[fred]

Any legal eagles out there know what sort of penalty should be given for this?

Before play starts in the 2nd segment of a Spingold match, you ask your opponents what they play over your 1NT openings. They tell you play, among other things, that Double is conventional.

Later in the segment you open 1NT in 3rd chair with none vul. Your LHO Doubles and your RHO alerts and explains the Double as "Penalty" (which I believe does not require an alert but that's not the point here).

Upon asking the opponents what is going on they tell you:

1) They have agreed to play penalty Doubles specifically in this situation and specifically only against certain pairs (including you and your partner)

2) They intentionally did not tell you this when you asked them about their 1NT defense before the segment started

None of this was relevant to the (completely normal) result that was achieved on the board.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

Amazing that they admitted that it was intentional. Did they really think it was not an infraction?

I would have disqualified them but then again I am not a legal eagle.

[hrothgar]

Wow

I've never seen (or heard) or a deliberate violation of Law 75 (I think that this is the operational statute)

Quote

LAW 75 PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS

A. Special Partnership Agreements

    Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal.

C. Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements

    When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience.

Realistically, the sky's the limit on this one...

Personally, I think that the offending pair should be banned from playing as a partnership for a year, followed by a long probation.

[fred]

helene_t, on Jul 29 2009, 10:30 PM, said:

Amazing that they admitted that it was intentional.

That was my exact reaction.

Unfortunately I expressed it in such a way that I may end up with a "Zero Tolerance Penalty" as a result. Go figure

Quote

Did they really think it was not an infraction?

It sounds like it. Go figure again...

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Phil]

Let us know what happens.

Sounds a disciplinary hearing should be convened.

[hotShot]

There are much better experts in Law than me, but

I think this is a violation of Law 40 A 1 b

Quote

LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS
A. Players’ Systemic Agreements
1. ( a ) Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a
partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through
mutual experience or awareness of the players.
( B ) Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership
understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The
Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done.

I'm not sure if the opponents you are playing are a condition of the current deal as stated in Law 40 A 2

Quote

2. Information conveyed to partner through such understandings must arise
from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal. Each player is
entitled to take into account the legal auction and, subject to any
exclusions in these laws, the cards he has seen. He is entitled to use
information specified elsewhere in these laws to be authorized. (See Law
73C.)

[richlp]

fred, on Jul 29 2009, 05:40 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 29 2009, 10:30 PM, said:

Amazing that they admitted that it was intentional.

That was my exact reaction.

Unfortunately I expressed it in such a way that I may end up with a "Zero Tolerance Penalty" as a result. Go figure

Quote

Did they really think it was not an infraction?

It sounds like it. Go figure again...

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Sounds to me like one of those Infinite Loop system decisions where both pairs' choice depends on how the other pair plays.

Something about your style of opening 1NT in 3rd seat at this vulnerability leads them to want to play penalty doubles. Of course, if you know they have a penalty double available, you change your style. In which case they want the double to be conventional, in which case you revert to original style. etc. etc. etc.

[bluejak]

Let us not go through the Loop thing again, please. It has always had a simple solution. You have to define your methods before they define their defences.

The original scenario was cheating, pure and simple. The Laws quoted are good, but I would add

Law 72B1 said:

A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

They did: chuck 'em out of the ACBL.

[blackshoe]

I'm with David on this one.

[McBruce]

fred, on Jul 29 2009, 02:40 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 29 2009, 10:30 PM, said:

Amazing that they admitted that it was intentional.

That was my exact reaction.

Unfortunately I expressed it in such a way that I may end up with a "Zero Tolerance Penalty" as a result. Go figure

Quote

Did they really think it was not an infraction?

It sounds like it. Go figure again...

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred, I do not believe that there is any excuse for not holding a hearing on this matter just because you got a ZT penalty. At the risk of taking this on a tangent, it would be like arresting someone you know to be innocent just because he said "yo' mama."

