Elinescu-Wladow banned

[Trinidad]

If gnasher doesn't like that definition, he can suggest another. I don't know if Bridgewinners, who always do what they would have done without UI, know the rules. Some might know the rules and might be aware that choosing a suggested action over a non-suggested logical alternative will sometimes gain. I agree that it's hard to tell whether any do. They might know whether they cheat. I don't think they cheat but, for an observer, it's a grey area.

Following the UI laws is difficult. You need to establish at each decision that you have to make:

- what your logical alternatives are

- which of these logical alternatives are made more attractive the others by the UI

 

and then you need to chose one of the alternatives that hasn't been made more attractive. At the same time, you will have to try and play winning bridge.

 

Some cases are fairly straightforward, but there are also cases where -for the vast majority of the players (and a surprising amount of TDs)- this is just too hard to do. At some decision, somewhere in the auction or play, the UI will mix with the AI. It is much easier (though it is also hard) to "just forget" the UI.

 

So, if you are simply not able to follow the UI rules literally, you will have to do the best you can. "Forgetting the UI" and do what you were going to do without the UI, and let the TD sort it out later, is second best.

 

People who work to the best of their ability to follow the rules are not cheaters. They are not in a grey area either. They do not deserve PPs. You might call them "victims of their partner's". But they did break the laws and a good TD will correct that by adjusting the score.

 

It is inappropriate to hand out PPs to people who try their best to follow the rules in a complex situation. But I think that in awarding adjusted scores, the non offending side should get more of the benefit of the doubt than they are currently getting. As a result, the offenders get less. You may see that as a deterrent, or better, as an encouragement to try to follow the UI laws even better.

 

Rik

[rhm]

I would disagree with this on the face. There are millions who play, like Barry Rigal's Grandmother (from his Precision book), "a club", "one club", and "I'll start with a club" (obviously less obvious with bidding boxes, but think of all the kitchens!) There are those who believe in the face of the Law that they are not only entitled to use partner's questions (or lack thereof) and their answers to the opponent's questions (and the questions the opponents ask), but that it would be insane not to. There's nothing inherently wrong with the Secret Bridge Olympics or the CryptoClub, nor to Adjective Bridge or bridge played as poker. It's just that the game grew up saying that that wasn't the way it was played; people are introduced to the concept very early as a "basic mores of bridge"; and it gets to the point where "it's so obvious it's not necessary to reference the Laws". But I guarantee, like the rest of the Proprieties (which used to not be Law, just "proper behaviour we assume that everybody will follow", and before that weren't even written down, just "known by all gentlemen") and many laws in other games and sports that are codifications of "what oughtta be", that there was a reason why it was moved from "it oughtta be" to Law, and it wasn't because "[we] all know it".

 

In other words, yes, it's "so obvious", but it's only "so obvious" because it's present from day 1, and while it may not be said straight up, all the things that come from that *are* said.

 

In passing, I see that person of note (in my area, at least) has made a significant achievement in the last little while. I hope he's run out of "Oh, I didn't know that wasn't approved of" ploys by now (he moved away, to great "dismay", a few years ago, so I wouldn't know). It sure was fun pointing them out to him, and watching that less-Proper behaviour stop, only to be replaced by something he hadn't been told was imProper yet.

I see a certain arrogance and high handedness here against less experienced players.

With experience and better levels of bridge comes a better understanding, how important it is not to transfer and use unauthorized information.

I dislike arrogance against inexperienced players of low skill and I also think one needs to be patient and more lenient against them. Over time they will understand and get better.

Even if they violate rules it is important not to lecture them in an arrogant way.

I at least are more tolerant against them than I would be against known experts. Hesitating from novices is not cheating, even if it helps their partners to find better bids.

Of course I will not tolerate everything even from weak and inexperienced players.

Cheating starts when people understand the issue well and deliberately violate the rules.

 

In that sense grandmother Bridge is not cheating. It is Bridge at a different level.

