Ethical Transgression

[TimG]

My post-round quiet talk with the director would include a request for a recorder form. Given the level of the event, the players involved should know better, but it is not for me to attempt to explain it to them.

 

In a lesser event, against an unknown opponent, I would likely call the director at the time of the lead (though probably not in the case where they've lead a jack into my AKQTx suit -- I may not want to expose the situation too early in case she's led from Jx and will later continue the suit).

[bid_em_up]

My post-round quiet talk with the director would include a request for a recorder form.  Given the level of the event, the players involved should know better, but it is not for me to attempt to explain it to them.

What does the level of the event have to do with anything?

 

There appears to be some presumption by several people that just because it is a "National" event that the players are all of a certain "calibre". While this may be true in your particular area of the world, the great part about an ACBL National tournament is pretty much anybody can enter any event (except for those that have certain requirements to be eligible for the event).

 

So they may or may not "know better". Given that the scenario is given as "assume it is a LOL", they probably do not know any better.

 

If you know for a fact that your RHO is of expert calibre and should know better, then call the director, file the recorder form, whatever you see fit. But for grandma who is just in the game so she can tell all her friends back home, "I played in the Nationals and guess who my opponents were?", you just shrug your shoulders and move on. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by attempting to "educate" your RHO.

[TimG]

My post-round quiet talk with the director would include a request for a recorder form.  Given the level of the event, the players involved should know better, but it is not for me to attempt to explain it to them.

What does the level of the event have to do with anything?

I'm quite willing to overlook many things in a local event when the players involved aren't serious players. When non-serious players enter a real event, I think they should expect to be required to play by the serious event rules. And, if they don't, they should be educated...but not by me. By the director or recorder.

 

I tell the director quietly after the round is over so that any education is done in a professional, friendly, and non-confrontational manner. If the director/recorder recognizes the player as a non-serious player, just out for the thrill of playing with the big guys, and decides not to do anything about it, that's their decision.

 

Yes, of course, it would be nice if the same standards were used in all games. But, as you point out, shrugging it off is often the best course of action.

[MFA]

1.

Hmm, I'm having a BIG problem with this "recorder form" procedure. I only know it from this thread, so hopefully I have misunderstood something. :)

How can it ever be fair to have a one-sided statement only? I absolutely hate the thought of a little "ethics chat" between a player and a director about some opponent, and if it results in filling out some form, it's even worse. All very arrogant. If there is a problem, raise it while all are present, so everyone has the chance to speak.

 

2.

I don't think that this incident is even close to justify some recording.

 

East is considering a bid with a mediocre 5-5 and a void in their suit and is asking some questions (about an alerted bid, I suppose) while making up his mind. This transmits UI, but so what? That's not illegal, it could only restrict his partner. It's not like he had xxx, xxx, KQJT, xxx.

 

West then leads the singleton ♦J. Yes, odd, but perhaps she was reasoning that if partner was considering bidding a suit, it rated to be spades; surely partner wouldn't pause and inquire with just diamonds. Or perhaps she wasn't. Who knows, if nobody asks her?

 

I would be beyond furious, if I wound up in some UI situation and an opponent were filing something nasty behind my back, because he had a different opinion on the impact of the UI on my (or my partner's) bid or play.

 

Please come back to earth. I think this incident, where no damage was inflicted(!), is being blown completely out of proportions with premature TD calls, secret ethics talks, and dubious recording forms.

When experts are behaving like this, it scares away the bad amateur players from the open tournaments.

[Echognome]

<snip>

2.

West then leads the singleton ♦J. Yes, odd, but perhaps she was reasoning that if partner was considering bidding a suit, it rated to be spades; surely partner wouldn't pause and inquire with just diamonds. Or perhaps she wasn't. Who knows, if nobody asks her?

<snip>

The fact that her partner was considering bidding at all is also UI!

 

So we obviously have to look at the lead problem of her hand with no UI at all. Is the diamond Jack suggested by the UI?

 

Well isn't that for the TD and/or appeals committee to decide?

[bid_em_up]

1.

Hmm, I'm having a BIG problem with this "recorder form" procedure. I only know it from this thread, so hopefully I have misunderstood something. :)

How can it ever be fair to have a one-sided statement only? I absolutely hate the thought of a little "ethics chat" between a player and a director about some opponent, and if it results in filling out some form, it's even worse. All very arrogant. If there is a problem, raise it while all are present, so everyone has the chance to speak..

The recorder (to the best of my knowledge) will not necessarily take action on the basis of one report. It is the job of the recorder to identify a player who has had multiple transgressions reported, usually by multiple players.

 

I can't directly say someone is "unethical", or that they are "cheating". But if I, and you, and 15 other people all file reports that something funny is going on, now the Recorder has multiple reports from different people, which can prompt an investigation.

 

If and when the recorder decides that a formal investigation needs to take place, the "other" side will be able to present their case.

