Impossible ruling?

[jillybean]

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=sakj53hak86d6ckt8&w=sqt986h7dqt943caq&e=shqjt52daj85cj753&s=s742h943dk72c9642]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     Pass  Pass

 1♠    Dbl   Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

 

Hi,

 

West opens 1♠ 3rd position, North doubles and result is 1SX-2

 

West calls me after the board is finished and asks me to look at the pass by South.

 

N/S speak limited English, North tells me double is for take out, South doesn’t answer at all and signs off or is disconnected.

 

It is impossible (time and knowledge) to investigate any sign of cheating, it could be a bad bid or misclick by south?

 

How do you rule?

[pigpenz]

i have a firm belief that in case like this, i would take chances at doubles of minor and suits contracts below level of game...would would always say we were -180 and led the wrong suit against NT and they made ten tricks :rolleyes:

 

Sure they could have been cheating but no way you can reallly prove it, but passing is still an alternative cause the double doesnt put them into game. would most of us pass the double? Most likely not.

 

I would just leave the result as is and maybe go check the my hands records or do a bridgebrowser search for hands by this pair. And Keep their names under your hat for next time.

 

Also on the tourneys I direct I try to not allows kibbers tilleveryone is on the last board.

[epeeist]

Result stands.

 

Unless, it is your practice (which I would agree with) that refusal to answer TD questions results in an automatic negative inference. I've had other TDs do that (once, I called TD, asked for NO adjustment, just warning to opps about repeated failures to correctly explain agreed meaning of bids -- but opps refused to reply to TD, so TD gave adjustment on principle, even though I hadn't asked for it).

 

But unless failure to respond is a reason (was this the last board? failure to respond or signing off understandable then) I've had the unfortunate experience (mostly in individuals, but even in pairs) of having p pass in forcing situations. To t/o doubles or otherwise (not just in circumstances in which t/o double was converted to penalty double...some seem to have misunderstanding that they need 6 points to respond to a t/o double :rolleyes: ).

 

Here, the doubled contract would still be less than game, and south has only 3 points. I can understand that at IMP rather than matchpoint scoring, south might decide that passing is best. I would disagree, but sympathize.

 

As for north's t/o double, a bit odd but since it's the cheapest bid that (should!) force south to bid, it makes sense to me...

[rigour6]

N's bid looks fine to me, he's too strong to overcall.

 

S's pass worked out well for them in this case. He had almost no place to go, personally I'd have grit my teeth and bid 2 clubs, but no smart player would make what I would do be a guide to them. The pass might have been disastrous at MPs, but at IMPs, maybe just maybe....

[Brandal]

but passing is still an alternative cause the double doesnt put them into game.

From South's view,EW might well have 10 tricks in spadecontract.

 

Sounds like you're "rationalizing" having seen all 4 hands :)

 

Passing a T/O dbl of 1S with a king and nothing more?

 

Man there would be a lot of dbld 1-level contracts if we

thought about passing with a King or less :)

[inquiry]

It is impossible (time and knowledge) to investigate any sign of cheating, it could be a bad bid or misclick by south?

 

How do you rule?

Unless you are willing to rule that UI exist between the two partners, the result must stand. To rule UI exist, you are accusing them of cheating of course. At the very least you could consider to turn the pair into abuse for an investigation. Abuse doesn't like to get jsut one hand when reporting cheating. Better to send six or so. I would do nothing on this one, with one caveat. If this pair did VERY well in my tournment, I would turn them in. Why? The BBO is filled with a lot of bad bidders (yes, believe it or not even worse than me). But people who bid this poorly (assuming no cheating), will be rank beginners. Thus they will not be capable of winning a tourney. If they win or place high bidding like this, that is reason enough to turn them in. Add that caveat to the report to abuse should this situation exist.

[Walddk]

South got lucky, what more can you say? There is absolutely no evidence of cheating. Table result stands.

 

If it happens again? Now, that's a completely different story.

 

Roland

[Posleda]

West calls me after the board is finished and asks me to look at the pass by South.

 

N/S speak limited English, North tells me double is for take out, South doesn’t answer at all and signs off or is disconnected.

