[ggwhiz]

I played in a recent 3-day Sectional tournament and in the 2nd last match of the last day Swiss my teammates called the Director on a well known Flight A pair for using a mid-chart convention not permitted by the CoC.

We were awarded 1 imp after determining that the contract would have been declared from a different side without it but had to fight for that.

It turns out that they played this for 3 days in a room full of Flight C players that don't know what a midchart convention is and offered no pre-alert or suggested defense as required but we were the first to call them on it. I've heard everything from this ruling is fine to they should have cancelled this board and awarded 3 imps to us to they should have been disqualified from the event.

Given that there is no way to determine if they had gained an advantage during the previous 2 3/4 days with this, what is appropriate under the laws? Our ruling was basically that they couldn't play it for the rest of the tournament (1 6-board match).

[ArtK78]

I faced this exact situation playing in a regional swiss team on the last day of a North American Championship many years ago. We were playing transfers over the opponents' 1NT opening bids. This was, at the time, was not permitted in the event that we were in. After I made a transfer overcall, the TD was summoned and ruled that the convention was illegal, deemed the board to be unplayable and awarded the opps 3 IMPs. No issue was made of any sanction for playing an illegal convention previously. And the TD would not hear any argument that we could change the bid to a natural overcall instead of the transfer overcall.

I still don't know if the ruling is correct.

As for other sanctions, that would be a conduct & ethics matter. Did this pair play an illegal convention knowing that it was not legal or that a suggested defense was required but not provided? If the pair played the convention knowing that it was not permitted, they should be subject to some sanction. But it doesn't involve anything having to do with the past results of the tournament.

For crying out loud, there have been players convicted of cheating who have not had their prior wins taken away, even in the tournament where they were known to have cheated. This is merely playing an illegal convention.If the pair is found to have deliberately and knowingly broken the rules, they should be suspended. But it would be the height of speculation to change results from earlier in the tournament.

[wank]

slight tangent....

i played in america for the first time this year and due to crappy performance in the main events ended up in a 1 day swiss and sat down against [a pair from some nation's] open team. following an inspection of their convention card it became evident they were playing midchart stuff. unsurprisingly our system also would have had plenty of midchart elements to it, but we'd made the effort to throw it out to make it legal for the day. they showed absolutely no interest in doing the same when we pointed this out at the start of the round. of course gcc regulations are pathetic, but if you're to play in a tournament you're accepting those regulations. i thought it showed considerable arrogance to ignore them when it's brought to your attention. call me vindictive, but i was hoping one of these conventions would come up and i'd try to get the book thrown at them which should involve a 3 imp artificial score on every board any such convention has been employed during the event.

This post has been edited by barmar: 2015-April-15, 14:09
Reason for edit: Removed names and nationality

[pran]

I think the reactions are much up to the Tournment Organizers.

As an example I can refer to a situation at the Norwegian Bridge Festival many years ago: The Director was called to a table and found that one pair had declared (and used) an illegal convention with their system.

That pair was ordered to immediately cease using their entire (declared) system until they had made a new complete system and gotten this scrutinized and approved by the Norwegian Regulating Authority. (Just removing the illegal convention was no solution because it seriously affected other parts of the system.)

In the meantime they were ordered to use a standard system we have made out for basic bridge courses in Norway. One of the features in this standard system is that no modification whatsoever is allowed.

As I remember they had to live with this standard system about one day.

[barmar]

Forcing pairs to play some "standard" system can raise issues of its own -- we've had discussions of this in regard to ACBL's (only occasionally enforced) rule that if a pair doesn't have two identical convention cards, they have to play SAYC. If players are forced to play a system they don't really know, can you expect them to follow proper disclosure rules? What about the rule against memory aids, which prohibits consulting your own CC? If it's not really your own system, are you expected to have it in memory in the first place (tournaments that impose a specific CC on all players often relax that rule)?

[pran]

barmar, on 2015-April-15, 14:17, said:

Forcing pairs to play some "standard" system can raise issues of its own -- we've had discussions of this in regard to ACBL's (only occasionally enforced) rule that if a pair doesn't have two identical convention cards, they have to play SAYC. If players are forced to play a system they don't really know, can you expect them to follow proper disclosure rules? What about the rule against memory aids, which prohibits consulting your own CC? If it's not really your own system, are you expected to have it in memory in the first place (tournaments that impose a specific CC on all players often relax that rule)?