Furthermore, I don't believe there is any reason for considering your reaction when you discovered what the pair was doing in deciding what penalty to apply to them. This pair clearly has some explaining to do, not just about the blatantly deliberate concealed partnership understanding, but also about the unsportsmanlike way in which they concealed it: not just refusing to answer a direct question, but carefully skirting around it to gain an illegal advantage.

Page 51 of this document (the ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations) gives the guideline of reprimand to 30 days suspension for this offense. I think at least the maximum is appropriate here, considering the nature of the offense and the likelyhood that the pair in question is experienced (given the level of the event): the CDR guidelines are not boundaries, and a previous record of this sort of thing by this pair would greatly increase the severity of the sentence. I would recommend a very strong penalty in IMPs for the offense as well, considering the way it was sprung upon you.

[peachy]

I've read the responses so far and agree - a disciplinary hearing would be the right way to handle a deliberate and intentional breaking of the laws. Moreover, at least in ACBL, a partnership may not vary their system for reasons such as "who the opponents are" or "the sun is shining/not shining". Varying methods is allowed depending on vulnerability and/or seat. This is a second illegal act in addition to intentionally hiding methods.

[axman]

fred, on Jul 29 2009, 05:18 PM, said:

Any legal eagles out there know what sort of penalty should be given for this?

Before play starts in the 2nd segment of a Spingold match, you ask your opponents what they play over your 1NT openings. They tell you play, among other things, that Double is conventional.

Later in the segment you open 1NT in 3rd chair with none vul. Your LHO Doubles and your RHO alerts and explains the Double as "Penalty" (which I believe does not require an alert but that's not the point here).

Upon asking the opponents what is going on they tell you:

1) They have agreed to play penalty Doubles specifically in this situation and specifically only against certain pairs (including you and your partner)

2) They intentionally did not tell you this when you asked them about their 1NT defense before the segment started

None of this was relevant to the (completely normal) result that was achieved on the board.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Comments have been made about review by a conduct committee [appropriate] but no mention yet as to the effect upon the hand in play.

But I do think that resolving the hand is important for the progress of the tournament.

It seems to me that a breach of L73E has occurred. Its effect was to deprive the other side of preparation of defenses to the defense as well as to deceive and entrap them into dubious calls; and, possibly disconcert/ get them angry [a breach of L74A2].

A PP is in order for the lying. I don't think 24imp is out of line.

The correction of MI provides for the 1NT to correct his call via cancelling the two calls. But it is possible that being deprived of the opportunity to discuss the ramifications of the opponents' system caused irretrievable [via correction of call] damage and thus may support a score adjustment.

Also, these shenanigans quite likely have predictably delayed the game significantly and may warrant a PP.

[Cascade]

Did they tell you what their conventional defense was?

Did they tell you more about what this specific situation meant?

What was on their convention card?

[poohbear]

Personally I am not surprised at pairs adjusting methods to cater to their opponents. I disagree strongly that one can't cater their methods to their opponents or even to whether the sun is shining or not shining. The key is disclosure. Let's face it Fred . Your partnership has been known to have weird 3rd seat NT openings . I recall one with a 7 card Heart suit where opener responded 2d to a stayman enquiry. I realize that was state of the match and I am dying to try it BUT that is the kind of thing that brought this up

Lets take Joe Grue . He opens 1NT on anything. " Everyone " knows it . Does he disclose? Meckwell were called out for using upside down suit preference and not telling anyone . Their defence? We told them we use upside down SIGNALS. Also their NTs can be highly uhhhhh lets call it preeemptive and they never disclosed. Have they been punished? NOPE. Everyone knows and people cater to it. It would never dawn on me that 14-16 NTs is anything but STRONG and yet people use weak NT defenses against certain pairs because its whittled down to 12 sometimes.

I also know a pair that uses 2 way dbls that are either penalties or I wouldnt pass a penalty dbl . I am waiting for the right time to spring it against them They dont disclose it and they claim it works BECAUSE they don't disclose.

How many times does it come up that you really wish you knew what the opps were playing in a certain situation but you cant ask or look at the CC ( assuming the agreement is even there) without tipping your hand or tipping your partner or the opps for that matter.

