Seeking quick legal opinion

[fred]

I would be interested to know from Fred what XX would have meant in the Vanderbilt hand, according to his systems, and what sort of hand would have qualified.  It might be that XX in their system would have been entirely artiificial even in the cotext of "systems on" continutiations (although I suspect that Fred would have told us by now if that were the case).

 

For myself, I would like XX to promise serious game interest, which this hand lacks.  Others might prefer XX merely to promise the balance of values, which this hand holds.  The argument for "systems on" is that once the opponents have got their oar in with an artificial double, the race is on to find fits and to disrupt opponents from finding fits. Doubles to show balance of values can come later if space affords.  If you are going to give the opponents all the space that they need (by way of XX) then it behoves you to be sure that you are comparing your hoped-for penalty with the expectation of a game bonus.  "Balance of values", for this purpose, may be a tad greedy, although it may work better against less than expert opponents.

For us Redouble would not be artificial - it would suggest a strong hand. It would create a force on our partnership at all levels. Your 2nd paragraph that I quoted does a good job of summing up some of the reasons why I prefer not to Redouble unless I have a stronger hand.

 

Truth be told:

 

1) It did not even occur to me to Redouble with the hand in question. I did spend some time thinking about what I should do, but the only calls I considered were Pass and 2C. I am not saying that I think that Redouble is a terrible call. It would not even totally surprise me if some excellent player could convince me it was the best call. But unless/until that happens, I will not be Redoubling on such hands (or even considering it for that matter) - Redouble is very much not my style.

 

2) Had RHO Passed over 1NT, being non-vul, I probably would have Passed. The main reason I bid over the Double was for tactical considerations (which were not related in any way to psyching).

 

3) None of this has ANYTHING to do with the possibility that my partner might have psyched because:

 

- I would guess that for every time that Brad opens 1NT with a psych there are at least a couple of 100 times in which he opens 1NT with a non-psych.

 

- I strongly believe that partnerships that psych have certain extra responsibilities to play fairly. If it ever started to enter my head that "maybe he psyched" every time Brad opened 1NT, I would judge this to be a reasonable standard that we had crossed the line from psych to part-of-system. At that point I would tell my partner "I think we should stop doing this".

 

FWIW the same thing happened in my partnership with Joey Silver several years ago. He liked to bid 2H or 2S over my weak 1NT openings as a signoff (we did not play transfers) on hands that did not contain length in the suit bid. Eventually he did this enough that I started to half-expect it. That made me uncomfortable so I asked him to stop (even though this psych is highly-effective). Joey, being Joey, refused to stop so I started alerting these bids and explaining them as "signoff but does not promise length in the suit". That got him to stop :unsure:

 

- I would never Redouble with the hand in question with any partner. For those who think it is clear to Redouble and that my lack of Redouble suggests that I was thinking about psychs, the fact that I disagree with your bridge judgment does not imply anything more than that I disagree with your bridge judgment.

 

4) I think it should be obvious from what I had to say about my 2C bid (basically nothing) in my post that explained why I had not fielded a psych, that I am rather surprised that anyone would take issue with that particular action. It was my Pass of 2NT, not my 2C bid, that might appear suspicious to a person who did not know all the facts (or to a person who has already made up their mind and does not care to consider the facts and/or the bridge logic of the situation).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[iviehoff]

What you said, on another thread I now realise, was:

 

Long experience on various forums have shown that the term fielding is used as two different things. The majority use the term to mean allowing illegally for partner's psyche/misbid/deviation. There is a minority use that uses the term to mean allowing for it in a way that may or may not be illegal.

 

You now seem to be saying that any bid which takes account of partner having psyched is fielding. (Which I'm struggling to believe is really your intention.)

 

But if it is your intention, then, Fred did field (admitted and deliberately) when

 

...So I thought my RHO had something resembling a 2NT opening which makes it obvious that my partner had psyched (even without taking into account the fact that my LHO's tempo had strongly suggested that he was not broke).

...

So I Passed over 2NT.

[fred]

That is pretty nearly the opposite of what I said.  Allowing for partner's psyche is fielding, and is illegal.  But that does not mean his integrity is in question: it needs more than that.

