On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:47:45 -0700, rhm wrote: > On Jul 28, 9:50 pm, thg <thg0...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 28, 2:11 pm, Dave Flower <DavJFlo...@BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:
>> > 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.
> 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.
On Jul 29, 4:47 am, rhm <r...@softwareag.com> wrote:
> 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.
On Jul 29, 1:02 pm, thg <thg0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 4:47 am, rhm <r...@softwareag.com> wrote:
> > 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
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.
> > > > > Result: Slam in diamonds made in 38.7% of all deals double dummy.
> > > > How often did slam in clubs make?
> > > 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
> > 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
> 22%
> Rainer Herrmann- Hide quoted text -
> - 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.
On Jul 27, 4:49 pm, "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
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??
On Jul 27, 4:49 pm, "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
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.
rhm <r...@softwareag.com> writes: > 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?
>22%
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.
> 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??
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.
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:32:33 -0700, OldPalooka wrote: > On Jul 27, 4:49 pm, "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
> 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.
><henrysun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:7e5e5ce9-9439-4f79-8fd7-023c83accf18@m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 27, 4:49 pm, "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
>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??
>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.
I hope they at least "counsel" Mr. Lall. His comments on the Bridge Base forum are actionable.
Apocalypse) wrote: > rhm <r...@softwareag.com> writes: > > 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?
> >22%
> 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?
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
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
I feel unable to comment without the above information
> On Jul 30, 12:24 am, zo...@ninthbit.com (Lone Locust of the
> Apocalypse) wrote: > > rhm <r...@softwareag.com> writes: > > > 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?
> > >22%
> > 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?
> 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- 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 ?
> 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
> I feel unable to comment without the above information
> Dave Flower
Dave, the link to the BBO thread has already been posted here.
> > > 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 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 ?
> > > > 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
> > > > 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
> > > > 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 > 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
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!
> > > > > 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
> > > > > 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 > > 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
> 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- Hide quoted text -
> - 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!
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > > 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 > > > 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
> > 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- Hide quoted text -
> > - 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
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.
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > 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 > > > > 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
> > > 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- Hide quoted text -
> > > - 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
> 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
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.
On Jul 30, 8:54 am, rhm <r...@softwareag.com> wrote:
> 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.
> On Jul 30, 9:18 am, rhm <r...@softwareag.com> wrote: >> On Jul 30, 12:24 am, zo...@ninthbit.com (Lone Locust of the >> 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- 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.
> On Jul 30, 8:54 am, rhm <r...@softwareag.com> wrote:
> > 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
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 wrote: > 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?
> 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 ?
|
