[the hog]

fred, on Aug 15 2010, 11:03 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 15 2010, 06:58 AM, said:

jkdood, on Aug 15 2010, 01:30 PM, said:

We were told in no uncertain terms, with reiterated confirmations that begged to be believed, that 20 of the Top 20 Spingold experts when queried all agreed without exception, that "The 6D was not possible without UI."

Where is the evidence that this statement is true? We were only told this by one person. The comment was undoubtedly self serving as it was made by a member of the opposing team.

This comment is undoubtedly self-serving as it was made by a person who clearly has an axe to grind against the "one person" he is referring to.

Apparently public accusasions of lying are OK even though public accusations of cheating are not.

Not that it should be necessary, but I will give you some more evidence: I have personally witnessed several "top experts" express "6D not possible without UI" when they were told about this hand. I have not witnessed any "top experts" express a contrary view.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred, I am disgusted by your comment saying that I publicly accused Justin of lying? . What i said is that he presented absolutely no evidence for his claim. Hearsay is NOT evidence, particularly when it comes form an interested party.
I would like an apology for this slur.

[kenberg]

Mbodell, on Aug 16 2010, 03:46 AM, said:

kenberg, on Aug 15 2010, 04:50 AM, said:

Further down, we learn that the faced ace of spades was the top card. What to make of this? I guess I would want to know how this came about. I cannot recall ever getting a set of boards with a top card faced. Was everyone drunk, not noticing a hand placed back in the board with a top card faced? Did the pro pull the board out of the stack at some point, fool with the cards, and slide the board back into the middle of the stack? These two extreme scenarios lead to vastly different conclusions as to culpability. Probably it is somewhere in between but who knows?

Funny, I had this happen today in a sectional swiss. My partner frequently boxes his cards when we finish playing the board last (so that people know to shuffle the board in the next round, since swisses here are nearly always hand shuffled). We had just had a marginal bad result on the 4th board of a 7 board set and we were the first to play the board. My partner thought we were the second to play and put his cards in upside down with the ♦Q exposed (we were E/W). The N player didn't notice as she was collecting the boards (she only puts one board on the table at a time and moves the others off the table). The caddy had already just delivered us the new 3 boards and passed our 3 boards and came by shortly after we finished the 4th board to pass it to the other table, and the caddy didn't notice the boxed card. When it arrived at the other table, however, the other table noticed the boxed card. I'm not sure exactly what happened but they played the board and I'm pretty sure we ended up pushing the board.

This explanation (believing that the boards had been played at both tables) crossed my mind. I would hope that if that explanation had been offered at the time and was credible then this would already have been mentioned. For the explanation to be credible there would need to be some evidence that facing the top card after the board has been played at both tables is the player's usual practice, else it becomes another of those remarkable coincidences.

Maybe that argument was made, maybe it wasn't. If I were on the committee, I am sure I would have considered whether this explanation was credible given the circumstances.

[kenberg]

My view of the "expert say they would not bid 6D" and stronger statements:

People gossip. We maybe shouldn't, but we do. Else this thread would not exist. It's one thing for me to chat with a friend and say that 6D looks fishy. It's another thing to say definitely what I would do of I were on a committee that has the authority and the responsibility to rule and impose consequences.

Some questions:

Is there a history of bids being rolled back, and perhaps further penalties imposed, on the basis that the bid, although successful, was simply so weird that it cannot be explained without assuming that somehow there was a wire?

If so, was this weird bid of comparable weirdness?

If not, do we want to go down that road now?


I know, and I imagine everyone knows, players who if they make a weird but successful bid we would accept it with confidence that the bid, however weird, was based on his judgment and no wires were attached. I also know, and I imagine everyone knows, players who would not be accorded that trust.

So I ask: Are we saying that some bids, regardless of any lack of evidence of a wire beyond the bid itself, are just so weird they cannot be allowed to stand? Or are we saying that when a weird bid succeeds we should at least in part take into consideration matters not directly related to the hand in question? Eg, a 15 year old disputed issue.

