[mrdct]

Whilst not founded in the laws of bridge, the recipient of a hand with a boxed card should bear some responsibility to count their cards out of sight of partner and opponents.

I play in a club duplicate at the local senior citizens centre once a week with my son (who incidentally is their youngest card-carrying member at 13 and is able to claim his seniors discount in some places) and it's quite rare to go through a session without receiving a hand with a boxed card, so I'm now well and truly in the habit of counting my cards under the table and checking that there are no boxed cards before I sort my hand.

[barryallen]

mrdct, on Aug 13 2010, 03:31 AM, said:

Whilst not founded in the laws of bridge, the recipient of a hand with a boxed card should bear some responsibility to count their cards out of sight of partner and opponents.

I play in a club duplicate at the local senior citizens centre once a week with my son (who incidentally is their youngest card-carrying member at 13 and is able to claim his seniors discount in some places) and it's quite rare to go through a session without receiving a hand with a boxed card, so I'm now well and truly in the habit of counting my cards under the table and checking that there are no boxed cards before I sort my hand.

I have seen this dealt with in so many different manners, depending upon the flight and the timing of the error, I am unsure what the definitive course of action is for the TD.

Quickly back tracking and looking at the rules, it appears the onus is totally upon the person receiving the cards. With the only possible exception being that the board is presented with one of the top cards having the face exposed, then that responsibility would lie with North, or whoever's duty it is to pass on the board.

As had previously happened, I assumed an incorrect position based upon others reactions. In fact Pilch had no reason to be addressed with any penalty when the law states it is the responsibility of the person receiving the cards. The only responsibility Pilch had would be if he delivered the board with a top card exposed. The then loose definition of the TD's discretionary powers become logical, allowing several adjustments to be made in the name of common sense.

When you belated read the rules, it appears incredulous of the reaction from this isolated case of a boxed card. Now if you were to couple that with previous examples of the same thing, a warning of future punishment would be fully warranted. Even various irregularities combined could justify requiring an explanation or possible sanctions. This is just smacking too much of a witch hunt for my liking, along with the middle age laws for dealing with such issues.

[ArtK78]

I want to make it clear to those who are treating the Ace of Spades incident as a run of the mill boxed card situation.

The issue was whether Mr. P. intentionally boxed the Ace of Spades with the intention of having the board thrown out, thereby eliminating an adverse swing.

Therefore, the normal rules putting the responsibility for correctly sorting the hand on the corresponding player at the other table is not relevant.

[kenberg]

I have zero status in bridge and I know none of the principals. I dislike judging people unless I have to, but the issue is up for discussion and the thread is titled "Setting the record straight" so I want to pull out some of the comments and try to understand if there is some universal agreement on at least some of the facts:

A. From the Wolff letter I conclude that there was a hearing, Wolff and Kaplan on the committee, and that Mr. Piltch was judged guilty (or responsible or whatever the phrasing was) at that hearing.

B. See TimG correction below.

C. From the PassedOut note, and from Wolff, it appears that Mr. Cook was president at that time.

D. From the BudH reference to the r.g.b note it appears that there was a review of the decision by Colker et al. Wolff, in his note, says the decision was overturned without a hearing. I suppose a hearing involves testimony (something is actually heard at a hearing) but perhaps there may be agreement that Colker et al reviewed he mattert and overturned the decision.

The above is what I can gather from the notes submitted on this thread and the references. The firing of Rosen is a matter that perhaps is unsettled. I gather that it is a fact that Rosen was fired by Cook. There seems to be some dispute in the references as to when and why. Possibly that part of the record could also be set straight but also perhaps it need not be.

Do I have this about right?

As for my own thoughts, they are not conclusive. Correcting slightly what I said about not knowing the principals, I live in the D.C. area and know Colker in the sense that I recognize him when I see him. I respect his dedication to bridge and I respect Wolff's dedication to bridge. I think I know enough to know that I don't know enough to weigh in further on this.

[TimG]

kenberg, on Aug 13 2010, 08:41 AM, said:

B. From the BudH letter, referring to r.g.b in '95, it appears that the incident was at the Atlantic Nationals in '95.

I believe the Spade Ace incident took place at a Las Vegas regional and that the EOC hearing took place in Atlanta.

[PassedOut]

If you had a disaster at your table and an improperly boxed card from that deal was then faced at the other table, wouldn't you be the first to demand that the result stand? So would I, and (I presume) so would Edgar Kaplan and Bobby Wolff.