Our basic system is so fundamental that I cannot imagine anybody having difficulty using and disclosing it:
Natural all the way, weak two, strong 2♣ and 15-17 NT. The only "conventions" permitted as far as I can remember are Stayman, transfers over 1 NT and 4-ace Blackwood.

I don't think the requirement to have two identical convention cards is relevant in this connection so long as they do not contain illegal agreements. You simply declare which is the correct and just duplicate that one. Done within a minute or so.

[steve2005]

ArtK78, on 2015-April-15, 12:28, said:

I faced this exact situation playing in a regional swiss team on the last day of a North American Championship many years ago. We were playing transfers over the opponents' 1NT opening bids. This was, at the time, was not permitted in the event that we were in. After I made a transfer overcall, the TD was summoned and ruled that the convention was illegal, deemed the board to be unplayable and awarded the opps 3 IMPs. No issue was made of any sanction for playing an illegal convention previously. And the TD would not hear any argument that we could change the bid to a natural overcall instead of the transfer overcall.

I still don't know if the ruling is correct.

Don't know when this occurred which could make a difference but from memory transfers over opponent's NT openings has been permitted by the GCC for a very long time. The specific rule which allows it is:

Allowed is all defences to natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that direct calls other than double and 2♣ must have at least one known suit.

[ArtK78]

steve2005, on 2015-April-15, 15:39, said:

Don't know when this occurred which could make a difference but from memory transfers over opponent's NT overcalls has been permitted by the GCC for a very long time. The specific rule which allows it is:

Allowed is all defences to natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that direct calls other than double and 2♣ must have at least one known suit.

Yes, it was a long time. It was about 25 years ago.

[Cascade]

I think the ruling should be:

1. Play continues and the director stands by ready to adjust the score if necessary. After all it may be that the pair get a poor score by using their convention.

2. The pair are instructed to change their system immediately and for the remainder of the event - subject to severe penalties if they don't.

3. The director, now aware that they have been playing an illegal system, checks every other board they have played in the event (probably only session in practice) and determines if an adjustment is due. This is clearly the director's responsibility. That is Law 81C3 applies:

Quote

to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C.

Law 81C3

It maybe outside the correction period for earlier sessions.

It should be noted that an advantage can be obtained even when the illegal convention does not come up. The illegal convention may have an impact on the definition obtained in other system bids. This impact may be non trivial to establish.

I have encountered this as a player at the table once. It occurred in the second semifinal session of the NZ Pairs, about two thirds of the way through that session, against one of the favourites for the event. They opened an illegal artificial 1♠. I called the director to check the legality. It was ruled illegal. One of the players wanted to modify their system on the spot having already seen his cards. The director simply awarded us a 60-40 artificial score (wrong in my view). In addition the director refused to check any other results. The regulations were suitably vague, saying something like the penalty will depend on the experience of the players concerned and maybe whether or not they had tried to check the legality. So we had the absurd, in my view, situation where a favourite pair qualified for the final playing for most of two days an illegal system and were for a time leading the barometer final.

[aguahombre]

Cascade, on 2015-April-15, 21:33, said:

It should be noted that an advantage can be obtained even when the illegal convention does not come up. The illegal convention may have an impact on the definition obtained in other system bids. This impact may be non trivial to establish.

Yes, this is a huge point on topic. It is a CPU as well, and they cannot disclose it without disclosing the illegal convention itself, from which the negative inference derived.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-15, 22:45, said:

[...] It is a CPU as well, and they cannot disclose it without disclosing the illegal convention itself, from which the negative inference derived.

If the illegal agreement is properly disclosed it is not CPU whatever way you look at it!

In the situation I described the problem was that they could open 1NT with as little as 8 HCP, and the reason why this was illegal is rather obscure:

A system is HUM if at least one out of five criteria is satisfied:
[...]
An opening bid at the one-Level can be weaker than PASS in the same position.
[...]

The partnership was unable to show that their system required any hand containing at least 9 HCP to be opened regardless of distribution.

[aguahombre]

Nothing obscure about that. It was illegal, and you cited why it was illegal via a "HUM" criterion as written.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-15, 22:45, said:

Yes, this is a huge point on topic. It is a CPU as well, and they cannot disclose it without disclosing the illegal convention itself, from which the negative inference derived.

aguahombre, on 2015-April-16, 02:45, said:

Nothing obscure about that. It was illegal, and you cited why it was illegal via a "HUM" criterion as written.