If you can not tolerate it, do not play at this level.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Cascade]

Following the UI laws is difficult. You need to establish at each decision that you have to make:

- what your logical alternatives are

- which of these logical alternatives are made more attractive the others by the UI

 

and then you need to chose one of the alternatives that hasn't been made more attractive. At the same time, you will have to try and play winning bridge.

 

Some cases are fairly straightforward, but there are also cases where -for the vast majority of the players (and a surprising amount of TDs)- this is just too hard to do. At some decision, somewhere in the auction or play, the UI will mix with the AI. It is much easier (though it is also hard) to "just forget" the UI.

 

So, if you are simply not able to follow the UI rules literally, you will have to do the best you can. "Forgetting the UI" and do what you were going to do without the UI, and let the TD sort it out later, is second best.

 

People who work to the best of their ability to follow the rules are not cheaters. They are not in a grey area either. They do not deserve PPs. You might call them "victims of their partner's". But they did break the laws and a good TD will correct that by adjusting the score.

 

It is inappropriate to hand out PPs to people who try their best to follow the rules in a complex situation. But I think that in awarding adjusted scores, the non offending side should get more of the benefit of the doubt than they are currently getting. As a result, the offenders get less. You may see that as a deterrent, or better, as an encouragement to try to follow the UI laws even better.

 

Rik

 

I don't get the attitude they don't deserve penalties. Games typically have penalties when you are judged to have broken the rules. Intent is not important. 'But Ref I tried to stay onside I didn't intend to cross the line' or similar wouldn't work as an excuse. For some reason there is a strong resistance to penalising people at the bridge table. This in spite of the laws saying penalties should be more often than not in some situations.

[gnasher]

If gnasher doesn't like that definition, he can suggest another. I don't know if Bridgewinners, who always do what they would have done without UI, know the rules. Some might know the rules and might be aware that choosing a suggested action over a non-suggested logical alternative will sometimes gain. I agree that it's hard to tell whether any do. They might know whether they cheat. I don't think they cheat but, for an observer, it's a grey area.

What makes you think I don't like your definition of cheating? I think your definition is fine.

 

You defined cheating. Then you described a behaviour which falls outside that definition. Then you asked if it was cheating.

 

Obviously the answer is "No".

[billw55]

Following the UI laws is difficult. You need to establish at each decision that you have to make:

- what your logical alternatives are

- which of these logical alternatives are made more attractive the others by the UI

 

and then you need to chose one of the alternatives that hasn't been made more attractive. At the same time, you will have to try and play winning bridge.

 

Some cases are fairly straightforward, but there are also cases where -for the vast majority of the players (and a surprising amount of TDs)- this is just too hard to do. At some decision, somewhere in the auction or play, the UI will mix with the AI. It is much easier (though it is also hard) to "just forget" the UI.

 

So, if you are simply not able to follow the UI rules literally, you will have to do the best you can. "Forgetting the UI" and do what you were going to do without the UI, and let the TD sort it out later, is second best.

 

People who work to the best of their ability to follow the rules are not cheaters. They are not in a grey area either. They do not deserve PPs. You might call them "victims of their partner's". But they did break the laws and a good TD will correct that by adjusting the score.

 

It is inappropriate to hand out PPs to people who try their best to follow the rules in a complex situation. But I think that in awarding adjusted scores, the non offending side should get more of the benefit of the doubt than they are currently getting. As a result, the offenders get less. You may see that as a deterrent, or better, as an encouragement to try to follow the UI laws even better.

 

Rik

Agree. This is pretty much how I feel about it, and how I often operate. I try to set aside whatever potential UI there has been, and just take the correct bridge action. Often, thinking up the LAs and what is or is not suggested is too difficult, and might only distort the situation further. It feels like trying to sort this all out amounts to making my own ruling, which I know I am not supposed to do. So I make the call I think is right, and let the director sort out the correct ruling if one is needed.