[barryallen]

ArtK78, on Aug 13 2010, 07:45 AM, said:

I want to make it clear to those who are treating the Ace of Spades incident as a run of the mill boxed card situation.

The issue was whether Mr. P. intentionally boxed the Ace of Spades with the intention of having the board thrown out, thereby eliminating an adverse swing.

Therefore, the normal rules putting the responsibility for correctly sorting the hand on the corresponding player at the other table is not relevant.

How can you treat the Ace of Spades incident as anything other than a run of the mill boxed card situation? Unless you are going to back that up with other similar reported incidents or reprimands. What you are in effect saying is the gain shall be a deciding factor in the relative merits of whether the person is innocent or guilty, irrespective that it is the duty of another party to stop this from occurring?

You are then left with an infringement under what can be worst described as suspicious circumstances, nothing more. Then go through the rules and see what penalty you can apply and it soon becomes clear everything is addressed at the persons now playing the hand. You now want to disregard all these rules and manufacture a penalty of your own liking. Not impossible, but trying to do that alone without the backing of further data would be extremely harsh. I can understand why the original decision was thrown out and it would not surprise me as being the reason someone was subsequently sacked. I just cannot see how this is warranted under these rules and regulations.




2. Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen;
after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards

1. When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a
board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand;
by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table;
or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before
the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably
by the recipient of the information.
2. If the Director considers that the information could interfere with
normal play he may, before any call has been made:
(a) adjust the players’ positions at the table, if the type of contest and
scoring permit, so that the player with information about one hand
will hold that hand; or
( if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for
those contestants; or
© allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award
an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may
have affected the result; or
(d) award an artificial adjusted score.

[ArtK78]

barryallen, on Aug 13 2010, 10:29 AM, said:

How can you treat the Ace of Spades incident as anything other than a run of the mill boxed card situation?

The score adjustment at the table was only one aspect of the case. That was dealt with by an award of an adjusted score. That is not being discussed here, so the discussion who was responsible and how to handle the situation is really irrelevant.

The matter that is being discussed is the disciplinary matter relating to the accusation that the Ace of Spades was boxed intentionally for the purpose of making the board unplayable.

[hrothgar]

ArtK78, on Aug 13 2010, 06:35 PM, said:

The matter that is being discussed is the disciplinary matter relating to the accusation that the Ace of Spades was boxed intentionally for the purpose of making the board unplayable.

I find the similarities between the two cases interesting.

Both cases involved an incident at the table

Case 1: The Ace of Spades was boxed
Case 2: A bizarre 6♦ bid

Both cases (essentially) boil down to

1. Something weird happened
2. I think that is the sort of person who would cheat
3. I think that Piltch should be punished

Both cases were thrown out.

Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that "I think that Pitch is the sort of person who would cheat" does not rise to the standards of evidence...

[ArtK78]

hrothgar, on Aug 13 2010, 01:03 PM, said:

Both cases were thrown out.

The circumstances of the first case "being thrown out" are certainly a subject of debate.

As for the second case, it is not clear that it was ever actually heard. There is a distinction.

[kenberg]

I am still struggling here. This thread is primarily about the first case so I will mostly address just that one.

I am wondering if the Colker committee supplied any details on their thinking, and I am wondering about the history of similar cases, I assume there are some.


If I have it right a professional player boxed a card (I was unaware of the expression, but I guess it was faced wrong in the holder). The card was the ace of spades which, if on display, would make it particularly difficult to play the board "naturally".

"Professional" is relevant, I think. I cannot recall boxing a card. No one mistakes me for a pro. I have had cards arrive at the table that way, but usually it's a club game with not very serious players. So for me, boxing a card would be very highly unusual, boxing a high card would be even less likely just because there are fewer of them, and doing so on a board where I got a very bad result, I gather this is what happened, would be so weird that I am not sure that I would believe my own explanation of coincidence.

So I would be interested in the reasons of the Colker committee in overturning. I suppose it's on the order of "coincidence happens".

If we accept "coincidences happen" and say not guilty, where does it leave us? In criminal law, I think not guilty is not guilty. OJ walks. (Well, I guess he is in jail. Never mind.) In bridge, I am not so sure it should be that way. Maybe at some point a guy uses up his allotment of coincidences.

[mikeh]

I think that it is so very difficult to prove deliberate misconduct, and the consequences of being branded a cheat are so devestating, that the League (properly in my view, when it hasn't impacted me personally....at which point objectivity tends to evaporate) leans over backwards to acquit.

Years ago, in a Regional KO, I was East. North, a player with a dubious reputation but, to my knowledge, no actual history, kept the played boards on a table to his right.