 

It is impossible (time and knowledge) to investigate any sign of cheating, it could be a bad bid or misclick by south?

 

How do you rule?

I would say to West to look at the pass by EAST. This bid could be a reason of their damage.

 

I dont like when player blames on his opps because he would not bid/play the same way on their places. If they play bad, they cant have a good result, from his point of view. Who are you, player, to state which bid is good and which bad ?

 

I dont like your support to investigate if they were cheating. No reason to do so.

 

NS bidding was good - no cheating, no bad bid, no misclick. I was in similar position during finals of a teams tournament with rather high prizes (as regards me :lol: ) some years ago. Only my points were QJ not a K. With sweat on my forehead I decided to minimize damage with pass. The bidding was the same at the other table, only our defence was better and 5 IMPs from this board were enough to win by 4 later. My partner was with 22 PC. Do you think I am a cheater or a beginner ?

 

Dusan

[han]

Ben's suggestion seems practical and correct.

[Guest Jlall]

I guess I'm flying solo. I don't think there was UI, there was a failure to alert a penalty X.

 

It wasn't penalty you say? North just happened to have one, and South just happened to pass with xxx? The comment "it was t/o" is self-serving and should be disregarded since it's clear there was some kind of agreement, explicit or implicit. If N/S wants to prove otherwise with written documentation (system notes) that is fine, but the burden is on them.

 

No evidence? Look at the hand.

[jillybean]

NS bidding was good - no cheating, no bad bid, no misclick.

Good/bad? Tthe bidding was unusual enough for me to spend time trying to talk to the players and to post the hand here for others to comment.

 

Thanks for the replies.

[Walddk]

I guess I'm flying solo. I don't think there was UI, there was a failure to alert a penalty X.

 

It wasn't penalty you say? North just happened to have one, and South just happened to pass with xxx? The comment "it was t/o" is self-serving and should be disregarded since it's clear there was some kind of agreement, explicit or implicit. If N/S wants to prove otherwise with written documentation (system notes) that is fine, but the burden is on them.

 

No evidence? Look at the hand.

I'm surprised and a little disappointed to see Justin stating, and consequently implying, that NS had an undisclosed agreement by looking at just one example. As I said earlier, I choose to believe that South got lucky when he passed.

 

I also added that it's a completely different ballgame if it happens again. One chance is no chance, so give them the benefit of the doubt. You have no evidence as to cheating. Justin's "witten documentation" is not valid here. This is a tourney at BBO, not the World Championships.

 

Roland

[Posleda]

NS bidding was good - no cheating, no bad bid, no misclick.

Good/bad? Tthe bidding was unusual enough for me to spend time trying to talk to the players and to post the hand here for others to comment.

I hate the equation unusual=suspicious when opps reach a good result. Do you want to force all people around the world to play in the manner you like ? Better play with GIBs in this case.

 

NS cards are unusual. Except of one ("I'd have grit my teeth and bid 2 clubs") none of you said what are the usual (=good, don't ?) bids.

 

What is the usual bid from N ? Is double completely out of consideration ?

 

What is the usual bid from S ? Is pass completely out of consideration ?

 

Stay in doubled contract with only 5 trumps is 100 % mistake from EW. Change the cards between N and S so that their bidding will be usual for you. EW's bidding remains bad.

 

Forfeiture of your deposit at appeal committee. Procedural penalty may be assessed for doubleshot.

 

Dusan

[Brandal]

Who are you, player, to state which bid is good and which bad ?

 

NS bidding was good - no cheating, no bad bid, no misclick.

 

Dusan

Well....you do....so why can't we?

 

;)

 

Only looking at South's hand,passing is not an option

for me,but I'm not claiming they cheat,just a feeling

there's more to the X than T/O.

 

Not having a good bid isn't good enough reason to pass

surely?

[hrothgar]

One quick suggestion:

 

Back in the day, I was lucky enough to get to pester Bobby Goldman with a bunch of questions about bidding, hestitations, and the like. I got some very good feedback. However, the most useful advice had nothing to do with "bridge". Instead, it focused on the best way to ask a question about a bridge hand.