[mrdct]

Mbodell, on Aug 16 2010, 06:46 PM, said:

My partner frequently boxes his cards when we finish playing the board last (so that people know to shuffle the board in the next round, since swisses here are nearly always hand shuffled).

If I ever get my time machine working and travel back 25 years in time to play in a game with hand-shuffled boards, I'll try to remind myself not to develop that habit.

[hrothgar]

The_Hog, on Aug 16 2010, 01:24 PM, said:

Fred, I am disgusted by your comment saying that I publicly accused Justin of lying? . What i said is that he presented absolutely no evidence for his claim. Hearsay is NOT evidence, particularly when it comes form an interested party.
I would like an apology for this slur.

Hi Ron

Sorry dude, but I think that Fred is calling this one correctly...

From my perspective, the "6D bid is impossible without UI" comments are, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to an accusation of cheating.

In much the same vein, your are essentially accusing Justin of either

1. Lying
2. Misrembering what actually happened

Both you and Juston are playing little games trying to avoid direct attacks, but the implications are very clear.

Personally, I think that both lines of attack are inappropriate. However, if folks do want to go down this path, please have the balls to state things directly rather than relying on snide comments and above all, spare us the fake outrage when folks call a spade a spade...

[billw55]

kenberg, on Aug 16 2010, 08:17 AM, said:

I know, and I imagine everyone knows, players who if they make a weird but successful bid we would accept it with the confidence that absolutely the bid, however weird, was based on his judgment and no wires attached. I also know, and I imagine everyone knows, players who would not be accorded that trust.

Actually it seems to me that is happening in this very case. Many are suspicious of the 6♦ bidder, but not one of his partner. This is surely due, at least in part, to their respective reputations.

Right? Let's follow some of the logic (?) in these threads to its conclusion. The bid could not be made without UI .. but the bidder could not have gained UI on his own .. .. but it had to come from somewhere .. well who made the board .. ?

[/witchhunt satire]

I think I've seen enough of this.

[uday]

Well, I'm glad we set the record straight. Jeez.

Anyway, what say we talk about something else?

[barryallen]

fred, on Aug 15 2010, 11:51 AM, said:

bluecalm, on Aug 15 2010, 04:44 PM, said:

I think top expert's opinion aren't very valuable when assessing what weak player may come up with. People who play bridge at high level on regular basis just don't see enough stuff your piff paff average Joe may come up with.

Agree, but the player in question is a lot closer to being a "top expert" than he is to being an "average Joe". He is certainly not a "weak player".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

If those same top experts were given that same UI and sporting their Dick Dastardly cloak, how many do you believe would come up with the same 6♦ bid then? If this answer and their previous varies, then I would venture there is some bias (or UI) present.

[ArtK78]

barryallen, on Aug 16 2010, 09:58 AM, said:

fred, on Aug 15 2010, 11:51 AM, said:

bluecalm, on Aug 15 2010, 04:44 PM, said:

I think top expert's opinion aren't very valuable when assessing what weak player may come up with. People who play bridge at high level on regular basis just don't see enough stuff your piff paff average Joe may come up with.

Agree, but the player in question is a lot closer to being a "top expert" than he is to being an "average Joe". He is certainly not a "weak player".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

If those same top experts were given that same UI and sporting their Dick Dastardly cloak, how many do you believe would come up with the same 6♦ bid then? If this answer and their previous varies, then I would venture there is some bias (or UI) present.

I don't understand what is meant by this post. For the benefit of those who are as dense as I am, please clarify.

[kenberg]

uday, on Aug 16 2010, 09:11 AM, said:

Well, I'm glad we set the record straight. Jeez.

Anyway, what say we talk about something else?

