PM, said:

Quote

and defender if they want to be. Open discussion is quite helpful for the non-guilty party.

Well I know from a previous post you are not that keen on the English legal system( insane, I think you said) but there is a bit of a premium on facts and evidence that might be missing from some of this discussion. I'm not sure that being able to rant on a public forum is necessarily a big advance but still get the ducking stool ready. We are going to need it!

Quite true. It would probably have been a lot better if the discussion started after all of the facts were established, and the official investigation closed. It is beyond me how having people jumping in and playing judge with half-established facts is beneficial to the situation or to anyone's reputation.

[awm]

There are several posts on this thread which suggest that if an opponent flashes his cards to you, it's unethical (or corruption, in TimG's words) to take advantage. I'm with Gnasher on this one -- while trying to catch a peek at an opponent's hand is cheating, you're perfectly free to take advantage if an opponent decides to show you his cards.

Back to the original topic, while ideally we'd like to be able to point out the source of UI, a substantial track record of someone making highly anti-percentage calls with a high success rate can be reasonably viewed as evidence that something's going on. The question is more a matter of degree. Certainly one incident of an unusual or swingy action that works would not normally be sufficient to prove anything.

However, in this particular case I think there's more to say. This is not just a slightly unusual or anti-percentage bid... it's really a very weird call that hit the jackpot. Now, it could be that the player in question makes a lot of very weird calls and happened to hit gold this time. But it seems unlikely that a player who bids like this frequently would be as successful in serious bridge as this player evidently has been. The fact that no other such "spectacular" actions were taken during a long match also suggests that this is not a player who bids like this a lot. It seems, at a minimum, to be worthy of further investigation.

[NickRW]

[quote name='qwery_hi' date='Aug 1 2010, 11:22 AM'] [quote name='jkdood' date='Jul 31 2010, 12:14 PM'] [quote name='NickRW' date='Jul 31 2010, 03:05 PM'] [/QUOTE]
Even so much as reserving your rights for a BIT or whatever comes across as an accusation of (potential) cheating. Experienced players get used to it and the lawmakers and enforcers are at great pains to point out that it isn't - but that doesn't alter that the implication is exactly that - and inexperienced people react as such. [/QUOTE]
Matmat's comments upthread about teaching newcomers fully and correctly regarding such things, sure comes back to mind! [/QUOTE]
To me, this case is fundamentally different from a hesitation. To me, asking the director to review the 6D bid is basically equal to a suggestion of foul play, and funnily enough, the laws seem to allow that. [/quote]
The point I was making in that post (perhaps rather poorly) was essentially that folks generally have a perfectly good gut feel when there is a (possible) accusation of cheating and their hackles go up at the slightest suggestion. Whereas those experienced with the UI laws have learnt not to react. Consequently we see it is a learnt, not natural, behaviour.

Furthermore, in the particular situation being discussed in this thread - which is highly unusual - we can expect that none of the interested parties has much experience - therefore we should be reasonably tolerant of natural human reaction.

Nick

[jkdood]

I don't think the major learning experience for beginners is necessarily that when the director is summoned by a more experienced (or nit-picky?) player to report a case of UI such as B-I-T, they should strive to remain calm and un-offended (although that would be nice.)

I think the education needed is about how the least favorable logical alternative as per any (substantiated) UI (such as B-I-T) MUST be selected, by applied law. Should the TD substantiate it, he should then ensure the offending side fully understands this obligation. At most club games I have attended, this is rare or at best hit-or-miss.

I don't think this is trivial; too often we simply hear after the fact - "I was always going to bid such and such", which is missing the point, of course.

[mrdct]

Rossoneri, on Aug 1 2010, 10:52 AM, said:

junyi_zhu, on Jul 31 2010, 11:24 PM, said:

Strange, a direct 6D seems very insane when he can double then raise partner's possible 4D to 6D, suppose he makes this hand. So probably his partner doesn't know this hand and he worries that his partner may bid 4C if he doubles. Anyway, 6D is certainly not a logical alternative IMO.

What do "logical alternatives" have to do with the situation at all?

"Logical alternatives" is precidely the test which needs to be applied to the 6♦ bid if, and only if, the director establishes on the balance of probabilities that the person was in possession of extraneous unauthorised information. If the 6♦ bidder was not in possession of any UI, he can do whatever he likes.

If the 6♦ bidder was found to be in possession of UI (such as knowledge of partner's ♦Kxxx) the director then needs to consider what action was suggested by the UI and whether or not any alternative less successful actions (such as double or 6♣ for example) were logical alternatives. If the director finds that one of these less successful actions was a logical alternative, he adjusts the score accordingly.

