0-3-4-6 hand in Spingold
Bud H
about six boards into the second quarter with no notable expected gains so
far
----
Axx
AQ8x
AKQ7xx
Dealer on your left opens 3S. Your call and plan, please!
Bud H
Bud H
"Bud H" <budh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i2nr9i$f60$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Spingold, second quarter, behind by over 40 imps, you hold in second seat
> about six boards into the second quarter with no notable expected gains so
> far
>
> ----
> Axx
> AQ8x
> AKQ7xx
>
>
>
> Bud H
>
Ooops -- your RIGHT hand opponent opened 3S, not LHO.
henry...@yahoo.com
> "Bud H" <budh9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Double, then
(1) If partner passes, I hope he doesn't have 3 clubs
(2) If partner pulls to 3nt, showing a spade stopper, I pull to 4c
which I hope is a slam try
(3) If partner pulls to 4c, I will raise to 5c
(4) If partner pulls to 4d, I will take a chance on slam and rebid
5s, exclusion KCB, and if he shows 1 key card I will bid 7d, otherwise
I will stay in 6d
(5) If partner pulls to 4h, I will pull to 5c showing a strong
flexible hand with multiple places to play.
And I hope that we can sort out the rest of the auction intelligently.
Henrysun909
Richard Pavlicek
Aha, so _that's_ why we're down 40... we're being set up by the old
counterclockwise coup. Assuming 3S on my right, and... let's see, the
sixth board of the second quarter would be #22, East dealer, E-W vul,
so that makes me South at favorable. Is this a Bud light post?
In any case, I would double and follow with 4C over 3NT; 5C over 4H;
5NT (GSF) over 4D -- or lead the CA.
--
Richard Pavlicek
Web site: http://www.rpbridge.net
Player
6D Because it makes and 6C doesn't. Just the standard canape overcall.
What's the problem?
Ron
S. Needham
'Fess up : You peeked.
Regards and Happy Trails,
Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA
dak...@aol.com
then 6-partner's suit. Hope he sees grand to get us dozen and half
IMPs.
henry...@yahoo.com
6h is bound to be a great spot opposite
xx
xxxxx
Kxx
Jxx
Why force to slam when a double gives you a chance to find partner
with diamonds and get to a grand slam opposite
xx
xxx
Kxxxx
xxx?
Henrysun909
boblipton
4 Loser hand. Suitable for jumping to 5 clubs. Of course, that makes
it difficult to get to 6 clubs if partner holds a suitable hand.
Double will get you either a pass, which is not pretty, or 4 hearts,
after which you bid 5 clubs..... do you?
Another unhappy choice: 5 clubs.
Bob
Player
Sure did. The hand has caused a kerfuffle.
Dave Flower
Surely, there is a good chance of a gain by making a game whilst slam
goes down at the other table. To say that the only gain is by bidding
a grand is incorrect
Dave Flower
Player
Looks like someone totally jumped the gun here - see
http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=40621&st=75
rhm
I admit bidding 6D straight away would not occur to me, but I admire
this creative action, when down a lot and feeling out-gunned by
opponents. (Unfortunately such opponents exist :) )
Bidding a straight 6D has of course a better chance to be wrong than
right.
But getting back into the match by normal means, if you are out-
gunned, is probably even less likely.
If this action looses more IMPs it probably does not matter.
Meanwhile slam in diamonds requires the least from partner, may even
make opposite the right yarborough, particularly on a blind opening
lead and maybe difficult to reach normally.
Let us not forget LHO may have a tough decision whether to sacrifice
or not over 6D.
I tried a simulation (1000 deals) and specified for RHO excactly 7
cards in spades with either
2 of the top three honors or 3 of the top 5 honors and a maximum of 10
HCP.
Result: Slam in diamonds made in 38.7% of all deals double dummy.
Rainer Herrmann
I see no good why the director should even be called.
