[buffytvs]

I came late to the lengthy discussion of the 6D incident in New Orleans, but was concerned to see that the facts of one incident from Mr. Piltch's past were being disputed there. As publisher of 'The Lone Wolff', I drew this to the attention of Bobby Wolff, and he sent me the email that appears below, posted here at his specific request.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Ray,

Took your advice, and sure enough I got through the morass and saw more than I wanted to.

It seemed that Howard Piltch was the 6 diamond bidder on the subject hand. Also, whoever it was, and I couldn't determine who, was wrong in almost all or perhaps on every issue when he related the previous Howard Piltch issue of exposing the Ace of Spades. He stated that Richard Colker was the recorder and he wasn't, Bob Rosen was and was fired by the then President of the ACBL, Cecil Cook. This person said a person by the name of Brown was President of the ACBL. He said the year was 1996 and I do not remember which year it was, but it was the year Cecil Cook was President. He stated that Piltch never was tried by the Ethical Oversight Committee and I was a member of that committee with Edgar Kaplan presiding when we found Howard guilty. I took our verdict to the BOG at the next Nationals where Howard, who was at the time running for President and winning was at the podium denying that the EOC ever took jurisdiction or heard the case. I went to the microphone and read the verdict which was met by complete silence as many of the BOD's were at that meeting.

You have my permission, as a matter of fact, desire for you to somehow get this letter on that site for those people to at least read it and then go from there. It seems that Howard's opponents in that Spingold match were the Lalls, Hemant and Justin and they want to right the wrong.

I am including Joan Gerard in this correspondence who is now on the ACBL BOD's and was then when the Ace of Spades incident occurred and also she was, no doubt, at the BOG meeting which was related by me above.


Bobby

[PassedOut]

buffytvs, on Aug 11 2010, 08:32 AM, said:

He stated that Richard Colker was the recorder and he wasn't, Bob Rosen was and was fired by the then President of the ACBL, Cecil Cook. This person said a person by the name of Brown was President of the ACBL. He said the year was 1996 and I do not remember which year it was, but it was the year Cecil Cook was President.

Cecil Cook was ACBL president in 1995, Dudley Brown was in 1996, and Howard Piltch was in 1997.

[TimG]

I believe the results of the EOC hearing were reported in the Daily Bulletin at whatever NABC the hearing took place. Some research could uncover the article (though I have not been able to locate it online). My guess would be that the hearing took place at New Orleans (summer 1995) or Atlanta (fall 1995), the Bulletins from these NABCs do not appear to be in the ACBL's online archive.

Wolff's autobiography states: "The unsurprising result was that Cook fired Rosen as National Recorder and the Board of Directors exonerated Piltch without a hearing." Whatever you may think of that action, it would appear accurate that the incident is no longer part of Piltch's ACBL disciplinary record.

[BudH]

TimG, on Aug 11 2010, 11:16 AM, said:

I believe the results of the EOC hearing were reported in the Daily Bulletin at whatever NABC the hearing took place.  Some research could uncover the article (though I have not been able to locate it online).  My guess would be that the hearing took place at New Orleans (summer 1995) or Atlanta (fall 1995), the Bulletins from these NABCs do not appear to be in the ACBL's online archive. 

Wolff's autobiography states: "The unsurprising result was that Cook fired Rosen as National Recorder and the Board of Directors exonerated Piltch without a hearing."  Whatever you may think of that action, it would appear accurate that the incident is no longer part of Piltch's ACBL disciplinary record.

The November 26, 1995 Atlanta NABC Daily Bulletin appears to be where the publishing of the committee decisions occurred, according to this posting by Jonathan Steinberg on December 12, 1995 on newsgroup rec.games.bridge:

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: Jonathan Steinberg <am...@torfree.net>
Date: 1995/12/12

"The second committee, consisting of Richard Colker, Howard
Weinstein, and Jan Cohen examined the allegations concerning
Howard Piltch's behaviour and unanimously found no evidence upon
which to lay charges against him. I urge all interested parties
to read the complete article found in the November 26 Atlanta
Daily Bulletin."

[blackshoe]

Apparently the conclusion we are supposed to draw from all this is that Piltch was guilty as sin and the committee and Cecil Cook are corrupt.

