I Believe in Miracles

 

Hot Chocolate – I Believe in Miracles

 

Ray Lee wrote under the title Shades of Gray:

 

I’ve stolen the title for this blog from a forthcoming MPP book, which just happens to be a novel revolving around cheating at bridge, the difficulty of proving it, and the conundrum of what to do with the culprit(s) when it is finally proven.  I wanted to comment on an incident in the New Orleans Spingold, which has already been the subject of much discussion and controversy on various bridge forums.

First, the deal in question:

You are playing the round of 64 in the Spingold against a much higher seed.  You start the second quarter about 40 behind, and this board comes up early on:

♠ –  ♥ A x x  ♦ A Q x x   ♣ A K Q 7 x x

You are red against white, and RHO opens 3♠. Your call.

No, this isn’t a quiz; that was just to give you a moment or two to think about how you might proceed.  What happened at the table was the holder of this hand, Howard Piltch (a professional player but not a top-ranked expert), bid 6♦.  This was a dramatic winner when dummy hit with essentially king fourth of diamonds and out and both minors behaved well.

There’s a lot of to-ing and fro-ing on the forums, but let me try to distil it at least into what is undisputed in terms of further facts.

1) At no stage did Mr. Piltch claim that his bid had been a mechanical error or some other kind of accident.  His partner claims it was a ‘state of the match’ attempt to generate a swing.

2) The boards were dealt at the table, apparently with all four players present.  Mr. Piltch made only one board of the eight, which he remembers as being Board 8 (not the one in question).

3) The director was consulted at some stage by the opposing team, but did not change the table result.  The opposing team did not lodge an appeal (they won the match by more than 100 IMPs) but did express an intent to pursue the matter in a Conduct and Ethics hearing.

This, you will I’m sure recognize, leaves many questions unasked and a great deal of information ungathered, which makes the whole ‘Was he or wasn’t he?’ discussion somewhat academic.  So I’m not going to go into that at all.  However, there are some possibly new points that are perhaps worth making here.

First, since this was a dealt board, and had not yet been played at the other table, presumably the only direct cheating method available would be introducing a stacked deck.  Lest you feel this is unlikely, let me mention that there have been at least two well-proven cases of deck-substitution in the Toronto area alone.  One of the perpetrators, after being banned, later showed up playing on OkBridge – using two different user accounts and playing in partnership with himself, incognito, to improve his rating. Once a cheater…

Second, how much evidence is required to convict a player of cheating?  This is where bridge courts separate from real life.  Alan Truscott (in The Great Bridge Scandal) remarks that it’s very difficult to prove cheating from hand records, but that it is possible to prove the reverse.  Terence Reese, in his apologia Story of an Accusation, understandably argues that the hands tell the tale in either event.  Reese was of course famously acquitted after a judicial hearing presided over by a non-bridge-player, who applied the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard to the case.  Allan Falk, an expert bridge player and also a prominent Michigan attorney, wrote a fascinating essay for the MPP edition of TGBS, in which he points out that nowhere except in criminal courts is this standard applied.  Elsewhere, in both sports tribunals and real life (and O.J. Simpson’s first two trials are a well-known example), the test is ‘preponderance of the evidence’.  So too it is (or should be) with bridge.

Third, and perhaps most interestingly, is the issue of whether Mr. Pitch’s past record should have any bearing upon people’s willingness to believe him guilty of some kind of wrongdoing in this instance.  The question of prior record is another where we needs must part company with criminal procedure.  The previous convictions of the accused are not revealed in court until a conviction has been recorded, and are taken into consideration only for the purposes of sentencing.  However, in bridge, one instance alone is rarely enough to convict.

Arthur Clarke once wrote that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.  So when the disparity in ability between players is great enough, the lesser mortals will find it difficult to understand how the experts get to the right spot, and make brilliant leads and plays, apparently ‘seeing through the backs of the cards’.  Eventually the experts may even be suspected of cheating.  ‘Strange’ bids too can attract accusations, yet bidding is far from an exact science (look at any magazine bidding panel, and you’ll see 30-odd experts all arguing vehemently that five different bids are each the only correct action).  So much is ‘style’, or even table feel.  It is when actions deemed ‘unusual’ work out a high percentage of the time, or when a player finds the brilliant lead on just too many occasions, that antennae start to quiver – and when probably something is indeed going on. Any single occurrence may mean nothing – a lucky guess, an opponent flashing his hand, a flight of fancy that happened to work, or some such.  It is the multiple, as these incidents repeat themselves, which begins to make the case – and since we so often play against different opponents, it takes a while for anyone to notice.