 

Once at a national pairs event, I had such an incident. The ops seemed perturbed after the hand was done, so I suggested myself that we call the director. Ops accepted, and the director ultimately ruled against us and adjusted the score. I thanked him and went on to the next round. This seemed like the optimal outcome, a correct ruling determined by someone who actually knows how to do so.

 

Of course in some cases, the suggested action is obvious, and it is easy to do the correct thing. But in more complex situations, I just let the director do her job.

[nige1]

Following the UI laws is difficult. You need to establish at each decision that you have to make:

- what your logical alternatives are

- which of these logical alternatives are made more attractive the others by the UI

and then you need to chose one of the alternatives that hasn't been made more attractive. At the same time, you will have to try and play winning bridge.

Some cases are fairly straightforward, but there are also cases where -for the vast majority of the players (and a surprising amount of TDs)- this is just too hard to do. At some decision, somewhere in the auction or play, the UI will mix with the AI. It is much easier (though it is also hard) to "just forget" the UI. So, if you are simply not able to follow the UI rules literally, you will have to do the best you can. "Forgetting the UI" and do what you were going to do without the UI, and let the TD sort it out later, is second best. People who work to the best of their ability to follow the rules are not cheaters. They are not in a grey area either. They do not deserve PPs. You might call them "victims of their partner's". But they did break the laws and a good TD will correct that by adjusting the score.

It is inappropriate to hand out PPs to people who try their best to follow the rules in a complex situation. But I think that in awarding adjusted scores, the non offending side should get more of the benefit of the doubt than they are currently getting. As a result, the offenders get less. You may see that as a deterrent, or better, as an encouragement to try to follow the UI laws even better.

Many experts, whom I've asked, go even further than Trinidad. They say that they always take the action that they would have chosen without UI. They explain that it is always too hard to work out what the LAs are and which the UI suggests. If an opponent complains and calls the director, they're prepared to accept his ruling without complaint. I've always argued that this is the wrong attitude but I suppose this is another area of legal disagreement.

I see a certain arrogance and high handedness here against less experienced players. With experience and better levels of bridge comes a better understanding, how important it is not to transfer and use unauthorized information. I dislike arrogance against inexperienced players of low skill and I also think one needs to be patient and more lenient against them. Over time they will understand and get better. Even if they violate rules it is important not to lecture them in an arrogant way. I at least are more tolerant against them than I would be against known experts. Hesitating from novices is not cheating, even if it helps their partners to find better bids. Of course I will not tolerate everything even from weak and inexperienced players. Cheating starts when people understand the issue well and deliberately violate the rules.

In that sense grandmother Bridge is not cheating. It is Bridge at a different level. If you can not tolerate it, do not play at this level.

If you change the rules of a game, you are playing a different game. It seems patronising and demeaning to bend the rules for the poorer players, who are taking part in a competition. You might make exceptions for disabled players (but, IMO, that should be the prerogative of their opponents rather than a director).

I don't get the attitude they don't deserve penalties. Games typically have penalties when you are judged to have broken the rules. Intent is not important. 'But Ref I tried to stay onside I didn't intend to cross the line' or similar wouldn't work as an excuse. For some reason there is a strong resistance to penalising people at the bridge table. This in spite of the laws saying penalties should be more often than not in some situations.

I agree with Cascade, that decisions shouldn't over-rely on mind-reading. Unfortunately, with current Bridge rules, in practice, they do. IMO, when a player breaks the rules, the law should put as little weight as possible on the answers to questions like ...

• How experienced or skilled is the player?
• Does he know relevant rules?
• Can he divine the (currently and locally fashionable) meaning of those rules?
• Is he capable of applying those rules to this complex situation?
• Was his action deliberate (is he even capable of insight into his own motives)?
• Did he rationalise his action?
• Did he break the law in the hope of gain?
• Has he a previous history of this kind of infraction?