Maybe I am being overly-sensitive, David, but to me the suggestion that I intentionally and knowingly did something illegal very much questions my integrity.

 

As I tried to convey in my most recent post, pairs that psych have certain responsibilities that non-psychers never have to think about. One of the most important (and most frequently relevant) of these responsibilities is the need to answer the question of "I think my partner might have psyched - would it be appropriate to cater to that possibility?".

 

IMO you can only answer "yes" to that question if the opponents' bridge actions and behavior and your own hand make it all but certain that a psych has occurred. Otherwise the partner of the potential psycher must go out of his/her way to bury his/her partner.

 

Now I should admit that I don't put much stock in statement like the above from people I don't know that claim "I'm so ethical". Actions speak louder than words so, if some of you feel it is appropriate to disregard my self-serving claims, I can't say I blame you.

 

But please consider that everyone knows that my self-serving claims represent the accepted expert opinion on how one should behave when it is possible that partner might have psyched. Also consider that the psych in question took place on vugraph in front of 100s, if not 1000s, of people no doubt including many highly-knowledgable players.

 

So even if you think my self-proclaimed statement of ethics is not worth much, consider how stupid I would have to be to play my partner to have psyched with the whole world watching unless I was 100% comfortable that my action was justified. That would amount to bridge-suicide.

 

Not being comfortable looking in the mirror is one thing, but taking an action that could destroy your reputation as an honest bridge player is quite another matter.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

What you said, on another thread I now realise, was:

 

Long experience on various forums have shown that the term fielding is used as two different things. The majority use the term to mean allowing illegally for partner's psyche/misbid/deviation. There is a minority use that uses the term to mean allowing for it in a way that may or may not be illegal.

 

You now seem to be saying that any bid which takes account of partner having psyched is fielding. (Which I'm struggling to believe is really your intention.)

 

But if it is your intention, then, Fred did field (admitted and deliberately) when

 

...So I thought my RHO had something resembling a 2NT opening which makes it obvious that my partner had psyched (even without taking into account the fact that my LHO's tempo had strongly suggested that he was not broke).

...

So I Passed over 2NT.

If the opponents' bidding leads you to conclude that partner psyched, then taking a call that caters for the psych is not fielding. Fielding is catering for a psych on the basis of extraneous info — info that comes from something other than sources authorized to you (see Law 16A).

[TimG]

Allowing for partner's psyche is fielding, and is illegal.

Does this mean that when bridge logic dictates that someone has psyched you must assume it is one of the opponents?

 

In another thread you define fielding as "allowing illegally for partner's psyche". Is there also the possibility of "allowing legally for partner's psych"? Or, is this an impossibility?

[jillybean]

Any legal eagles out there know what sort of penalty should be given for this?

 

Before play starts in the 2nd segment of a Spingold match, you ask your opponents what they play over your 1NT openings. They tell you play, among other things, that Double is conventional.

 

Later in the segment you open 1NT in 3rd chair with none vul. Your LHO Doubles and your RHO alerts and explains the Double as "Penalty" (which I believe does not require an alert but that's not the point here).

 

Upon asking the opponents what is going on they tell you:

 

1) They have agreed to play penalty Doubles specifically in this situation and specifically only against certain pairs (including you and your partner)

 

2) They intentionally did not tell you this when you asked them about their 1NT defense before the segment started

 

None of this was relevant to the (completely normal) result that was achieved on the board.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Fred, what has happened to your original complaint regarding the concealed partnership agreement?

Did you complete a recorder form, what process does this take? Don't tell me it disappears into an abyss and you havent heard back from anyone.

[fred]

Any legal eagles out there know what sort of penalty should be given for this?

 

Before play starts in the 2nd segment of a Spingold match, you ask your opponents what they play over your 1NT openings. They tell you play, among other things, that Double is conventional.

 

Later in the segment you open 1NT in 3rd chair with none vul. Your LHO Doubles and your RHO alerts and explains the Double as "Penalty" (which I believe does not require an alert but that's not the point here).

 

Upon asking the opponents what is going on they tell you:

 

1) They have agreed to play penalty Doubles specifically in this situation and specifically only against certain pairs (including you and your partner)

 

2) They intentionally did not tell you this when you asked them about their 1NT defense before the segment started

 

None of this was relevant to the (completely normal) result that was achieved on the board.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Fred, what has happened to your original complaint regarding the concealed partnership agreement?