Exactly, and it had nothing to do with CPU

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2015-April-16, 03:56, said:

Exactly, and it had nothing to do with CPU

Apparently I struck a nerve when I mentioned CPU. The inferences on other auctions because we are playing an illegal convention (but did not use that illegal convention on the other auctions) are a CPU because we cannot disclose them without revealing that we play an illegal convention upon which the inference is based.

I can't explain it any differently than that. If the word, "we", was confusing -- I did not mean that my partner and I do it.

[VixTD]

In England the relevant regulations (WB8.40.3) read:

Quote

If a pair uses an illegal agreement the board is scored as in §2.8.3.3 [table result or 40%-60%, whichever is less favourable to the offenders]. No attempt is made to find other instances of use of the illegal agreement. If a pair deliberately uses an agreement knowing it to be illegal this is considered very serious, and disqualification may be considered.

I assume no attempt is made to find previous uses because that is simply impractical. If the correction period has passed there is nothing that can be done anyway. However if word got round and another pair complained to me about use of the same convention in the same session (within the correction period) I would give a ruling on that board as well.

Guilty parties would be required to amend their methods, and if that meant changing their entire system they might be made to use a standard simple system (for which prepared cards are available) or made to complete new ones, any boards lost during the time taken to be scored 40%-60%.

[mycroft]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-16, 05:05, said:

Apparently I struck a nerve when I mentioned CPU. The inferences on other auctions because we are playing an illegal convention (but did not use that illegal convention on the other auctions) are a CPU because we cannot disclose them without revealing that we play an illegal convention upon which the inference is based.

I can't explain it any differently than that. If the word, "we", was confusing -- I did not mean that my partner and I do it.

It's like the IRS (sorry about the date): You have to disclose income even if it is illegal. Here, you have to disclose your agreement even if it's illegal. If you try to hide your illegal agreement in your disclosure, then it does become a concealed illegal agreement, agreed - but it doesn't have to be. Just bull it out and hope certain people aren't at your table.

No, I am *not* advocating this. But if you truly are going to knowingly play an illegal system in an event, it is still best to not compound your violation by trying to hide it. You may survive for longer, but the hammer gets bigger when you are eventually found out.

Sometimes the hammer is still there, 50 years later...no I have no personal experience with that, why do you ask?*

*Note that the experience is with the fallout, not with concealing illegal agreements. Seriously, I'm not even 50 yet, never mind a 50-year-old bridge player.

[aguahombre]

Agree wholly with Mycroft. Neither of us is advocating doing those things for which the fallout should be extremely punitive. We are describing consequences with literary license which could appear self-damning to the casual reader --- so we have to spell it out that we aren't recommending evil.

[campboy]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-16, 05:05, said:

Apparently I struck a nerve when I mentioned CPU. The inferences on other auctions because we are playing an illegal convention (but did not use that illegal convention on the other auctions) are a CPU because we cannot disclose them without revealing that we play an illegal convention upon which the inference is based.

What normally happens IME is that the pair playing an illegal convention do disclose things properly, because they don't realise the convention is illegal, but it takes some time for the TD to get involved because most of their opponents don't realise it either.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2015-April-16, 09:25, said:

It's like the IRS (sorry about the date): You have to disclose income even if it is illegal. Here, you have to disclose your agreement even if it's illegal. If you try to hide your illegal agreement in your disclosure, then it does become a concealed illegal agreement, agreed - but it doesn't have to be. Just bull it out and hope certain people aren't at your table.

No, I am *not* advocating this. But if you truly are going to knowingly play an illegal system in an event, it is still best to not compound your violation by trying to hide it. You may survive for longer, but the hammer gets bigger when you are eventually found out.

Sometimes the hammer is still there, 50 years later...no I have no personal experience with that, why do you ask?*

*Note that the experience is with the fallout, not with concealing illegal agreements. Seriously, I'm not even 50 yet, never mind a 50-year-old bridge player.

I think you misunderstood AH. The CPU is the negative inferences available when the illegal agreement is not used. The opponents will not be aware of these inferences, even if they would be aware that the illegal agreement is illegal. Especially then, because these people would assume that the opponents are not using an illegal agreement.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-16, 21:46, said:

I think you misunderstood AH. The CPU is the negative inferences available when the illegal agreement is not used. The opponents will not be aware of these inferences, even if they would be aware that the illegal agreement is illegal. Especially then, because these people would assume that the opponents are not using an illegal agreement.

For heaven's sake: NO.

There can be no CPU from a properly disclosed agreement whether it is used or not used in a particular situation.