Bridge partnerships are like a marriage. No one knows what goes on behind closed doors . Longtime partnerships are in "tune " with each other subconsciously.
Is that cheating? How is anyone ever going to call somebody on the fact that by the way he twisted his elbow you know that he played the 10 from K10 and not from 10xx behind dummies AJx . Was it intentional? Of course not. Partner's know each other's body language. They can't help but know.

I know I have kind of got off topic but the issue is much deeper. I don't condone the pair . They were asked a direct question and the opps are entitled by law to get a direct answer but as someone mentioned the never ending loop applies.

Will they be punished? If history is a precedent then no. But if they aren't " famous " who knows ? Too bad stars are above punishment

[mike777]

I really dont understand this post.

first off you may be shocked but everyone does not know what grue opens 1nt on and I played against him what.....15 or 20 years ago....



for sake of discussion we cannot know all the marriage agreements but please tell me most of them or at least the most important ones........

It reminds when I played against a very well known married pair where both were on a bunch of acbl boards..........they never really explained their carding to me at at the table.......


This sort of reminds me at a Nat....when a pick up pard told ..."when I overcall, never lead my suit....no alert"

[helene_t]

bluejak, on Jul 30 2009, 12:34 AM, said:

Let us not go through the Loop thing again, please.

Suppose it goes:
3rdseat: What defense do you play against 1NT?
4thseat: Depends. What is your range?
3rdseat: 15-17
4thseat: Do you make tactical light 1NT-openings in 3rd seat nonvul?
3rdseat: Yes sometimes.
4thseat: OK, then we play penalty dbls in that specific situation. Otherwise not.
3rdseat: OK, if you play penalty dbls then we are less likely to make tactical 1NT openings.
4thseat: I believe that's illegal. You stated your system, we stated our defense. Now it's too late for you to change your system.
3rdseat: We don't change our system, we just adjust our judgement.
4thseat: That's great! Those of us who play a system are bound by the rules. Those who play "judgement" are not!

I don't know if such things happen. But if they do (or if 4thseat and his p suspect they do) then I can understand their frustration.

That doesn't give them any excuse for cheating, of course.

[Trinidad]

fred, on Jul 29 2009, 05:18 PM, said:

Any legal eagles out there know what sort of penalty should be given for this?

Before play starts in the 2nd segment of a Spingold match, you ask your opponents what they play over your 1NT openings. They tell you play, among other things, that Double is conventional.

Later in the segment you open 1NT in 3rd chair with none vul. Your LHO Doubles and your RHO alerts and explains the Double as "Penalty" (which I believe does not require an alert but that's not the point here).

Upon asking the opponents what is going on they tell you:

1) They have agreed to play penalty Doubles specifically in this situation and specifically only against certain pairs (including you and your partner)

2) They intentionally did not tell you this when you asked them about their 1NT defense before the segment started

None of this was relevant to the (completely normal) result that was achieved on the board.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

This may well be a case of "the loop". A short, real life example of "the loop":

A player in Sweden was (is?) known for psyching 1NT openings in third seat against pairs that play conventional doubles but not against pairs who played double as penalty. That was a public secret, but obviously not on his CC. But if half of Sweden knew that, then his partner knew it too and therefore, it was effectively a partnership agreement.

The rule is simple. You declare what kind of NT you play. Then, they declare what defense they have. After that you cannot change your agreement on your 1NT opening accordingly. End of story.

If you do change your agreement on your 1NT opening accordingly, you will start the loop:
1) What is your 1NT defense?
   2) That depends on your 1NT opening.
3) It is 15-17.
   4) Then we play DONT.
5) If you play DONT, we frequently psyche 1NT openings.
   6) Then we play penalty doubles and Y.
7) Oh, then we never psyche.
   8) Go back to 4)
That is why you generally aren't allowed to change your agreement depending on the defense.

I have the feeling that the same might be going on here. Just read on and ask yourself whether the following applies to you (I don't know whether it does, but I have seen your position on artistry elsewhere):

• You are known for your "artistic" bidding.
  