Did you complete a recorder form, what process does this take? Don't tell me it disappears into an abyss and you havent heard back from anyone.

I completed a recorder form.

 

I don't know exactly what happens next, but I assume the Official ACBL Recorder will eventually see the recorder form and decide what, if anything, should happen next.

 

So far I have not heard back from anyone, but I don't think that necessarily means that my recorder form has fallen into an abyss for a couple of reasons:

 

1) Probably the process is slow.

 

2) It may well be the case that it is normal procedure not to update the person who filled out a recorder form on the status of his/her complaint.

 

If I ever learn anything, I will post what I hear.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[matmat]

2) It may well be the case that it is normal procedure not to update the person who filled out a recorder form on the status of his/her complaint.

I understand why they may not want to discuss the outcome of a recorder form, or similar complaint, but it completely boggles me that they would not acknowledge the receipt.

[bluejak]

Every time I write something, someone tells me I have written something different. ;)

 

Look, you are not allowed to allow for partner having psyched as a matter of partnership agreement, the Law says so. To do so is illegal. Like other things that players do that are illegal, it is not a matter of integrity: most players break some Law or other every time they play: that does not [and should not] bring their integrity into question.

 

You may allow for a psyche legally so long as it is demonstrably not a matter of partnership agreement: that is not fielding.

 

Last night at the club I was asked about the following sequence:

 

P P 1♠ 1NT

?

 

You have passed with a poor 12 count, balanced with a doubleton spade. I said I would double. The bidding continues:

 

P P 1♠ 1NT

X P 2♦ 2NT

?

 

I said I would double: I am stronger than shown by my first double. The bidding continues:

 

P P 1♠ 1NT

X P 2♦ 2NT

X P 3♦ 3NT

?

 

I pass, I said. I have shown my hand. The evidence is very strong that partner has psyched, not as a matter of partnership but because the bidding makes no sense otherwise. If he has not no doubt he will double or bid something anyway.

 

Not to have doubled the first time would be fielding in my view. Not to have doubled the second time would be fielding in my view. Not to double the third time is legal and sensible.

 

But whether you field a psyche or not, doing something illegal is not a matter of cheating, being unethical, or showing that your integrity should be questioned. It might be, of course, but of itself doing something illegal is not sufficient.

 

Apart from any other consideration, fielding or otherwise is a judgement decision, and people often disagree about judgement decisions. Look at the sequence discussed: P P 1NT X ? It was suggested that bidding 2♣ might be fielding: my judgement is the opposite, the failure to redouble shows that he is not fielding. But it is a judgement.

[baseggio]

I don't know what was going through your opponents' minds (disclaimer: I was involved in the match but completely uninvolved in the incident and have no facts to add), but it is not necessary to assume that they thought that they were breaking the law. It is sufficient to believe that your 1NT openings vary from your disclosed agreement to a material degree, even if entirely legally and even if without regard to the defense played. It seems to me entirely uncontroversial that this variation in fact exists: your various comments in this thread suggest that a 3rd favorable 1N is psychic somewhere between .25% and 5% of the time, which is certainly more often than the typical pair with your agreement.

 

You arguably gain some advantage by not disclosing details of this variation known to you. For example, Peter Weichsel might have benefited from such a disclosure (and surely would not have been harmed). Note that I'm not making any accusation here: it is entirely legal to seek advantage within the laws, and the laws expressly allow psyching. But, you create a problem for yourself -- the opponents are perfectly entitled to tailor their defenses to what your bids actually show, but a reasonable person could think you are only entitled to advanced warning of their defenses to your disclosed agreements (which was accurately given). My best guess is that the laws are ambiguous on this and that a poll of experts would not reveal a clear consensus. To me, this is the heart of the issue, and not nearly so obvious as many here seem to think.

 

For example, if at the beginning of the match you asked "what's your defense to a strong club" and they answered "CRASH" but you later learned they played something different, would that have been an infraction? [Noting that Fred & Brad do not play a strong club.] Of course not. Similarly, (according to this argument, which I am only endorsing as "reasonable") you cannot ask "what is your defense to an occasionally psychic 1NT" and be protected if you do not have that agreement (which you say you don't). Ergo, the question "what is your defense to our NT" must logically mean "what is your defense to our NT agreement." For one thing, your opponents may not know that there's a distinction. For another, if you don't have to tell them there's a distinction and choose not to, surely they don't have to tell you they're aware of the distinction anyway.