Hm.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, I found a report from 1995 by Jonathan Steinberg:

"Special Committees investigating allegations against District 25 board member Howard Piltch and the removal of Bob Rosen as ACBL National Recorder released their findings. No charges were laid against Mr. Piltch. The removal of Bob Rosen was upheld. "

Found at http://www3.sympatic...t/board953.html

I also found this 1995 commentary on rec.games.bridge:

"I have no knowledge of the merits of the complaints brought against Mr.
Piltch. The Recorders' panel (Bramley, Clerkin, Meckstroth, Rosen,
Sutherlin) found the evidence insufficient to bring the matter to the
Ethical Oversight Committee but recommended that some action be taken in
light of the fact that Mr. Piltch "is in a position of trust [and] has a
repsonsibility not only to himself but to the people he represents [as a
member of the Board of Directors]." The subsequent committee appointed
by Pres. Cook to look into the charges (Cohen, Colker, Weinstein) found
insufficient evidence and expressed "mild concerns regarding Mr. Piltch's
behavior..."

"It sounds to me like the two groups were essentially of the same mind
about Mr. Piltch's alleged offenses. This isn't what's causing the
controversy over the matter. That has to do with Pres. Cook's response
to Mr. Rosen's letter to the Board in which the Recorders' position was
stated. First he asked Mr. Rosen not to send the letter. When Mr. Rosen
attempted to do so anyhow, Pres. Cook ordered Gary Blaiss (at ACBL HQ)
not to forward the letter to the Board in the usual way. When Mr. Rosen
persisted, and sent the letter directly to the individual Board members,
Pres. Cook fired him.

"These actions smack of blatant politics at the highest levels of the ACBL,
and raise several questions:

"Since Pres. Cook is a close personal friend of Mr. Piltch (Mr. Piltch was
Mr. Cook's "campaign manager" when Mr. Cook was elected President), why
didn't Mr. Cook recuse himself from involvement in Mr. Piltch's case
initially, and turn his participation in the matter over to a
disinterested party?

"The offense for which Mr. Rosen was fired was that of informing the
entire Board of the recorders' views and recommendations. Was this
wrong? Aren't the National Recorders responsible to the Board as a
whole, not to the President personally? Shouldn't they be reporting to
the Board as a whole? Does the President have the authority to keep such
matters a secret from the other elected members of the Board?

"The problem, of course, as Mr. Wood reports, is that "mail[ing] copies
directly to the Board members ... ensured that Mr. Piltch would become
the subject of gossip across North America, with hundreds of players
speculating upon his ethics." Why is this? Can't our 25-member Board of
Directors act with appropriate discretion in matters of this sort? Why
should their being informed of an ethical accusation "ensure" that
hundreds of other players would hear about it? Is the President
justified in withholding information to which they are entitled from the
other members of the Board by the fact that he realizes that they won't
be able to keep their mouths shut about it? And if they can't keep their
mouths shut about such sensitive matters, how is that Mr. Rosen's fault?

"Mr. Wood writes, "When the recorder opts to refer an ethical situation to
the President and/or Board, IT HAS TO BE DONE IN PRIVATE [emphasis Mr.
Wood's] -- so that if nothing is proven against a person, his/her good
name remains unsullied." I agree. But it was the Board members that
permitted the gossip to be spread; they were the guilty parties with
respect to the damage done to Mr. Piltch's reputation. Wasn't Mr. Rosen
just doing his job by bringing the matter to their attention? Why should
it be Mr. Rosen who takes the fall because the Board couldn't keep the
matter appropriately private?

"The letter from Mr. Rosen to the Board was read and approved unanimously
by the five-member Recorders' panel. Mr. Rosen, as the head of that
panel, sent the letter, not on his own authority, but on the authority of
the Recorders acting as a group. So why was Mr. Rosen singled out to be
disciplined (i.e. fired) by Mr. Cook? Why weren't the other (Assistant
National) Recorders similarly disciplined? A case of executing the
messenger? Or was Mr. Rosen singled out to serve as a blatantly
political example to others who might attempt to "cross" Mr. Cook in the
future? BTW, at least one of the other recorders, Mr. Meckstroth, has
since resigned his position in protest of Mr. Cook's actions.

"Mr. Cook's firing of Mr. Rosen was subsequently reviewed by a committee
(Chandross, Morse, Treadwell) that backed his action. But that committee
was hand-picked and appointed solely by Mr. Cook! Given the personal
relationships involved, it's hardly a surprise that Mr. Cook's hand-
picked committee would back him up. Is this legal? Even if so, is it
appropriate? Does the President have the (legal and/or moral) right to
appoint a committee of his own friends to "resolve" disputes between
himself and another party?