 

If you show the entire bridge hand, you are going to bias the answers that you get. Your correspondent is going to subconciously shape their answers based on extraneous information. If you want to ask people how they would bid in the absence of a hesitation, don't tell them that there was a hesitation. If you want know how people would bid without U/I, don't tell them about the UI.

 

From my perspective, I think that any discussion of this hand needs to start by analyzing South's pass. The pass is probably not the most critical element required to reach a decision, however, the only time that you can discuss the pass sans-bias is before people see the hand.

 

Step 1: Present the South in isolation, along with the bidding: Ask people what bid that they would chose after a takeout double by North. If a substantial percentage select pass a valid call, than there is no evidence that South's pass reflects any kind of concealed partnership understanding.

 

Step 2: If "Pass" is a sufficiently a valid call, then there may be grounds for adjustment. At this point in time you can try to establish damage, look at system notes, etc. It is, of course, necessary to recall that people have a right to get lucky while they are playing "bad" bridge.

[helene_t]

Richard: the procedure is to ask some players at the same level as South. South might not be an average Forum poster.

 

So I agree with Ben. It depends how well they scored. The fact that South went red is suspicious.

 

Adjusting the score is not the same as accusing NS of cheating. South went red instead of defending his case. It's reasonable to give EW the benefit of the doubt, even if NS are most likely to be innocent.

 

FWIW, I don't think South's pass is a logical action unless he's a novice or maybe if they are playing power-doubles.

[Brandal]

Richard: the procedure is to ask some players at the same level as South. South might not be an average Forum poster.

 

So I agree with Ben. It depends how well they scored. The fact that South went red is suspicious.

 

Adjusting the score is not the same as accusing NS of cheating. South went red instead of defending his case. It's reasonable to give EW the benifit of the doubt, even if NS are most likely to be innocent.

 

FWIW, I don't think South's pass is a logical action unless he's a novice or maybe if they are playing power-doubles.

1. The pair seem to be a somewhat established partnership,

or at least have played quite a few tourneys together lately.

 

2. They happened to win the tourney,this board was in the

middle,and south disconnected before or during the last hand

when I suppose is the time when jillybean questioned about the pass.

[olegru]

Yesterday, on another site I had absolutely similar bidding. I became a declarer, player who passed his partners takeout dbl was my close friend and 100% there were no cheating. He just didn't see his partner's dbl. It can happened. But only once.

[Guest Jlall]

I'm surprised and a little disappointed to see Justin stating, and consequently implying, that NS had an undisclosed agreement by looking at just one example. As I said earlier, I choose to believe that South got lucky when he passed.

Are we supposed to just believe everything that a pair says in it's own self-interest? The only evidence we have to go by is the actual hand, so that is what I'll go by.

[Walddk]

Are we supposed to just believe everything that a pair says in it's own self-interest?

Yes we are if it's an one-off occurence! Accidents happen. If it happens again, however, it's no longer an accident or coincidence.

 

Your approach is wrong, Justin. You want NS to prove that they are not guilty. That's the wrong way of doing things. YOU prove that THEY are guilty, and you don't have enough evidence for that in my opinion.

 

Roland

[Guest Jlall]

Your approach is wrong, Justin. You want NS to prove that they are not guilty. That's the wrong way of doing things. YOU prove that THEY are guilty, and you don't have enough evidence for that in my opinion.

 

Roland

I do not agree. When all evidence except their self-serving statement is against them, I will assume the have failed to alert until they prove otherwise. There is no need to be blind Roland. North had a penalty X, south passed on xxx. Yet they say it was takeout. hmmm...

[Walddk]

You think it's intentional, I think it's coincidental until I see the same thing happening again. I think I will get further in life using my approach, but you are entitled to use yours of course.

 

Maybe it's the gap of age that makes the difference between yours and mine.

 

Roland

[Guest Jlall]

You think it's intentional, I think it's coincidental until I see the same thing happening again. I think I will get further in life using my approach, but you are entitled to use yours of course.

 

Maybe it's the gap of age that makes the difference between yours and mine.