 

(Of course, all agreements about calls actually made during the auction must be accurately disclosed. But, this is a distinct issue covered by a distinct law and no one is asserting a violation of this sort. The fact that they were careful to avoid this sort of damage suggests they were in fact attempting to stay within the law.)

 

The point of disclosure rules is to avoid secret communication about cards in your hand and to enable preparation where necessary. Where these goals are met, as they were, there can be no possibility of damage.

 

This is a subtle semantic argument and hence dangerous (and perhaps fatally flawed). I myself would try to avoid relying on something like this. I certainly would advocate at least being explicit that penalty doubles apply against some NTs. But, I think what was done could have been intended as an honest attempt to legally neutralize one of your advantages, irrespective of the legality of that advantage. Thus, it is not necessary to characterize them as "taking the law into their own hands." You might feel they were mistaken or even idiotically stupid to think so, but you should believe they thought they were acting within the law -- it strikes me as by far the most likely explanation.

 

Note that I have no knowledge of their actual reasons, and their reasoning might be entirely different than mine. My point is that accusing someone of intentional law-breaking is a serious accusation needlessly impugning their integrity, potentially just as needlessly upsetting as the accusations carelessly levelled at you have been to you.

 

FWIW, I concur that your actions before or during the incident are irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of your opponents actions. But, it does show you accept 2 things: (1) disclosure is not an absolute end in itself -- there is the potential for information you are not required to disclose (in your case the details of partner's psyching frequency), and (2) that in the face of ambiguity it is appropriate to back your own judgment on how to interpret the laws (in your case the line you draw between legal psyching and overly frequent psyching that violates law 40C1 is more aggressive than what many other people would draw) even in the absence of universal agreement that your judgment is right. Your opponents' actions suggest they believe the same 2 things in a different context.

 

Note if their behavior is in fact legal but does disadvantage you in some way (I don't see how in this particular case), you can neutralize it by bringing your agreements more in line with your actual bids (again, which is not to say that any variance that exists now isn't legal).

 

If I've said anything that could be interpreted of accusing anyone of cheating of any kind, it was unintentional. Please bring it to my attention and I will try to clarify. For example, when I say something like "which you say you don't" it's because I'm trying to restrict my assertions to what is relevant and necessary to the argument I'm making, not to imply that the statement would or wouldn't be true if you omit "you say".

 

Franco

 

P.S. I actually have one fact to add: I witnessed the recorder talking to one of the participants later during the tournament. I have no knowledge of what was discussed.

[JanM]

In a way the opponents of Fred and Brad who did not disclose in advance their meaning of a double over a third seat favourable potentially psychic 1NT seem to be suggesting that that third seat favourable potentially psychic 1NT is in fact an agreement implicit if not explicit.  That is both sides have the argument that their opponents are not fully disclosing their methods.

That is somewhat speculative, isn't it? We don't know why Fred's opps behaved as they did.

I have now read Fred's opponent's statement to the Recorder (I guess that partly answers the question of what is being done - the Recorder is investigating). That statement contradicts my speculation that they did not intentionally fail to disclose that they played penalty DBLs of 3rd seat non-vul 1NT openings. The entire statement is very long, but I believe this excerpt is representative and not out of context:

 

first quarter we oppose Hampson-Greco. Before play

begins, partner and I discuss a couple of things on our opponents’ convention card.  I note

their NT ranges, one of the ranges is (13)14-16, and I tell partner openly in the presence

of both Hampson and Greco we will  treat their 3rd seat white NT opening as weak, and

we will play penalty doubles in this one situation.  (Our convention card shows the

double as artificial.)

 

2nd quarter of the match, partner and I oppose Gitelman-Moss.  I pull my partner away

from the table and tell him privately that we are playing the same methods as first quarter

(penalty doubles of their 3rd seat white notrump) but we are not pre-alerting this pair

because Gitelman-Moss have the implicit undisclosed agreement of frequent psychic

1NT openings.  We agree to alert all doubles of 1NT and to fully disclose the nature of

each particular double after the alert.