 

Feel free to read about the process here:

 

http://www.acbl.org/play/recorder.html

[ArtK78]

The purpose of the Recorder system is to avoid situations in which players start spreading rumors about suspicious bids and plays and the like.

 

The way it works is that players report peculiar or suspicious actions in writing to the Recorder. The Recorder maintains a file on each player. If there is a pattern of peculiar or suspicious actions by a particular player, the Recorder will take some action - perhaps a talk with the player, perhaps monitoring of play. Only when there is independent corroboration of the activities reported by the players to the Recorder can an action be taken against a player. No action can be taken against a player based on reports alone.

 

Reports to the Recorder are, by their very nature, ex parte - meaning that the subject of the report cannot confront his "accuser" or defend himself. For this reason, these reports are taken with a grain of salt. It is only when a number of similar complaints are received from different players against a particular player that the Recorder will take action. And that action is not punative until the complaints are verified by observation.

 

The system seems to work.

[MFA]

<snip>

2.

West then leads the singleton ♦J. Yes, odd, but perhaps she was reasoning that if partner was considering bidding a suit, it rated to be spades; surely partner wouldn't pause and inquire with just diamonds. Or perhaps she wasn't. Who knows, if nobody asks her?

<snip>

The fact that her partner was considering bidding at all is also UI!

 

So we obviously have to look at the lead problem of her hand with no UI at all. Is the diamond Jack suggested by the UI?

 

Well isn't that for the TD and/or appeals committee to decide?

Yes, it is!

 

When I get an UI, I must "carefully avoid taking any advantage" (law 73C).

This means that it is a perfectly fine procedure to (1) absorb the UI, (2) think about what it indicates, and then (3) bend over backwards to take a different route.

 

Perhaps this is what west did, thinking "partner wants to bid => this is probably spades, since these are most valuable to introduce => I'd better not lead a spade".

If this is so, then she tried, and that is all one can ask, ethically.

 

If NS disagree with west, they can call the director and let him look at it - at the table where everybody can speak. They should not go about filing some one-sided complaint behind EW's backs. Everybody has to deal with UI from partner once in a while, and these problems are sometimes tough. If one missteps, so be it, we'll settle it with the TD at the table, and everybody learns something for the next time.

 

@ Art78 & bid_em_up

 

Thank you for info!

 

I can certainly see the merit in recording very suspicious incidents, but when it comes to UI-problems, these are best dealt with in open daylight and not through a secret intelligence system. If the director is ruling in a case where he thinks that one side was outright unethical, perhaps he can file a form?

[jdonn]

If the director is ruling in a case where he thinks that one side was outright unethical, perhaps he can file a form?

Good gracious I should hope not. He wasn't there as a witness. There is a reason hearsay is frowned upon in courts here. Play this game to find out why.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)

[MFA]

If the director is ruling in a case where he thinks that one side was outright unethical, perhaps he can file a form?

Good gracious I should hope not. He wasn't there as a witness. There is a reason hearsay is frowned upon in courts here. Play this game to find out why.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game)

Haha, come on :lol:

 

The director is a filter here. Sometimes players get very agitated and are almost willing to put an opponent in the chair for taking advantage of his partner's thinking. The director should be able to put things in perspective, so a bunch of silly complaints could be avoided.

 

Complaints that might not look so silly to a recorder, if the reporter is able to give it a wild, subjective twist.

I'm in the national appeals commitee, and I'm frequently amazed how differently players can view the same case. I'd much rather have the director's opinion than an infuriated opponent's as a basis for a complaint, if I can hear only one voice.

It's not like the director should make up his own cases.

[jdonn]

I'd much rather have the director's opinion than an infuriated opponent's as a basis for a complaint, if I can hear only one voice.

That's the point. The recorder system doesn't act until many voices say the same thing.

 

I wasn't joking about the telephone game by the way! Play with adults, I promise you the same thing happens.

[CSGibson]

<snip>

2.

West then leads the singleton ♦J. Yes, odd, but perhaps she was reasoning that if partner was considering bidding a suit, it rated to be spades; surely partner wouldn't pause and inquire with just diamonds. Or perhaps she wasn't. Who knows, if nobody asks her?

<snip>

The fact that her partner was considering bidding at all is also UI!

 

So we obviously have to look at the lead problem of her hand with no UI at all. Is the diamond Jack suggested by the UI?

 

Well isn't that for the TD and/or appeals committee to decide?

I would say that if the LHO led a diamond because of partner's questions, then she took the wrong bit of information into account. What she should evaluate is not whether partner was asking about diamonds, but whether partner made a lead directing double of diamonds.

 

What I'm getting at is that RHO should be able to ask his questions in peace because he has a natural mechanism to get a diamond lead if he wants it - the red card.

