Appeals committee at European Open Championships

[RMB1]

OK, you got me. When?

RHO bids 1♠, LHO bids 1NT (out of turn), partner accepts and passes, RHO bids 1C (insufficient)

 

Now its your go and you can accept and bid 1♥

 

Probably not what blackshoe had in mind. :)

[barmar]

OK, I forgot to say "now", since I meant bid it at their current turn. I was trying to preclude any irregularity (that's why I was careful to say that RHO was dealer, I didn't want someone to say it was because RHO bid out of turn and it was withdrawn).

[blackshoe]

RHO realizes he meant to open 1♣ or 1♦ and immediately changes his bid (Law 25A). B-)

 

Robin's scenario is a little too far-fetched.

 

You're right that absent an irregularity the correct answer is "no". :)

[pran]

Would they? The correct answer is "yes", btw. B-)

OK, you got me. When?

(I hope blackshoe forgives me for submitting my suggestion before I go to bed, do you have any other situation in mind?)

 

Your LHO first opens (out of turn) with a bid which your partner does not accept.

See Laws 31B and 37B1

 

edit: I crossed the above answers. However "is there ever" clearly allows for irregularities:

[barmar]

(I hope blackshoe forgives me for submitting my suggestion before I go to bed, do you have any other situation in mind?)

 

Your LHO first opens (out of turn) with a bid which your partner does not accept.

See Laws 31B and 37B1

 

edit: I crossed the above answers. However "is there ever" clearly allows for irregularities:

But I specifically said that RHO is dealer and opens the bidding, so that didn't happen.

 

Anyway, I think my general point is valid. Players generally understand the proper procedure for the mechanics of the game, and would not dream of violating them intentionally. IB, BOOT, POOT, revokes, exposed cards, etc. are practically always accidental. On the other hand, taking advantage of UI, when it happens, is usually because the player doesn't know any better: either he doesn't know it's wrong, or he doesn't know how to avoid it.

 

In between are things like self-ruling -- a player revokes, immediately corrects it, and the players agree that the exposed card is a penalty card, rather than call the director over; even more common are corrections of misinformation: a player realizing that he should have alerted an earlier bid, or correcting an incorrect explanation after the auction is over, without bothering to call the director. They know that the initial action (the revoke, the missing alert, the misexplanation) is an irregularity, they don't realize that the laws require them to call the director. Actually, they may even know, but not care because the precise procedure seems unimportant -- I'm not sure I've ever called the director before correcting a misexplanation, but if an opponent feels they may have been damaged I would then call.

[aguahombre]

Has he technically opened the bidding 1S if he then does a 25A correction to a new opening bid of 1C? I vote not. 1C is the only opening bid, IMO.

[Fluffy]

I don't think it's any more OK to intentionally break the rules of football (soccer) than to intentionally break the rules of bridge. The rules of football include a section headed "fouls and misconduct" which refers to "offences" and to "disciplinary sanctions" for "persistent infringement of the Laws". The fact that breaking the rules is regarded as OK by some people is a cultural matter, not a legal one.

 

You are exagerating a lot and you know it, just imagine someone making intentionally revokes any time all tricks left are declarer's in order to try to get one back, this won't be tolerated in bridge since we have a law that forbids doing something against laws even when you are willing to take the penalty, while in other sports its bread and butter.

 

There are however other sports, I can think of Formula 1 although there are probably better examples, where no break of the rules should even give you advantage. It happens from time to time, but you don't expect to get caught cheating and be in better shape afterwards.

[blackshoe]

Has he technically opened the bidding 1S if he then does a 25A correction to a new opening bid of 1C? I vote not. 1C is the only opening bid, IMO.

Let's see how picky we can get? Nah.

[gnasher]

You are exagerating a lot and you know it, just imagine someone making intentionally revokes any time all tricks left are declarer's in order to try to get one back, this won't be tolerated in bridge since we have a law that forbids doing something against laws even when you are willing to take the penalty, while in other sports its bread and butter.

No, I'm not exaggerating. When a footballer intentionally fouls an opponent, it's cheating, just as it's cheating to intentionally revoke at bridge. The fact that cheating is often tolerated or even applauded in football doesn't change that.

 

The rule at bridge which says you can't break the rules even if you're willing to take the penalty isn't really necessary. At any game, the rules are there to be obeyed. At any game, if you break the rules in order to gain an advantage, you're cheating.

[gnasher]

I don't think it's any more OK to intentionally break the rules of football (soccer) than to intentionally break the rules of bridge.

 

I should have included the words "in order to gain an advantage". I wasn't talking about the harmless and uninteresting breaches of the rules that everyone commits from time to time.

[nige1]

No, I'm not exaggerating. When a footballer intentionally fouls an opponent, it's cheating, just as it's cheating to intentionally revoke at bridge. The fact that cheating is often tolerated or even applauded in football doesn't change that. The rule at bridge which says you can't break the rules even if you're willing to take the penalty isn't really necessary. At any game, the rules are there to be obeyed. At any game, if you break the rules in order to gain an advantage, you're cheating.

