[BudH]

jkdood, on Aug 17 2010, 10:02 PM, said:

However, your recent post says (see quote) something in a thread that starts with Mr. Wolff saying: "...tried by the Ethical Oversight Committee and I was a member of that committee with Edgar Kaplan presiding when we found Howard guilty... "

Just wondering, did you miss that?

Mr. Wolff's publisher, Ray Lee, started this thread and provided the information you quoted through information provided by Mr. Wolff. I am aware that some of it conflicts with some of the information I was given in connection with events from about 15 years ago.

[Lobowolf]

The_Hog, on Aug 17 2010, 02:02 AM, said:

mrdct, on Aug 17 2010, 01:11 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 17 2010, 02:11 PM, said:

Richard, Ihave to disagree with you on this one. Hearsay is not evidence.

You are actually quite wrong there Ron. Under the ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations hearsay is explicitly included in admissable evidence.

Quote

5.1.4 The Committee shall not be bound by legal rules, whether of substantive law, evidence or procedure, and shall be liberal in receiving evidence. The receipt of evidence is not necessarily indicative of the weight or the credit which the Committee may give it in their ultimate determination; thus, hearsay evidence and written statements may be admitted and given such weight as the Committee deems appropriate.

I guess that should not surprise me, Dave.

ACBL aside, "Hearsay is not evidence" is a blanket rule is incorrect, in a legal sense. A statement or object that makes a material fact either more or less likely to be true, even if only slightly, is not only evidence, it's relevant evidence. While the general rule is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible, that's not the same as its not being evidence. Moreover, there are well over a dozen exceptions under which relevant hearsay IS admissible. "Hearsay is not evidence" is absolutely not the law in the USA, and I strongly suspect it's the same in England, Canada, Australia, or (insert your favorite English-speaking country here).

[billw55]

BudH, on Aug 17 2010, 09:34 PM, said:

Yes, it’s true that the perfect dummy came down and diamonds were 3-2 allowing 6♦ to make. And if I had been an opponent, I, too, would not have been happy that this perfect dummy came down opposite a highly unusual bid.

In a general sense this is very credible. I see idiot bidding rescued by miracle dummies on a routine basis.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on Aug 18 2010, 07:27 AM, said:

BudH, on Aug 17 2010, 09:34 PM, said:

Yes, it’s true that the perfect dummy came down and diamonds were 3-2 allowing 6♦ to make.  And if I had been an opponent, I, too, would not have been happy that this perfect dummy came down opposite a highly unusual bid.

In a general sense this is very credible. I see idiot bidding rescued by miracle dummies on a routine basis.

In the Spingold????

[barryallen]

ArtK78, on Aug 18 2010, 07:28 AM, said:

billw55, on Aug 18 2010, 07:27 AM, said:

BudH, on Aug 17 2010, 09:34 PM, said:

Yes, it’s true that the perfect dummy came down and diamonds were 3-2 allowing 6♦ to make.  And if I had been an opponent, I, too, would not have been happy that this perfect dummy came down opposite a highly unusual bid.

In a general sense this is very credible. I see idiot bidding rescued by miracle dummies on a routine basis.

In the Spingold????

Just look at the last hand, with everyone tripping over themselves to give the whole shooting match away!

[ArtK78]

barryallen, on Aug 18 2010, 07:49 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Aug 18 2010, 07:28 AM, said:

billw55, on Aug 18 2010, 07:27 AM, said:

BudH, on Aug 17 2010, 09:34 PM, said:

Yes, it’s true that the perfect dummy came down and diamonds were 3-2 allowing 6♦ to make.  And if I had been an opponent, I, too, would not have been happy that this perfect dummy came down opposite a highly unusual bid.

In a general sense this is very credible. I see idiot bidding rescued by miracle dummies on a routine basis.

In the Spingold????

Just look at the last hand, with everyone tripping over themselves to give the whole shooting match away!

That was after 6 days of play against top-flight competition and on the 64th board of the day under tremendous pressure in a close match. No doubt that all of the competitors were very tired. It is not unusual for the quality of play to deteriorate* in the very late stages of the Spingold or Vanderbilt, or, for that matter, in the Bermuda Bowl.

