mrdct

What do "logical alternatives" have to do with the situation at all? "Logical alternatives" is precidely the test which needs to be applied to the 6♦ bid if, and only if, the director establishes on the balance of probabilities that the person was in possession of extraneous unauthorised information. If the 6♦ bidder was not in possession of any UI, he can do whatever he likes. If the 6♦ bidder was found to be in possession of UI (such as knowledge of partner's ♦Kxxx) the director then needs to consider what action was suggested by the UI and whether or not any alternative less successful actions (such as double or 6♣ for example) were logical alternatives. If the director finds that one of these less successful actions was a logical alternative, he adjusts the score accordingly. I would probably go a step further to say that it isn't just when an opponent "decides to show you his cards" as it is equally appropriate to take advantage of opponents accidentally showing you their cards provided that you aren't intentionally trying to look. This situation is explicitly covered by Law 74C5 (my emphasis added): Playing at the local senior citizens centre you just about need to wear blinkers against some opponents who seem to hold their cards closer to my eyes than their own. Whilst I do my best to avert my eyes and warn them to hold their cards back, if an opponent shows me their stiff King offside it is going to fall under my Ace every day of the week.

Which is precisely why I said in my earlier post:

That's good, because there isn't one.Try Law 90B2: Or Law 74B4:

With Bud having represented that "the director was not called to the table at any time following or during this board", does this mean that the consultation with the director after the segment did not involve the director quizing Justin's opponents before making his ruling (which I find almost as extraordinary as the 6♦ bid and the use of hand-dealt boards)? Does anyone know if the director ruled under L85A2 (concluded that on balance of probabilities there was no use of UI) or L85B (was unable to determine the facts)?

I was just going on Bud's account: I'm not 100% sure of what the rules are as it may be a conditions of contest matter, but I would've thought calling the director at the time of the infraction was the correct procedure.

What a load of rubbish! The definition of a claim from L68 is entirely satisfied. If a statement of "come on we've got to hurry up, partner's going to keep clubs" is not a suggestion that play be curtailed what is? Not only has he explicitly suggested that play be curtailed, but he has also stated the line of play the defence is going to take.

We shouldn't lose sight of this point. The original post was about seeking an adjustment for UI on the board and suggesting that a law change was necessary to allow for adjustments on boards like this. The problem was, nobody actually called the director so we will never know how the director might have gone about establishing the facts and determining whether or not there was a >50% chance that the 6♦ was based on UI. You do not need iron-clad proof of cheating to award an adjusted score, simply the balance of probabilities needs to be satisfied (just ask OJ Simpson). It does seem pretty silly to be complaining about inadequate laws when they weren't actually brought into play in the case at hand as there was no ruling and no appeal.

East's comment is clearly a claim. Comments like that are explicitly contemplated in Law 68A (my emphasis added): Because this claim by East depends on West finding a particular play when there are less successful alternatives (including careless and inferior plays) I believe we have to rule that West will pitch a ♣. Bridge is a game of errors and lots of errors get made at all levels. By claiming, East has denied declarer the opportunity to squeeze West's memory and induce an error which, on these sorts of hands even in a Bermuda Bowl final, occur with surprising regularity. I don't think it's a PP situation at all. East has made a genuine attempt to speed things up in a situation where it was blindingly obvious to him that his side gets one more trick. As it happens, though, upon application of the Laws his claim is faulty. Are we meant to hand out a PP everytime somebody makes a bad claim? Can anyone in this forum honestly say that they have never made a wrong pitch as a defender in four-card ending where you should've had complete count on the hand but missed a pip or a discard somewhere and couldn't quite remember?

Only 30,000 more views to beat 'We didn't vote for Bush", but closing in very fast on "German concession mid-match".

Most beginner courses also push the concept that the trump suit should be a suit in which you and your partner have a known fit.

Which laws do you think need changing? The existing laws deal with situation perfectly, the only thing is it's hard for the TD to exercise his powers under the laws if nobody calls him to the table to make a ruling. If a director has been called to the table he would be required to go through the process of establishing the facts in a disputed fact situation and determining whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, the 6♦ bid was based on extraneous UI. If the TD determines as such, he would have no option but to award an adjusted score. The hand itself would form part of the evidence, as would representations and rationalisations from the 6♦ bidder. The threshold the TD needs to get over is a 50.01% likelihood that the bid was based on extraneous UI.

How did 6♣ go on those same parameters?

As always, it's extremely useful to hear the other side of the story - so thanks for that Bud. If I have misrepresented the facts of the boxed-card incident, which was entirely based on my reading of Bobby Wolff's published account, I sincerely apolgise. A point of fact that I'm interested to hear about is whether or not the director was called at your table and, if so, what transpired?

I've edited my last post to name the player as "John Dough" but it seems a bit pointless as the player's name is well and truly on the public record. Justin's opponents from the round in question are clearly reported in the Daily Bulletin and some quick googling of the players therein will soon cast the spotlight on one player in particular. Bobby Wolff's account of an incident in a semi-final KO match at a Regional was most interesting where "John Dough" went down in a bad slam after a bidding misunderstanding and somehow a card in his hand (the ♠A) became boxed when he put his cards back in the board. Naturally, when the board got to the other table the ♠A was exposed and the TD initially decided to throw the board out and ordered a substitute board to be played instead. After some objections by John Dough's opponents, the TD changed his mind and assigned a score of game making in the other room for an 11 imp loss to John Dough's team who went on to unsuccessfully appeal the ruling and lose the match by 10 imps. Quite a curfuffle followed with disciplinary charges brought against John Dough which initially found him guilty of intentionally facing the ♠A, but with apparent friends in high places the ACBL Board of Directors sacked the National Recorder and exonerated John Dough without hearing.

