Cluster

[bluejak]

Now: should the Director rule that East-West keep their "table score" after the adjustment that would have been made once the hand had been played to a finish?

Illegal method, fielding of psyche, deviation or misbid

 

If a contestant uses a method that is not permitted, or is adjudged to have fielded a psyche, deviation or misbid then the deal should be completed. If he attains a score of Ave– or less then the score stands. Otherwise he gets Ave– and his opponents get Ave+.

 

Examples

(e) A pair fields a misbid, and gets a score of 50% on the board. The board is re-scored as Ave– to them, and Ave+ to their opponents. However, theopposition appeal because of a hesitation, and the Appeals Committee decide a weighted score would be suitable. If the weighted score gives the non-offenders 60% or better when calculated, that score is applied: if less than 60% then it remains as Ave–/Ave+.

Yes.

[gerry]

I'd also comment that "table result stands" on this board without even a PP for E/W is the kind of awful ACBL ruling that makes me not want to play in their events.

 

What more could E/W have done wrong here? They play an illegal method. They didn't have the hand described. They fielded the misbid (or whatever it was) by west never correcting to spades. East arguably used his UI (west doesn't know what he holds) to find a sacrifice.

 

Yet the directors decide to shoot the non-offending side and let them keep their lousy table result. They don't even penalize the offending side for what amounts to blatant cheating. It sounds like they didn't even tell E/W to take the illegal method off their card.

Agree completely. 5cx-2 AND a PP. Anything less will ensure that this kind of cheating becomes even more common than it already is.

[jeremy69]

At some point these players are going to feel pretty hard done by.

 

That's good. It might make them check as to whether they can play something or not (ignorance being no defence) and also to be rather more careful when cheating after playing their illegal method.

[blackshoe]

My point was that it shouldn't be necessary to give a long list of transgressions and a large PP for each to get the point across.

[jeremy69]

And my point is that unless you make the point clearly and unequivocably you won't alter their behaviour.

[peachy]

My point was that it shouldn't be necessary to give a long list of transgressions and a large PP for each to get the point across.

I think it is necessary to give the reason for PP, and if there are more than one reasons, to give the full list however long.

[blackshoe]

I agree, Peachy, that if you give a PP, you should say why.

 

Don't forget, Jeremy, that PPs are very rare here. It would be quite a shock to most players to get one at all. That said, at a Sectional or Regional, if the TD did give a PP for each offense, he would probably give the "standard" 25% of a top for each, because it's the standard.

 

Adam (and others) if EW are truly blatant cheats, should you not be calling for an ethics hearing?

[nige1]

Adam (and others) if EW are truly blatant cheats, should you not be calling for an ethics hearing?

This is a problem with laws designed to restore equity -- rather than to deter law-breakers and to encourage their victims to report infractions.

 

PPs and DPs are sporadically and inconsistently enforced. Players resent them.

 

Accusations of cheating require cast-iron evidence certain to convince a lay jury; because a lost libel-case would bankrupt most NBAs and their officers.

 

Another problem is that law-breaking is common but deliberate cheating is rare. Ignorance or carelessness or rationalisation are the usual reasons for law-breaking.

 

The simple solution is to incorporate deterrent penalties into the ordinary rules. Likely consequences ...

• It would concentrate players' minds and drastically reduce infractions.
  
• The game woud become fairer. Hence more enjoyable for would-be players and for those trying to obey the rules.
  
• The downside is that directors would have to cope with hassle from habitual law-breakers, as infractions become less profitable.
  

[blackshoe]

Deterrent penalties are incorporated in the current rules - see laws 90 and 91. Or are you suggesting they be made mandatory, rather than left to TD discretion? That's pretty much what the ACBL has done with its "Zero Tolerance" policy. Not sure that's working all that well.

[awm]

Well it's not clear what E/W are doing deliberately and what they are doing through ignorance. Calling an ethics committee based on this one incident might be going a bit far, but it certainly should be recorded in case similar situations occur in future. This decision may also depend on how experienced the pair is, with inexperienced pairs being educated as to their responsibilities rather than brought before an ethics committee.

 

Nonetheless the facts seem to indicate that:

 

(1) E/W are playing an illegal method.

(2) East apparently has difficulty remembering the methods they play on the first round of an uncontested auction, or else has made a very weird psych.

(3) West seems to have fielded this psych or misbid.

(4) East seems to have taken advantage of the UI from west's alert in the subsequent bidding.

 

Combining all four of these on a single hand is pretty damning.

 

Perhaps I can believe a decision that the N/S defense does not entitle them to full redress (for example, if ducking the heart ace is viewed as a really poor play) but allowing E/W to keep their table result without any consequences for their actions on this board is truly awful.

[Vampyr]

I assume that Bergen raises are permitted in the ACBL, since Marty Bergen is American. Is it really legal to play that 1M-3♣ is a raise of the major, but illegal to play 1M-2♣ as a raise?

[blackshoe]

I assume that Bergen raises are permitted in the ACBL, since Marty Bergen is American. Is it really legal to play that 1M-3♣ is a raise of the major, but illegal to play 1M-2♣ as a raise?

Yes, Bergen Raises are GCC legal. No, 2♣ as a raise is not, unless it's GF.