It is sportsmanship to take such a result either with a good laugh or
with a poker face.
henry...@yahoo.com
In addition to Rainer's simulation, I might add that all you need for
a successful slam in DIAMONDS is the KJxx of diamonds opposite, since
you can get 1 spade ruff, 1 heart, 4 diamonds, and 6 clubs. Down 40
imps that's not a bad shot.
Note that it requires much more for 6c to be a successful make because
you don't get an extra trick by ruffing a spade in hand.
It would not occur to me to call the director but it might occur to me
to have the hand recorded just in case. If I were a drinking man, it
would definitely occur to me to have a drink after the session rofl.
Henrysun909
thg
> Result: Slam in diamonds made in 38.7% of all deals double dummy.
How often did slam in clubs make?
rhm
6C would make 56.4%.
But then 6C is a much more likely contract to be mirrored in the other
room.
If you bid like this, being down in the match, you don't want your
contract to be the same as in the other room.
Rainer Herrmann
Raija D
"Player" <ron...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:cecabd64-f83c-44d3...@n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
======
Why spoil the problem for those who haven't peeked?
Stu G
But you do want a contract that has a decent chance of picking up
IMPs. The real question is how often did the simulation show 6D
making but 6C going down? With 6C making almost 1.5 times the rate of
6D making, I would guess that percentage would be quite small.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
Dave Flower
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have never understood why bidding a dodgy slam is the best hope of
picking up IMPs on the board. It seems to me that staying out of quite
good slams might well have a better chance of success. ie Staying out
of a 60% slam looks like better tactics than bidding a 35% one
Dave Flower
thg
> I have never understood why bidding a dodgy slam is the best hope of
> picking up IMPs on the board. It seems to me that staying out of quite
> good slams might well have a better chance of success. ie Staying out
> of a 60% slam looks like better tactics than bidding a 35% one
Indeed, it seems like playing only 5C on this deal would have picked
up significant IMPs and would not have raised any suspicions.
rhm
22%
Rainer Herrmann
rhm
What a nonsense!
The slam happens not to be dodgy. I would be happy to have the means
to find it after a 3S preempt and stay out of some less attractive
ones. .
I have not said that 6D is a good bid, nor that you could not use
different tactics in such a scenario.
What I said is it was a creative bid, neither absurd nor illogical,
and there is no basis for assuming inferior motives.
What I really deplore are the paranoid suspicions raised by many
bridge players, particularly in the US, every time when somebody
without being acknowledged as a world class player, happens to come up
with an eccentric creative bid, which happened to work out. If Zia
would do it under such circumstances the reaction would be very
different. This is hypocrisy.
I think these creative ideas are part of the attraction of the game
I do not like the thought police and I do not like claims like
"another tactic would be better because it avoids raising
suspicions".
Bidding like this is perfectly legal and ethical as is changing your
strategy in a match.
Rainer Herrmann
Player
Good post Rainer, and I totally agree with your comments. The player
who raised the initial concern is a spoiled child who has at times
behaved abyssmally towards opponents on BBO.
I for one, hope that the accused player decides to pursue the matter
legally.
Dave Flower
OK So 6D made, and 6C did not. Without the auction (and agreements) it
is impossible to tell whether 6D was (at best) a wild gamble, or was,
in fact, reached after a logical sequence. Could someone tell us what
actually happened in detail ?
Dave Flower
Lorne
news:cba24c6e-c8cb-4a78...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
I am with you here. Having read the BBO thread there is no evidence
anything improper was done, but there is evidence (ie opposition were at the
table when the boards were dealt) that it would have been very difficult to
to manipulate anything.
It seems (if the threads on BBO are accurate) that the player concerned was
suspended previously for making some improper remark about a woman but I do
not see how that implies he is a cheat. It does however seem to be the main
source of acrimony from the "no smoke without a fire" brigade. It also
appears he was an ACBL official at some time so maybe he has upset a few
people who are now out for revenge.
