McBruce

I think the best course of action is to look for a better Internet connection. Failing that as a possibility, you'll have to confine yourself to setting up games with other players whose connections are unreliable.

Trouble is that the decisions of TDs and Appeal Committees on what constitutes "taking advantage" are very inconsistent. One thing that is clear from reading the decisions on UI cases are that the mindset of the player who has to decide what he is allowed by L73C to do is biased by his self-interest in a good result. Because of this, I don't think it is fair for anyone to criticize someone who bids what he figures he would have bid without the UI as unethical. Usually it is not an ethical lapse, but a mistake in judgment. In this case, I have asked several players what they would do without giving them the UI aspect and the majority opinion is 2♥, with a small minority view being pass. Pass may or may not be a logical alternative, depending on the criteria used. When it's this close, I think we have to allow the player in the UI situation some lenience: roll the score back if the TD or AC so judges, but don't draw the conclusion that the player has broken L73C or acted unethically. He did his best in a difficult and borderline situation, and he didn't create the UI in the first place: why hit on him? Whenever I adjust or consider adjusting a score based on L73C in a borderline situation, I tell the players (and the AC if one results) that there is no infraction of ethics. And if the non-offending side tries to insinuate that there was, I warn severely and penalize if necessary. The intimidation that some non-offending sides exhibit in these cases is far worse than the breach of L73C that they seize upon.

I think that presenting the hand without UI (unauthorized information) is a fine procedure in many situations where one needs to determine whether there is a logical alternative, but not this one. Where is the UI? There was no hesitation, no comment, no peeking, no evidence to suggest either player had a prior view of the deal. Of course when you give the hand to others they will do different things--we have already established that the auction is unusual! But that is no lawful reason for adjusting the score when there is no UI. Deciding whether there is a LA only happens when there is UI. A TD cannot assume the presence of UI because there is a single unusual result. What we do have is the information that N-S won the tournament and refused to justify their actions with the TD when asked. Because it is generally agreed that online bridge is easier to cheat in and because this result--in conjuction with the ignoring of the TD--is suspicious, the only thing a TD can do is to check the other results of this pair and DQ them if there are other equally suspicious auctions. I think BBO gives you about a half hour to do this before the scores are finalized and no further corrections can be made, which means you can look at maybe 6-8 boards closely: so get online and pick the best 8 scores of this pair--that is where you will find unusual actions from both players that work. But, remember, the standard is high here. To adjust scores you need to be very sure that actions from both players in the same auction or defence are quite unusual. By deciding to perform this check you set up a natural bias which urges you to overstate these types of coincidences. If you are unfamiliar with their bidding system, you could assume cheating where none exists. If you do find obvious evidence of repeated suspicious coincidences, change those boards to A+A-, report the pair and the deals to abuse, and keep them out of your games in future. I check the winners scores in every Alphabet Point tournament I run. Not once in 62 tournaments have I even come close to wanting to DQ the leader, but these are indys so there is less likelyhood of doublesided partnership action. What I quite often see is that a player wins a 24 table indy by being an innocent bystander while the opponents go whacko on about a third of the boards, and playing sound bridge on the others.

So far in my investigations, without the UI: --four players have chosen 2♥, only one listing pass as an alternative --one player has passed At this point pass is a LA but it is close and probably more input would be needed.

Well done mycroft! (I missed L27B3 somehow in my response.) Barring East does solve most of the potential problems right away! I'll be watching for this one in future. As for the 2♥ bid being clearly based on UI, I disagree. High cards have to be somewhere here and leaving partner to play 2♦ opposite a singleton when you have two five card suits is not unreasonable. Once again I suggest that TDs keep an open mind and try to get evidence that there is one or more logical alternative before deciding. The one player I have given the hand to said he would bid 2♥ and not consider anything else. Also, I should repeat my opinion that giving a PP for using UI has to be a situation where the offender is virtually certain to know that he was taking advantage AND ignoring a logical alternative in favour of the bid that would certainly gain. Here there is some reason to bid 2♥ in a clean auction. It is not unethical for the East player to bid 2♥ if he honestly feels he is not taking advantage of UI--even if a TD or AC later disagree. As for the adjustment, I don't much care what South would have done absent the illegal 2♥ bid (if found as such). We simply give N-S the most favourable result likely, and E-W the most unfavourable result that was at all possible. To me that is still 140.