Sounds like a plan

[barryallen]

ArtK78, on Aug 16 2010, 10:23 AM, said:

barryallen, on Aug 16 2010, 09:58 AM, said:

fred, on Aug 15 2010, 11:51 AM, said:

bluecalm, on Aug 15 2010, 04:44 PM, said:

I think top expert's opinion aren't very valuable when assessing what weak player may come up with. People who play bridge at high level on regular basis just don't see enough stuff your piff paff average Joe may come up with.

Agree, but the player in question is a lot closer to being a "top expert" than he is to being an "average Joe". He is certainly not a "weak player".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

If those same top experts were given that same UI and sporting their Dick Dastardly cloak, how many do you believe would come up with the same 6♦ bid then? If this answer and their previous varies, then I would venture there is some bias (or UI) present.

I don't understand what is meant by this post. For the benefit of those who are as dense as I am, please clarify.

Apologies.
Take those same 20 top experts who unanimously define the 6D bid as UI, and pose this question.

"If you were going to cheat and had possession of the same UI, how many of you would have made the same direct bid of 6D?"

[vuroth]

kenberg, on Aug 16 2010, 10:30 AM, said:

uday, on Aug 16 2010, 09:11 AM, said:

Well, I'm glad we set the record straight.  Jeez. 

Anyway, what say we talk about something else?

Sounds like a plan

Put my name on that petition.

[VMars]

barryallen, on Aug 16 2010, 10:56 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Aug 16 2010, 10:23 AM, said:

barryallen, on Aug 16 2010, 09:58 AM, said:

fred, on Aug 15 2010, 11:51 AM, said:

bluecalm, on Aug 15 2010, 04:44 PM, said:

I think top expert's opinion aren't very valuable when assessing what weak player may come up with. People who play bridge at high level on regular basis just don't see enough stuff your piff paff average Joe may come up with.

Agree, but the player in question is a lot closer to being a "top expert" than he is to being an "average Joe". He is certainly not a "weak player".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

If those same top experts were given that same UI and sporting their Dick Dastardly cloak, how many do you believe would come up with the same 6♦ bid then? If this answer and their previous varies, then I would venture there is some bias (or UI) present.

I don't understand what is meant by this post. For the benefit of those who are as dense as I am, please clarify.

Apologies.
Take those same 20 top experts who unanimously define the 6D bid as UI, and pose this question.

"If you were going to cheat and had possession of the same UI, how many of you would have made the same direct bid of 6D?"

The point you seem to be trying to make has already been addressed by, I believe, Jdonn in the first, locked, thread.

[TimG]

barryallen, on Aug 16 2010, 10:56 AM, said:

"If you were going to cheat and had possession of the same UI, how many of you would have made the same direct bid of 6D?"

If bidding 6♦ directly would remove suspicion because it is too crazy for a cheat, I guess it would be a good way to cheat. No?

[ArtK78]

Assume that one knew that 6♦ were the right contract on this hand. How would one go about bidding it to conceal the prior knowledge of the right contract?

I don't know if you could get any firm opinions on how best to go about doing this because most players do not think about how to do this. After the fact, with a lot of time to think about it (like on these Fora) it is easy to say that a leap to 6♦ was naive and that there are better ways to cover one's tracks and still arrive at a 6♦ contract. But, if one did not have a lot of time to lay the groundwork for reasons for the bid but one knew what the final contract should be, it is probably difficult to avoid the temptation of just bidding the final contract.

[Cascade]

ArtK78, on Aug 17 2010, 08:39 AM, said:

Assume that one knew that 6♦

I don't think this is a necessary assumption.

I did some numbers earlier based on just knowing the one significant card the ♦K which improved the prospects of partner having diamond length and therefore that diamonds was the right strain.

