[ArtK78]

Cascade, on Aug 16 2010, 04:39 PM, said:

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.

Did you bother to read my entire post? It has nothing to do with the merits of the 6♦ contract. It is in response to the question about how someone with knowledge that 6♦ was the right contract would go about bidding it.

Personally, I don't buy a word of the presentation that 6♦ is a reasonable contract based on knowledge of the ♦K alone, simulations notwithstanding. But that is truly beating a dead horse, and it is not the point of the post.

Now we have gotten down to taking a quote of one-half of a sentence from a prior post and follow it up with something from left field. Please feel free to quote one word of this post and use it to promote some other argument.

[mrdct]

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.

[Cascade]

ArtK78, on Aug 17 2010, 04:42 PM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 16 2010, 04:39 PM, said:

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.

Did you bother to read my entire post? It has nothing to do with the merits of the 6♦ contract. It is in response to the question about how someone with knowledge that 6♦ was the right contract would go about bidding it.

Personally, I don't buy a word of the presentation that 6♦ is a reasonable contract based on knowledge of the ♦K alone, simulations notwithstanding. But that is truly beating a dead horse, and it is not the point of the post.

Now we have gotten down to taking a quote of one-half of a sentence from a prior post and follow it up with something from left field. Please feel free to quote one word of this post and use it to promote some other argument.

"6D bid is impossible without UI"

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

These are the things that I read.

These quotes all stop short of saying the player knew 6D was known to be the best contract. The do not say what the UI was.

Maybe someone else introduced that idea that the player must have known that 6D was the correct contract. I haven't double checked.

I was merely saying that it was not necessary to assume that 6D was known to be the correct contract to argue that the player had UI suggesting 6D over some other contracts. I was not disputing anything else in your post just pointing out that less UI than the best contract in theory could have been used.

[the hog]

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.

[hrothgar]

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

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.

Hi Josh

My concern is the following:

There are very different ways in which a question can be asked. Moreover, commiserating, off the record, when someone comes and tells you how he just got robbed is very different from issuing a specific, public statement.

I have no direct knowledge how any of the conversations that you, Justin, whomever might have had. However, I don't doubt that many tops pros would have stated (privately) that Piltch had to have cheated.

However, given whats at stake here - a man's livelihood - I prefer a much stricter standard before I place much weight on whatever comments that people might have made.

FWIW, I very much understand why folks might be unwilling to make any kind of public statement.

This has all the makings of a very nasty political and legal battle. Issuing a public statement that "Piltch is a cheat" sounds like a great way to get sued / open yourself up to a world of hurt with very little upside.

Returning to jkdood's original question/statement. I suspect that similar consideration may have impacted the ACBL's deliberations regarding whether or not to hold a C+E hearing.

[jkdood]

Others have stated and I also would prefer to have had a C&E committee handle the matter and issue a judgment. If it were that Mr. P was not to be drawn and quartered based upon the weight of evidence, that would very likely be less damaging to his reputation than the posted comments found here and elsewhere.

The legal and practical consequences may be untidy, but then that goes with your ethical oversight world, and the ACBL should be up to that.

The practical consequences of not going to C&E seem at the very least to be that the top players and perhaps the whole membership cannot have confidence in the ACBL's ethical leadership.

Justin suggested he was vigorously pursuing this outlet. The authorities presumably consulted such players, and surely Justin's reported findings of what the top 20 Spingold experts said of course would have been made known to them.

Yet, they chose NOT TO AT LEAST ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE this delicate matter with the very appropriate powers and tools at their disposal. Geesh!

[TimG]

From ACBL's Code of Disciplinary Regulations:

Quote

3.4 Accusations of unethical bridge conduct at an ACBL sanctioned event, not made privately to a tournament director or other tournament official. Private and confidential conversations are not within the ACBL’s jurisdiction even if they take place at a tournament site.

It seems to me that those consulted privately who offered an opinion that UI must have been used would rightly prefer not to attach their name publicly to such an opinion.