Real good TD problem! It seems clear to me that when a player with a bidding card in his hand about to hit the table makes some sort of ejaculatory statement ("oh!" or worse...) it means that the player was about to make that bid but has noticed something in the earlier auction that was missed before. Here it is abundantly clear that the player intended to open 1♦, thinking that RHO had passed. Given the facts that the original poster describes, I can't see any other way of interpreting it, and I would be quite wary of a claim that something else was happening. So 1♦ is the bid, it is insufficient, LHO of 1♦ can accept the call. The substituted double is cancelled and is UI to East--and I would carefully explain that even to a beginner. (I usually use the analogy of court testimony stricken from the record.) Assuming the 1♦ bid is not accepted, the auction continues as reported and South plays 2♠. LAW 16 UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. A. Extraneous Information from Partner After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. 1. When Such Information Is Given When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may, unless the regulations of the sponsoring organization prohibit, immediately announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed). {...} C. Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays A call or play may be withdrawn, and another substituted, either by a non-offending side after an opponent's infraction or by an offending side to rectify an infraction. 1. Non-offending Side For the non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents'. 2. Offending Side For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information. South is entitled to assume that East has not broken L16A1 and/or L16C2 to make the 2♥ call--he should have a hand which would clearly bid 2♥ without the UI conveyed by the illegally substituted double. Law 16C1 allows South to make this assumption. Therefore, at the end of the deal he should call the TD back and ask for a ruling on the legality of the 2♥ bid. If I were the TD my first decision would be to note that this is a close call. I would certainly not decide this at the table. I would tell the players to continue and that I would return with a ruling later. "Score it as played for now." The TD, even in a club game should determine whether East had a logical alternative to 2♥. The method that one of North America's finest Directors suggests is for the TD to write the East hand and the auction (without the UI) on a slip of paper and find out what several other players of similar calibre might bid, by asking privately. You can usually do this during the game by checking players' scoresheets to make sure they have already played the deal, or perhaps are not scheduled to play the deal in the event. I believe that the general standard to establish a logical alternative is that one player in four would consider some specific other bid. If you poll eight players and five are sure they would bid 2♥ and the other three choose pass, 2NT and 3♣, there is no LA. The important point is that we are not going to adjust the score based on South reading the wrong cards into East's hand. We are going to adjust the score if we determine that East had a logical alternative. If we decide to do so, we adjust as directed in Law 12C2: When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing. I make this 140 both ways but this is a judgment call. By the way, if I do adjust the score in this case, I do NOT give a procedural penalty to E-W. I think this is very close to being a reasonable 2♥ call and if I rule against E-W I am certainly going to assure them that it was in no way unethical for East to bid 2♥. If East held five small clubs then I would have a problem: a 2♥ bid with a zero count is clearly taking advantage of UI. Oddly enough, knowing the behavior patterns of players as I do after TDing in a club for a year or so, I would expect to give N-S a penalty more often! Many players (and certainly NOT the original poster from his comments) seem to feel that they are entitled to see their opponents get hit with a bad score or a PP when they break L16A1--and a select few will complain when it doesn't happen. To maintain order, you have to warn and then, if necessary, penalize, when this type of behavior occurs. It's not fair to expect a player to automatically fall on his sword in a UI situation. As long as the player makes an effort to ignore the UI, there is no need for a PP.

Assuming standardish methods, what response was South afraid of? 1♣ - 1♦ - 2♦ 1♣ - 1♥ - 2♥ 1♣ - 1♠ - 1NT or maybe 2♣ if you prefer 1♣ - 1NT - 2NT Am I missing something here? None of these rebids are the type that would scare me too much. hrothgar, from your learned commentary elsewhere on these forums, I'm sure the South player informed the opponents that your agreements were that 1NT might contain a singleton in a hand with potential awkward rebids. Perhaps that led to the speculative lead by West!

I have found that bridge players are usually quite good at distinguishing between behaviour that is colourful and behaviour that is unquestionably unacceptable. Seldom do players press a ZT complaint that is questionable. Many Units including ours had our fits with the ZT policy to get it implemented. Most of the detractors felt that they would be at risk of paying penalties to players not because of something they said, but because personalities and old grudges would be involved. I can report that we have had zero ZT penalties or expulsions since we adopted a modified ZT. The main modification was that we added the option of escaping with a sincere apology for minor offenses: the original ZT forces the TD to penalize (not that all of them do) when there is bad behavior. The chaos predicted by the detractors simply has not materialized at all, let alone in the avalanche of TD calls predicted when we fought to get ZT into our policies.