Not quite the same as in the second quarter of the opening day.

* Deteriorate from the usual standard of play for the competitors involved. If only my play were nearly as good as their play at the end of the Spingold.

[kenberg]

I think that BudH put his finger on my issues: It's hard for me to see how someone comes to bid 6D, it's also hard to see how a scam could have been perpetrated. Perhaps they pre-agreed to "If 3S is opened on my left I'll scratch my ear if I have the king fourth of diamonds"? Possible yes, likely no.

The fact that someone in the past made a (roughly) similar bid is an interesting tidbit.


I think it would be more profitable to abandon the impossible task of undoing the past and look instead toward the future. It has been said, and I trust it is so, that the ACBL regularly consults top players about the plausibility of actions. What has not been said (maybe it is common knowledge but I don't know it) is what happens next. Specifically, and I raised this before, has there ever been a case where action has been taken solely on the basis of the implausibility of one bid? I ask for an example where there has been no hint at all of any illicit communication, no history of mis-conduct, no other strange occurrences, no nothing, just the one weird bid. Has there ever been action taken solely on this basis?

It's not hard to read between (one really doesn't need to go between) the lines to see that there is some history here of, well, something. Suspicion, rumor, something. OK, but I would still like to see the point in the above paragraph clarified. If no such rollback solely on the one call has ever occurred then an argument would have to be along the lines of "It's not just this one bid, it's also this other stuff" and then the other stuff would have to be spelled out. Preferably in private by very trusted and advanced players.

Fundamentally, I think it should, for the future, be spelled out whether the issue can be one bid on one hand. Certainly such a bid could be enough to put someone on a watch list. Perhaps previous issues can be brought to bear on how to evaluate that bid. But can it, by itself, be penalized? And I definitely favor looking to what should be done in the future and I explicitly disavow any interest in hearing more about this particular player's past run-ins, if any. Maybe something good can come from all of this.

[JLOGIC]

Quote

It is also unfortunate for me as I am now tied to this event, and there will be some that will assume if Mr. Piltch didn't get UI due to vision problems and couldn't "fix the deck" due to manual dexterity problems, then his partner must have "been in on it".

I have said this a few times already but it is obvious that if there was funny business (which I am not commenting on), that BudH was not involved.

Among other things, as someone else pointed out it would have been easy enough to just double and have partner bid 4D if you were really cheating with your partner (and it would have been easy to cheat on every single board also without getting caught, rather than in this manner and only on one hand).

BudH, sorry if anybody cannot see that.

[TimG]

BudH, on Aug 18 2010, 12:20 AM, said:

jkdood, on Aug 17 2010, 10:02 PM, said:

However, your recent post says (see quote) something in a thread that starts with Mr. Wolff saying: "...tried by the Ethical Oversight Committee and I was a member of that committee with Edgar Kaplan presiding when we found Howard guilty... "

Just wondering, did you miss that?

Mr. Wolff's publisher, Ray Lee, started this thread and provided the information you quoted through information provided by Mr. Wolff. I am aware that some of it conflicts with some of the information I was given in connection with events from about 15 years ago.

It seems pretty clear to me that there was a EOC hearing, chaired by Edgar Kaplan, that found Mr. Piltch guilty of boxing a card (during an event in Las Vegas, I believe). The hearing was held in Atlanta and the results of the hearing were reported in the Daily Bulletins at that NABC.

The BoD later set aside or somehow voided the conviction.

Can you clarify what you mean by "I am not aware of any ACBL suspension or probation given to Mr. Piltch for any incident in the past connected in any way with cheating"?

Are you disputing that the EOC hearing took place and resulted in a guilty verdict?

Are you saying that since the BoD later overturned the verdict, that the suspension or probation never took effect and thus does not qualify as ever having taken place?

Are you saying that intentionally boxing a card is not cheating so even if Mr. Piltch was found guilty it would not be "connected in any way with cheating"?