He and his partner passed out a board....his partner said that he should have opened..a discussion ensued from which it became apparent that they had missed a cold vulnerable game. North was not amused and berated his partner about throwing 12 imps away.

Next hand, South was declarer and went into the tank. I saw North put the previous board on his lap and withdraw S's hand to look at it...and then looked at his own hand...mumbling and shaking his head. I wasn't paying a lot of attention.

The boards were taken away a little while later...shortly thereafter a Director returned, announcing that the N-S hands were 12-14...the result had to be thrown out.

I almost lost it....I suspect I was very close to being in front of a C & E committee myself....but all the directors could or would do was to assess the N-S pair (and team) a 3 imp procedural penalty.

So: do i think that some players are capable of screwing with a board on which they got a bad result....hell, yes. Could I prove it happened...well, in my case, the hands were never bid, dummy was never laid down, so only N-S can say if they counted their cards.

I have often wondered what S felt about this situation.

[peachy]

mikeh, on Aug 13 2010, 04:18 PM, said:

I think that it is so very difficult to prove deliberate misconduct,

Very true. But let's not get overboard!
In cases involving unethical conduct in bridge, "proof" is not necessary. Sufficient evidence is, and what "sufficient" is, is a matter of degree and that determination rests with the C&E Committee.

[TimG]

ArtK78, on Aug 13 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

As for the second case, it is not clear that it was ever actually heard.  There is a distinction.

Yeah, in criminal terms, HP wasn't even indicted in the second case; it was determined there was insufficient evidence to hold a hearing.

[xcurt]

mikeh, on Aug 13 2010, 04:18 PM, said:

I think that it is so very difficult to prove deliberate misconduct, and the consequences of being branded a cheat are so devestating, that the League (properly in my view, when it hasn't impacted me personally....at which point objectivity tends to evaporate) leans over backwards to acquit.

Years ago, in a Regional KO, I was East. North, a player with a dubious reputation but, to my knowledge, no actual history, kept the played boards on a table to his right.

He and his partner passed out a board....his partner said that he should have opened..a discussion ensued from which it became apparent that they had missed a cold vulnerable game. North was not amused and berated his partner about throwing 12 imps away.

Next hand, South was declarer and went into the tank. I saw North put the previous board on his lap and withdraw S's hand to look at it...and then looked at his own hand...mumbling and shaking his head. I wasn't paying a lot of attention.

The boards were taken away a little while later...shortly thereafter a Director returned, announcing that the N-S hands were 12-14...the result had to be thrown out.

I almost lost it....I suspect I was very close to being in front of a C & E committee myself....but all the directors could or would do was to assess the N-S pair (and team) a 3 imp procedural penalty.

So: do i think that some players are capable of screwing with a board on which they got a bad result....hell, yes. Could I prove it happened...well, in my case, the hands were never bid, dummy was never laid down, so only N-S can say if they counted their cards.

I have often wondered what S felt about this situation.

you could have protected yourself here. not that it excuses anything if your N did foul the board deliberately

also the director should attempt to reconstruct the board

[Rossoneri]

mikeh, on Aug 13 2010, 10:18 PM, said:

The boards were taken away a little while later...shortly thereafter a Director returned, announcing that the N-S hands were 12-14...the result had to be thrown out.

I might have missed something, but I'm wondering: didn't the players at the other table count their cards? I am guessing the director threw the board out because the other table saw their cards before counting them?

[3for3]

As I understood it, and according to Wolff's book, the Ace of Spades was face up as the top card. No chance for someone to hide that...

[jkdood]

[quote name='TimG' date='Aug 13 2010, 04:39 PM'] [/QUOTE]
Yeah, in criminal terms, HP wasn't even indicted in the second case; it was determined there was insufficient evidence to hold a hearing. [/quote]
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."

If we accept this, then it boggles the mind that the recorder, in concert maybe with the TD(s), somehow ignored or avoided this unanimous frame of thought, such that they judged that "there was insufficient evidence to hold a hearing."!

Who is minding the store???

[the hog]

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.

[hrothgar]

jkdood, on Aug 15 2010, 09:30 AM, 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."

I saw a report that Pitch's team lost by ~ 140 IMPs.

I'm not sure how many boards are played during this round, but it looks like this team was averaging at least -2 IMPs per board.

Out of curiosity, how many of the top 20 experts drop a mid stage match by this type of margin?

I accept that the "Top 20 experts in the Spingold" are experts regarding bidding, card play, and defense. However, their level of play might be significantly too high to evaluate this sort of incident.