AWM, on Aug 1 2010, 05:54 pm, said:

There are several posts on this thread which suggest that if an opponent flashes his cards to you, it's unethical (or corruption, in TimG's words) to take advantage. I'm with Gnasher on this one -- while trying to catch a peek at an opponent's hand is cheating, you're perfectly free to take advantage if an opponent decides to show you his cards.

I would probably go a step further to say that it isn't just when an opponent "decides to show you his cards" as it is equally appropriate to take advantage of opponents accidentally showing you their cards provided that you aren't intentionally trying to look. This situation is explicitly covered by Law 74C5 (my emphasis added):

Quote

The following are examples of violations of procedure:
...
5. looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player’s hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing an opponent’s card*).

Playing at the local senior citizens centre you just about need to wear blinkers against some opponents who seem to hold their cards closer to my eyes than their own. Whilst I do my best to avert my eyes and warn them to hold their cards back, if an opponent shows me their stiff King offside it is going to fall under my Ace every day of the week.

[NickRW]

jkdood, on Aug 1 2010, 11:47 PM, said:

I don't think the major learning experience for beginners is necessarily that when the director is summoned by a more experienced (or nit-picky?) player to report a case of UI such as B-I-T, they should strive to remain calm and un-offended (although that would be nice.)

Perhaps I am an unlucky director. Sometimes I feel training as a boxing referee would be more appropriate than a rule book.

[jkdood]

awm, on Aug 1 2010, 05:54 PM, said:

There are several posts on this thread which suggest that if an opponent flashes his cards to you, it's unethical (or corruption, in TimG's words) to take advantage. I'm with Gnasher on this one -- while trying to catch a peek at an opponent's hand is cheating, you're perfectly free to take advantage if an opponent decides to show you his cards.

There seems to some disagreement about this, perhaps as a matter of law if not just a matter of active ethics.

I for one welcome more opinons, and/or expertise about this.

The above actually happened to me in a Swiss teams many years ago. My ops were Ethan Stein and his client, who flashed an important card by accident.

Ethan caught on, and when I was at the crucial point of declarer play, I paused to take stock of the matter.

Ethan then said (a wee bit forcefully) "C'mon be a mensch - make your normal play" which after due analysis was in fact a losing play that would see the contract fail.

Well, I went down "like a mensch" although whether it was fear of Ethan more than active ethics, I still haven't decided.

To this day I have wondered whether the indicated choice by law, by ethics, by obligation to teammates and partner, etc; is really a subjective determination, or black-and-white.

[cherdanno]

If an opponent shows you his cards, that information is AI. Receiving UI puts you at a disadvantage (as you can't make some plays that some of your idiotic peers would miss), and surely I can't be put at a disadvantage because an opponent showed me his cards?

[aguahombre]

Note to self: flash the stiff king.

[blackshoe]

If "active ethics" requires one to give up an advantage legally acquired, then "active ethics" needs to be purged from the game.

Sounds to me like Ethan's "be a mensch" was more like "be a putz".

[mrdct]

aguahombre, on Aug 1 2010, 07:34 PM, said:

Note to self: flash the stiff king.

That would be cheating, explicitly contemplated by Law 73D2:

Quote

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

And the footnote to Law 74C5:

Quote

* See Law 73D2 when a player may have shown his cards intentionally.

[aguahombre]

mrdct, you need to get a sense of humor. Or I do.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2010-August-01, 19:06

[jkdood]

[quote name='TimG' date='Aug 1 2010, 04:06 PM'] [/QUOTE]
If it is against the rules to take advantage (or just plain unethical) and you do take advantage out of greed, isn't that the very definition of corruption? [/quote]
Well, when are you a putz and when are you corrupt and when are you cheating (after an opp flashes his cards?)

On Pg 90 (Laws of Duplicate bridge) it does indeed say:

...(but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by
unintentionally seeing an opponent’s card*).

(sorry I doubted you, I just HAD to see it)

Seems then like I was a putz to go down intentionally in a contract I could have easily made.

All agree?

[BudH]

mrdct, on Jul 31 2010, 04:26 PM, said:

With Bud having represented that "the director was not called to the table at any time following or during this board", does this mean that the consultation with the director after the segment did not involve the director quizing Justin's opponents before making his ruling (which I find almost as extraordinary as the 6♦ bid and the use of hand-dealt boards)?