[barryallen]

TimG, on Aug 18 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

BudH, on Aug 18 2010, 12:20 AM, said:

jkdood, on Aug 17 2010, 10:02 PM, said:

However, your recent post says (see quote) something in a thread that starts with Mr. Wolff saying: "...tried by the Ethical Oversight Committee and I was a member of that committee with Edgar Kaplan presiding when we found Howard guilty... "

Just wondering, did you miss that?

Mr. Wolff's publisher, Ray Lee, started this thread and provided the information you quoted through information provided by Mr. Wolff. I am aware that some of it conflicts with some of the information I was given in connection with events from about 15 years ago.

It seems pretty clear to me that there was a EOC hearing, chaired by Edgar Kaplan, that found Mr. Piltch guilty of boxing a card (during an event in Las Vegas, I believe). The hearing was held in Atlanta and the results of the hearing were reported in the Daily Bulletins at that NABC.

The BoD later set aside or somehow voided the conviction.

Can you clarify what you mean by "I am not aware of any ACBL suspension or probation given to Mr. Piltch for any incident in the past connected in any way with cheating"?

Are you disputing that the EOC hearing took place and resulted in a guilty verdict?

Are you saying that since the BoD later overturned the verdict, that the suspension or probation never took effect and thus does not qualify as ever having taken place?

Are you saying that intentionally boxing a card is not cheating so even if Mr. Piltch was found guilty it would not be "connected in any way with cheating"?

The trouble is that boxing a card alone does not necessarily merit a hearing. If it was found that there was no merit for calling a hearing, it is reasonable to assume that everything would be thrown out and there is no case to answer. The fact the person that brought forward the case and was subsequently sacked would give some understanding to that line, unless that again is a red herring. I have no idea if the instance merited a disciplinary committee, but several of the top officials thought not and remedied the situation immediately. What does look shoddy is no records of the whole affair for one to judge. To carry that line further would be to call into question all those other top officials, who managed to to deep sleep their integration into the organizations, far better than the recent Russian attempt.

Making a call such as the 6D deservedly will start rumours and glances, what I find distasteful is that various nebulous instances and theories that are being lined up against the guy to justify this position. I am finding it very difficult to believe that someone who has been found guilty by an official hearing, then has that all over turned by the heads of the organisation with someone getting sacked in the process. Anyone wrongfully dismissed in such a manner would be shouting this out from the court spire, surely?

[PassedOut]

barryallen, on Aug 18 2010, 02:01 PM, said:

I am finding it very difficult to believe that someone who has been found guilty by an official hearing, then has that all over turned by the heads of the organisation with someone getting sacked in the process. Anyone wrongfully dismissed in such a manner would be shouting this out from the court spire, surely?

To whom and for how long? Have you read The Lone Wolff?

[hrothgar]

barryallen, on Aug 18 2010, 10:01 PM, said:

I am finding it very difficult to believe that someone who has been found guilty by an official hearing, then has that all over turned by the heads of the organisation with someone getting sacked in the process. Anyone wrongfully dismissed in such a manner would be shouting this out from the court spire, surely?

There a famous old saying

Never wrestle with a pig: You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it

Perhaps Piltch has heard this one...

[BudH]

JLOGIC, on Aug 18 2010, 12:27 PM, said:

Quote

It is also unfortunate for me as I am now tied to this event, and there will be some that will assume if Mr. Piltch didn't get UI due to vision problems and couldn't "fix the deck" due to manual dexterity problems, then his partner must have "been in on it".

I have said this a few times already but it is obvious that if there was funny business (which I am not commenting on), that BudH was not involved.

Among other things, as someone else pointed out it would have been easy enough to just double and have partner bid 4D if you were really cheating with your partner (and it would have been easy to cheat on every single board also without getting caught, rather than in this manner and only on one hand).

BudH, sorry if anybody cannot see that.

Thanks, Justin - I think the vast majority of the forum readers realize that, but I thought I would be explicitly clear.

As I said previously, I look forward to meeting you and having the opportunity to play at the same table in the future.