[H_KARLUK]

ACBL GCC>"Players are expected to play each hand to win at all times. No dumping is permitted even if such dumping may be in the contestant's best long-term interest."

Any ideas please? Last I remember Kaplan raised th question of sportmanlike dumping during th 70s.

[Free]

What do you mean with dumping? Playing bad on purpose? Only in a Swiss event you could do this in the first round, but you might end up losing too much VP's.

[hrothgar]

Free, on Mar 28 2009, 10:21 PM, said:

What do you mean with dumping? Playing bad on purpose? Only in a Swiss event you could do this in the first round, but you might end up losing too much VP's.

Sportman like dumping shows up in a lot of forms.

The most prominent examples involve late stages in round robins...

I remember on lovely post that argued that safety plays should be banned because they involved dumping a trick...

[orlam]

Free, on Mar 28 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

What do you mean with dumping? Playing bad on purpose? Only in a Swiss event you could do this in the first round, but you might end up losing too much VP's.

Are you not a bridgeworld subscriber? Or do you manage to skip all the editorials (good for you!)?

[TimG]

Can happen in a KO that has 3-ways with 2 survivors, especially if the event is seeded (so that a middle seeded team can dump to the lower seeded team to increase the chances of the higher seeded team is eliminated and the middle seeded team then takes over the higher seed).

I know of such an occurrence that happened about 20 years ago. A committee was convened to investigate. The team that dumped was quite forthcoming about what they had done and how they had done it. This was before the rule cited in the opening post had been established. There was some rule about "playing to win every trick" or some such that the committee was able to use to impose some sort of sanction on the dumping team. Though as Richard points out, the rule they cited would also make things like a hold up play illegal.

The team that was dumped to (the team that survived as a result of the dumping) was very offended by the whole thing. One of them has refused to play in an ACBL event since, I believe.

The team that was the victim of the dumping (the team that was eliminated) thought that congratulations were in order for the team that pulled off the dumping.

Anyway, this has been a hot topic many times since the 70s. And, seems to be one of those topics where people have strong opinions and do not change their minds.

The Bridge World position has always been that the fault is with the conditions of contest which make dumping possibly advantageous. Seems right to me.

[helene_t]

Happened in a prominent tourney in the Netherlands, around 2002 I think. The pauir who did it first asked for the TDs permission before doing it, afterwards they got disqualified.

I wasn't aware it was not allowed. (Oh now I see it is from the GCC, may be different in other settings).

[gwnn]

I don't understand your second option, could you explain it a little better? Thank you.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Mar 28 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

The pauir who did it first asked for the TDs permission before doing it, afterwards they got disqualified.

Not sure I understand. Did the TD grant or deny permission?

[helene_t]

The TD granted the permission.

[blackshoe]

That seems more than harsh. If the TD granted permission, what was the basis for the disqualification? Did the TO also "disqualify" the TD? I would have. Possibly with extreme prejudice.

[H_KARLUK]

blackshoe, on Mar 29 2009, 02:40 AM, said:

That seems more than harsh. If the TD granted permission, what was the basis for the disqualification? Did the TO also "disqualify" the TD? I would have. Possibly with extreme prejudice.

English 2nd lingo here. Hopefully some guys won't get annoyed again. Patience please.

Aim makes mean legal ? It is easy to add depends "big goals" etc words.

Tho risk of puttin' blacklisted : "sorry, not my cup of tea".

Encourage good sportsmanship spirit! One day justice might need even for cruels. Support & respect for legal and honest efforts are nice things.

Can you imagine gain without pain ? Hmm.

[Apollo81]

How can dumping possibly ever be sportsmanlike or ethical?

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on Mar 29 2009, 12:05 AM, said:

How can dumping possibly ever be sportsmanlike or ethical?

If it gives you a better match-up in a later round then I don't see why it wouldn't be considered sportsmanlike (except that it is specifically noted to be illegal, but what I'm saying is I don't see why it should be.)