I can't wait for the first Committee: "When East led to trick seven, an iPod Pico was found attached to the led card. An examination of the card revealed the the device was playing a track called _Defense and Signals_. When the device's volume was turned to maximum by the Director, East went into convulsions the likes of which nobody has seen since the original Star Trek..." :)

iPod/iTunes -- which for me means any of a number of playlists in my music library, anything from Mozart to Borodin to Gershwin to Brubeck to Steely Dan to Spyro Gyra to Paul Simon to James Taylor to Caribbean Jazz Project to ...

I think robbed is too strong here. Certainly the decision is wrong. The problem is that I doubt the TD knows this. Robbed to me would have connotations of deliberate bias against one pair. A TD making a mistake through ignorance is just unfortunate.

mikestar: first of all, i know it wasn't *you* who made the original ruling, but you did state what you'd do if you *had* made it and if luis then made the statement he made... that's a hypothetical, and i just continued it... it wasn't "blind" at all... 2nd of all, if you were that TD, continuing the hypothetical, and you made the statements luis reported ("i don't know where it is but i'm sure it's against the rules") you *should* be called to task TDs--some more than others--make faulty rulings. Virtually all of them are correctable and there are proper ways to go about doing so which do not include facetious and sarcastic public statements. The point I am trying to make is that the faulty ruling does not condone the sarcasm--one does not excuse the other, ever. It's the same principle as the one I make at the start of every online individual I run: a poor bid or play by your partner resulting in a bad score does not give you the 'right' to get even with hurtful comments. A lot of bridge players would be better off learning and following this principle than learning a new convention. maybe he [Luis] was [trying to show up the TD], i don't know... you'd agree that to think so would be subjective, i'm sure... as for humiliating the TD, bullshit... the TD humiliated *luis* by in effect leaving open the possibility that he and his partner were cheating... that's what pisses me off the most, and you worry about humiliating the poor TD... Of course the TD didn't handle this very well. Neither did Luis. He had many other options available--discussion later, a polite request to find the Law before continuing, a request for the TD to review his ruling as play continued, anything civil like that probably would have gotten the result wanted. I don't believe that he took the statement 'play bidding cards as the other players do' and seriously interpreted that as a bizarre prohibition from opening 1♣. You are excusing his actions to an extreme extent if you believe his comments could be interpreted 'subjectively' as innocent. Once again, you need to reread. Go back to the first post and you will find that there was no mention of possible cheating made. The opponent who called simply said that he thought playing the cards that way was against the rules. Nobody accused anyone of cheating; nobody implied it. If Luis thought there was an implication of cheating, he should have said so at the time. As for the Law that nobody can find, it is not exactly hidden: LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE A. Proper Attitude [...] 3. Conformity to Correct Procedure Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing. It's a bit of a stretch--but not totally contrary to Law--to decide that the word 'uniform' means no deviation from the normal manner of making bid-box calls; thus, no plucking. Maybe the Laws or the SO regs need some clarification here to allow players to use one method for screens and another for non-screens.

1. Disciplinary penalties are not subject to appeal. Law 91A. 2. Appeal Committees don't say anything publicly except the decision and how it was reached. 3. I stated earlier that I would not have handled the situation the way the TD did, yet you indicate it was me who made the ruling. I think you need to reread this thread before criticizing my comments blind. I think a lot of bridge players need to rethink their attitudes when a TD gets a call wrong. The correct way to proceed is to play on and make a note to discuss it with the TD, or with the Club Manager or D-I-C later. The wrong way is to humiliate the TD into realizing the ruling was wrong. I do not believe Luis was 'simply seeking to conform to a verbatim statement.' His question was rhetorical--he was trying to show up the TD. It's possible he made a lighthearted joke out of it, but it didn't read like one. His comment violated L74A1, L74A2, L74B2, L74B5, L74C4, and probably (since he indicated he would open something other than 1♣ if that was disallowed) another half dozen Laws concerning unauthorized information. An appeal on whether it is legal to pluck bid-box cards is unrealistic (which is a nicer word than the one I originally typed). Whatever way the AC rules, the score is not going to change. It is even debatable whether an AC can be called, since the dispute concerns only Laws and regulations (L93B1). Even if the AC is called, in situations where an appeal without merit can be costly, the appealing side is going to be getting out their wallets before the testimony is over: "OK, we've heard what happened. So what score adjustment are you seeking?" "None." "None? Get out your wallet."

