Table Trouble

[glen]

We had two troublesome table situations at this weekend’s regional.

 

First, playing an important 7 board Swiss match for us (subsidy $ possible), my LHO faces a 1♦ opening passed around to him. He nudges my partner’s bidding box slightly so he can place his 1♠ balancing bid at the farthest left possible. He turns out to have 6-5 in the majors with considerable playing value. Later he opens 1♠ by placing the bid right dead center in front of him, with a hand that has nothing special. On another hand, he opens 1♠ about halfway to the left, and then his partner launches immediately into 4♣ Gerber, and it turns out the ♠ opening has some extras. On two other hands he opens 1NT, and both bids are right in front of him.

 

This seemed a grossly insufficient sample size to draw any conclusions, so I did absolutely nothing. Should I have done something?

 

The other situation involved shuffling the hands. At regional and higher events, in team events we have a strong preference to be at the table when the hands are made up, which is our right. In two matches, we arrived at the table to find boards already completed, and these we redid ourselves, which upset one of the opponents at each of these tables. In other matches, we either arrived at the table first and waited for our opponents before making the boards, or we found our opponents waiting for us without the boards being done yet (even better one set of opponents had taken the cards out of all of the boards at the table, ready to be collectively made up). Is there a nice way of handling our preference, given we are not going to change it?

 

Thanks in advance for comments, and feel free to be critical.

[Impact]

This is exactly the sort of action which should be reported to your local bridge ombudsman:-

 

of itself it may be just idiosyncratic but if enough people report these matters it allows a database to be built up.

 

As an aside, on the optimistic side, if the actions are those of a relatively inexperienced person and/or completely innocent, the ombudsman in his role can have a word to that person about the proprieties and that such actions could be misconstrued.....thereby defusing a potentially explosive matter before it goes active!

[whereagles]

Case 1: discretely inform the Director of what happened. Avoid talking about it with other people, though. That might create a bad atmosphere, which you do not want.

 

Case 2: ignore opponents complaints and shuffle. If they insist or get bothersome, inform them that the Laws state that 1 person from each pair has to be at table when hands are dealt.

[Gerben42]

It is correct to redo the boards if opponents shuffled them in your team's absence.

The team taking the cards out of course had a good way of handling the situations (been there before I guess) however in this situation you have to watch out that no cards get messed up between the boards.

 

About the other situation, I would talk to the director about it privately and suggest he instructs other opponents of this team to watch out for a pattern.

[PeterE]

About the other situation, I would talk to the director about it privately and suggest he instructs other opponents of this team to watch out for a pattern.

No, Gerben, it can't be correct to involve other players into this investigation. Either the TD examines by his own or he installs some sort of monitor, who only notes the place infront of the accused player where that man starts his bidding sequence.

[Echognome]

On the first one, I think the best thing is to have a quiet word with a TD. Ideally you know a TD personally and can trust to have a discreet word about it. It may be nothing, or it may be something awful. Luckily, it's not up to you to resolve it. Just let the TD know and the TD can deal with it.

 

On the second one, you are completely in the right. If the opponents get upset, that's their problem, not yours. I'm not saying to be a jerk about it, but to just ask to redeal the boards. If they complain, then just say politely that you prefer to be there for the boards to be shuffled. If they have any problems with it, then call the TD. It might be annoying to have to deal with it, but if other people do the same, then this team will learn that it's best to wait until their opponents arrive before they start dealing.

[mycroft]

1) (ACBL-centric, but I happen to know about officeGlen) This is a perfect thing for the Recorder. Frankly, I would have called at the table if it was as obvious as you make it out to be, but I respect the decision not to say anything with a small sample size. However, the only way the TDs are going to get a large sample size is if you record it. So explain to the TD what happened, and ask for a Player Memo. Fill it out conscienciously and completely, hand it in, and answer any questions the Recorder has when (s)he calls.

 

Probably nothing will come of it, but it's there for the next time.

 

2) I'm so terribly sorry they're upset. My teacher turned in his partner when he found him slipping cold decks into Swiss matches - it happens. And not every partner is as honest or aware as my teacher is.