I mean, I'm allowed to rest my best players in today's matches so they will play better in tomorrow's matches. It probably hurts either my chances of winning or my margin in today's match, but I am allowed to make the judgment that tomorrow's match is more important, perhaps only after I am far enough ahead in today's match. Also I'm allowed to not try for overtricks near the beginning of a long tournament in order to save my energy for later rounds. So why are certain type of strategizing for the following day's match fine, but other types (such as dumping near the end of a round robin) not?

[quiddity]

jdonn, on Mar 29 2009, 01:33 AM, said:

So why are certain type of strategizing for the following day's match fine, but other types (such as dumping near the end of a round robin) not?

It is unethical because the dumper is deliberately trying to subvert the spirit of the round robin, which is intended to allow the best teams to advance, and in doing so is denying both beneficiaries and victims a chance at a fair contest. You might as well argue that people should be allowed to throw boards to their friends in pairs games because it will improve their chances in the next game when the favor is returned.

[jdonn]

quiddity, on Mar 29 2009, 03:14 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 29 2009, 01:33 AM, said:

So why are certain type of strategizing for the following day's match fine, but other types (such as dumping near the end of a round robin) not?

It is unethical because the dumper is deliberately trying to subvert the spirit of the round robin, which is intended to allow the best teams to advance, and in doing so is denying both beneficiaries and victims a chance at a fair contest. You might as well argue that people should be allowed to throw boards to their friends in pairs games because it will improve their chances in the next game when the favor is returned.

Huh? By your logic I should just quit if I come up against Nickel in a knockout match, since the spirit of the knockout is also for the best teams to win. Or maybe if in the round robin I bid a grand slam off an ace but the opponents make the wrong lead I should just claim down 1 anyway since I was not a good team on that hand.

Sorry, the spirit of the event is for the organizers to worry about, my worry is what is best for my team. You don't claim that a team which gets off to a great start and rests its best pair in the second have is subverting the spirit of the round robin, even though they are unfairly benefiting the teams that play them in the second half rather than the first. Why is that different? Either we can use knowledge of the score to our advantage or we can't.

Obviously your example of friends throwing boards and trading with each other is a very bad analogy since that is collusion. Apples and oranges...

[TimG]

quiddity, on Mar 29 2009, 03:14 AM, said:

You might as well argue that people should be allowed to throw boards to their friends in pairs games because it will improve their chances in the next game when the favor is returned.

One reason this is very different is that it carries over multiple events. Dumping to your friends in THIS event will not help you win THIS event. Dumping during a round robin may increase your odds of winning the event in which the dumping takes place.

I think better than Josh's example of resting a pair in the second half of a KO is resting a pair in later stages of a round robin after the team has already clinched qualification. If this results in your 3rd pair playing more than the minimum number of boards, has the team violated the spirit of the contest by not putting forth the best effort possible?

[helene_t]

TimG, on Mar 29 2009, 02:28 PM, said:

quiddity, on Mar 29 2009, 03:14 AM, said:

You might as well argue that people should be allowed to throw boards to their friends in pairs games because it will improve their chances in the next game when the favor is returned.

I thought that was quite normal in cycling races, the lower ranking team members act as wind shields for the higher ranking team members.

[JLOL]

This happens very often. I personally have been in the situation to dump to help my chances of winning the event twice. I believe it's against the spirit of the game to do this, but as has been noted some would say it's unethical for me NOT to dump. I have also been in the position where I could get screwed by dumping and although they rested their best pair, they didn't dump.

[shintaro]

Well if anyone considers 'Dumping' to been anything but a disgrace then perhaps they should NOT play Bridge

[jdonn]

shintaro, on Mar 29 2009, 11:48 AM, said:

Well if anyone considers 'Dumping' to been anything but a disgrace then perhaps they should NOT play Bridge

Well I guess you win, on the basis of your solid reasoning...