lucky bid

[jillybean]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sakh543dakq6ckt85&w=s876432haqt86dcaj&e=sqjt5hkj9djt942c3&s=s9h72d8753cq97642]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 3♠    3NT   4♠    Pass

 Pass  Dbl   Pass  Pass

 RDbl  Pass  Pass  Pass

 

 

result 4♠Wxx+1

 

This was board12 of a 14 board tournament, NS called me to look at the bidding and said I had to adjust the board

 

Player: we dont agree with this bidding pls adj

Me: it looks suspicious but I cant adjust boards based on suspicion

Player: no ,you have to do it because he desinform us

I asked East what their agreement of the 3♠ bid was:

“Barrage - sorry weak long soud”

 

Player: how can sombody open with 8xxxxxx in ♠ to open 3♠

And just before they left…

Player: i dont agree with such big mistakes from opps and TD sry

 

The remaining player stayed and finished the tournament, they were also convinced I should have adjusted the board and cited the next board as further evidence of cheating.

player2 i tell you truth, i am good player, you dont they chat or not, but look on te board opening 3♠ rdbl..now he opened 1♠ p has 13 points and they are playing 3♠????

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sakh543dakq6ckt85&w=s876432haqt86dcaj&e=sqjt5hkj9djt942c3&s=s9h72d8753cq97642]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     1♠    Pass  2NT

 3♦    3♠    Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

result 3♠W-1

 

I don’t have the tools, knowledge or time to investigate claims of cheating during a tournament – I asked the players to send a case to abuse, is there anything else I could or should do here?

[paulg]

Two cases are insufficient for any cheating claim so sending to abuse is about all you can really do.

 

However, I would expect most people to make 3♠ on the second hand, so my initial assumption is that there are probably just very inexperienced and have no idea what they are doing. No Laws against that, but perhaps pointing them at the BIL might help.

 

Paul

[inquiry]

Couple issues here..

 

First "player" who claims he deserves an adjusted board because "you have to do it because he desinform us." What evidence did he provide? He stated: "I asked East what their agreement of the 3♠ bid was:

“Barrage - sorry weak long soud”

 

So xxxxxx is not long and sound. The West player is required to tell what his agreement is, not what he actually holds. So unless there is evidence that the agreement is not "barrage - weak long sound", then there was no disinformation. The only information they are entitled too is what the agreement is.

 

Second, his reaction to your ruling and the opponents action is not an example of what the BBO is about. I hope his abandonment was one that pushed him into automatic software-issued ban.

 

This doesn't mean that that the 3S bidder wasn't self-kibitzing (although if he was, he risked playing 3S on 4S cold). But as you say there is no way to investigate. Second, with dealer west, ns vul, we know htis is board 12. Maybe late in the event West was trying to create a swing. It will take careful checking to see if cheating was going on. There is no way you, or any director, can make such a ruling on the spot, at least with any certainty. Your action was fine, and appropriate, up to and including informing the opp that they could report to abuse.

 

The second hand just shows that these are not good players (at least not North) as there is absolutely no way to go down in 3S. Imagine the defense. Start DQ and continue, EW win 3D and East will score the spade JAck. That is it. Four tricks. If the declarer is the same player who opened 3S on the previous hand. Case over, no cheating. However, if south, who passed 3S on the second hand is the same member of the partnership that opened 3S and then redoubled, that would provide some support (certainlly not proof) that this player might be self kibitzing, as passing 3S here would be highly unusual action -- especially if this was imps. One way to decide if you would want to turn this player in to abuse would be to do a search on him or her in myhands. If he averages well below average over a month or more, it explains he needs bridge lessons. Forget about it. If he or she averages more than 1 imp per board and more than 55% matchpoints, then his results are not consitent with his bidding on these two hands, and might suggest to abuse to open an investigation.

[blackshoe]

"We don't agree with [opponents'] bidding" is not grounds for an adjustment.

 

A player who tries to tell me how to do my job is asking for trouble.

 

If a pair claim to have been misinformed, I would ask how so.

 

In f2f bridge, a player who walks out in the middle of a tournament would be banned for a significant period of time. In the ACBL, such a player would be banned from all ACBL sanctioned play - including in clubs. I understand walking out (or the electronic equivalent) is more prevalent in online bridge, but I fail to see why it shouldn't draw a similar penalty.

 

In this particular case, I see no grounds for adjustment, and no clear evidence of cheating - and I believe that if you're going to convict someone of cheating, the evidence had better be damn clear.

 

I would report the entire incident to abuse.

[slevin]

Hi

I think the problem was not opening 3♠ with 6th 8♠, but hand with good 5♥ and 11 tops points, will you open 3♠ with this hand before partner's pass?? don't think so, what is reason hide 5♥? after that rdbl with this hand when we hear bid 3nt behind? he can miss AKD♠ KW♥ K♣

i dont mind open 3♠ with 6th 8 but never if i have 5♥

 

next board is so strange also, partner is opening 1♠ you have 13points and you stoped in 3 having support and at least 25points? strange, 3♠ suposse to be 140 but he lost, how he knew it must play only 3♠, about W9xx and three diamonds tricks?