[Trinidad]

I don't get the attitude they don't deserve penalties. Games typically have penalties when you are judged to have broken the rules. Intent is not important. 'But Ref I tried to stay onside I didn't intend to cross the line' or similar wouldn't work as an excuse. For some reason there is a strong resistance to penalising people at the bridge table. This in spite of the laws saying penalties should be more often than not in some situations.

Has any soccer player ever gotten a yellow card for being off side? Has any hockey player ever been sent off for skating off side?

 

The free kick (or face off) is not a penalty. It is the adjustment: Your side failed to follow the rules. To compensate the opponents for the damage, they will get the ball (or the puck is moved to your side of the ice).

 

In soccer* there is a clear distinction between inadvertent fouls and intentional fouls. The inadvertent ones (off side, getting the ball on your arm) are "adjusted" with an indirect free kick. Intentional technical fouls (playing the ball intentionally with your hand) are "adjusted" with a direct free kick and sometimes penalized with a card.

 

Bridge Laws follow a simple assumption: Bridge players do not commit intentional fouls. Hence, intentional fouls, though they may occur, essentially fall outside the scope of the bridge laws. They are dealt with separately. The organizers deal with those people who are as horrible to intentionally commit fouls. Typically, the consequences have a (much) larger scope than the hand that is played: Players are often suspended.

 

So, the bridge Laws, with a few exceptions, basically deal with fouls that are inadvertent and the scope is limited to the hand in play.

 

Rik

 

* For the non-soccerists:

A direct free kick is a free kick from which the kicker is allowed to score directly. An indirect free kick is a free kick where a goal only counts if the ball has been touched by an other player first. (The referee will have his arm up to signal this.)

[mycroft]

I see a certain arrogance and high handedness here against less experienced players.

I'd like you to explain where, because that was totally not my intent. Barmar's argument was that Bridge isn't played with deliberate transmission of information other than the calls and plays, and that it's so inherently obvious that it doesn't really need to be stated (but it is so we can punish the cheaters). I disagreed, and pointed out that there are huge numbers of counterexamples. Yes, that's with less-experienced players (usually), but the point was "it's obvious on its face" dies on the sword of "less-experienced players routinely don't follow it, because to them it's *not* obvious".

With experience and better levels of bridge comes a better understanding, how important it is not to transfer and use unauthorized information.

Interestingly enough the two specific examples I quoted are plenty experienced and at least think they play at better levels. I referenced them because they *do* know better, and either choose to flaunt the Law or choose to very carefully avoid learning enough to know what they're doing is wrong.

 

rest trimmed (because I can't see how my statement and this response are at all related), except for the fact that it is only with education - which means not being "more lenient against them" that they learn, "will understand and get better". Certainly the Laws allow for different adjustments for the same action based on the skill of the player (think "for this person the hesitation meant 'I've never seen anyone overcall 2♣ before'" rulings), but letting this kind of behaviour slide completely teaches something - that it's acceptable. Which means that when people do start thinking "they should know better by now" and start calling out this behaviour - they have no idea it's wrong.

 

Side note [certainly not aimed at rhm, or anyone here, really - we all know this] that it should still be the TD that does the education, please? Not "I could get this rolled back, but I won't, because..." from the high horse of the A player? That trick never works.

 

In that sense grandmother Bridge is not cheating. It is Bridge at a different level.

Which was, in fact, my point. It could even be *legal and proper*, had the evolution of the game gone that way.

[MrAce]

. Among ordinary players, ignorance and incomprehension is the norm. For example, the ACBL directors handbook said that after partner's huddle, players are well-advised to make the bid they would have made anyway. In a Bridge-winners poll, more than half the members said that when in receipt of unauthorised information, they would just select the action they would have taken without the UI. Presumably, if such a player sometimes takes a suggested action when there is a non-suggested logical alternative, we would categorise such an action as deliberate. Should we classify all these people as chronic cheats

 

I have a question. How can we be sure what is suggested and what not from an UI?