But your analysis seems to suggest that on the hands were one slam makes and
the other fails 6D will gain 1 time in 3 which is not bad odds for a wild
swingy action - especially if you know it will upset the oppo so much that
you might gain more later in the match (though not this time).
HoneyMonster
Well said, Sir.
thg
> If Zia
> would do it under such circumstances the reaction would be very
> different. This is hypocrisy.
This is a strawman, Zia has not done this.
In response to another post about this player's history: Mr Piltch was
once President of the ACBL; I do not believe any suspension is part of
Mr Piltch's ACBL disciplinary record, before repeating what others
have claimed in this regard, I suggest you should do your own
research.
Tim
KWSchneider
I have read this and the complete BBO thread. I can only say that I'm
disheartened by the visibility and rancor of Mr Lall's position. What
should have been a simple "recording" event has become a public
spectacle of which I am understandably embarrassed for the ACBL and
all the involved participants.
I have played against Howard on numerous occasions - although he is an
imposing presence at the table and can be intentionally intimidating,
he nonetheless has been nothing less than a consummate gentleman,
offering excellent advice whenever asked.
How anyone can assassinate the character of an individual who makes
their livelihood as a bridge professional - and potentailly doing
irreparable harm to their ability to make a long-term living, BASED
SOLELY on a successful "flyer" bid - is irresponsible, malicious and
slanderous.
This sickens me...
Kurt
Stu G
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks Rainer. 22% is somewhat higher than I would have guessed.
Makes it worthy of consideration given the state of the match. A long
shot but not totally irrational.
henry...@yahoo.com
> Spingold, second quarter, behind by over 40 imps, you hold in second seat
> about six boards into the second quarter with no notable expected gains so
> far
>
> ----
> Axx
> AQ8x
> AKQ7xx
>
> Dealer on your left opens 3S. Your call and plan, please!
>
> Bud H
Bud,
As I understand it, this hand went to some kind of a committee in NO;
is this right? And has there been a committee decision about it??
Henrysun909
OldPalooka
> Spingold, second quarter, behind by over 40 imps, you hold in second seat
> about six boards into the second quarter with no notable expected gains so
> far
>
> ----
> Axx
> AQ8x
> AKQ7xx
>
> Dealer on your left opens 3S. Your call and plan, please!
>
> Bud H
One thing I have not seen mentioned in this thread or the BBO forum
(so full of heat, so little light) is a mention of match psychology in
general, not just shooting psychology. Part of the aim of a winning
player is to put the opps off their game [ethically, of course]. And
it is completely obvious to me that Howard managed to do that to
Justin with just one swoop into the bidding box.
I can give you a couple of other examples from my own experience.
Holding AJTx opposite Kxx in dummy needing 3 tricks without losing the
lead. One might normally lead the J and finesse the other way if not
covered, but on this occasion Lew Mathe had observed his LHO to be
more likely to cave emotionally than his RHO, so he led the J and let
it go. Happily for him it won, and this LHO was more interested in
how he got it right than how to play bridge for the the next several
deals. Happily for me, Mr. Mathe was willing to tell me that he got
it right because he thought he would win 30 or 40 IMPs if it
succeeded.
Playing for many jelly beans per IMP, our opps were playing entirely
too well, and they had put together a great session after 27 boards.
My old master partner, John Hubbell, psyched a 3D preempt holding a
void and a lot of clubs, they went set in 4NT cold for 7D, and he
turned -58 into +9 in 5 boards.
After reading a goo portion of Justin's diatribe, I strongly believe
he needs to face disciplinary charges, and I hope he learns from
them.
-- Bill Shutts
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
> Result: Slam in diamonds made in 38.7% of all deals double dummy.
> 6C would make 56.4%.
[...]
>> The real question is how often did the simulation show 6D making
>> but 6C going down?