 

I will adjust first board and be carefull next time.

[jillybean]

I will adjust first board and be carefull next time.

 

If a TD suspects a pair have violated Law73B Inappropriate Communication Between Partners are they then authorized to adjust the board (law12C) without any further investigation or consultation?

 

jb

[hrothgar]

Players have the right to play bad bridge...

 

Sometimes it works out well and they play 4SXX making 5

More often, it doesn't and they go down in fairly easy 3♠

 

In this case, it looks like the pair is simply inexperienced. I see no evidence that they have a wire.

 

If the pair had a clue what they were doing it might be reasonable to look for a concealed partnership agreement. Here it doesn't make much sense. I don't think that the partnership has any understandings to conceal.

 

As for adjusting 4S...

 

I understand North's frustration, however, he ran into some bad luck.

His Diamonds didn't pull any weight because the person who preempted has a void.

***** happens, but you don't get an adjustment because of bad luck.

[keylime]

Does N/S need a kleenex? Maybe some wine and cheese?

 

Contracts look really random. I'd gently tell N/S to not use the "c" word when something strange happens.

[blackshoe]

If a TD suspects a pair have violated Law73B Inappropriate Communication Between Partners are they then authorized to adjust the board (law12C) without any further investigation or consultation?

No.

[jikl]

No adjustment, as Richard said. ***** happens.

 

Sean

[slevin]

yes of course i understand ***** happens, forget about opening 3♠ people play strange but what do you think is pair EW strong? play brdige lucky like that in this 2boards about opening 3♠ with 5♥ hand and next board playing 3♠ on 25 points with 8cards in ♠ and go down when was clear 140? the fact is this pair took 2ND PLACE with score almost 50imps...what do you think now? :rolleyes:

[hrothgar]

yes of course i understand ***** happens, forget about opening 3♠ people play strange but what do you think is pair EW strong? play brdige lucky like that in this 2boards about opening 3♠ with 5♥ hand and next board playing 3♠ on 25 points with 8cards in ♠ and go down when was clear 140? the fact is this pair took 2ND PLACE  with score almost 50imps...what do you think now?  :rolleyes:

I think what I've always thought:

 

8 board tournaments are a complete crap shoot.

In many cases luck is far more important than skill.

The format encourages risky behaviour.

 

Equally significant:

 

Thinly veiled accusations about cheating don't belong on the BBO forums: Honestly, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

 

The pair in question isn't describing their methods?

The pair has a wire that allows them to bid 4S on one hand but avoid 4S on the next?

The pair has a wire but they're incompetent?

 

If you think that the pair in question is cheating, take the issue up with Abuse.

If don't think the pair is cheating, why are you dredging up their hand records?

 

TD's can't be expected to inspect a pairs complete partnership history in the middle of a tournament. They need to rule on the board in question and then get on with the tournament. Looking at these two boards in isolation, my best guess is that the partnership doesn't really know what they are doing. I might reach a different conclusion if I cared enough to look at 20 or 30 boards, but I have better things to do.

 

Finally:

 

Even if they were cheating, who cares.

Its a game. No point in getting bent out of shape.

[jillybean]

If a TD suspects a pair have violated Law73B Inappropriate Communication Between Partners are they then authorized to adjust the board (law12C) without any further investigation or consultation?

No.

Unfortunately this is what many people ask for and expects and when an adjustment is not forth coming the conversation tends to deteriorate rapidly.

 

I didnt make this post with the intention to prove anyone was cheating or not. It was for my own benefit so that I know the best approach when it comes up again and I have given the players involved a link to this thread.

 

jb

[helene_t]

the fact is this pair took 2ND PLACE  with score almost 50imps...what do you think now?  :rolleyes:

Says nothing. Maybe the rest of the field was even weaker. Maybe they were not that bad players - the weird 3♠ opening, while not a textbook preempt, does not prove that the preemptor is a bad player, and 3♠-1 could be due to a misclick.

 

Or maybe they were just lucky on three or four boards. Fluctuations are quite significant. Even I have managed to win a few tournaments. Usually because I had a good partner, of course, but not always.

[helene_t]

If a TD suspects a pair have violated Law73B Inappropriate Communication Between Partners are they then authorized to adjust the board (law12C) without any further investigation or consultation?

No.

Unfortunately this is what many people ask for and expects and when an adjustment is not forth coming the conversation tends to deteriorate rapidly.

I get the impression from reading your posts that you have a lot of these cheating allegations. Maybe you should state in your tournament rules something like:

- In case you suspect the opponents for having a wire or for having undisclosed agreements: do not call TD. I don't have time to investigate the matter anyway. If you really need to report it, mail abuse and/or the TD after the tourney.

[blackshoe]

Heh.

 

Rule 1: don't argue with the director.

Rule 2: when the director is wrong, see rule 1.

 

I had a discussion last week with another (f2f) director about players questioning the TD ruling - particularly rudely. Here's the scenario I suggested:

 

"Director, you must adjust!"