"Is this kind of politicking at the top of the ACBL interfering with the
running of the ACBL in the interests of its general membership? Should
the ACBL be more open and helpful in shedding some light on such
incidents? Should the election (and perhaps appointment) of our top
officials be made more democratic? IMO, this affair suggests that the
answers to these questions might be yes, yes, and yes."

I have no particular position on any of this. I just was curious and found these hits.

[hrothgar]

buffytvs, on Aug 11 2010, 04:32 PM, said:

I came late to the lengthy discussion of the 6D incident in New Orleans, but was concerned to see that the facts of one incident from Mr. Piltch's past were being disputed there.  As publisher of 'The Lone Wolff', I drew this to the attention of Bobby Wolff, and he sent me the email that appears below, posted here at his specific request.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Ray,

Took your advice, and sure enough I got through the morass and saw more than I wanted to.

It seemed that Howard Piltch was the 6 diamond bidder on the subject hand.  Also, whoever it was, and I couldn't determine who, was wrong in almost all or perhaps on every issue when he related the previous Howard Piltch issue of exposing the Ace of Spades.  He stated that Richard Colker was the recorder and he wasn't, Bob Rosen was and was fired by the then President of the ACBL, Cecil Cook.  This person said a person by the name of Brown was President of the ACBL.  He said the year was 1996 and I do not remember which year it was, but it was the year Cecil Cook was President.  He stated that Piltch never was tried by the Ethical Oversight Committee and I was a member of that committee with Edgar Kaplan presiding when we found Howard guilty.  I took our verdict to the BOG at the next Nationals where Howard, who was at the time running for President and winning was at the podium denying that the EOC ever took jurisdiction or heard the case.  I went to the microphone and read the verdict which was met by complete silence as many of the BOD's were at that meeting.

You have my permission, as a matter of fact, desire for you to somehow get this letter on that site for those people to at least read it and then go from there.  It seems that Howard's opponents in that Spingold match were the Lalls, Hemant and Justin and they want to right the wrong.

I am including Joan Gerard in this correspondence who is now on the ACBL BOD's and was then when the Ace of Spades incident occurred and also she was, no doubt, at the BOG meeting which was related by me above.


Bobby

So predictable...

The whole thing was dying down and now Wolff decides to insert himself into the mess and stir up the pot.

I seem to recall commenting in the original thread that this would degenerate into a pissing match between Wolff and Piltch

[kenrexford]

It sounded to me like Wolff was asked to respond, partially because Wolff was dragged into the discussion. Seems kind of unfair to characterize that as injecting himself into the discussion.

[jjbrr]

didnt this topic run its course a long time ago? are the rest of us ever going to be able to escape it?

[tgoodwinsr]

hrothgar: "I seem to recall commenting in the original thread that this would degenerate into a pissing match between Wolff and Piltch."


Rexford: "It sounded to me like Wolff was asked to respond, partially because Wolff was dragged into the discussion. . . ."


Rexford is right: Wolff was asked to respond, and did so. His response purported to correct factual inaccuracies in someone else's post(s), and it doesn't appear that he was pissing on Piltch or anybody else. [It should be possible to determine who is right on the facts, if this matters.]

Further, hrothgar, there hasn't been anything at all in these threads from Piltch, so it is a little hard on him to say that he is engaged in a pissing contest. Yes, Piltch has had supporters here, including BudH and TimD. But Bud's contributions seem intended to explain the factual circumstances of the Spingold deal, and Delaney's seem to be mainly an effort -- misguided, many would thing -- to provide a technical explanation for Piltch's bidding. Even if you think Bud and Tim are Piltch sycophants -- and I am pretty sure that Bud, at least, is not (I don't know TimD) -- it seems inaccurate to characterize their contributions as part of a Wolff-Piltch pissing contest.

I suspect that you, hrothgar, have strong feelings about (or against) both Piltch and Wolff, and you are letting those feelings obscure any analysis of what did or did not happen in New Orleans.

[whereagles]

I'm extremely careful judging people when they make a "wierd bid that happens to work charms", but here I'd consider it a clear case of the c-word.

Back in 1956 or something, Reese/Shapiro were deemed guilty on much lighter charges. Remember this one? Reese had something like

Axx
Axx
xxxx
xxx

OP1 Shap. OP2 Reese
pass pass 3♣ pass
4♣ pass pass dbl

Shapiro had 2 aces and it went 1 down. Later is was argued that Reese could not have doubled without knowing pard had 2 aces. Sure, this one is fishy, but waaaaay less than the 6♦ bid.