>
Rainer, just to clarify -- does this mean that across all 1000 trials,
1. 6D makes but 6C does not, 22% of the time
2. 6D made ~39% total, therefore 39%-22%=17% of the time you make slam
in either minor
3. 6C made 56% total, therefore 56%-17%=39% 6C only makes but not 6D.
So bidding 6D is only a 22/(22+39) = ~36% gamble?
Bud H
<henry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7e5e5ce9-9439-4f79...@m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Bud,
Henrysun909
====================================================
A recorder form was completed and submitted to the National Recorder this
past Monday afternoon. Mr. Piltch and his right hand opponent, James
Krekorian, both spoke with the National Recorder about this hand.
Mr. Piltch was informed this past Tuesday morning that this incident would
be put in his file and that no other action was being taken.
Bud Hinckley
HoneyMonster
*Applause*
dranon
wrote:
I hope they at least "counsel" Mr. Lall. His comments on the Bridge
Base forum are actionable.
rhm
1000 deals generated with dealmaster pro gave the following results:
when 6♣ is down, 6 ♦ makes in 21% of the 436 deals. --> this is what
actually happened.
when 6♣ makes, 6 ♦ makes in 53% of the 564 deals
when 6 ♦ is down 6 ♣ makes in 44% of the 613 deals
when 6 ♦ makes 6♣ makes in 77% of the 387 deals
Rainer Herrmann
Dave Flower
> Spingold, second quarter, behind by over 40 imps, you hold in second seat
> about six boards into the second quarter with no notable expected gains so
> far
>
> ----
> Axx
> AQ8x
> AKQ7xx
>
> Dealer on your left opens 3S. Your call and plan, please!
>
> Bud H
Could someone post what actually happened, including:
1) How many of the 40 IMPs the team were down were due to imaginitive
bids by the player in question
2) Full bidding, with annotation of available options
3) Subsequent events, including how this became public
4) What happened in the rest of the match
I feel unable to comment without the above information
Dave Flower
Dave Flower
>
> - Show quoted text -
So bidding 6D gains about 9% of the time, whilst stopping in 5C gains
about 44% of the time, albeit possible by a smaller abount ?
Dave Flower
Player
Dave, the link to the BBO thread has already been posted here.
Dave Flower
> On Jul 30, 3:42 pm, Dave Flower <DavJFlo...@BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 28, 12:49 am, "Bud H" <budh9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Spingold, second quarter, behind by over 40 imps, you hold in second seat
> > > about six boards into the second quarter with no notable expected gains so
> > > far
>
> > > ----
> > > Axx
> > > AQ8x
> > > AKQ7xx
>
> > > Dealer on your left opens 3S. Your call and plan, please!
>
> > > Bud H
>
> > Could someone post what actually happened, including:
>
> > 1) How many of the 40 IMPs the team were down were due to imaginitive
> > bids by the player in question
>
> > 2) Full bidding, with annotation of available options
>
> > 3) Subsequent events, including how this became public
>
> > 4) What happened in the rest of the match
>
>
how the discussion entered the public domain.
Two comments:
Partner, presumably holding DKxxx or stronger, failed to bid 7D. This
could be interpreted two ways:
- The 6D bidder had been bidding so wildly that he thought even 6D
would be lucky to make
- Partner was in on the cheat
Personally, I find only the first credible
To report the hand to the recorder seems entirely proper, however this
should have been a private action - how did this matter become
public ?
Dave Flower
thg
> On Jul 30, 11:20 am, Player <ron...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 30, 3:42 pm, Dave Flower <DavJFlo...@BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 28, 12:49 am, "Bud H" <budh9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Spingold, second quarter, behind by over 40 imps, you hold in second seat
> > > > about six boards into the second quarter with no notable expected gains so
> > > > far
>
> > > > ----
> > > > Axx
> > > > AQ8x
> > > > AKQ7xx
>
> > > > Dealer on your left opens 3S. Your call and plan, please!