Does anyone know if the director ruled under L85A2 (concluded that on balance of probabilities there was no use of UI) or L85B (was unable to determine the facts)?

I was aware only that no director appeared at my table. It seems likely that a director(s) were consulted by the Lall team regarding this hand between the end of the second quarter and the start of the third quarter.

[Lobowolf]

[quote name='jkdood' date='Aug 1 2010, 08:27 PM'] [quote name='TimG' date='Aug 1 2010, 04:06 PM'] [/QUOTE]
If it is against the rules to take advantage (or just plain unethical) and you do take advantage out of greed, isn't that the very definition of corruption? [/QUOTE]
Well, when are you a putz and when are you corrupt and when are you cheating (after an opp flashes his cards?)

On Pg 90 (Laws of Duplicate bridge) it does indeed say:

...(but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by
unintentionally seeing an opponent’s card*).

(sorry I doubted you, I just HAD to see it)

Seems then like I was a putz to go down intentionally in a contract I could have easily made.

All agree? [/quote]
Good catch, however, that makes it authorized information ("information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized; or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these Laws and in regulations..." (16 A 1 c)

Which means that this still isn't an example of a non-cheating use of UI. If it's UI, the laws prohibit you from using it.

[jkdood]

Good point (above...)

This may be a "duhhhh" but the ACBL's laws seem to address (rather benevolently) "unintentionally seeing an opp's card" differently from "unintentionally overhearing a comment about a deal".

The latter (and other more obvious things, such as "peeking") may well be UI, but my example wasn't.

[mrdct]

jkdood, on Aug 1 2010, 08:27 PM, said:

Seems then like I was a putz to go down intentionally in a contract I could have easily made.

All agree?

Yep - 100% agree.

It's a bit of a stretch, but you could even go a step further and say you were acting inappropriately as the conditions of contest espoused by many Regulating Authorities require you to do your best on every board and not deliberately go down in a contract that you know you can make. It's a little bit like people who don't exploit penalty card situations to maximum advantage because they "don't want to win that way", but I would counter that they are not being fair to the field or their teammates.

[mrdct]

BudH, on Aug 1 2010, 08:35 PM, said:

mrdct, on Jul 31 2010, 04:26 PM, said:

With Bud having represented that "the director was not called to the table at any time following or during this board", does this mean that the consultation with the director after the segment did not involve the director quizing Justin's opponents before making his ruling (which I find almost as extraordinary as the 6♦ bid and the use of hand-dealt boards)?

Does anyone know if the director ruled under L85A2 (concluded that on balance of probabilities there was no use of UI) or L85B (was unable to determine the facts)?

I was aware only that no director appeared at my table. It seems likely that a director(s) were consulted by the Lall team regarding this hand between the end of the second quarter and the start of the third quarter.

Just so we are clear on this, did the director(s) speak to anyone from your team to ascertain the facts before they ruled that the table result stands?

[jdonn]

OleBerg, on Aug 1 2010, 04:15 PM, said:

Following the logic of some posters, I think I'll make my own lottery.

There's 1 million tickets at each $1.
The first price is $2millions.

The tickets has numbers from 1 to 1.000.000

When you enter, you must specify which of the remaining numbers you want.

When the time comes for the draw, I'll simply claim that the winner has cheated; How else could he guess a one-in-a-million number???

Strange, I have reread every post in the thread and can't find a single one that uses logic like that.

[BudH]

mrdct, on Aug 1 2010, 09:41 PM, said:

BudH, on Aug 1 2010, 08:35 PM, said:

mrdct, on Jul 31 2010, 04:26 PM, said:

With Bud having represented that "the director was not called to the table at any time following or during this board", does this mean that the consultation with the director after the segment did not involve the director quizing Justin's opponents before making his ruling (which I find almost as extraordinary as the 6♦ bid and the use of hand-dealt boards)?

Does anyone know if the director ruled under L85A2 (concluded that on balance of probabilities there was no use of UI) or L85B (was unable to determine the facts)?

I was aware only that no director appeared at my table. It seems likely that a director(s) were consulted by the Lall team regarding this hand between the end of the second quarter and the start of the third quarter.

Just so we are clear on this, did the director(s) speak to anyone from your team to ascertain the facts before they ruled that the table result stands?

No director spoke with me and I am not personally aware of a director speaking with any member of my team. But it is possible that without my knowledge a director did speak with a team member before the second half or near the end of the third quarter when Mr. Piltch spoke with the National Recorder.