ChCh challenged

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&sn=SB&nn=RR&wn=ChCh&en=MM&w=saq6hjt93d64c8543&n=sk43ha62da872cqj2&e=sj987h874dk93ct96&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1np3nppp]399|300[/hv]

Opening lead Q♠ Table Result 3NT-1

 

This was a game swing at the North London club Xmas teams this week and SB South was very suspicious of ChCh's opening lead. He ducked the queen of spades and ChCh continued with a low spade, and SB played low, but the jack and another spade was the end of the contract.

 

SB called "DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR" in his usual belligerent tone. OO arrived. "Can you check if there is any other login from ChCh's ISP address", he asked. "That lead stinks even more than ChCh's normal smelly auctions.

 

"That is a serious allegation", replied ChCh, "but I will say that my sister Charlotte the Chimp, who is learning the game, was watching, but there was no communication from her." He concluded, "And in any case, the contract was cold, and you put it on the floor."

 

How would you handle this?

[pescetom]

I would handle this by never enabling real-time kibitzing.

[Cyberyeti]

This looks pretty clear, I poll around as many people as I can find, and when they all lead ♥J I rule against CC. Not sure I'm technically allowed to do this but this is as clear a case of a single incident damning a player as you can get.

[mycroft]

I don't care what the result ends up being at the table. As the director, I'd follow the pattern, and apply the result. But it's time for the NLC disciplinary committee to lay down the Law. Because this doesn't only happen when SB is at the table (and it doesn't get noticed by the rest of the room), same as SB's games don't always happen against the Chimp (although I'm sure he enjoys it more when it does).

 

"You can't prove it". "We don't have to. In fact, to avoid having any more evidence we have to go through for a while, your entry will not be accepted until March. We assume that starting then, nothing untoward will happen?" (note that at the Griffins, as opposed to the North London (EBU) Club, the subtext is *significantly more powerful*. But that's Tradition for you).

 

On another note, the Chimp is right, it is a serious allegation. "On board 7, my LHO found the Q from ♠AQ6 into 1NT-3NT. I am impressed with his inspired defence, but I thought I'd tell you anyway". That won't get the SB his game back, though, so he has no interest in doing it that way.

[lamford]

This looks pretty clear, I poll around as many people as I can find, and when they all lead ♥J I rule against CC. Not sure I'm technically allowed to do this but this is as clear a case of a single incident damning a player as you can get.

I disagree. You have to prove UI first. You cannot use the play itself to deem UI; that is putting the cart before the horse.

[Cyberyeti]

I disagree. You have to prove UI first. You cannot use the play itself to deem UI; that is putting the cart before the horse.

 

Doomed by his own mouth, somebody else in the same location also logged in is enough for me regardless of what they said about it

[sanst]

In online bridge you should not assume foul play on the basis of a single occasion, however suspicious. Even Nicolas Hammond, whose methods are not generally accepted, needs a pattern of ‘strange’ plays. The proof has to be statistical. There’s another advantage in that: you can build a case against a player like ChCh not merely based on a reputation, but on facts. Here it looks like the same old story, ChCh finds a way to put SB on the wrong foot, SB has a bad result and makes an extraordinary show of his anger. I can imagine ChCh laughing his head off and doing it just for the fun of it. It’s a pity we only know of the cases were SB claims damage, not of the cases where ChCh falls in his own trap.

[sanst]

Doomed by his own mouth, somebody else in the same location also logged in is enough for me regardless of what they said about it

So, guilty, unless proven innocent.

[Cyberyeti]

So, guilty, unless proven innocent.

 

In this case yes, I think all bridge players know having a second login from the same place in a circumstance like this is dodgy if it's avoidable (ie nobody else is also playing).

[lamford]

Doomed by his own mouth, somebody else in the same location also logged in is enough for me regardless of what they said about it

This is, sadly, the approach the EBU seemed to have taken with married couples.

[Cyberyeti]

This is, sadly, the approach the EBU seemed to have taken with married couples.

 

You've clipped off the rider I put on my quote, but not just the EBU, there have been international cases too IIRC.

 

A couple I've teamed with once or twice got done early in the pandemic.

[pescetom]

This is, sadly, the approach the EBU seemed to have taken with married couples.

 

I agree that it would be sad to forbid participation of married couples or just people playing from the same place for that matter.

That's a tough decision for the RA and/or tournament organizer, but turning off real-time kibitzing is both obvious and much less sad I would argue.