>
> > > > Bud H
>
> > > Could someone post what actually happened, including:
>
> > > 1) How many of the 40 IMPs the team were down were due to imaginitive
> > > bids by the player in question
>
> > > 2) Full bidding, with annotation of available options
>
> > > 3) Subsequent events, including how this became public
>
> > > 4) What happened in the rest of the match
>
> This supplies some of the information, although not the full hand, nor
> how the discussion entered the public domain.
>
> Two comments:
>
> Partner, presumably holding DKxxx or stronger,
Dummy's hand was given in the first post of the linked BBO thread.
Tim
rhm
1.) If you read the BBO thread you would know partner held xx xxx Kxxx
xxxx. Though the 6D bidder had no knowledge about the DK, it would
never occur to me to raise to 7D with this hand. Simon's "Unlucky
Expert" probably would.
2) The team lost the match by a large margin. You can draw your own
conclusion from that.
3.) I understand that filing a hand to a person, does not in itself
imply a formal accusation. Nevertheless given the circumstances,
bidding 6D was entirely legal and ethical, is neither absurd nor
illogical and according to a simulation the contract will make in
close to 40% of random deals after a 3S preempt. Even if it would
make only in 10% of random deals I see no justification for anything.
People are entitled to bid badly and get lucky. It happens all the
time, at least to me. I consider it part of the game.
4.) What is the basis for the filing? What is improper about this
action? What will happen if another filing of this type would occur
in the near future to the same team, pair, person?
As I said I do not like the thought police.
I still believe it taints a person for no good reason.
Get rid off your paranoia or go and visit a therapist!
Rainer Herrmann
Dave Flower
>
> - Show quoted text -
I find your last remarks unacceptable.
The point about filing a hand is to see if a pattern exists. Had it
transpired that the player in question made a habit of wild bids that
always turned out successfully, would I be paranoid to be suspicious ?
In fact, the evidence seems to be that the player in question had a
habit of making wild bids, and that was the reason they were 40 IMPs
down!
Dave Flower
rhm
That is the whole point.
People discuss a single deal and suspect a pattern.
How can this be the basis for a pattern or for being suspicious?
And if you file only the hands where the "wild bid" happens to turn
out successful, how do you want to establish a pattern?
This is like throwing a coin and recording only when it falls on its
head and then claiming it always does so.
I don't get it
Rainer Herrmann
henry...@yahoo.com
It occurs to me to reference a hand from an old BW editorial, about
which Kaplan received two letters from different subscribers, one the
alleged perpetrator and the other the alleged victim. While I do not
remember the hands, the auction went 2d p p double all pass. The
takeout double was made on a strong 4=4=4=1 hand, and the penalty pass
was made on a 3=3=1=6 hand.
The 3=3=1=6 bidder argued that his pass was based on pure logic;
doubler shouldn't have a 5M, which means he is at most 4=4 in the
majors, and with 6 clubs he is likely to be short in clubs and
therefore to have at least 4 diamonds since there was no obstructive
raise by responder. With the assumed singleton opposite his 6-card
suit, defensive prospects were good so he passed.
The alleged victim sent the hand to committee, who ruled that this
hand violated the so-called 'rule of coincidence' and awarded an
adjusted score.
Kaplan's main point at the end of the editorial was that unless there
is evidence of cheating, there is nothing illegal about making a
penalty pass of a balancing double with a singleton diamond. He
mentioned that Norman would muster up a 'hearty well-done' while he
would be more likely to sulk about the fix, but that would be the end
of it.
Seems like sage advice that Justin could have used before posting the
hand and making his accusations about Piltch acting on UI.
Henrysun909
thg
> 4.) What is the basis for the filing? What is improper about this
> action? What will happen if another filing of this type would occur
> in the near future to the same team, pair, person?
> As I said I do not like the thought police.
> I still believe it taints a person for no good reason.
The basis for filing is to help establish a pattern if there is one.