Thus we have the ‘Recorder’ system, and the ability to look at a player’s track record of unexplained incidents, a record that taken as a whole may add up to an unappetizing picture.  As one forum poster put it, “If I were a judge in a bridge matter and the facts as presented came before me to make a ruling without revealing the identity of the 6♦ bidder, I would be highly doubtful that there could be any innocent explanation of the events that unfolded.  And, if I was told that the person who bid 6♦ on this hand was the person who is being discussed above, that would end all doubt for me.”

In the words of Ian Fleming, ‘Once is happenstance; twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action.’

____________________________________________________________________________________

Cam French (wrote) August 16th, 2010 at 7:56 pm

Ray,

A fascinating synopsis.

I recall a famous hand where Sidney Lazard (I think) made an identical call (6D) with a like disparity in the minors but could infer from the auction that partner probably had diamonds. See:

Cam French » Blog Archive » Eye in the Sky.htm.

I know Kehela and others recalled the hand, as it developed its own legendary status.

I have met Howard but I don’t know him personally. One thing wasn’t clear to me from your posting. You suggest previous incidents, and if that is the case, IMHO yes, they should be showcased for all to see. As Falk stated, “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a criminal threshold, the League and sanctioning organizations should have their own.

For example a C&E committee, unlike a jury need not be unanimous.

Does Howard or his partner have some prior conviction?

Is that relevant? (Yes) You raised it, I can only ASSume (at my own risk I guess) that you had a damn good reason for doing so.

The state of the match and as you said, even prior or subsequent actions should be looked at. If he was up by 40 against a “superior” team, we would look askance. Down by 40 to a superior opponent certainly adds fuel to his position.

I don’t think I for one will be drilling Meckwell by playing down the middle. They will do that and let me drill myself. Such is the nature of the beast.

The clear inference was that Howard had been convicted (or accused?) of some cheating in the past and thus this is evidence of more of the same. Is that the case?

I think in this case, the action is certainly swingy, when given the problem I thought I would double and convert (the likely heart bid from partner) to clubs, presumably at the five level. 6D is wild, but hardly evidence of cheating. Given the opening 3S bid partner is marked with some distributional shape. The question is could be 3-7-1-2 or the like? The answer is of course yes, and why would you convert with that?

He bid wildly, bought well. Coincidence or crime – you tell me. I feel the history here is of utmost importance. If we were talking bigger names (say Zia or Moss renowned for their off-beat bidding) no one would give it a second thought. Their record of standing tells us what we need to know.

I think we all want cheaters and their benefactors outed and sanctioned. Not sure the glove fits here.

Perhaps someone can find the Lazard hand. Perhaps we can hear from experts, or committee members. And I think we all deserve to know any past history, including one of like wildness under analogous circumstances.

Like Rixi, I rarely find myself down at the half to an allegedly “superior” team. On the rare occasion when that should occur, I confess to swinging, some said wildly. Is there any other way?

Great story.

C

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

For some strange reason my above comment posted on 8/16 (the twelfth in queue) after Ray’s original only five days earlier somehow quashed further discussion of Ray’s posting and the questions we all raised. What happened to the dialogue? MIA.

Here are two points of query.

Does Howard or his partner have some prior conviction?  Is that relevant? (Yes) You raised it, I can only ASSume (at my own risk I guess) that you had a damn good reason for doing so.

Third and perhaps most interestingly, is the issue of whether Mr. Pitch’s past record should have any bearing upon people’s willingness to believe him guilty of some kind of wrongdoing in this instance.  The question of prior record is another where we needs must part company with criminal procedure.  The previous convictions of the accused are not revealed in court until a conviction has been recorded, and are taken into consideration only for the purposes of sentencing. Have a couple more observations about this hand.

Like the forbidden fruit, no one wants to go there.

Will Howard have his attorney on speed dial should anyone hint at impropriety? Certainly Ray’s story raises more questions (and deservedly so) than it answers. If the opposing team brought it to the attention of the director (and they did), then certainly there is a whiff in air. I recall one incident in The Lone Wolff (thanks to a prompt from one in the know) that painted Howard in less than a flattering light when it came to ethics. That’s a little smoke. Where’s the fire? Is there any?