The TDs decision may be wrong here. But I would CERTAINLY give you a disciplinary penalty (at least 3 IMPs, perhaps more) for making a comment like that. I'm afraid I'm seeing a lot of "we got robbed, so we're going to misbehave" in some of your later comments here, Luis. You need to understand that this is unacceptable behavior on your part, and the TDs earlier decision is not an excuse. I used to look at all 13 of my unsorted cards and then one by one place them face down on the table in a single pile, in the right-to-left order I wanted to see them when sorted, instead of the more normal method of moving them about in my hand. I have done this so often that it is a reflex now and I spend less time sorting that most. I put the cards on the pile starting usually with low diamonds (low clubs if I have a red suit void) and ending with high spades. Pick the pile up--sorted! A very good player once called the TD. The TD asked nicely if I could refrain from sorting my way. I decided to make the single pile on my chest instead of on the table, and the opponent may have noticed this but decided not to call the TD again. (Since then I have made it easier by growing a fair-sized gut to help me!) Anyhow, the player came up to me after the game and apologized -- and in the several years since the incident has done some very kind things for me. I could have fought it. I could have demanded that the TD show me a Law that forbade my sort method. But it was so simple to conform--and I really was more distracting (and a bit slower) when the pile of sorted cards went on the table. I bet if you nicely ask Bocchi or Ferguson or any other pro to play bidding cards in the normal fashion because the plucking method is distracting, they would comply and not carp about it.

People pull one card from the box because they get in the habit when playing in events that use screens. In such an event, one needs to place the card on a tray that can be slid under the screen, and the opening during the auction is quite small -- a stack of cards may not fit, or worse, slide off as the tray is moved. I think that when a TD is not sure what to rule in a case like this, you will have better luck explaining that partner ALWAYS does it this way -- that is the key point. Claiming that it is legal because Bocchi does it is not likely to sway a club TD who may not know who Bocchi is. I think a better decision as TD would be to let the player use the bid-box as he likes, as long as he is consistent. Cheating should never be publicly implied, and this TDs ruling does suggest some untoward suspicion. We do however, insist on some conformity in bridge: few places will allow players to post-mortem in another language with cards from the next deal in their hands, for example. It really isn't that difficult to conform here, and since most of us play at least 98% of the time without screens, there seems no reason to introduce into your game an unusual action that raises questions. Your partner has to stop himself from self-alerting when playing without them, so taking clumps instead of plucking singles is just another non-screen adjustment he has to make. A point in favour of the TD: clubs and tournament organizers spend serious money on bid-box cards and a 'plucker' is going to add slightly more wear to the cards when he puts them back. If everyone were to do it this way, bid-box cards would need to be replaced more often, and we would pay more in entry fees as a result.

From the comments by zasanya I infer that, unlike many emergency TDs he* seems to have prepared himself well. Not only did he make two correct rulings, he didn't mention any problem with the movement or the scoring so we can infer that that too went without a hitch. Nice job! In the second hand, if the finesse was on I would ask myself where a normal auction for this pair would have ended, and based on the limited evidence available would probably have rolled it back to 6♠+1. West has unauthorized information from the hesitation before East's 2♠ rebid and especially from the explanation of his own 1♠ as non-forcing. I strongly suspect that West has chosen to rebid 7♠ based at least partly because of West's explanation that 1♠ is not forcing. That's not allowed, the explanation of the bid is UI. I must disagree with kenberg's idea that since the auction is suspicious we bend the rules to make it difficult for this pair. That's not bridge, that's bias. The way to educate this pair to meet their legal requirements is to penalize them when the Laws say so and educate them with warnings, procedural or disciplinary penalties when they are out of bounds but no adjustment is called for. * forgive me if I have inferred too much and used the wrong pronoun!