 

"This is my ruling. [snip ruling not including adjustment] Please play on."

 

"Director! That's not fair! You must adjust!"

 

"I've made my ruling. Please play on." (There might be a comment about their right to appeal here).

 

{Further objections)

 

"The ruling stands. If I hear any more, there will be disciplinary penaties."

 

(further yammering)

 

"You are fined 10% of a top disciplinary penalty under Law 91. Please play on."

 

(more yammering)

 

"You are fined an additional 50% of a top under Law 91. Would you like to try for a full top penalty?"

 

This may drive this pair away from my game. You know what? If they're gonna act like this, I don't want 'em anyway. :rolleyes:

 

If they get really nasty, Law 91 empowers the director to suspend them, or disqualify them for cause. The latter is subject to approval by the Tournament Committee or SO, but in cases where the TD is the SO, well... B)

 

Actually, I think the ACBL guideline for disciplinary penalties is at least 25% of a top, so maybe 10% is too lenient in that jurisdiction.

[hrothgar]

"The ruling stands. If I hear any more, there will be disciplinary penaties."

 

(further yammering)

 

"You are fined 10% of a top disciplinary penalty under Law 91. Please play on."

 

(more yammering)

 

"You are fined an additional 50% of a top under Law 91. Would you like to try for a full top penalty?"

Silly question:

 

How would you go about enforcing said penalties?

Last I checked, the BBO software didn't provide any option to dock a pair half a board...

 

In all honesty, I'd find it quite amusing if the director starting spouting off and making (essentially) empty threats...

[jillybean]

Rule 1: don't argue with the director.

Rule 2: when the director is wrong, see rule 1.

I will add these immediately - ty

They will come in particularly handy when the player starts off “I am a director….”

:rolleyes:

Richard is right, we cant apply penalties.

[LH2650]

I was kibitzing a BBO ACBL tournament recently, and a player started arguing with the director about presumed failures to alert. (The opponents simply didn't know what they were doing.) After refusing two requests to bid, he was replaced. That seems simple and effective.

[blackshoe]

Hm. If the software won't allow application of disciplinary (or procedural, I assume) penalties, then as a medium for the play of duplicate contract bridge, it is flawed. IOW, the game played online looks sort of like duplicate contract bridge, but actually it's something else. I would say something less. :)

 

Be that as it may, if the only way to deal with such situations is to replace the player, I'd do that.

[jillybean]

Procedural penalties could be a good answer or perhaps they would be misused.

 

Replacing a player is necessary when they are breaking the rules of the site, using profanities, deliberately fouling a board etc other than that I think the approach is too autocratic. If I’m going to start booting players who disagree with rulings I’d better be 100% right!

This player left voluntarily, I think that’s preferable than having to boot them after it turns into a battle between them and their partner or me.

Problems can almost always be resolved if the player will forgo an instant decision (adjustment) and discuss it.

 

jb

[blackshoe]

Procedural penalties could be a good answer or perhaps they would be misused.

 

Replacing a player is necessary when they are breaking the rules of the site, using profanities, deliberately fouling a board etc other than that I think the approach is too autocratic. If I’m going to start booting players who disagree with rulings I’d better be 100% right!

This player left voluntarily, I think that’s preferable than having to boot them after it turns into a battle between them and their partner or me.

Problems can almost always be resolved if the player will forgo an instant decision (adjustment) and discuss it.

 

jb

Procedural penalties, like any power granted to authority, can be misused, sure. But that shouldn't be a problem with well trained, competent TDs. :)

 

You don't boot players because they disagree with your ruling - you boot them because they disagree in a way that disrupts the game or shows disrespect to the TD.

 

Players voluntarily leaving is a two-edged sword. If you can get an acceptable substitute in quickly, that's one thing. If you can't, the leaving player has "voluntarily" messed up the game for everybody] else. And that merits a "don't come back!" IMO.

[rigour6]

This situation (and the player's reaction) strikes me as your classic "Opponents did what they shouldn't do and I did what I should and their redoubled contract made, so I demand an adjustment on the grounds that I shouldn't have the results of my tournament screwed up by their dumb luck." I feel their pain, but what are you supposed to do.

 

The closest I have ever come to swearing at a bridge table was when my partner opened, opponents overcalled 3 hearts, I doubled holding KJxxxx (yup that's 6 of them) in hearts. 3 hearts doubled made! Director! I call for an adjustment based on the gross unfairness of the universe.

 

I give an example from the ACBL instant matchpoints game a couple of weeks ago.

Declarer opens 3 hearts, I double for takeout, pass, pass, pass. My partner has 6 hearts. I have 2. What?! Only when the lead is made and dummy comes down does declarer realizes that he has pulled the hearts card, instead of 3 diamonds.

 

I offered to let them rebid the hand but they quite properly didn't accept that. The result, a +1400 for us and 99 matchpoints, won us the event at the local game - and a gold point. Dumb stinking luck. Is this fair? Not really. But can you think of any system which allows a director to "fix" that which wouldn't create more nightmares than it fixed?

 

Our opponents had a good laugh about it, and went on to the next board. I salute them.