[ONEferBRID]

whereagles, on Aug 12 2010, 03:38 AM, said:

Sure, this one is fishy, but waaaaay less than the 6♦ bid.

Has Howard Piltch ever explained the reasoning behind the astonishing 6♦ bid ?

[tgoodwinsr]

Howard may have been -- probably was -- well advised not to make any statements about this matter. You shouldn't draw any inference, whether favorable or adverse, from his silence.

[gwnn]

ONEferBRID, on Aug 12 2010, 01:16 PM, said:

whereagles, on Aug 12 2010, 03:38 AM, said:

Sure, this one is fishy, but waaaaay less than the 6♦ bid.

Has Howard Piltch ever explained the reasoning behind the astonishing 6♦ bid ?

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=481703

and in particular, point 8. from this post.

BudH is the partner of Mr. Piltch and it is quite certain that the reasoning written by him is the actual one used by Mr. Piltch.

[whereagles]

tgoodwinsr, on Aug 12 2010, 02:26 PM, said:

You shouldn't draw any inference, whether favorable or adverse, from his silence.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Where I live you have the right not to speak at all during the instructory stage of an inquiry, but hey I don't agree with the law either lol.

[hrothgar]

tgoodwinsr, on Aug 12 2010, 05:24 AM, said:

hrothgar: "I seem to recall commenting in the original thread that this would degenerate into a pissing match between Wolff and Piltch."


Rexford: "It sounded to me like Wolff was asked to respond, partially because Wolff was dragged into the discussion. . . ."


Rexford is right: Wolff was asked to respond, and did so. His response purported to correct factual inaccuracies in someone else's post(s), and it doesn't appear that he was pissing on Piltch or anybody else. [It should be possible to determine who is right on the facts, if this matters.]

Further, hrothgar, there hasn't been anything at all in these threads from Piltch, so it is a little hard on him to say that he is engaged in a pissing contest. Yes, Piltch has had supporters here, including BudH and TimD. But Bud's contributions seem intended to explain the factual circumstances of the Spingold deal, and Delaney's seem to be mainly an effort -- misguided, many would thing -- to provide a technical explanation for Piltch's bidding. Even if you think Bud and Tim are Piltch sycophants -- and I am pretty sure that Bud, at least, is not (I don't know TimD) -- it seems inaccurate to characterize their contributions as part of a Wolff-Piltch pissing contest.

I suspect that you, hrothgar, have strong feelings about (or against) both Piltch and Wolff, and you are letting those feelings obscure any analysis of what did or did not happen in New Orleans.

I don't disagree with anything that has been said here.
I'm simply note that it is still early in the day...

[ONEferBRID]

thx, Gwnn...

[barryallen]

blackshoe, on Aug 11 2010, 07:20 PM, said:

Apparently the conclusion we are supposed to draw from all this is that Piltch was guilty as sin and the committee and Cecil Cook are corrupt.

Hm.

I can never understand that if you box a card, you should automatically get an adjusted bad score for your error.

The problem of highlighting someone's erratic bid, is that it is virtually impossible for third parties not to interpret that as cheating. Always accompanied by the success of the bid, never the failure. Once you go down that road Pandora's box is well and truly open and very little can be done to redress the situation from irreparable damage.

When you make an outrageous bid that is successful, you rightly come under suspicion unless your name is Zia. When you ratch the outrageous up a further order of magnitude along with the success, you are getting yourself back into the realms of unconventional rather than cheat.

[buffytvs]

Not to flog a dead horse, I received an email from Joan Gerard today, which included the line "Bobby is, of course, quite correct, as to what happened when the A of S was flipped up and sent to the other table." So enough on that.

I have other thoughts on the issues of evidence,and prior record, which can be found here.

[Cyberyeti]

barryallen, on Aug 12 2010, 03:08 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 11 2010, 07:20 PM, said:

Apparently the conclusion we are supposed to draw from all this is that Piltch was guilty as sin and the committee and Cecil Cook are corrupt.

Hm.

I can never understand that if you box a card, you should automatically get an adjusted bad score for your error.

To exaggerate, but if you box a card after you've just gone for 3000+ redoubled in a cuebid, your actions are going to be viewed with a lot of suspicion.

If you have dexterity problems and occasionally box cards after good and bad boards that's one thing, but doing it only after a really bad board is going to encourage whispers, and you should keep your element of a bad result to protect against this. Basically not a real adjustment, just assuming a normal result from the other table.