I apologize for my earlier speculations.

[blackshoe]

I had thought player memos were supposed to be kept confidential. IAC, I think we've discussed this enough. Let's move on.

[OleBerg]

For those it might interest, Law 41C1:

 

C. Deviation from System and Psychic Action

1. A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always

provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation

than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit

understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must

be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of

system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has

damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural

penalty.

[hrothgar]

first quarter we oppose Hampson-Greco. Before play

begins, partner and I discuss a couple of things on our opponents’ convention card.  I note

their NT ranges, one of the ranges is (13)14-16, and I tell partner openly in the presence

of both Hampson and Greco we will  treat their 3rd seat white NT opening as weak, and

we will play penalty doubles in this one situation.  (Our convention card shows the

double as artificial.)

 

2nd quarter of the match, partner and I oppose Gitelman-Moss.  I pull my partner away

from the table and tell him privately that we are playing the same methods as first quarter

(penalty doubles of their 3rd seat white notrump) but we are not pre-alerting this pair

because Gitelman-Moss have the implicit undisclosed agreement of frequent psychic

1NT openings.  We agree to alert all doubles of 1NT and to fully disclose the nature of

each particular double after the alert.

 

 

This raises another big question: Just WHY are the opponents alerting their third seat penalty doubles.

 

Penalty doubles aren't alertable. An agreement to alert them could easily be viewed as an deliberate attempt to conceal the fact that they ARE playing penalty doubles in this situation.

[helene_t]

This raises another big question: Just WHY are the opponents alerting their third seat penalty doubles.

 

Penalty doubles aren't alertable. An agreement to alert them could easily be viewed as an deliberate attempt to conceal the fact that they ARE playing penalty doubles in this situation.

I don't think so. They were playing behind screens, so my guess would be that they explained the "penalty" spontaneously rather than just alerting.

[fred]

The wheels are spinning.

 

In the past 24 hours I have received:

 

1) An e-mail from the ACBL Recorder that stated that our complaint was being investigated and asked me if I wanted to add anything to my original report.

 

2) A cc of an e-mail from the alleged offender to the ACBL Recorder that tried to explain the other side of the story. I don't think it would be appropriate to quote from that e-mail here, but I will confirm:

 

- The alleged offender clearly acknowledged the intentional violation of the rules that I reported.

 

- The alleged offender tried to justify these actions based on repeated claims (which I strongly disagree with) that my partner and I frequently psych 1NT openings and that we intentionally fail to disclose details of our agreements in this area.

 

That's all I have to say about this matter for now.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[McBruce]

Thanks for that, Fred.

 

I have some serious doubts about whether this should be going to a Recorder, although the guidelines for the National Recorder may be different from the Unit Recorder position I am familiar with, having known several local Unit Recorders and approved and suggested people for the position when I was a member of the local Unit Board. It was always my understanding that the Recorder option was an option given when the situation required a confidential investigation of a matter that might indicate a breach of ethics, but might also be an innocent misunderstanding of the rules. Filling out a Recorder form allows a discreet investigation without any publicity, and also--in very, very rare cases--allows a hearing for ethics or conduct violations to be made aware of the nature volume, and relevance of Recorder complaints against a player.

 

This incident, I suspect, is not the type of incident that the Recorder process was made for. We can't have a situation where both sides think the other is blatantly abusing the Laws -- and not get a resolution, especially in the middle of a major event. Surely at an NABC there is an Ethics Committee or a Laws Committee or some body that can be convened to make a decision, at least for the duration of the event, and review it all later if necessary.

 

If I were in Fred's chair (I'd be a much better player than I'll ever be, but never mind that...) I'd have to wonder whether the pair had any other surprises in store, and whether any of them were going to cost IMPs. I would expect the TD to make some decision on whether the non-disclosure was illegal or not at the time, even if uncertain (Law 85B), and refer the matter to the appropriate Committee ASAP (Law 81C7). It doesn't sound like this was what happened at all. Instead, the Recorder option was offered. I think that's inappropriate.

[awm]

The director's job is normally to restore equity. If there was damage on the particular board in question, then the director would do something about it. But Fred indicated that the result of the board was normal and not interesting.