Of course, this does not mean that you or I have to lend any weight to a statement to the effect of "I asked 20 top experts and they all said the action was impossible without use of UI."

I would suggest that at some point multiple private conversations regarding a matter would amount to public discussion. And, if those conversations involve a suggestion that a player acted unethically, then the person making the suggestion is in violation of 3.4. It does not matter if the person presents a hand and says "I offer no opinion, I let you draw your own conclusions."

[jkdood]

TimG, on Aug 17 2010, 08:11 AM, said:

Of course, this does not mean that you or I have to lend any weight to a statement to the effect of "I asked 20 top experts and they all said the action was impossible without use of UI."

But shouldn't the ACBL officials Justin contacted have given enough weight to that reporting, such that at least a C&E to investigate be convened? (This does not seem to me to be such a difficult question.)

[bill1157]

To set the record straight, there is no evidence of UI, the boards were hand shuffled so nobody saw a handrecord or overheard anything. There is nothing to this but a very odd bid that worked out. End of story

Bill

[TimG]

bill1157, on Aug 17 2010, 08:26 AM, said:

To set the record straight, there is no evidence of UI, the boards were hand shuffled so nobody saw a handrecord or overheard anything. There is nothing to this but a very odd bid that worked out. End of story

That's ridiculous. There are other ways UI could be obtained, both nefarious and inadvertent. No one has any evidence of how any alleged UI may have been obtained, but that does not mean it did not exist.

Also, there is evidence in the form of expert opinion that the 6♦ was more likely than not the result of UI.

[TimG]

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

TimG, on Aug 17 2010, 08:11 AM, said:

Of course, this does not mean that you or I have to lend any weight to a statement to the effect of "I asked 20 top experts and they all said the action was impossible without use of UI."

But shouldn't the ACBL officials Justin contacted have given enough weight to that reporting, such that at least a C&E to investigate be convened? (This does not seem to me to be such a difficult question.)

Perhaps the officials gave the reporting less weight that you give it. Perhaps the ACBL officials also spoke to top experts and the experts were not so adamant when asked if they would express their opinions in front of the Ethical Oversight Committee. There may have been other factor which we are unaware of. We don't really know. That may be frustrating. Some of us may have less than full confidence in ACBL officials and thus assume they didn't do their due diligence. But, I don't think our lack of confidence is reason in itself to convene the Ethical Oversight Committee.

If a respected outsider had been responsible for the decision not to convene a committee, I don't think there would be nearly so much disappointment in the process. You may not think a respected outsider would have come to the same conclusion, but we don't really have all the information the person charged with making the decision had. And, the point is really that you are assuming the ACBL official went wrong when you don't really know.

[ArtK78]

I share the frustration of many regarding the lack of a formal C & E hearing in this matter.

Historically, the ACBL has dealt with matters of ethical violations behind closed doors. Whether this is the best way to handle accusations of ethical violations is certainly a matter of debate. It is far from clear whether the interests of the accusers, the accused, and the ACBL are best served by the current process or would better be served by a more public process.

What is clear is that we are unlikely to get any official statements on this matter from the ACBL. So far, I have seen nothing outside of these fora (and another website) in which this matter has even been mentioned.

I received my Bridge World magazine two days ago. This issue does not cover the New Orleans tournament. Perhaps there will be some mention of this matter in next month's issue.

[jkdood]

FWIW, if I were Mr. P; and I felt wrongly accused and innocent of wrongdoing enough to make a 9 AM call to Justin's hotel room offering to take a polygraph, I would insist on a C&E proceeding, or at least vehemently demand one.

It can work in one's favor, as well as against. (And of course one can always appeal findings they do not agree with or like, alhough that seems to be a shadowy process at times.)

Regarding the consulting of top players, which ACBL does in it's current infinite wisdom, seems like either they did or did not do due diligence, and taking Justin's account as accurate reporting, I vote no.

[jkdood]

TimG, on Aug 17 2010, 09:39 AM, said:

Perhaps ...the experts were not so adamant when asked if they would express their opinions in front of the Ethical Oversight Committee...