 

"It's not that I don't trust you, but the Laws state..." And if they continue to grumble, call the TD and have her read it out of the book.

 

I agree with you - and I am one of those who will shuffle (a lot - that's the other reason I want to be at the table for hand-shuffled boards) and leave the decks on the boards if my opponents have not yet arrived, for the opponents to do what they wish. I will tell them I've shuffled them all, but I fell absolutely no rancour if they choose to shuffle again - it's the Law, after all.

 

Michael.

[hrothgar]

I think that this is actually a fairly complex problem, largely because there are two conflicting goals:

 

One the one hand, you want to be able to make a conclusive judgement regarding whether the partnership in question is cheating. In turn, this requires some kind of clandestine investigation aimed at catching the pair "red handed"

 

On the other hand, you'f like to be able to resolve things ASAP. If the pair in question is cheating, you'd want to stop them before they damage anyone else.

 

To some extent, the proper way to deal with this sort of thing will very much depend on which of these two goals is considered more important. From my perspective, I tend to prioritize the first of these goals. Accordingly, I'd prefer to see the local jurisdiction conduct some kind of quiet/thorough investigation. However, there is one last major issue that needs to be considered: its my impression that these types of cheating incidents are all that common. You know the old saying practice makes perfect? The sponsoring organizations don't get nearly enough practice. (Frankly, this is probably a good think. I'd hate to play a game where this type of cheating was rampant)

 

Quite frankly, the best course of action is to push for the use of screens in significant events...

[kfgauss]

1. I agree that this should be reported to the TD/Recorder (who's the recorder? where would I find this person?) and hope they'll deal with it discreetly -- it seems rather likely that this person doesn't even know he's doing it, but is rather (somewhat subconsciously) "leaving [the appropriate amount of] room for the rest of his bids" when he has a good hand or some such.

 

2. I'm a trusting soul and don't ask to redeal the boards. I'm also perfectly ok with opponents who want to redeal the boards, as long as they arrive on time. At a sectional swiss recently, I was a bit miffed when my opponents got to the table ~8 minutes late and then wanted to redeal.

 

Andy

[barmar]

On the other hand, you'f like to be able to resolve things ASAP. If the pair in question is cheating, you'd want to stop them before they damage anyone else.

While this is a nice goal, I think it's unlikely that it can be achieved unless someone else has already reported them, so your suspicions simply act as further confirmation of the problem. Unless you can beat a confession out of the perps, cheating like this can probably only be proved by monitoring them for a while.

 

During last summer's NABC, my teammates detected their opponents performing a similar type of cheating when they were on defense. They appeared to signal attitude to their partner's lead by whether or not they turned the quitted tricks the wrong way. Our teammates reported it to the TD, and the plan was that the TDs would try to keep an eye on them to see if the pattern persisted. I don't know what the eventual outcome was.

[hrothgar]

During last summer's NABC, my teammates detected their opponents performing a similar type of cheating when they were on defense. They appeared to signal attitude to their partner's lead by whether or not they turned the quitted tricks the wrong way. Our teammates reported it to the TD, and the plan was that the TDs would try to keep an eye on them to see if the pattern persisted. I don't know what the eventual outcome was.

Barry's most recent comment brought to mind a slight concern that I had with the original report. Human's are extremely good at pattern recognition. We're so good at pattern recognition that we often imagine correlations that aren't there.

 

Personally, I don't worry that much about people cheating. What does worry me lots is all the ugly politics that invariably seem to surface when a cheating scandal errupts.

 

As I noted in the past, I'd dearly love to see the sponsoring organizations spend a bit more effort trying to eliminate the ability of people to use these types of out of band signals. I'm not claiming that this would put an end to the careers of hundreds of thousands of unscrupulous cheaters. However, I think that it would bring some peace of mind to ht players.

[pclayton]

1. The ACBL has a recorder at both the District and National levels. I've filed one player memo in my life. I never got a response, although I don't think I was owed one either. I don't think people use the recorder system enough, which is too bad because it helps ferret out potential indiscretions that Glen mentions.