 

 

For example if a hesitation followed by pass is considered as "UI which suggests to bid" then players can just simply reverse it to gain advantage Thus, someone can hesitate in order to suggest passing (as oppose to bidding or doubling), and the other one can defend himself, after passing with a borderline decision "hey, pd hesitated, I had a borderline decision, so I was merely trying to the right thing by refusing to choose the suggested action by UI" .Bottom line is, it is not as clear as people think of it, what was suggested and what not, unless we naively believe that no one will do such a thing. Imho it is better to bid as if UI did not exist, as objective as you can be, and leave it to TD or appeal to sort it out, had they complained.

 

You do not even have to be an evil person to do that. Look at the topics in BBF or arguments between players in some auctions.One may argue that player A has an auto pass, while another argues player A has an auto cuebid, while another one argues player A should just bid the slam, in a contested auction.

 

This is where I am having hard time to decide which one is right.... Is it to just bid as if UI did not exist (which may be something considered as "suggested action" upto some people) or try to figure out what was actually suggested and choose one of the other L.A ? What if one of them is manipulating the other one (or manipulating everyone at the table in that context)?

[gordontd]

For example if a hesitation followed by pass is considered as "UI which suggests to bid" then players can just simply reverse it to gain advantage Thus, someone can hesitate in order to suggest passing (as oppose to bidding or doubling), and the other one can defend himself, after passing with a borderline decision "hey, pd hesitated, I had a borderline decision, so I was merely trying to the right thing by refusing to choose the suggested action by UI" .

This would require that players have perfect control over their tempo. They don't - they could deliberately pause when they don't have a problem, but they can't deliberately not pause when they do have a problem - which is why hesitations do suggest something.

[barmar]

I'd like you to explain where, because that was totally not my intent. Barmar's argument was that Bridge isn't played with deliberate transmission of information other than the calls and plays, and that it's so inherently obvious that it doesn't really need to be stated (but it is so we can punish the cheaters). I disagreed, and pointed out that there are huge numbers of counterexamples. Yes, that's with less-experienced players (usually), but the point was "it's obvious on its face" dies on the sword of "less-experienced players routinely don't follow it, because to them it's *not* obvious".

So where is the line between obvious and non-obvious? Surely anyone who has ever played any card game knows that you shouldn't try to look at another player's cards. I mean, when I learned Go Fish as a child, I don't think anyone had to tell me that this is wrong, since the obvious point of the game is to guess what they have.

 

Similarly, isn't there a clear implication in bridge that the whole point of the auction and bidding systems is that we're supposed to figure out what partner has from this "code"? Yes, there are subtleties about using UI from tempo, but when we talk about deliberate cheating that's not usually what we mean. I don't think anyone needs to be taught that signalling with coughs, toe-tapping, finger placement, or (in the case of online bridge) skyping with your partner is wrong. I think this is as obvious as knowing that stealing in the real world is wrong -- little children develop an intuition about ownership very early in life, they don't have to be taught it.

 

I'll freely admit that the issue with tempo is not intuitively obvious. It's not a covert, secret system, since the information is available to the opponents (and the Laws even allow them to make inferences from it), assuming the tempo is from normal thinking (as opposed to a system where you deliberately pause for various lengths of time to signal something specific). There are also some players who think the STOP card has special meaning (the old "it's weak if I use the STOP card, strong if I don't" fallacy); they're not generally cheating intentionally, they've been misinformed or just made an incorrect assumption (if the card is in the bidding box, it must be significant).

[nige1]

I have a question. How can we be sure what is suggested and what not from an UI? For example if a hesitation followed by pass is considered as "UI which suggests to bid" then players can just simply reverse it to gain advantage Thus, someone can hesitate in order to suggest passing (as oppose to bidding or doubling), and the other one can defend himself, after passing with a borderline decision "hey, pd hesitated, I had a borderline decision, so I was merely trying to the right thing by refusing to choose the suggested action by UI" .Bottom line is, it is not as clear as people think of it, what was suggested and what not, unless we naively believe that no one will do such a thing. Imho it is better to bid as if UI did not exist, as objective as you can be, and leave it to TD or appeal to sort it out, had they complained.