1. A player makes a brilliantly bizarre spectacularly successful perfecto of perfectos bid that defies conventional wisdom and even imagination.

2. Justin makes the case that the Top 20 experts consulted unanimously agree the bid is "impossible without UI".

3. Justin presses for a C&E proceeding with the officials, who routinely consult top players nowadays, and surely this reported finding that we read here and elsewhere, is made known to them.

4. The officials decide to not even convene an ethics panel to investigate further.

What is wrong with this picture?

Surely not: "...the experts were not so adamant when asked if they would express their opinions in front of the Ethical Oversight Committee..."

[JLOGIC]

If "the top x players asked do not think this bid is possible without UI" is not sufficient evidence/reason to have a hearing, then what is wrong with the picture?

Perhaps they view 1 hand no matter how strange as not enough reason to have a hearing, in which case all that happens is the hand is recorded and if similar hands are later recorded they can re-evaluate.

[IdiotVig]

JLOGIC, on Aug 17 2010, 12:56 PM, said:

If "the top x players asked do not think this bid is possible without UI" is not sufficient evidence/reason to have a hearing, then what is wrong with the picture?

I think Tim's point is independent of this; he's saying the statements the top x players made to you may not have been made with as much fervor or certainty when in front of someone from the ACBL.

[TimG]

JLOGIC, on Aug 17 2010, 12:56 PM, said:

If "the top x players asked do not think this bid is possible without UI" is not sufficient evidence/reason to have a hearing, then what is wrong with the picture?

Perhaps they view 1 hand no matter how strange as not enough reason to have a hearing, in which case all that happens is the hand is recorded and if similar hands are later recorded they can re-evaluate.

Perhaps that is the case (it certainly seems a reasonable position to me).

We don't know whether the ACBL official(s) had more information than is available to us.

My point is really that we don't know they (ACBL officials) didn't do their job.

[bill1157]

TimG, on Aug 17 2010, 09:26 AM, said:

bill1157, on Aug 17 2010, 08:26 AM, said:

To set the record straight, there is no evidence of UI, the boards were hand shuffled so nobody saw a handrecord or overheard anything.  There is nothing to this but a very odd bid that worked out.  End of story

That's ridiculous. There are other ways UI could be obtained, both nefarious and inadvertent. No one has any evidence of how any alleged UI may have been obtained, but that does not mean it did not exist.

Also, there is evidence in the form of expert opinion that the 6♦ was more likely than not the result of UI.

But essentially you are proving UI by assuming that there was UI. There is something wrong with that reasoning.

Bill

[BudH]

With all of this recent discussion, I feel as Mr. Piltch's partner a need to respond. First, a summary of the facts, including a few not presented previously, and then I will state an opinion in this matter.

All four players were present for the shuffling of all eight boards at the start of the second quarter. All boards started with one hand face up before shuffling began.

Mr. Piltch shuffled and dealt board 8 only at the start of the shuffling and dealing of the eight boards. We don’t know which of the other three players shuffled and dealt Board 5 (Board 21 of 64). Mr. Piltch and I remember this. We don’t know if opponents Mr. Krekorian or Ms. Bianco remember this.

There was a 47 imp deficit after one quarter and an estimated seven imps had been gained back on the first board of the second quarter (this estimate was found to be accurate when scores were compared later) with expected pushes on Boards 2, 3 and 4.

Due to medical conditions, Mr. Piltch has significant manual dexterity problems and vision problems. Those that have played against him recently have seen the importance for Mr. Piltch to have dummy’s cards properly overlapped in descending order with smaller cards overlapping the higher ranking cards. Mr. Piltch is also requesting verbal bidding due to problems seeing the bidding cards. (Verbal bidding was not requested in the Spingold match or any other event in New Orleans. But since New Orleans, Mr. Piltch has been requesting verbal bidding due to vision problems.)