My opinion is that there has to be some point where PP-warning becomes PP-loss of matchpoints or IMPs. If the N-S pair in question here went to the next table and began 1♥ pass 2NT no alert, I'm gonna dock them a quarter board, because obviously they don't listen to warnings. BBO does not allow this, and that is both a shame and quite against the Laws. In a FTF team game I was called to the table because a player as dummy would not sort his cards on the table, placing them deliberately as 4Q825 6T2 7A3 2K or something like that. I instructed the player to please sort them as a courtesy to the others and he refused and went into the parking lot. I had a kibitzer sort the cards and arranged that the kibitzer do so every time the player became dummy. Now, if that is all you would do as TD, I don't think it is enough. I informed both tables in the match that when they did their IMP comparisons, the score would begin 3-nil for the side that contained Mr. I Won't Sort. A later query to David Stevenson elicited the opinion that I was lenient by about 9 IMPs. However, in more than a year of offline directing that is the only time I have ever given a PP or DP that amounted to actual matchpoints or IMPs. The real problem is that when a warning and/or education is called for, most online TDs shrug it off and move on. Even when there is no damage this time, the offending side needs to be made aware that in other circumstances their infraction may cost them.

I'm a bad director because I penalize people when they don't follow the rules? Don't forget a PP is most often simply a warning. It is the lack of any such warnings or adjustments when appropriate from most TDs that encourages the practice of not alerting.

They called at the end of the hand, huh? Not during, or when dummy first appeared--at the end of the hand, after the result was clear. The E-W pair made an opening lead, saw a dummy that had never bid spades but had 4 to the A-K, and this was not a surprise. This is what I call evidence. In the absence of being allowed to give PP and DP, I would have to content myself with telling E-W that they have a better chance of having their score adjusted to 6♠ REdoubled than anything they are hoping for. N-S should of course get the standard warning that unalerted artificial bids are going to cost them some matchpoints someday. Currently that is all that can be done. Would players improve their alerting if they got a PP whenever they failed to alert? I think they would.

Thanks Uday! Interesting: I thought the Epimenedes Paradox was the statement "I always lie" but I see that this is a bit of a reduction! Anyhow, I should add that I have generally found that when a TD receives a complaint that a public comment has been made from hothead to victim which is unquestionably unacceptable, this is the best way to deal with it: (My tourneys are one board per round indys, so we seem to have more than our share of people trying to get insults in before they move on, despite my repeated announcements that this is going to be dealt with harshly. Of course, the vast majority of players accept the extra Brownian motion that indys inevitably provide.) First you find out the names of the four players at the table. Now you privately ask the other two players if there was a rude comment made. Often, if you make announcements asking that bad behavior be reported, as I do, you will hear about it from one of the other players, not the victim, so you have one confirmation already. In that case you ask the victim and the other player. Sometimes (check flags) you might not be able to get a confirmation due to language barriers. If the comment had two possible meanings, or could have been taken several different ways, or was in the midst of some joking, here you will usually find out about it. But if you have determined that there was a comment made that is out of bounds, the next step is to confront the player who made the comment. I usually send a private message like "I have several confirmations that you made a very rude comment to player x. Is this true?" Go to the table--if the player is trying to make a slam on a squeeze he should get some time before responding. You will usually get one of these types of responses: 1) No response after some time. "This is the Tournament Director. I asked you a question about a comment made. Please respond." If there is no response now, treat it as #3: 2) Denial. Remind the player that you have confirmation from two or more sources and see if the player changes the plea. If so, it's a #3: next paragraph. If not, up to you who to believe, but I would be careful here. A lot would depend on the specifics of the accusation: if the actual phrase was consistent between the two or three sources then that weighs heavily against the accused; but if they all made a more general complaint without any agreement on what exactly was said you might just warn the player. 3) Yes, but I had an excuse. There is no excuse for this; don't listen to excuses. My response here is usually to place the player in the lobby, although if more than three tricks into the play I will delay until the result of the deal is clear. On occasion, when the confirmed and admitted offense is really outlandish (I actually once had a player admit to me that he told his partner publicly to 'gvdl zpv' -- transposed forward one letter -- and then tried to justify this!) I suggest that you let the player continue playing until the last or second last board, watching for further infractions: and then give out the red card. Cruel, but does someone like this deserve better? 4) Yes, and I am very sorry, but this is what partner did... No dice. This is a #3. 5) Yes, sorry TD, I shouldn't have done it and I make no excuses. This we can work with. If the offense is really bad I will still expel but I may make it a temporary ban. If the offense is bad but not in Ozzie Osbourne's league I will accept this and give a very stern warning. When you get a 'number three' and you have to expel, expect the player to kvetch from the lobby. Send one private message: "You have been expelled for unacceptable behavior. Further argument will be reported to abuse." If the player continues to kvetch, ignore. Go back to the tourney and report the player to abuse later. When you have not got enough evidence to expel, make sure you tell the original complainer. Remind that person that they can contact abuse and copy their chat log and BBO will investigate. In the few times that this has occurred, nobody has ever denied faced with evidence that the TD has actually talked to multiple people and confirmed the incident. A few have pretended not to hear or understand, but they generally recover their English skills very quickly when they find themselves in the lobby.... Here's a thought: if a person contacts abuse and says "the TD investigated but found insufficient evidence," can the TD be informed if BBO's investigation finds sufficient evidence?