You do not even have to be an evil person to do that. Look at the topics in BBF or arguments between players in some auctions.One may argue that player A has an auto pass, while another argues player A has an auto cuebid, while another one argues player A should just bid the slam, in a contested auction.

This is where I am having hard time to decide which one is right.... Is it to just bid as if UI did not exist (which may be something considered as "suggested action" upto some people) or try to figure out what was actually suggested and choose one of the other L.A ? What if one of them is manipulating the other one (or manipulating everyone at the table in that context)?

I've often posted my views on MrAce's questions. In summary:

 

1. An experienced partnership are in a better position to read each other's tells than their opponents or the director. For example, in any common situation, they know what a hesitation by partner, would normally suggest.
2. I think most would agree that it's illegal to hesitate deliberately so that your ethical partner will pass.
3. I agree, nevertheless, that a hesitation by an experienced partner, who knows you are ethical and knows the law, tends to suggest a pass. He knows that his tempo-break constrains your ethical options, so he will try to take any feasible action himself. Also, after his tank, he knows that your pass is unlikely to attract an adverse ruling. Is there any published UI appeal case featuring a pass after a hesitation?
4. Under current, law it's tempting to "make the bid you would have made anyway" and, If opponents object, let the director sort it out. It saves elaborate and exhausting mental gymnastics, trying to duplicate the director's reasoning. I know I'm in a minority but I still think that the lazy way out is illegal.

I understand Mr Ace's dilemma. For example, suppose you face a choice between two logical alternatives: pass and bid. You guess that the UI from partner suggests a pass; but you are sure that everybody else, including the director will judge that the bid is suggested. What should you do? Bid, and, if it works, be ruled against? or Pass, which you deem likely to be more successful, and which the world will probably applaud as the ethical choice?

[billw55]

Also, let's say partner has hesitated/gestured/whatever. I think the correct bridge action is call A, but also that it seems to be suggested. So I take action B instead. Then it turns out that B is the action that actually works. So I have obtained an improved score, after I deliberately changed my call due to UI. Now what?

[Trinidad]

If you change the rules of a game, you are playing a different game. It seems patronising and demeaning to bend the rules for the poorer players, who are taking part in a competition.

The rules are the same, but the ways the rules are applied are certainly a function of the players' ability. And they are meant to be a function of their ability:

When we search for LAs we look at the player's peers.

 

This means that if Aunt Millie and Michael Rosenberg get into the very same situation during the defense of a hand, their LAs may be entirely different. A play that is an obvious LA to Aunt Millie may not be one for Michael Rosenberg since he has a full count of the hand.

 

In claims, the player's level is also relevant. There was the famous case (I think during the European championships in Lille, but I may be wrong) of a player who (correctly) claimed on a squeeze. When the opponents didn't agree immediately, it was played out and the claimer screwed up. In the end, the claim was awarded by the AC. I doubt that they would have given it to Aunt Millie.

 

This seems to be unfair to all the Aunt Millie's, but they win on the other side: They will not get penalized in ethical situations, as long as they listen to the TD, simply because they don't understand what they are doing wrong. If Michael Rosenberg would violate ethics in the same way and in the same situation (Michael wouldn't, but some other experts would), he would get a PP, because he knew what he was doing.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Also, let's say partner has hesitated/gestured/whatever. I think the correct bridge action is call A, but also that it seems to be suggested. So I take action B instead. Then it turns out that B is the action that actually works. So I have obtained and improved score, after I deliberately changed my call due to UI. Now what?

Now nothing... as long as the TD (and your peers) agree with your reasoning.

 

You may e.g. miss an excellent slam that many bid. If the slam fails on the 4-0 trump split and the two finesses that are off, then you get a good score. It happens.