 

The issue here is ethics and possible cheating due to an intentional failure to disclose. There is also a counter-charge of undisclosed frequent psychics against Fred's side. The proper forum for addressing these things is not the director -- it's a disciplinary committee. The recorder is in charge of (among other things) gathering the evidence to be presented to such a committee.

 

It was my impression that testimony to the recorder was confidential. In fact I find it amusing that the various posters on this thread have taken such care to avoid revealing the identities of Fred's opponents (although it is not hard to figure out their identities by doing a bit of research) but then Jan posted an excerpt from a confidential recorder form directly to this forum. In fact I felt the need to report that post, as it seems like an abuse of her influential position in ACBL/WBF. I suppose it is nice to know that recorder forms don't simply vanish into oblivion, but it is also somewhat troubling to see that certain people who have no direct involvement in the case are allowed to read and publicize the contents of these forms, and it is also troubling to compare the quick action to address the complaints of some players (i.e. Fred) with the glacial (or non-existent) pace of addressing the complaints of other players (my friends and I have filed many recorder forms to no effect).

[fred]

This raises another big question:  Just WHY are the opponents alerting their third seat penalty doubles.

 

Penalty doubles aren't alertable.  An agreement to alert them could easily be viewed as an deliberate attempt to conceal the fact that they ARE playing penalty doubles in this situation.

I don't think so. They were playing behind screens, so my guess would be that they explained the "penalty" spontaneously rather than just alerting.

We were not playing behind screens.

 

In the Spingold (and Vanderbilt) play behind screens starts in the round-of-16. The incident in question happened in the round-of-32.

 

Richard raises an interesting point and I agree with him that alerting their non-alertable penalty Doubles had the potential to further compound the consequences of my opponents' poorly-judged decisions, but my strong sense is that the alert of the penalty Double was actually made in the spirit of proper disclosure (as opposed to being intended to further deceive us).

 

That is not to say that I agree that my opponent "should have alerted" - the right way to think about this IMO is that my opponents should have never put themselves in this (impossible) position to begin with.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[JanM]

It was my impression that testimony to the recorder was confidential. In fact I find it amusing that the various posters on this thread have taken such care to avoid revealing the identities of Fred's opponents (although it is not hard to figure out their identities by doing a bit of research) but then Jan posted an excerpt from a confidential recorder form directly to this forum. In fact I felt the need to report that post, as it seems like an abuse of her influential position in ACBL/WBF. I suppose it is nice to know that recorder forms don't simply vanish into oblivion, but it is also somewhat troubling to see that certain people who have no direct involvement in the case are allowed to read and publicize the contents of these forms, and it is also troubling to compare the quick action to address the complaints of some players (i.e. Fred) with the glacial (or non-existent) pace of addressing the complaints of other players (my friends and I have filed many recorder forms to no effect).

I was sent the statement (not a "recorder form" because it was Fred who filed the recorder form) by the person who wrote it, with an express statement that I could forward it to anyone else. I did not get it because of any confidential position I may hold (and indeed I do not have any confidential position with either ACBL or WBF, but everyone seems to get USBF confused with those other two organizations). I posted the excerpt only because I had previously stated that I thought Fred's opponents had not deliberately concealed their methods from him and the excerpt contradicted that statement.

[awm]

Apologies to Jan. I misinterpreted the statement "I have now read Fred's opponents' statement to the recorder" which sounded an awful lot like the supposedly private testimony to the recorder had been read and posted. If the opponents in question sent you this information voluntarily and wanted it posted to BBO that is of course a different situation entirely.

[TimG]

The issue here is ethics and possible cheating due to an intentional failure to disclose. There is also a counter-charge of undisclosed frequent psychics against Fred's side. The proper forum for addressing these things is not the director -- it's a disciplinary committee. The recorder is in charge of (among other things) gathering the evidence to be presented to such a committee.

If these things come to light at a tournament through the directing staff, the Director-In-Charge is empowered (or at least was ~5 years ago) to send a charge to a disciplinary committee.

[cherdanno]

Btw, while some of the posts in this thread are a little painful to read, I have to smile every time I read the thread title - a legal opinion is never that quick, I suppose. :)