 

Roland

for chrissake if someone younger than you has a different opinion is it always because of the gap in age? Perhaps when you cannot logically reply to arguments, you resort to "well you're entitled to your opinion, but mine is better, and you can't see that because you're 19."

 

Consider prior precendece in similar cases Roland. A player bids 2D with the majors, his pard alerts as DONT. Later, when the director is called, they say it was not misinformation, they actually play DONT so it was a misbid. Do you just automatically believe them? No, of course not, saying it was a misbid is completely self-serving, they must provide some kind of evidence that it actually was a misbid, otherwise MI is assumed.

 

Consider a dispute about whether there is a break in tempo. EW claims north broke tempo, and south took action based on this. NS claims there was no break in tempo. To resolve this, committees actually LOOK AT THE HAND. Shocking, I know. If north had a spade void and 12 points and passed a 4S opener, the committee will assume there was in fact a break in tempo.

 

Failure to alert is similar to MI. It is assumed X is standard when it was not alerted, so it is the same as saying it's a takeout X. The hand indicates it was not, south's pass indicates it was not. And yet they say it was. Given this it is their problem to prove there was no misinformation

 

Disagree with me all you want, I could easily be wrong. But PLEASE try doing so with facts and logical arguments as opposed to "maybe its the gap in age..." and "I think I will get further in life..." because it is really tiresome.

 

edit: i put BIT when i meant MI

Edited October 7, 2005 by Jlall

[Walddk]

You think it's intentional, I think it's coincidental until I see the same thing happening again. I think I will get further in life using my approach, but you are entitled to use yours of course.

 

Maybe it's the gap of age that makes the difference between yours and mine.

 

Roland

for chrissake if someone younger than you has a different opinion is it always because of the gap in age? Perhaps when you cannot logically reply to arguments, you resort to "well you're entitled to your opinion, but mine is better, and you can't see that because you're 19."

 

Consider prior precendece in similar cases Roland. A player bids 2D with the majors, his pard alerts as DONT. Later, when the director is called, they say it was not misinformation, they actually play DONT so it was a misbid. Do you just automatically believe them? No, of course not, saying it was a misbid is completely self-serving, they must provide some kind of evidence that it actually was a misbid, otherwise MI is assumed.

 

Consider a dispute about whether there is a break in tempo. EW claims north broke tempo, and south took action based on this. NS claims there was no break in tempo. To resolve this, committees actually LOOK AT THE HAND. Shocking, I know. If north had a spade void and 12 points and passed a 4S opener, the committee will assume there was in fact a break in tempo.

 

Failure to alert is similar to MI. It is assumed X is standard when it was not alerted, so it is the same as saying it's a takeout X. The hand indicates it was not, south's pass indicates it was not. And yet they say it was. Given this it is their problem to prove there was no break in tempo.

 

Disagree with me all you want, I could easily be wrong. But PLEASE try doing so with facts and logical arguments as opposed to "maybe its the gap in age..." and "I think I will get further in life..." because it is really tiresome.

I have replied more than once, but I'll gladly do it again, since you don't seem to understand.

 

The double is for take-out, also to this pair. It is perfectly legitimate that you treat the North hand as too strong for anything else. An 18+ hand can double with any shape as most people play it. I believe you do too. If so, why is the double a penalty double as you see it?

 

So South didn't take the double out. I would never pass, you would never pass, but that particular South decided to take a view, so he passed a take-out double.

 

Is that a crime? No! It's definitely not recommendable, but it's not a violation of any law. I claim that it was an accident (= he took a view), you claim that it was intentional (= he intentionally did not alert partner's penalty double).

 

You don't have enough evidence for your interpretation in my opinion. I want to see it once more before I believe that it's more than a coincidence. We disagree. End of story.

 

Roland

[Posleda]

It is assumed X is standard when it was not alerted, so it is the same as saying it's a takeout X.

What do you mean is "standard X" or "takeout X" ? This may be a reason I dont understand your opinions. In our country standard takeout double means:

 

1) up to 15 PC with at least 3-card support in non-named suits OR

2) 16+ with any distribution.

 

N's double is completely in accordance with this definition. From this point of view I have no suspicion about UI, MI or cheating at all.

 

Dusan