 

2. If I'm late and the boards are made, I never insist that they be remade. I suppose its my right, but I'd rather spend the time playing instead of shuffling.

 

I will always wait for one member of the other pair to show up before I start shuffling OTOH. But you certainly within your rights to have the boards remade if you weren't there.

 

I wouldn't expect any help from the opponents however.

[JanM]

Quite frankly, the best course of action is to push for the use of screens in significant events...

Actually, screens don't help with this particular problem; how many times have you seen someone put their first bid on the bidding tray someplace other than the far left? I've actually suggested to some that they should put their bids on the far left only to be told that "I always start in the middle because otherwise partner might not see my bid when the tray is moved to the other side of the screen." With most bidding trays, it's not particularly easy to place each bid an identical distance over from the last one (there are some with notches which solve this problem, but I only recall seeing them once) even if you want to - I don't think it would be at all hard to deliberately vary the spacing in order to impart extra information.

[Cascade]

On the other hand, you'f like to be able to resolve things ASAP.  If the pair in question is cheating, you'd want to stop them before they damage anyone else.

While this is a nice goal, I think it's unlikely that it can be achieved unless someone else has already reported them, so your suspicions simply act as further confirmation of the problem. Unless you can beat a confession out of the perps, cheating like this can probably only be proved by monitoring them for a while.

This can easily be resolved immediately.

 

You don't need an accusation of cheating. You don't need an investigation.

 

The director is informed and the opponents are instructed to use their bidding cards in a uniform manner.

 

Of course if they really are cheating they might just find some other way of cheating.

[hrothgar]

Quite frankly, the best course of action is to push for the use of screens in significant events...

Actually, screens don't help with this particular problem; how many times have you seen someone put their first bid on the bidding tray someplace other than the far left? I've actually suggested to some that they should put their bids on the far left only to be told that "I always start in the middle because otherwise partner might not see my bid when the tray is moved to the other side of the screen." With most bidding trays, it's not particularly easy to place each bid an identical distance over from the last one (there are some with notches which solve this problem, but I only recall seeing them once) even if you want to - I don't think it would be at all hard to deliberately vary the spacing in order to impart extra information.

hadn't thought of this.

 

guess we need to go with computers... ;-)

[jchiu]

I was one of the teammates mentioned in the above post regarding quitted tricks, but not the one who noticed. I ran into a couple pair whom I am 90% certain that they are the pair in question in Gatlinburg (he wears a quite tacky hat with a string tied to the back of his glasses, she is a somewhat submissive redhead).

 

Indeed they turned their quitted tricks as stated, but it sure didn't help them. They proceeded to butcher the defense and lose both boards by the trick surrendered. One board was a fairly obvious error, while the other may be irrelevant noise. I highly doubt it even occured to their teammates to run the two-loser minor-tenace stripsqueeze that my partner executed. Of course, a proper shift evaporates the squeeze. After this round, I drop any possible accusations made.

[Free]

After 2 boards, as TD you can already get rid of the problem imo. Just mention that the bids should be placed at the same place every time. If not, it might be considered cheating, but not at the moment. They still have time to do the right thing...

 

If they don't want to avoid problems and keep placing their bids according to strength, then all you can do is like you acted now I guess. At least you've tried to settle this before it escalates, but now you have to figure out if they do this on purpose or if they're just too stupid to understand the problem.

[barmar]

Jason points out an important paradox. Most players who feel the need to cheat are poor players to begin with, and cheating doesn't make up for this. If they were decent players they would be able to do well with the legal arsenal of bidding and defensive methods. They often don't know what to signal or what to do with partner's signals, so it doesn't really matter whether the signal is made properly or not.

 

Of course, there are some notable exceptions that have come up in high-level competitions. If you're a world-class player you start out only about even with your opponents, and cheating can give you the edge needed to win. Unfortunately, they also have the most incentive, since they're often professional players and their success influences the price they can charge. Luckily, they also tend to receive the most scrutiny, so unusual results should get noticed.

 

But if you encounter cheaters among the rank and file, I suspect they'll mostly be poor players, and the cheating would at best raise them to mediocre.

