H_KARLUK Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 ACBL GCC>"Players are expected to play each hand to win at all times. No dumping is permitted even if such dumping may be in the contestant's best long-term interest." Any ideas please? Last I remember Kaplan raised th question of sportmanlike dumping during th 70s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 What do you mean with dumping? Playing bad on purpose? :unsure: Only in a Swiss event you could do this in the first round, but you might end up losing too much VP's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 What do you mean with dumping? Playing bad on purpose? :unsure: Only in a Swiss event you could do this in the first round, but you might end up losing too much VP's. Sportman like dumping shows up in a lot of forms. The most prominent examples involve late stages in round robins... I remember on lovely post that argued that safety plays should be banned because they involved dumping a trick... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orlam Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 What do you mean with dumping? Playing bad on purpose? :unsure: Only in a Swiss event you could do this in the first round, but you might end up losing too much VP's. Are you not a bridgeworld subscriber? Or do you manage to skip all the editorials (good for you!)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Can happen in a KO that has 3-ways with 2 survivors, especially if the event is seeded (so that a middle seeded team can dump to the lower seeded team to increase the chances of the higher seeded team is eliminated and the middle seeded team then takes over the higher seed). I know of such an occurrence that happened about 20 years ago. A committee was convened to investigate. The team that dumped was quite forthcoming about what they had done and how they had done it. This was before the rule cited in the opening post had been established. There was some rule about "playing to win every trick" or some such that the committee was able to use to impose some sort of sanction on the dumping team. Though as Richard points out, the rule they cited would also make things like a hold up play illegal. The team that was dumped to (the team that survived as a result of the dumping) was very offended by the whole thing. One of them has refused to play in an ACBL event since, I believe. The team that was the victim of the dumping (the team that was eliminated) thought that congratulations were in order for the team that pulled off the dumping. Anyway, this has been a hot topic many times since the 70s. And, seems to be one of those topics where people have strong opinions and do not change their minds. The Bridge World position has always been that the fault is with the conditions of contest which make dumping possibly advantageous. Seems right to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Happened in a prominent tourney in the Netherlands, around 2002 I think. The pauir who did it first asked for the TDs permission before doing it, afterwards they got disqualified. I wasn't aware it was not allowed. (Oh now I see it is from the GCC, may be different in other settings). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 I don't understand your second option, could you explain it a little better? Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 The pauir who did it first asked for the TDs permission before doing it, afterwards they got disqualified. Not sure I understand. Did the TD grant or deny permission? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 The TD granted the permission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 That seems more than harsh. If the TD granted permission, what was the basis for the disqualification? Did the TO also "disqualify" the TD? I would have. Possibly with extreme prejudice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_KARLUK Posted March 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 That seems more than harsh. If the TD granted permission, what was the basis for the disqualification? Did the TO also "disqualify" the TD? I would have. Possibly with extreme prejudice.English 2nd lingo here. Hopefully some guys won't get annoyed again. Patience please. Aim makes mean legal ? It is easy to add depends "big goals" etc words. Tho risk of puttin' blacklisted : "sorry, not my cup of tea". :) Encourage good sportsmanship spirit! One day justice might need even for cruels. Support & respect for legal and honest efforts are nice things. Can you imagine gain without pain ? Hmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 How can dumping possibly ever be sportsmanlike or ethical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 How can dumping possibly ever be sportsmanlike or ethical? If it gives you a better match-up in a later round then I don't see why it wouldn't be considered sportsmanlike (except that it is specifically noted to be illegal, but what I'm saying is I don't see why it should be.) I mean, I'm allowed to rest my best players in today's matches so they will play better in tomorrow's matches. It probably hurts either my chances of winning or my margin in today's match, but I am allowed to make the judgment that tomorrow's match is more important, perhaps only after I am far enough ahead in today's match. Also I'm allowed to not try for overtricks near the beginning of a long tournament in order to save my energy for later rounds. So why are certain type of strategizing for the following day's match fine, but other types (such as dumping near the end of a round robin) not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiddity Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 So why are certain type of strategizing for the following day's match fine, but other types (such as dumping near the end of a round robin) not? It is unethical because the dumper is deliberately trying to subvert the spirit of the round robin, which is intended to allow the best teams to advance, and in doing so is denying both beneficiaries and victims a chance at a fair contest. You might as well argue that people should be allowed to throw boards to their friends in pairs games because it will improve their chances in the next game when the favor is returned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 So why are certain type of strategizing for the following day's match fine, but other types (such as dumping near the end of a round robin) not? It is unethical because the dumper is deliberately trying to subvert the spirit of the round robin, which is intended to allow the best teams to advance, and in doing so is denying both beneficiaries and victims a chance at a fair contest. You might as well argue that people should be allowed to throw boards to their friends in pairs games because it will improve their chances in the next game when the favor is returned. Huh? By your logic I should just quit if I come up against Nickel in a knockout match, since the spirit of the knockout is also for the best teams to win. Or maybe if in the round robin I bid a grand slam off an ace but the opponents make the wrong lead I should just claim down 1 anyway since I was not a good team on that hand. Sorry, the spirit of the event is for the organizers to worry about, my worry is what is best for my team. You don't claim that a team which gets off to a great start and rests its best pair in the second have is subverting the spirit of the round robin, even though they are unfairly benefiting the teams that play them in the second half rather than the first. Why is that different? Either we can use knowledge of the score to our advantage or we can't. Obviously your example of friends throwing boards and trading with each other is a very bad analogy since that is collusion. Apples and oranges... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 You might as well argue that people should be allowed to throw boards to their friends in pairs games because it will improve their chances in the next game when the favor is returned. One reason this is very different is that it carries over multiple events. Dumping to your friends in THIS event will not help you win THIS event. Dumping during a round robin may increase your odds of winning the event in which the dumping takes place. I think better than Josh's example of resting a pair in the second half of a KO is resting a pair in later stages of a round robin after the team has already clinched qualification. If this results in your 3rd pair playing more than the minimum number of boards, has the team violated the spirit of the contest by not putting forth the best effort possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 You might as well argue that people should be allowed to throw boards to their friends in pairs games because it will improve their chances in the next game when the favor is returned. I thought that was quite normal in cycling races, the lower ranking team members act as wind shields for the higher ranking team members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 This happens very often. I personally have been in the situation to dump to help my chances of winning the event twice. I believe it's against the spirit of the game to do this, but as has been noted some would say it's unethical for me NOT to dump. I have also been in the position where I could get screwed by dumping and although they rested their best pair, they didn't dump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shintaro Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 :) Well if anyone considers 'Dumping' to been anything but a disgrace then perhaps they should NOT play Bridge :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 :) Well if anyone considers 'Dumping' to been anything but a disgrace then perhaps they should NOT play Bridge :( Well I guess you win, on the basis of your solid reasoning... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 :) Well if anyone considers 'Dumping' to been anything but a disgrace then perhaps they should NOT play Bridge :( Hey, have you ever considered posting in the Water Cooler? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanM Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 I'm in the camp that believes the fault is with the Conditions of Contest drafters if it is advantageous for one team to dump to another. And I note (a little unhappily) that it is that position that gives us the first day of the NABC KOs (Vanderbilt, Spingold, Wagar, Seniors) where many teams get byes and the day is used to eliminate 7 or 8 or even fewer teams. We do that so that it will be in each team's best interest on the first day to win each match it plays. In the USBF events, the last 3-4 matches of a Round Robin are played with no score comparison, to reduce the possibility that a team would know they had qualified and that by dumping against some other team they could increase the chance that a good team would fail to qualify. I'm the one who has to respond to complaints that scores from those matches don't appear on the internet until all of the matches are over, but I don't think anyone else suffers, and it does decrease the possibility of "sportsmanlike dumping." A few years ago, I was in the unenviable position in the Women's Trials of playing the last match in a 4 team Round Robin with 2 to advance when it was mathematically impossible for my team to advance. We won that match, but I can imagine situations where we would not have played our best. Since I'm also involved in drafting the Conditions of Contest for that event, this won't happen to anyone in the future - we now use a double elimination KO when we have 4 teams, 2 of whom will advance. In Shanghai, Italy lost a late (maybe the last?) Round Robin match to South Africa, which allowed South Africa to qualify for the Quarterfinals. Italy then chose South Africa as its Quarterfinal opponent. We all know what happened next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 How can dumping possibly ever be sportsmanlike or ethical? It depends on your definition of 'sportsmanlike'. If your objective is to win the event, then 'dumping' is part of the game. Think of it as 'Survivor' where you lose a small competition to a weak opponent, so that it insures the demise of a strong opponent who the weak opponent might be vying with for the last spot. When the top team is losing after the 3Q to an unknown, how do you think the other teams are reacting? They are rooting for the unknown in most cases. In most cases, its the event organizers that are to blame for establishing a format where losing can be beneficial to a team. I remember speaking to Jon Brissman about this subject in the mid 80's. His comment was, "Would you ever willingly lose a trick to guarantee your contract"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 I'm with Kaplan. If losing a match enhances your chance of winning the event, do it. How is this fundamentally different than losing a trick to guarantee the contract. If this type of behavior is not wanted, devise different conditions of contest. I recall an incident from ice hockey in the early 70's. In those days the first place team in each conference would play against the third place team in the first round of the playoffs while the second place team would play the fourth place team. The St. Louis Blues were the class of the Western Conference and were certain to beat whoever else in the West they played they were first by a mile. The LA Kings needed a win or a tie in their final game against the worst team in the league to finish third so they could be slaughtered by the Blues in the playoffs. Unaccountably, they lost and finished fourth, then went on to beat Oakland in the first round of the playoffs, the first time they won a playoff series. Then they were slaughtered by St. Louis in the conference finals. It was widely believed that the Kings dumped their final regular season game--but it was clearly in their best interest to lose that game. For the following year, the NHL changed the playoff system that had been in use for half a century so that henceforth the first place team would meet the fourth place team and the second place team would meet the third place team. This eliminated any incentive to dump and it has never been alleged since. So for bridge organizations--find incentives to dump and remove them from the conditions of contest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dburn Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 I recall that in the 2000 Olympiad in Maastricht, the Netherlands, the Conditions of Contest addressed the problem of sportsmanlike dumping by attempting to make it illegal. The form of words they chose was along these lines: Teams may play whatever line-ups they want for tactical reasons, but for the players at the table, failure to play other than as good bridge as possible is not permitted. I think I was the only person present who worked out that this meant it was mandatory to play badly. The question that has troubled me since is: when the Italians beat us in the semi-finals by playing well, should I have called the Director? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.