I think I'd rather play against cheats than have a douche like this hanging around the club. It is still the TD's job to determine the facts at the table and make a decision about whether or not there has been an infraction (i.e. illegal use of extraneous UI). The TD should not be asked to make a finding of cheating, he should be asked to determine whether or not there is a greater that 50% chance ("balance of probabilities") that the 6♦ bid was informed by extraneous information to which John Dough was not legally privy. If and when the matter gets referred to a discipinary hearing the burden of proof become more arduous as the test there will be "preponderance of the evidence" which I think is little bit stronger. It's defined in the ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations as

So how does he do that? Does he bring a pre-rigged deck of cards with him and substitutes it by some slight of hand technique? The last time I played bridge with hand-dealt cards back in the early 90s the shuffling and dealing always took place in front of your opponents and it was incumbant upon everyone to keep an eye out to make sure that everything was kosher. I look forward to hearing how this case pans out, but it's a shame that it's probably going to all happen behind closed doors in a secretive C&E committee rather than a more publicly accountable appeals committee. I'd also be really interested to know how thoroughly the director attempted to establish the facts and what sort of questions he asked the players.

Snuck home 234-97.

I think a trump lead has some merit here. Unless partner has a rock, he really shouldn't be doubling 4♠ if we have a double-fit in the reds so I suspect declarer is going to need a few ruffs in dummy.

Nothing that I can see in the Laws would require Justin to detail precisely what the extraneous information was. All that needs to happen is Justin calls the director and suggests that the 6♦ bid may have been based on extraneous UI. The 6♦ bidder will disagree and come up with some lame explanation for his bid following which the TD is now dealing with a disputed facts situation and has no choice but to follow the procedure set out in Law 85: As the original post indicates that the TD was in fact called and did in fact rule that the table result stands, one has to assume that the TD either formed an opinion that on the balance of probabilities the 6♦ was not based on extraneous UI or was unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction (the latter being more likely I guess). That decision is, of course, appealable.

Laws 16A3 and 16A4: It is entirely reasonable to conclude that the 6♦ bid could only have been made if the bidder was in possession of "extraneous" UI and therefore the TD, if he makes such an assessment, would be able to award an adjusted score as there has been a violation of Law 16A3. Law 85A1: In a legal sense "balance of probabilities" is generally synonomous with "more likely than not" which is a much easier threshold to get over than "beyond reasonable doubt" and appears to be a test that could be satisfied in this case. If I was in Justin's shoes, I'd come right out and say "I believe the 6♦ bid was a call based on extraneous information (as there can be no other reasonable explanation for it) and ask that the TD determine the facts in accordance with Law 85A1 and adjust the score accordingly". It would be a good one to take to an appeals committee to get it on the public record.

Did the 6♦ bidder offer any explanation as to why he chose to bid his hand that way? His best bet might be to "own-up" that at the start of the hand when everyone was sorting their cards he caught an "accidental" glance at both of his opponents' hands and was able to deduce that 6♦ was the best spot based on that (albeit dubious) AI. Sure, it's a long bow - but anything else he might proffer will just sound like he cheated. Why on earth are they using hand-dealt boards in such a prestigious event? This one seems so blatant that there must just about be a presumption that the 6♦ bidder was in possession of UI. I'm not 100% on how the laws operate if there is clearly UI on the hand but nobody can pin-point what the UI actually was. Can the TD and/or appeals committee still award an adjusted score?

The Australian method is:

1. If I was called to the table as a director I would probably give the person who called me a procedural penalty for making a a ridiculous and frivilous TD call on hand where there has clearly been no infraction and thereby interfering with his opponents' enjoyment of the game and the general conduct of the event. 2. If he knew his partner's hand he surely wouldn't be bidding 7NT which required ♦3-3 or ♦J coming down doubleton and if he'd seen a hand record or overheard something from another table or player he would have produced a more sensible auction as Wayne suggested. The guy may have decided to jump to 7NT fearful of any ambiguity that might arise if he tried to ask for aces (e.g. is 4NT now quantitative or blackwood). It is matchpoints after all and maybe the state of their set is such that they are now chasing tops and bottoms. 3. If I was the person who made the 7NT bid, I might file a recorder report against you for making slanderous intimations that I'm cheating.

None of my home games are part of any formal competition or league; just friends and family who prefer to play bridge the way God intended it - with screens. For those who don't believe me, here is a photo of my family room: http://www.amontay.com/Screen.gif

Well you might be in for a shock if you visit the U.K. in the near future. Here, many league and knockout events are played at people's homes, and although plenty of gadgets that weren't available 20 years ago have now made it into many homes, bridge duplimate machines are not among them.. Home games at my house are played with screens and pre-dealt boards; although I just get the single set dealt as it would be a bit excessive for each table to have its own set of boards in a home game. Also, some of my home games are just a single table so we must use pre-dealt boards taken from another event to have a datum to score against. Fortunately, my local bridge club is happy to deal a set of boards for me gratis as it's only a few time a year, but I can't imagine it's very expensive to get a set of boards dealt on an arm's length basis as it only takes about 10 minutes to deal a set of 32 boards.