There should be nothing wrong with filing, no matter the merits.
Taking the issue public is another matter.
In my opinion, establishing a pattern warrants closer observation, it
does not in itself establish guilt. Before guilt is established, I
would want some evidence about how the alleged information was
obtained.
Tim
Lorne
news:5f7e702f-c006-439a...@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 30, 9:18 am, rhm <r...@softwareag.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 12:24 am, zo...@ninthbit.com (Lone Locust of the
>>
>> when 6♣ is down, 6 ♦ makes in 21% of the 436 deals. --> this is what
>> actually happened.
>> when 6♣ makes, 6 ♦ makes in 53% of the 564 deals
>> when 6 ♦ is down 6 ♣ makes in 44% of the 613 deals
>> when 6 ♦ makes 6♣ makes in 77% of the 387 deals
>>
>> Rainer Herrmann- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So bidding 6D gains about 9% of the time, whilst stopping in 5C gains
> about 44% of the time, albeit possible by a smaller abount ?
>
> Dave Flower
I don't think that is correct.
When 5C is the right contract bidding it is likely to be a flat board
because you assume the oppo in the other room are going to try and bid
sensibly and get it right a lot of the time. Same is true for 6C. If you
are trying to swing you need to get to a contract that will not be matched
in the other room so the above numbers say to me that bidding 6D has a fair
chance of a swing in (while the oppo stop in game or go 1 off in 6C) whilst
also likely to be flat quite often so a swing out is only about twice as
likely as a swing in which may be odds worth taking if you expect to lose
more that 2 times in 3 to what is a better team.
Where your theory may be better is after a simple auction Like 1H - 2H, if
you now pass a 7 loser balanced 17 count you will be 1 or 2 levels lower
than the field and have very good chances of a swing in if the hands do not
fit well.
Dave Flower
If the pattern were sufficiently clear, then evidence of mechanism is
unnecessary.
For example, suppose a player was shown to open 5332 hands of
appropriate strength, with a 5-card major, some of the time 1NT and
some of the time with 1M. No problem so far. But suppose for the last
twenty such hands, they opened 1M if, and only if, partner held three
or more cards in the suit ?
Dave Flower
PS My example is entirely fictitious
thg
> If the pattern were sufficiently clear, then evidence of mechanism is
> unnecessary.
I think that's very dangerous. One would have to be thorough in the
examination of all hands a player played and the uncanniness extreme.
Tim
Douglas Newlands
> On Jul 30, 11:20 am, Player <ron...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 3:42 pm, Dave Flower <DavJFlo...@BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 28, 12:49 am, "Bud H" <budh9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Spingold, second quarter, behind by over 40 imps, you hold in second seat
>>>> about six boards into the second quarter with no notable expected gains so
>>>> far
>>>> ----
>>>> Axx
>>>> AQ8x
>>>> AKQ7xx
>>>> Dealer on your left opens 3S. Your call and plan, please!
>>>> Bud H
>>> Could someone post what actually happened, including:
>>> 1) How many of the 40 IMPs the team were down were due to imaginitive
>>> bids by the player in question
>>> 2) Full bidding, with annotation of available options
>>> 3) Subsequent events, including how this became public
>>> 4) What happened in the rest of the match
>>
> This supplies some of the information, although not the full hand, nor
> how the discussion entered the public domain.
>
> Two comments:
>
> Partner, presumably holding DKxxx or stronger, failed to bid 7D. This
So, if partner doubled and then bid 6D, you would bid 8D with the KD?
Or is your bidding so bad that you have more than one sequence with the
same meaning?
As well, when you are 40 imps down with your current bidding tactics, do
you think it is sensible to keep bidding the same way?
doug
Tim DeLaney
> <henrysun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I am personally acquainted with both Bud H and Howard
Piltch, and I have some strong feelings about this incident.
I have become aware of this controversy only in the last
hour or so.
Disclaimer: I consider Bud H to be a close personal friend.