There are privacy issues with use of chat copying: Suppose a TD asks for a copy of the chat logs from one of the players to confirm a rude comment. The TD is essentially trusting that player not to alter the log in any way. Now suppose the player agrees to do so but finds in his chat log that at the time he was talking in private to the other opponent and discussing something other than bridge that (let us say) wouldn't be allowed on NBC. B) Obviously, this player is going to edit out those comments before sending them to the TD. And since this is easily done, the player accused is going to argue that there is no proof if the evidence can be tampered with. If we allow the software to pick up chat, including private chat, we are going to face these potential problems, since now the player's NBC-raw comments are going to be lifted from him and given to someone else. If you adjust the software to only make the public chat available to the TD, you allow hotheads free reign in ripping their opponents in private chat. It's an Epimenedes paradox.

There is, however, a major problem here if an auction can go like this: 1♣ alerted Pass 1♦ not alerted Pass 1♥ Pass 1♠ End If dummy does not somehow get the information that 1♦ was not self-alerted, he cannot do what dummies are expected to do in offline bridge: "Uh, before you lead, there was a failure to alert 1♦" Isn't this a major problem?

I don't think the language barrier is the problem here. It seems clear to me that the three most important things for the opponents to know about this 1♣ bid are: --artificial, does NOT promise clubs --it is unlimited --it shows four or more hearts. All three are muddled in the explanation, so much so that I am actually uncertain of the first two: for all I know it may be 12-18 and it may in fact show clubs and hearts, which opener held on this deal. The failure to alert 1♦ in a timely fashion adds fuel to the fire. When you play a convention you have the obligation to ensure that opponents are aware. It's not sufficient to give an minimal explanation that might be misinterpreted. I guess we need Fred's FD program here, in a multi-lingual version.

How surprising that nobody invoked what I like to call Law Zero, which precedes Law 1 in the book: Scope of The Laws The Laws are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty graciously, or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament Director. The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage. Thus, unless there is a penalty clearly spelled out in the Laws, a TD's first priority to attempt to restore equity. I'm not sure that your examples are completely on point though: (1) Failure to alert This one always should get a procedural penalty even when no damage results. Usually in that case, the PP will be only a warning. I have found that the dreaded Memphis-created word 'alertable' is not so much a detriment to the offline game due to the damage created by offenders, but because players spend way too much g.d. time debating about whether some bid which obviously caused no damage should have been alerted. I find it important to settle these petty arguments quickly, and remind players that we are here to play bridge and not to waste time. If there is damage, the TD restores equity as best he or she can. (2) Playing illegal methods/conventions When it is clear that this has happened, a result should still be obtained, but the offending side should get a maximum of A- (or whatever the SO demands in the specific case). It's never a question of damage or restoring equity. (3) Failure to have a filled out convention card In ACBL events, online and offline (with a lot of lenience at the club level) this renders any convention not on the ACBL SAYC illegal until a convention card is filled out. Back to #2. Damage/eqiuty is not an issue.

To clarify, I wouldn't mind running something like the league I described -- if I had the time. The trouble is, I do not. I do, however, think that the BBO software could eventually be modified to provide for this sort of competition. Then we wouldn't need a moderator or commissioner -- although no doubt there would need to be some method of resolving the inevitable disputes.