To cheat, you must have a rough idea of what the rule is, before you deliberately break it, to try to gain advantage. Otherwise, I agree with Gnasher. In other games, (e.g. Soccer and Cricket) such cheating is rife, applauded, and rewarded. I also agree with Gnasher that that he and Pran seem to inhabit different universes from Blackshoe and me. In my experience, many players routinely break the rules about using UI, bidding boxes (e.g. stop-cards, pass cards), nominating cards from dummy, and so on. I think rule-breakers know these rules. I think they know that such behaviour can annoy and disconcert opponents. I don't know their intentions. I suspect, however, that they are careless or lazy, rather than deliberately cheating. Pran and Gnasher are lucky to avoid all these annoyances, especially the use of UI.

[pran]

Has he technically opened the bidding 1S if he then does a 25A correction to a new opening bid of 1C? I vote not. 1C is the only opening bid, IMO.

Correct.

A call replaced under Law 25A is a slip of the tongue and for all purposes considered never made.

[gnasher]

To cheat, you must have a rough idea of what the rule is, before you deliberately break it, to try to gain advantage. Otherwise, I agree with Gnasher. In other games, (e.g. Soccer and Cricket) such cheating is rife, applauded, and rewarded. I also agree with Gnasher that that he and Pran seem to inhabit different universes from Blackshoe and me. In my experience, many players routinely break the rules about using UI, bidding boxes (e.g. stop-cards, pass cards), nominating cards from dummy, and so on. I think rule-breakers know these rules. I think they know that such behaviour can annoy and disconcert opponents. I don't know their intentions. I suspect, however, that they are careless or lazy, rather than deliberately cheating. Pran and Gnasher are lucky to avoid all these annoyances, especially the use of UI.

Of course I encounter people who don't use their bidding box correctly, use non-standard designations of cards from dummy, etc, but what on earth does this have to do with cheating? If, as you imply, they break the rules through carelessness, laziness or ignorance of the rules, they're not cheating. Do you really know many players who:

- Don't follow the Stop procedure, and

- Know that they're breaking the rules by not following the Stop procedure, and

- Do this in order to annoy an opponent, and

- Know that it's illegal to try to annoy an opponent, and

- Do it in the hope of gaining

 

As for UI, yes, I know a small number of players who (I think) knowingly use UI and know that what they're doing is improper. But they are definitely the exception rather than the rule, I know far larger numbers of players who break the UI rules through ignorance of the rules, laziness, or poor judgement. But none of these three is cheating.

[Fluffy]

No, I'm not exaggerating. When a footballer intentionally fouls an opponent, it's cheating, just as it's cheating to intentionally revoke at bridge. The fact that cheating is often tolerated or even applauded in football doesn't change that.

 

The rule at bridge which says you can't break the rules even if you're willing to take the penalty isn't really necessary. At any game, the rules are there to be obeyed. At any game, if you break the rules in order to gain an advantage, you're cheating.

 

Don't you think if this was true offenders who break attacks by fouling on purpose would be ejected rather than just getting a yellow card? (and sometimes not even that), you think this is cultural, and I think it is in the rules of that game, because there are no rules to discourage that attitude.

[gnasher]

Don't you think if this was true offenders who break attacks by fouling on purpose would be ejected rather than just getting a yellow card? (and sometimes not even that), you think this is cultural, and I think it is in the rules of that game, because there are no rules to discourage that attitude.

I was about to rebut this argument by quoting the Laws of football at you, but then I found this:

 

"A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent"

 

So if I punch an opponent carefully, with due consideration of the consequences, and without using excessive force, it's not subject to penalty. Maybe FIFA and the WBFLC are one and the same?

[barmar]

The rule at bridge which says you can't break the rules even if you're willing to take the penalty isn't really necessary. At any game, the rules are there to be obeyed. At any game, if you break the rules in order to gain an advantage, you're cheating.

Is there a possibility of infinite regress? What's the penalty for breaking the rule that you can't deliberately break the rules? And what if you're willing to pay that penalty?

[mycroft]

1♠-p-1♦-p; p-1♥ ?

[Cyberyeti]

Don't you think if this was true offenders who break attacks by fouling on purpose would be ejected rather than just getting a yellow card? (and sometimes not even that), you think this is cultural, and I think it is in the rules of that game, because there are no rules to discourage that attitude.

Indeed, look at American football if you want to see the professional foul at its most obvious outside of basketball.

 

If you're on the offensive line and get badly beaten, you will hold rather than let somebody smash your quarterback from his blind side, take the -10 yards.

 

If you're going to be beaten for a 75 yard passing TD because you bit on the WR's stop and go 10 yards downfield and he was going to be 10 yards beyond you when the ball arrived, you will grab him and take the penalty.

 

It's a game where the culture says you play to the letter of the law in this area (although there are other things that are frowned on in the spirit of the game but perfectly legal like faking a kneel down when well ahead).