 

Rik

[mycroft]

Barmar, I think you and I are in the same place, I just don't agree that it is in fact obvious on its face. I mean, it's obvious on its face that doubles should be for penalty, as, well, that's what they do - redoubles doubly so. How many doubles are? And how long in the history of bridge development did it take for doubles to move from "penalty except" to "takeout unless" and redoubles to be, in general, "profess doubt"?

 

I think if it were obvious on its face, the STOP card fallacy would be immediately explained by partner when it was being taught as "that can't be right". Obvious on its face would mean that everybody, not just those of us who know the laws, would have an issue when someone's play, then stare at their partner, makes it clear that this message is to be read and understood. Obvious on its face would imply that it would be obvious to all, including poker players who switch to bridge "for fun", that coffeehousing is imProper. (side note: is it wrong at a stakes poker table to try to peek at another's cards, and if it is, why do they work so hard to make it impossible?)

 

It is certainly a core tenet of the game that there is a bidding and play structure, and that those things are the only communication methods you are allowed to have. It should be obvious that doing anything to add to that is a violation of that tenet, and therefore wrong; but I don't think the tenet itself is derivable from the nature of the game alone. It is certainly also a core tenet of the game that the communication structure is to be completely available to the opponents; but I would bet that one player in 10, even one in 10 active ACBL duplicate players, understands what that means for *their* explanations (test: how many who play "could be short" opening minors can and do answer, with confidence and without thought, "how short? and in what circumstances?" How many even believe that that is a question that does not require answering, because "could be short" is all they have to say? How many believe to the point of arguing about it that the name of the convention is complete and sufficient explanation?)

[barmar]

Under current, law it's tempting to "make the bid you would have made anyway" and, If opponents object, let the director sort it out. It saves elaborate and exhausting mental gymnastics, trying to duplicate the director's reasoning. I know I'm in a minority but I still think that the lazy way out is illegal.

I think of it like doing my own taxes. I'm not a tax law expert, so I wouldn't be surprised if I've occasionally broken the law. But I read the instructions on the forms, and make a good faith effort to follow them as best I can understand. If the IRS discovers that I made a mistake, I'll pay the penalty.

[ArtK78]

I think of it like doing my own taxes. I'm not a tax law expert, so I wouldn't be surprised if I've occasionally broken the law. But I read the instructions on the forms, and make a good faith effort to follow them as best I can understand. If the IRS discovers that I made a mistake, I'll pay the penalty.

This is an interesting analogy. I am a tax law expert. That is what I do for a living. A friend of mine, who is an expert player, called me yesterday for some tax advice. After I answered his questions, he decided that he would rather not follow my advice and take his chances with the IRS.

 

Now, suppose you were playing in a bridge tournament and you sought out the advice of the chief tournament director on an issue of bridge law. After getting advice from the TD, you decide not to follow that advice. How do you think that would go over if you subsequently get called to task for a violation of the law that you asked about?

[barmar]

About the same as if I were pulled over by a cop, who gave me a warning, and then later some other cop caught me on the same offense.

 

I live in Massachusetts, everyone knows that red lights are merely a suggestion.

[Codo]

As most of you did not had many opportunities to play with them as I had, here are some facts- well "facts" at least in my personal point of view:

 

E/W are one of the most monitored pairs in the world. There had been many German Championships where they had their "own" TD at the table for nearly the complete tournement. Very often they still won. They never got caught cheating.

In recent years there had been a Board of Directors in Germany which tried to stop cheating by all means. And their main target had been...? You will guess it. But they failed to prove guilt.

 

For the bridge play: They still have a lot of bad boards too, they do not always bid their hands but sometimes they try their fly of fancies. This does not allways work. Phil showed one example, I know a lot more. But as a team mate - or local opponent like me- you know that their style is not mainstream. So as a team member, you do not wonder, why they found this lead. You accept the plus 11 AND the -12 on the next board, where 4 from longest and strongest HAD worked, but their lead did not, because over all, their results are good. So whoever states, that their teammates should have been suspicious has surely never played with or against them.

And about their code: We do have the videos from segment nr.5 In 16 boards about 130 minutes, they cought around 13 times, which is every ten minutes. I would never ever be suspicious about this. Of course after the code was cracked, it was easy to see. So whoever claims that this wa too easy to see beofrehand: No it was surely not. Not in a surrounding like Bali where a lot more people cought.

 

In Germany there are a lot of TDs who are not afraid of E/W and who charged them quite often. Unluckily the highest courts in bridge did not allways match these standards.

So in the incident Arend mentioned, one of doctors opened 3 NT. After asking about the meaning, they claimed to have no agreement and no idea. And "surprisingly" they both had forgotten, that on their CC from the year before, this bid had been described as gambling. But to my - and nearly anybodies- surprise they got away with this in front of the highest Court of Arbitration in Germany. And there had been more surprising verdicts. But to be fair: It is quite hard to judge against them: They never remember (at least they do not remember anything what could be used against them), they do not hesitate to lie, they are challenging you and your memory and they are used to face TDs and following trials.

And: Entscho is famous for getting really anything to court. Not just in bridge, but in his life too. When nobody in his tennis club played against him anymore, he went to court and won. He was allowed to partticipate at their club championship.

He forced a mailing list about bridge in Germany to delete the archive because their had been some posts with flaming against him.

So if you rule against him and there is something fishy or just not 100 % clear, you may face a civil court.

I am quite happy that I just had to play him- okay now, as I do not have to play against him, I am much happier.

 

Another point: Last year, Dr. E. took the microphone at the price giving ceremony of a german championship and offended all working TDs of the tourney. So far, he got away with it.

 

So, there are more then enough people in Germany who helped them in their rude and at least borderline ethical behaviour and took them as teammates. These teammates included our president and our director for sports.

 

But: Who am I to judge over these treammates: E/W had been monitored but never charged. They are known to have success and if you think that you will never play with people who bend the laws as extrem as they do- this is okay and I even share this point of view. But this makes our ehtics not right and theirs wrong. (The ethic of their teammates...)

 

As usual things are grey, not white or black.

 

We do have the same discussions here as you have on BBF: Shall we strip them from their old titles? Some will, but how can you based on the current laws?

We had the last and descissive weekend of the "Bundesliga" at the 5 and 6. of April. This is no WBF tournement- what will happen if they play? (They did not)

Was the trial well done? No, the WBF is located in Switzerland so they should have made an appointement there on another day, some other issues- about monitoring etc. had been raised too, like here.

 

Nobody really discussed the guilt by the way, why should we?

[mgoetze]

E/W are one of the most monitored pairs in the world. There had been many German Championships where they had their "own" TD at the table for nearly the complete tournement. Very often they still won. They never got caught cheating.

I thought this was usually due to Dr. W's poor behaviour rather than suspicions of cheating, though.

[Cyberyeti]

 

Another point: Last year, Dr. E. took the microphone at the price giving ceremony of a german championship and offended all working TDs of the tourney. So far, he got away with it.

 

So, there are more then enough people in Germany who helped them in their rude and at least borderline ethical behaviour and took them as teammates. These teammates included our president and our director for sports.

 

 

From what I remember of the report of this, didn't he grab the microphone to harangue the directing staff about a ruling/appeal he'd been given ? That would be a ban in the UK I'm sure.

[mgoetze]

From what I remember of the report of this, didn't he grab the microphone to harangue the directing staff about a ruling/appeal he'd been given ? That would be a ban in the UK I'm sure.

Yes, he stated the ruling against him had been so appalling he intended never again to play in a tournament with any of these TDs directing.

[PhilKing]

Yes, he stated the ruling against him had been so appalling he intended never again to play in a tournament with any of these TDs directing.

 

Perhaps they should have been in Bali.

[32519]

I am a tax law expert. That is what I do for a living.

What do your tax laws say on donations tax?

1. Deductibility for tax purposes, irrespective of whether the doner is a corporate or a private individual?

2. The taxing of the donation in the hands of the recipient (what is the USA formula applied here?)