If there was also knowledge of additional diamonds then that too improves the prospects for 6♦. In fact if we know as much (or as little) as partner has four diamonds to the king 6♦ becomes an overwhelming favourite. Even knowing of three diamonds to the king and nothing else (with the possibility of additional diamonds) then 6♦ is excellent.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Aug 16 2010, 05:24 AM, said:

fred, on Aug 15 2010, 11:03 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 15 2010, 06:58 AM, said:

jkdood, on Aug 15 2010, 01:30 PM, said:

We were told in no uncertain terms, with reiterated confirmations that begged to be believed, that 20 of the Top 20 Spingold experts when queried all agreed without exception, that "The 6D was not possible without UI."

Where is the evidence that this statement is true? We were only told this by one person. The comment was undoubtedly self serving as it was made by a member of the opposing team.

This comment is undoubtedly self-serving as it was made by a person who clearly has an axe to grind against the "one person" he is referring to.

Apparently public accusasions of lying are OK even though public accusations of cheating are not.

Not that it should be necessary, but I will give you some more evidence: I have personally witnessed several "top experts" express "6D not possible without UI" when they were told about this hand. I have not witnessed any "top experts" express a contrary view.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred, I am disgusted by your comment saying that I publicly accused Justin of lying? . What i said is that he presented absolutely no evidence for his claim. Hearsay is NOT evidence, particularly when it comes form an interested party.
I would like an apology for this slur.

You didn't say "those comments are hearsay so I completely discount them", you wondered "Where is the evidence that this statement is true?" the statement in question is "a bunch of experts said yada yada". So either it's true and they said it, or it's not true and you-know-who was lying. When you question its truth, you are implying who said it may be a liar.

You are again getting into the habit of denying what is there for anyone to read.

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on Aug 15 2010, 03:49 PM, said:

fred, on Aug 15 2010, 07:03 PM, said:

Not that it should be necessary, but I will give you some more evidence: I have personally witnessed several "top experts" express "6D not possible without UI" when they were told about this hand. I have not witnessed any "top experts" express a contrary view.

Are any of these top experts willing to go on the record, provide their names, and state

1. The 6♦ bid is impossible without UI
2. What type of UI would allow the player in question to bid 6♦

Admittedly, my grasp of social niceties is questionable, to say the least. However, I was always taught that you should either be willing to state what you think openly and directly or shut the $%&@ up.

Whispering campaigns, innuendo, and talking behind people's back... This type of ***** is frowned upon in a 10th school yard. We're talking about a person's livelihood here.

If these experts believe strongly enough that Pitch is a cheat, they should be willing to say so openly. If they aren't willing to do so, I don't see why I should care what they have to say.

Usually I'm right with you when you make a similar claim but I think it's unfounded here. These people aren't part of this discussion except that a few of us have referenced them. They were asked what they thought of this bid by fellow players, and answered to those who asked them.

Further I doubt they would care whether you or anyone else cares about their opinions on the matter, but I see no reason that everyone can't make that judgment for themselves. Anyway there was a back and forth discussion occuring about the truth of these comments so obviously some people are interested.

[jkdood]

[quote name='Cascade' date='Aug 16 2010, 04:39 PM'] [quote name='ArtK78' date='Aug 17 2010, 08:39 AM']

If there was also knowledge of additional diamonds then that too improves the prospects for 6[di]. In fact if we know as much (or as little) as partner has four diamonds to the king 6[di] becomes an overwhelming favourite. [/quote]
Yes, there have been reasonable claims that certain minimal "expected values" in Pard's hand will make 6D a much more than extreme longshot contract.

But I have not heard any mention of the possibility that partner has both red kings, which make 7D a very decent contract facing four card diamond length.

If nothing else, it points to the extremely speculative nature of the 6D call, and it's huge success since there was NOT enough opposite to make any more than exactly 6.

It was a perfecto of perfectos type of call, eh?

[the hog]

Richard, Ihave to disagree with you on this one. Hearsay is not evidence.
If I said I sent this hand to 10 experts and they said "Its a crazy bid, but there is not sufficient evidence to indicate UI", I would expect to be challenged to provide names. That is fair enough, isn't it?