[I will leave it to the reader to determine in their own mind the possibility of someone with these manual dexterity and vision problems being able to “rig the deck” or somehow catch a glimpse of the ♦K or any other card or cards in his partner’s hand or an opponent’s hand during the shuffling and dealing of Board 5 or during the auction for Board 5.]

Board 5 (21 of 64), North dealer, North/South vulnerable

Scoring: IMPS

N E S W
------------------------
P 3♠ 6♦ P
P P

---

The 6♦ bid was not a mechanical error with the bidding box. Mr. Piltch waited the appropriate 8 to 10 seconds after the 3♠ bid, and took about three to five additional seconds to make the 6♦ bid.

Mr. Piltch was at the Boston Chess Club about three decades ago when he heard about Clint Morrell’s direct and successful 6♦ bid against Lloyd Arvedon holding ♠x ♥AQ ♦AQTx ♣AKQxxx when 6♣ would have failed on the lie of the cards, dummy having ♦KJxxx and a stiff club, with clubs splitting 5-1.

Now that I have presented facts above, I will give you an opinion. Until now, I have tried not to do that, but at this point, I will.

I believe Mr. Piltch’s 6♦ bid was a combination of several factors.

1. The Morrell-Arvedon hand from three decades ago gave him the idea of a potential 6♦ bid with this hand.

2. The state of the match being 40 imps or more behind. (I’m aware that most would think there isn’t a reason to be “swinging” that early.) Also, if successful, a momentum swing before the dinner break would likely ensue.

3. He was playing with a partner who would not be affected in his play or demeanor if the 6♦ bid backfired.

4. He decided that partner’s hand would likely have some diamond length and therefore decided the 6♦ bid would not be a huge underdog. (Some have done the calculation of the success of a 6♦ bid – but Mr. Piltch did not have that available to him when he made the 6♦ bid and perhaps he overestimated the probability of the 6♦ bid being successful.)

5. There was a chance that his LHO would sacrifice in 6♠ and it might be a phantom save. (As it turns out on this hand, 6♠ is down no more than 500 vs. 1370 – I don’t know if clubs were 2-1 or 3-0).


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.

And I do not doubt that these “top experts” that were consulted (and I assume that if they were given Mr. Piltch's name at all, it wasn't until they gave their opinion of the 6♦ bid) felt that unauthorized information could be the only explanation for the 6♦ bid.

But the explanation, which many do not want to hear, is simple.

Mr. Piltch got lucky on this hand.

And seeing that we were down 51 IMPS going into the fourth quarter and we had to take a lot of chances of which none worked in the fourth quarter, that 6♦ bid was one of the few lucky things that happened that day, at least at my table!

Actually, Mr. Piltch was probably UNLUCKY that the 6♦ bid WAS successful because of all of this discussion here on BBO Forums and other places, including word of mouth, about how there must have been some “funny business” going on, plus discussions (accurate or otherwise) of other issues Mr. Piltch has had in the past which have been mentioned in this and the related threads.

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". Not that I should need to state this explicitly, but I will so that I am perfectly clear. The only information I gave to Mr. Piltch was my initial pass as dealer and no illegal information was transmitted in any way to Mr. Piltch by me on this hand. I have never violated Law 73B2 ("the gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication ....") playing with Mr. Piltch or any other partner in the past, nor will I ever violate this law in the future.

I am aware that some players, including “top experts”, and especially those that are not fans of Mr. Piltch, will never be convinced that there wasn’t some UI connected to the 6♦ bid. Perhaps in the future, some of them will soften their view and realize that this successful 6♦ bid had a lot of luck attached to it, not UI.

Bud Hinckley

[jkdood]

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

... But 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...

I personally have a good deal of sympathy for you, Mr. P, and others involved in these events and the aftermath, and try to keep an open mind and open discussion by playing "devil's advocate" at times.

I am mostly troubled by what might seem at times to be misrepresentations - possibly self-serving - and/or inappropriate or unsatisfying reactions by authorities and others to the events and the aftermath.

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?