[Echognome]

In the rank and file, I find more ridiculous UI than cheating.

 

I remember one hand where partner opened a preempt 3rd in hand. RHO asked what it was and I said "weak with hearts" (or something like that). RHO says loudly "Did you hear that partner? The hand is weak. And then overcalls. I raise the preempt and LHO asks me the range of the bid. Just as I'm about to answer, RHO says "Partner. It's weak!" Amazing really.

 

I don't think most people cheat with their questions. I just think they don't know the rules and/or etiquette of bridge. The scariest thing is that this particular RHO is one of the teachers in our club! It makes me shudder to think about it. It would be helpful if every teacher taught the beginners at some point when it's ok to ask questions (you would do something other than pass over at least one explanation of the bid) and how to ask questions about the bidding at the end (e.g. instead of "is that 3D bid natural?", how about "can you explain the entire bidding to me?" Of course if it's a clear thing, like "how many keycards did she show?" that's ok and better than "What did the 5♣ response show? So 5♣ didn't show clubs?")

[Elianna]

That is a classic example of "The Pro Question". It's basically asking a question that you already know the answer to, because you think that partner doesn't know what that bid means, and you want to make sure that he does. Bad teachers are among the most common perpetrators, because they're in the mode of "educating" their partner.

 

To sum it up: This type of thing is usually done to make sure partner understands OPPONENTS bidding, rather than to try to give information about asker's hand.

[glen]

Thanks for everybody's comments!

 

Speaking of classics, in another match the same day the opponents have a long auction where one finally bids 4♣.

 

Other opp: Alert - it asks for aces.

We: We didn't ask.

Other opp: Oh, sorry.

 

What can one do now? So no TD call and they continue.

[Gerben42]

2. I'm a trusting soul and don't ask to redeal the boards. I'm also perfectly ok with opponents who want to redeal the boards, as long as they arrive on time. At a sectional swiss recently, I was a bit miffed when my opponents got to the table ~8 minutes late and then wanted to redeal.

 

Don't be miffed, call director and state opps are late.

 

I remember one hand where partner opened a preempt 3rd in hand. RHO asked what it was and I said "weak with hearts" (or something like that). RHO says loudly "Did you hear that partner? The hand is weak. And then overcalls. I raise the preempt and LHO asks me the range of the bid. Just as I'm about to answer, RHO says "Partner. It's weak!" Amazing really.

 

ALWAYS call the director in such cases. Make it clear to opponents that if they try to coffee house against you, it will be the one and only time.

[pbleighton]

"Thanks for everybody's comments!

 

Speaking of classics, in another match the same day the opponents have a long auction where one finally bids 4♣.

 

Other opp: Alert - it asks for aces.

We: We didn't ask.

Other opp: Oh, sorry.

 

What can one do now? So no TD call and they continue."

 

I think it technically merits a TD call, but I wouldn't do anything. This is very likely an innocent mistake, and I don't like to upset people without reason. They shouldn't get upset by a TD call, but they do.

 

The answers to the questions in this thread really depend on your attitude toward bridge. If your approach is "it's just a game" (my approach), then I don't insist on shuffling if I am late, I don't do anything in the above example, and in general I never call the director except for revokes, play out of turn, etc. I might tell the TD about the first example (bid placement), but I probably wouldn't. My attitude towards cheating in a game which isn't for money is that I really don't care if people want to degrade themselves by cheating.

 

Those who take bridge more seriously will have a different approach, as they should.

 

Peter

[barmar]

Even if the potential cheating doesn't bother you personally, I think it's still a good idea to report the blatant cases. Otherwise, they'll continue to perpetrate this against other players, who might not have the same attitude. If you think the game is supposed to be fun, you should do what you can to ensure it's fun for everyone (well, except the cheaters).

 

However, I agree with Peter about the people who give unrequested explanations when they alert. In my experience, it usually seems like they just don't know better (many players really have a hard time remembering the alert/announce requirements), they're not trying to give information to their partners. It's too bad this happened with 4C, because that's a bid that is often ambiguous about whether it's natural, a cue bid, or Gerber unless the partnership is really on the same wavelength.