I have had some cross words with Howard Piltch on more
than one occasion. I consider him a friend, but not a close
personal one.
I have known Bud for a number of years, and I can say this:
I would instantly stake my life on Bud's honesty when it
comes to bridge. Not only would he never consider cheating,
he would also never play with any player whose ethics
were suspect in any way. I feel it necessary to say this only
because one or two posts raise the question of complicity.
I have also said on this very forum (about two years ago)
"I would never accuse Howard Piltch of cheating". I stand
by that statement today. Howard can be abrasive, and many
people have problems with his table manners, but he is a
very skilled bridge player, and has no need to cheat.
Howard's approach to bridge is somewhat free-wheeling.
I find it entirely plausible that, faced with a 40 IMP deficit,
he would look for an opportunity to create a swing. I don't
personally like the odds for the 6D bid, but then I'm not as
successful a player as he is. I can tell you that it's not the
sort of bid he would make on the first board of a match.
IMO, this discussion should focus on bridge judgement,
and not on bridge ethics.
Tim
rhm
As usual I agree with your fine judgment.
Nevertheless in my opinion this incident is a good example, how
suspicious some people are about cheating and what damage this does to
the spirit of the game.
Where do we end up if any "perpetrator" of an eccentric bid, which
happens to be successful, gets accused of unethical behavior?
Rainer Herrmann
OldPalooka
How about option 3: once they open 3S, winning players will still play
you for a little something, even to bid at the 6 level. So 6D will
[almost] never be a 12 trick lock; beyond my one trick I have
*absolutely nothing* potentially useful such as a doubleton heart or
club. At love score with a better team in tow suppose partner holds
Void AKx AQJTxxx AKQ? Would you consider bidding an odds-on 6D over
3S unusually wild? Would you think it is reasonable to not allow the
opps any extra room to decide whether to save or not?
> To report the hand to the recorder seems entirely proper, however this
> should have been a private action - how did this matter become
> public ?
>
> Dave Flower
I suppose it is OK to report the hand to a recorder that has some
discretion. For example the discretion to say "Justin, I think you
are generally a fine young man, but in this case you are a paranoid
jerk".
-- Bill Shutts
Raija D
(snipped)
I find it entirely plausible that, faced with a 40 IMP deficit,
he would look for an opportunity to create a swing.
Hi Tim,
There were over 40 boards left to play in the match. Just thought I'd
mention it, to reduce the possibility that someone gets the impression this
was a "last minute effort to swing" or something like that.
Raija
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
>[...] he is a very skilled bridge player, and has no need to
>cheat.
I don't have enough information to comment one way or the other on
the rest of your post, but I wanted to point out the logical fallacy
in the above statement in the asbtract: just because someone is
skilled enough to have no need to cheat, it doesn't mean they can't
also cheat.
Someone skilled enough not to need to cheat might do it anyway for
the thrill.
Or, there's a story of a group of poker pros playing against a mark,
who easily have an edge on skill, but cheat just to ensure that the
"right" outcome occurs.
Or, why would someone with Martha Stewart's net worth risk engaging
in insider trading over a 5-figure amount.
Tim DeLaney
wrote:
All good points, I completely agree. My conclusion
was based on my personal knowledge of Howard.
Whatever faults he may possess, being a bridge
cheat is not among them, IMHO. This is based on
my experience with him at the club level.
FWIW, like you, I cannot imagine what Martha
was thinking.
Tim
Bud H
"Tim DeLaney" <delaney...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:06023e53-fe00-4198...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Tim
===============================================================
Tim, I appreciate the sentiments. Unfortunately, we will never be able to
"prove" that no "funny business" happened on this hand. Howard didn't deal
this particular board and I was just as surprised as the opponents when all
followed to the first two rounds of trumps - and even more surprised when
someone followed to the third trump.