I don’t pretend to know but the other thing I find so interesting about this is the lack of comment from within the expert realm.

Is this the dog that did not bark in the night? Yes, and with good cause.

It is well-known (or presumed/assumed) within the elite that Howard tilts one way or the other? I suspect so, but I have no proof to validate that.

In the words of Ian Fleming, ‘Once is happenstance; twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action.’

So is this happenstance, coincidence or enemy action? The reader can only wonder as so many allegations remain unaddressed, merely hinted at.

I also know from insider reports that Howard is engaging and controversial, and by that I mean he can be charming and can alienate a certain constituency with his abrasiveness. So he rubs some the wrong way. So what?  As someone who can be as soothing as sandpaper on an open wound, that doesn’t bother me. It would trouble me to know there were prior bad acts or other tangible evidence withheld that would allow the reader fuller information before making an informed call.

Where are the experts on this? Is this issue toxic waste? (Yes) Only Bud Hinkey (Howard’s partner) and Bobby Wolff weighed in apart from the usual suspects and staffers. What does that say? Does this have the wafting stench of a garbage truck or is it just a lucky shot – an inside the park home run? The truth is precious few (and I am not one of the chosen in this case) have the requisite intimacy with this incident to comment with first-hand knowledge. But certainly there are a lot of experts who have encountered Howard on many occasions and thus have insight to offer.

One thing I have discovered, like Woodward and Bernstein in All the President’s Men is that there are many more people who are willing to speak off the record and precious few willing to speak on the record. One of my best friends told me Sion confessed “it was the money – honey” and my friend was (sadly) unwilling to go on the record.

As Collateral Damage (or probably any controversial story) would never be written without insider knowledge- with the assistance of those who have a compelling reason to be off the record- I guess unidentified contributors are a necessary evil. I recall Ben Bradlee (in All the President’s Men) decrying – “when the hell is someone going to go on the record on this story?” He was justifiably angered at knowing the sordid truth, but lacking the public accreditation to proclaim as much.  

I submit the expert community knows a lot; certainly more than they are offering in the public domain – not just about this case, but about many others. As with the Blue team, certainly many (Sheinwold, Stone, ERM to name but a few) held strong suspicions. But no one stepped up to perform the necessary due diligence to prove it. Today due to legal/insurance reasons, sponsorships, alliances, friendships, discretion (it is the better part of valour) or just plain cowardice, few want to see their names in print tethered to a problematic story. And really – who can blame them? I don’t. Unlike diamonds and just like divorce (believe me, I know) – getting involved in such tarnished incidents is the gift that keeps on taking. As Cokin said to me through a third party – and he was right – “what is the upside?” There is none, so why speak out and risk the inevitable slagging into the sewer?

The only reason Kenny Gee, Ken Warren, or Wayne Timms (I cite fellow Canadians) or anyone was convicted of cheating was because someone stepped up to the plate. Sometimes that was a player, (typically expert), sometimes a director, and at least in one of the above cases, a partner. Who wants to face Doc Halliday in the 9th inning with a no hitter in progress? Not me. “No upside.”

Cheating (and I am not weighing in on this Howard case because I lack the requisite knowledge to give a sound opinion) must be outed. If our experts can’t lead the way, be that by vindicating people and incidents like this one, or adding to the archive of evidence – either way, experts need to show the way. As Sontag noted “the expert’s antennae quivers.” The rest of us are left guessing at how tainted the game really is.

Predictions – always precarious but I predict precious few weigh in on this to add insight into this case. A few might say I have the right idea, or a dog with a bone, or like peripheral comments. Precious and few will be those who talk the talk, name names, times, dates, and share their inner thoughts on the record. Wanna bet? That is a shame as I think Ray raised several interesting points which merit exploration.

I sincerely hope that those in the know will share their perspectives in a forthcoming fashion. But we all know cheating is the bastard child that just won’t go away. And we don’t want to talk about it, for all the obvious reasons. The trouble is until we face it, deal with it meaningfully and harshly, engage the experts and rank and file – then we allow a few to despoil our game. This game belongs to us and I for one hold those in contempt who corrupt the game we love.

I hope Howard, his partner; their opponents and the expert community come forth to shed light on their unique perspective of this hand. Not holding my breath – nor should anyone.

 But hey – I believe in miracles.

 

C

To the bridge community, if you wish to communicate on this forum, please do. If you prefer the privacy of off the record; email, phone or other, I can be reached at:

c.jfrench@rogers.com