[Echognome]

I would say that if the LHO led a diamond because of partner's questions, then she took the wrong bit of information into account. What she should evaluate is not whether partner was asking about diamonds, but whether partner made a lead directing double of diamonds.

 

What I'm getting at is that RHO should be able to ask his questions in peace because he has a natural mechanism to get a diamond lead if he wants it - the red card.

I think you and MFA make excellent points that the diamond lead was not suggested by the UI (since her partner could have doubled for a diamond lead).

 

Obviously the best way to find out is for the director to ask "Why did you lead a diamond?"

 

But we are simply speculating at this point.

[TimG]

1.

Hmm, I'm having a BIG problem with this "recorder form" procedure. I only know it from this thread, so hopefully I have misunderstood something. :lol:

How can it ever be fair to have a one-sided statement only? I absolutely hate the thought of a little "ethics chat" between a player and a director about some opponent, and if it results in filling out some form, it's even worse. All very arrogant. If there is a problem, raise it while all are present, so everyone has the chance to speak.

The person has an opportunity to respond to the complaint (recorder form) if the Recorder deems it worthy of keeping on file. A form being filled out and submitted in no way means that any guilt has been assigned.

 

A private conversation with the director may also result in the director telling me that there is no need for action, or the director might tell me that I am wrong.

 

Whether a form is filed or not, whether the director speaks privately to the other party, or if I am told I am wrong, there has been no incident at the table which is nice for a couple of reason: the game is more cordial and the game is not slowed down.

[MFA]

If it is handled properly and all, then fine.

 

I object to secrecy, to randomness, to one-sided statements and to not having the director to rule at the table in the usual way. Does some of this occur then I'm clearly against the whole idea.

I'm also against it, if any complaints are accepted about issues that weren't raised at the table.

 

TimG:

... the game is more cordial ...

 

If you run out and file a complaint about bad ethics immediately afterwards, then this has a hollow ring to it, doesn't it?

[TimG]

If it is handled properly and all, then fine.

Why would we assume otherwise.

[MFA]

If it is handled properly and all, then fine.

Why would we assume otherwise.

:)

 

When I write properly, I mean according to my own criteria. :lol:

[TimG]

If you run out and file a complaint about bad ethics immediately afterwards, then this has a hollow ring to it, doesn't it?

No, I don't think so. If an opponent has a problem with an action of mine at the table, I would not mind at all if they spoke to the director afterward. In some cases the director will tell my opponent that they are wrong and and the matter will be resolved without me ever put in a position of needing to defend myself or explain my action.

 

If the director thinks my opponent has a valid concern and then speaks to me about the matter, perhaps getting my side of the story, that's fine, too.

 

I've had players speak to the director about something I've done at the table more than once. The director usually comes over to me and asks if I've psyched, I say I have, and the director makes some (let's assume) appropriate statement. That's much better than the opponents calling the director to the table.

 

I've had the District recorder notify me that a recorder memo has been filed as the result of a psyche I made. In this particular case, the director was not notified. I had no problem with that.

[blackshoe]

The problem, it seems to me, comes when somebody goes crying to the director, he adjusts the score in their favor, and the other side only find out about it after the fact - and possibly after the correction period has expired.

[Elianna]

The problem, it seems to me, comes when somebody goes crying to the director, he adjusts the score in their favor, and the other side only find out about it after the fact - and possibly after the correction period has expired.

But isn't that a problem with the director, not the person talking to the director?

[TimG]

The problem, it seems to me, comes when somebody goes crying to the director, he adjusts the score in their favor, and the other side only find out about it after the fact - and possibly after the correction period has expired.

That's not proper handling of the situation by the director.

[blackshoe]

Yep.

 

In most cases, I don't think much of players who go behind opponents' back to whine to the director (although there are times when it's the right thing to do), but I think a director who supports this kind of behavior is worse.

[TimG]

In most cases, I don't think much of players who go behind opponents' back to whine to the director (although there are times when it's the right thing to do), but I think a director who supports this kind of behavior is worse.

I think you're coming at this with the wrong attitude.

 

Your "behind opponents' backs" is my "with discretion". Your "whining" is my "informing".

 

If the player who goes to the director really is whining, all the better that he has left me out of it. Why would I want to be witness?

[jdonn]

In most cases, I don't think much of players who go behind opponents' back to whine to the director (although there are times when it's the right thing to do), but I think a director who supports this kind of behavior is worse.

I think you're coming at this with the wrong attitude.

 

Your "behind opponents' backs" is my "with discretion". Your "whining" is my "informing".

 

If the player who goes to the director really is whining, all the better that he has left me out of it. Why would I want to be witness?

Ditto 100%. Blackshoe, you certainly have a way of wording the opposing viewpoint in the most negative way possible.

[blackshoe]

I did not say that a player who speaks with the director away from the table or after the round or session is necessarily going behind the opponents' backs. I did not say that such a player is necessarily whining. Please don't read more into my words than is actually there.