For those curious if other actions occurred before Board 5 (Board 21 of 64),
there were two jumps to slam with little scientific investigation bid very
early in the match at my table in some reasonably constructive auctions
which caught a few minimum and not great fitting dummies. Both slams went
down, and although both were makeable, one slam would have required a very
anti-percentage line of play and the second one might possibly have been
made but was not. Which was one reason we were down by over 40 imps at the
end of the first 16 boards.
I won't have access to my scorecard until late this evening - I'll check
exactly where the bid slams happened in the first quarter and how many imps
were scored on those boards.
Bud H
derek
wrote:
Or, in bridge, any of the pairs that everybody here knows (or
believes) has cheated - if we all know of them, they are practically
guaranteed to have "no need to cheat".
Bud H
"Bud H" <budh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i33sc2$eqn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I just found my scorecard for the first and second quarter.
First two boards of the match at my table was a failing jump to 6D bid with
a very short auction and 2 of a minor by us doubled down two tricks on a 6-0
break. 19 total imps away. On Board 10 of the first quarter, responder
forced to a borderline spade slam which failed which was not bid at the
other table - 13 more imps away.
So we did have some short, non-scientific auctions occur during the first
quarter.
Bud H
Barry Margolin
<fe1782dc-7d37-4151...@d17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Dave Flower <DavJF...@BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:
> If the pattern were sufficiently clear, then evidence of mechanism is
> unnecessary.
But if the pattern is ambiguous, evidence of mechanism (or lack thereof)
can substantiate or refute it. I.e. if you want to come to a more
confident conclusion, it helps to have multiple forms of evidence.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Barry Margolin
<8b27bdab-395a-48f8...@p11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
I was thinking the same thing. Sometimes people who are in the upper
echelons, but not quite at the very top, will look for a way to get an
extra edge. Or they just think they're above the law.
There's also the possibility that they became so well known as a result
of many years of cheating and not being discovered. But since bridge is
a partnership game, this would generally require a long-term conspiracy.
Tim DeLaney
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't agree.
To begin with, this approach lends itself to misuse
by those who might be math imbeciles. Bayes
Theorem is not trivial, and if you don't understand
it you can come to some stupid conclusions.
Secondly, even if your math is impeccable, there is
always the possibility, absent evidence of mechanism,
that you have just witnessed a coincidence. These
things happen. People win lotteries.
Third, you haven't examined the criteria which the
player uses to decide whether to open 1M or 1NT.
Maybe a large proportion of the hands encountered
were slam dunk decisions; maybe only three or four
of them could have been decided one way or another.
This can radically alter your math.
Fourth, you haven't validated the evidence gathering
method. Is it possible that, for whatever reason, the
person gathering the evidence was "cherry picking"?
Fifth, you have made no attempt to correlate the
evidence with other considerations. For instance,
does the player always make the "right" decision in
competetive auctions where his actions might indicate
a knowledge of partner's length?
Sixth, you have not addressed the issue of whether
the player's partner is complicit, even if you accept the
dubious proposition that 20 in a row is proof of guilt.
Perhaps the player has excellent hearing or vision.
Perhaps he has an accomplice kibitzing another table.
An accusation could brand an entirely innocent CHO
as a cheat.
So what is the significance of 20 in a row? Let's agree
that it suggests grounds for (private) suspicion. Where
the investigation goes from there is anybody's guess.
Tim
Frances
wrote:
Yes.
If I am deliberately playing very swingy generally anti-percentage
bridge because I would otherwise expect to lose, all that's changed is
that I need to hope the swings move even more in favour than against
me.
> doug
>
>
>
> > could be interpreted two ways:
> > - The 6D bidder had been bidding so wildly that he thought even 6D
> > would be lucky to make
> > - Partner was in on the cheat
> > Personally, I find only the first credible
>
> > To report the hand to the recorder seems entirely proper, however this
> > should have been a private action - how did this matter become
> > public ?
>
> > Dave Flower- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -