[kfay]

This is mind blowing.

[Cascade]

I don't see why a director cannot ask the player on what basis the 6♦ bid was made. In fact if it is drawn to his attention the director must investigate.

As a director I would give a player quite a lot of latitude without more evidence or a history.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jul 27 2010, 12:06 AM, said:

I don't see why a director cannot ask the player on what basis the 6♦ bid was made. In fact if it is drawn to his attention the director must investigate.

As a director I would give a player quite a lot of latitude without more evidence or a history.

According to the edit in the first post there is a history.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 27 2010, 05:14 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 27 2010, 12:06 AM, said:

I don't see why a director cannot ask the player on what basis the 6♦ bid was made. In fact if it is drawn to his attention the director must investigate.

As a director I would give a player quite a lot of latitude without more evidence or a history.

According to the edit in the first post there is a history.

I know.

I am just trying to emphasize that one can ask this question without necessarily being threatening or accusatory. I seem to get a lot of questions of this type when directing online. Many of which I think don't require further investigation. And many of the others I let go with any semi-reasonable explanation - online it is almost always misclick.

Here it is hard to imagine an innocent explanation except perhaps I pulled the wrong card. But if this was drawn to my attention I would want the player to tell me that as it just doesn't seem reasonable that anyone with any experience at all would deliberately offer a four-card suit at this level with no way of getting back to their primary suit.

[mrdct]

Nothing that I can see in the Laws would require Justin to detail precisely what the extraneous information was. All that needs to happen is Justin calls the director and suggests that the 6♦ bid may have been based on extraneous UI. The 6♦ bidder will disagree and come up with some lame explanation for his bid following which the TD is now dealing with a disputed facts situation and has no choice but to follow the procedure set out in Law 85:

Quote

LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS
When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:
A. Director’s Assessment
1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.
2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84.
B. Facts Not Determined
If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue.

As the original post indicates that the TD was in fact called and did in fact rule that the table result stands, one has to assume that the TD either formed an opinion that on the balance of probabilities the 6♦ was not based on extraneous UI or was unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction (the latter being more likely I guess). That decision is, of course, appealable.

[matmat]

Obvious mechanical error, didn't notice it was 6♦ until after lho passed

[peachy]

I hope you filled out a recorder form. This is two continents beyond strange.

[aguahombre]

Justin survived it by a healthy margin, at least.

[mrdct]

aguahombre, on Jul 27 2010, 03:08 AM, said:

Justin survived it by a healthy margin, at least.

Snuck home 234-97.

[JLOGIC]

I asked a bunch of people who are like chairmen of AC etc level what I should do. Most of them indicated it would be tough for me to get an adjustment, some said I would get an AWMW since I offered no new info from the ruling.

ALL of them told me I should push for a C&E committee though. Honestly the team was weak enough where I thought I was 99 % to win the match anyways, so it may have influenced my decision to not appeal during the match.

However, I discussed this with the directors who we filed a recorder form with, and all of them basically said to push it harder than a recorder form and get a C&E hearing immediately, which is what I have done.

All of the top players I talked to about this with basically said I should win and appeal and def should etc, but most of them are not laws experts and were just outraged by what they perceived happened.

Even though I won by a lot I am definitely pursuing this for as long as I can.

The player in question never said he pulled the wrong card (though I said to someone that this is their best play).

As some know I often get disheartened by the ethics of top players, let alone less than top players. I love bridge but it will never be played for a ton of money or on TV because cheating is too easy. But this just shocked me. I mean wow.

[Hanoi5]

I'm amazed that ACBLand allows people to shuffle boards in that kind of tournament. IMO what happened is that he prepared the cards but what is more amazing is that he didn't even made up some kind of 'story' to back up the fancy contract. I think it's amazing 'cause it means that he knows he can get away with it or even, he has gotten away with it before.

Of course he lost but I wonder how many non-Jlall's have suffered and lost to this player, I hope Jlall's action end up in something.

[tgoodwinsr]

Matmat seems to have it right: a bidding-box fumble, not caught in time. If that is it, it sets a new record for serendipity -- and I would have expected that explanation to be included in the original report.

[cherdanno]

Did the director know about the previous suspension/probations of this player?

[Cascade]

What is the procedure here before the match.

Are those cards dealt at the other table by the opponents with no member of your team present?

[mrdct]

Hanoi5, on Jul 27 2010, 05:20 AM, said:

IMO what happened is that he prepared the cards but what is more amazing is that he didn't even made up some kind of 'story' to back up the fancy contract.

So how does he do that? Does he bring a pre-rigged deck of cards with him and substitutes it by some slight of hand technique?

The last time I played bridge with hand-dealt cards back in the early 90s the shuffling and dealing always took place in front of your opponents and it was incumbant upon everyone to keep an eye out to make sure that everything was kosher.

I look forward to hearing how this case pans out, but it's a shame that it's probably going to all happen behind closed doors in a secretive C&E committee rather than a more publicly accountable appeals committee.

I'd also be really interested to know how thoroughly the director attempted to establish the facts and what sort of questions he asked the players.

[gwnn]

Probably not very interesting question, but I wonder in what exact way they cheated. I can't come up with a plausible and probable way, myself.

[gnasher]

I would like to be able to

a) Occasionally make bids that other people think are barking mad.
b) Do so more often when I'm the underdog in a match.
c) Sometimes have such a bid work.

If the director or appeals committee were allowed to adjust a score purely on the basis that an action was both lunatic and successful, the above approach to the game would be disallowed. That would be quite unfair to the not insignificant portion of the bridge-playing population who like to bid differently from the mainstream.

Regardless of how bizarre the action was, and regardless of how bad a reputation the player has, I think it would be quite wrong (and I hope illegal) to rule that UI had been made available when there was no evidence of this other than that the opponents don't think much of the bidding.

I realise that this won't be much comfort to Justin, but the least bad way to deal with this sort of problem is to accept your poor result on this deal, and tell the authorities about it without making any public accusations. Then the authorities, if they're competent, will start looking for more evidence. If the player is cheating, in due course they will gather sufficient evidence and ban them. At least the ACBL has the technology and the manpower to do this, and has shown some willingness in the past to tackle the problem.

By the way, was any member of your team present when this board was dealt? I bet they weren't. One way to reduce this sort of problem is to insist that no dealing takes place before you have sat down. If the opponents have already started dealing before you arrive, politely ask them to start again. As long as you're consistent in this approach, it's hard for a reasonable person to be offended.

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on Jul 27 2010, 02:48 AM, said:

wtp?

Aren't you boys in the US used to canape overcalls?

Best Post Ever

[TimG]

gnasher, on Jul 27 2010, 07:50 AM, said:

Regardless of how bizarre the action was, and regardless of how bad a reputation the player has, I think it would be quite wrong (and I hope illegal) to rule that UI had been made available when there was no evidence of this other than that the opponents don't think much of the bidding.

I agree: it seems wrong, and I hope it is illegal.

[ArtK78]

There has to be a line where the bidding and the result speak for themselves, absent clear and convincing evidence that no UI could have taken place.

This hand crosses that line.

I am sure that if you polled 1000 experts (defined as players at a level who would compete competently at this level) and asked them to choose their top three choices over the 3♠ opening bid, I am willing to go out on a limb to state that 6♦ would not get a vote. The fact that 6♦ was bid in this instance and that it was the only making contract should be actionable unless it was demonstrated that there was no UI. In other words, legally speaking, the sheer degree of outrageousness of the action taken in this instance is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the side taking the outrageous action. The bidding side must be forced to defend the rationale behind the call and convince a committee that there was no UI.

Another aspect of this situation is that the player who took this action has a "history." If this history is documented by complaints filed with ACBL recorders, then the history should be relevent (assuming that the recorder system has any validity). The OP states that the history of this particular player includes actual disclipline meted out by some bridge organization. That history is obviously relevant.

Since the hand was manually dealt, the circumstances of the making of the board are also relevent. Was this particular hand made before the opponents arrived at the table? One can always say that one should not play hands dealt prior to at least one of your side's members being present at the table, but, practically speaking, it is very common for boards to be shuffled and dealt before members of both sides are present at the table and for this action to be condoned.

Situations such as this (although this is an extreme case) and rulings that nothing can be done without the non-offending side having to accuse the offending side of cheating are intolerable. The rules must be changed to allow the non-offending side to force the offending side to justify its action by bridge logic.