[nige1]

Of course I encounter people who don't use their bidding box correctly, use non-standard designations of cards from dummy, etc, but what on earth does this have to do with cheating? If, as you imply, they break the rules through carelessness, laziness or ignorance of the rules, they're not cheating. Do you really know many players who:

- Don't follow the Stop procedure, and

- Know that they're breaking the rules by not following the Stop procedure, and

- Do this in order to annoy an opponent, and

- Know that it's illegal to try to annoy an opponent, and

- Do it in the hope of gaining

Gnasher writes about cheating but, as far as I'm aware, I know no cheats. Bidding box violations are not a problem in the SBU but in the ACBL, several contributors assure us that violations are common so It seems to be an uncontroversial example. I don't know why they do it. I guess some may be aware of relevant rules. Anyway, I don't think they are cheats!

As for UI, yes, I know a small number of players who (I think) knowingly use UI and know that what they're doing is improper. But they are definitely the exception rather than the rule, I know far larger numbers of players who break the UI rules through ignorance of the rules, laziness, or poor judgement. But none of these three is cheating.

I too know players who "make the bid they would have made anyway" but claim they are doing nothing improper. Most Bridge law-breakers are careless - or unclear about the law -- or rationalize their actions. This is not cheating. Nevertheless, more deterrence might concentrate players' minds and persuade them to study the rules; and simpler clearer unified rules would provide less excuse for ignorance.

[jallerton]

Of course I encounter people who don't use their bidding box correctly, use non-standard designations of cards from dummy, etc, but what on earth does this have to do with cheating?

 

The problem is when a player changes his mind and wants to change his call. Although this is not permitted under Law 25B anymore, all the player has to do is call the TD and say that the original call was a "mechanical error" or "unintended". Of course the TD will be reluctant to accuse the player of lying, and so abracadabra: Law 25A is applied and the player is permitted to change his call.

 

If, as you imply, they break the rules through carelessness, laziness or ignorance of the rules, they're not cheating. Do you really know many players who:

- Don't follow the Stop procedure, and

- Know that they're breaking the rules by not following the Stop procedure, and

- Do this in order to annoy an opponent, and

- Know that it's illegal to try to annoy an opponent, and

- Do it in the hope of gaining

 

This happened against me recently (certainly the first four of your points applied). The player in question was one of the main people responsible for setting the 'stop' regulations!

 

I agree with Nigel. Anybody who believes that they have never come across an instance of someone trying to deliberately break the Laws/Regulations is naive.

[pran]

Anybody who believes that they have never come across an instance of someone trying to deliberately break the Laws/Regulations is naive.

"Thank you" for your accusation.

 

But I don't think that I am naive, it is usually not difficult to "diagnose" what is really going on. And a player who tries a sting like that will pretty soon find himself holding a reputation he could do better without.

[barmar]

I agree with Nigel. Anybody who believes that they have never come across an instance of someone trying to deliberately break the Laws/Regulations is naive.

I won't say never. A number of years ago I was playing in a KO at an NABC where our teammates noticed that the opponents seemed to be sending signals by the way they held the card when playing it (horizontally or vertically). That's out-and-out cheating. They reported it to a director, and I believe they started monitoring that pair covertly to get more evidence.

 

There are some things that are borderline. If declarer plays/calls a card before they notice what the defender played, and then claims that the card was inadvertent so they should be allowed to change it, that's wrong. I don't think they're intentionally trying to cheat, they're rationalizing.

[gnasher]

I didn't say "never" either.

[mycroft]

I can think of at least three players who have abused the Laws, in ways that they "should have known" better, to gain, and did it deliberately. Without trying hard.

 

And then there are the several people whose attitude toward the table was the reason all the ZT cards and posters were created, and they still do it, and "everybody" knows they do it, and it does gain by putting others off their game, and they're still playing, mumble years later. Witness the pair that blindsided us at our "away tournament": when explaining that apart from one pair, who <did all kinds of crazy, illegal, and imProper stuff at our table, and got very indignant when we called them on it>, everyone has been very pleasant and glad to have us tourists, even with our crazy bidding, they knew *exactly* who it was. I bet every bridge community has such a player/pair. And yet they still get to play...

 

Yes, pran, they get an unenviable reputation. But that's *all* they get, besides the matchpoints and made contracts from the irritated opponents. For them, it's an adequate trade.

[pran]

I can think of at least three players who have abused the Laws, in ways that they "should have known" better, to gain, and did it deliberately. Without trying hard.

 

And then there are the several people whose attitude toward the table was the reason all the ZT cards and posters were created, and they still do it, and "everybody" knows they do it, and it does gain by putting others off their game, and they're still playing, mumble years later. Witness the pair that blindsided us at our "away tournament": when explaining that apart from one pair, who <did all kinds of crazy, illegal, and imProper stuff at our table, and got very indignant when we called them on it>, everyone has been very pleasant and glad to have us tourists, even with our crazy bidding, they knew *exactly* who it was. I bet every bridge community has such a player/pair. And yet they still get to play...

 

Yes, pran, they get an unenviable reputation. But that's *all* they get, besides the matchpoints and made contracts from the irritated opponents. For them, it's an adequate trade.

And how do you think "we" as TD use such reputation? They find themselves ruled against.