• As a result, your 1NT opening is not really what it states on your card. Instead it is what it states on your card with "artistic deviations".
  
• Your artistic deviations are fairly frequent against pairs who play conventional doubles of 1NT and rare (or even absent) against pairs who play penalty doubles of 1NT.

If you don't recognize yourself in these three statements then don't read the next part, since it doesn't apply to you.
=======================================
If you do recognize yourself in these three statements then you are adjusting your system depending on what defense the opponents play. That is generally not allowed.

Possibly your opponents know that you adjust your system according to the opponents' defense. They disclosed their agreement against the system that you had declared on your convention card. However, they played the defense against the system that you are known to play against people who play conventional doubles.

You may have run into opponents who are just tired of "artists" (they might call them clowns) who declare A, but effectively play B if the opponents defend with method Y. And then when the situation arises, the artist claims that his bid was ... artistic. And what can the TD do? Call the artist a liar? So the TD believes the artistry and doesn't do anything.

Your opponents may have found a way to force you to play by the rules. They would love to see this case presented in a hearing. It will mean the end of a lot of clowning around under the flag of artistry. They will have a strong case. After all, they declared their methods against the system that you declared. And they played the method against the system you are known to play. And they even explained it correctly as soon as the situation came up.
=======================================
If you don't recognize yourself in the three statements then I would advise you to go on with the hearing. Intentionally not disclosing your agreements when asked is a serious offense.

Rik

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on Jul 30 2009, 04:59 AM, said:

That doesn't give them any excuse for cheating, of course.

IIRC, the Swedish player from my previous post once got caught when he "psyched" a 1NT opening in 3rd seat against opponents who had declared that they play DONT. Fourth hand doubled. When 1NT X came back to the second seat player, he calmly passed. The Swedish player tried to run, but couldn't escape a bad result.

The TD was called when it turned out that fourth seat didn't have a single suiter, but a big balanced hand. The Swedish player claimed misinformation. The opponents claimed that the double on a big balanced hand was just as much a partnership agreement (or a psych and thus as much cheating) as the 1NT opening on 3 HCPs was.

When opponents start to devise defenses against your psychic tendencies then your psychic tendencies are no longer psychic tendencies: They are implicit partnership agreements.

Rik

[helene_t]

I get your point, Rik, but IMHO the proper response to such an "artistic" 1NT opening is to call the TD when it occurs, or, if that doesn't lead to the desired result, campaign for having the laws changed to address such issues. If we condone players taking justice into their own hands by failing to disclose their methods whenever they feel opps also fail to disclose their methods (or commit some other infraction, say adapt their methods to our defense), it will lead to anarchy.

[hrothgar]

I’d like to take this opportunity to – once again – push a pet theme of mine. We’d all be MUCH MUCH better off if changed the regulations to do away with psyches and adopted a regulatory structure that actually matches the way that people behave.

Consider for the moment David’s dismissal of the entire “Chicken and the Egg” problem. His solution to this problem is based on the assumption that players are “locking” in a bidding system. Unfortunately, this bears no relationship to how players actually behave. The decision whether or not to psyche on a given hand is not treated as a matter of system. It’s treated as an exception to the system. Its governed completely by “style” + feelings.

So long as this holds true, there’s nothing to stop a player from tightening up their “style” if the opposition is playing penalty doubles. Nor is their any way to detect whether or not players are varying said style.

In all seriousness, I don’t think that there is any excuse for the behavior of the opposing pair. At the same time, it looks as if other partnership are specifically changing their agreements to defend against what is (presumably) a well established pattern of psyches on your part - this suggests that you might need to consider some of your own actions.

As I’ve noted in the past, I think that the best course of action would be for you to adopt a formal “key” that governs whether or not you “psyche” on a given hand. Adopting a key would permit the following

• You would be able to disclose the frequency with which your third seat white on red 1NT opening is actually a 15-17 HCP hand

• The opponents would be able to make an informed decision whether or not to adopt penalty doubles

• You would be able to prove that you aren’t changing your preemptive style in response to said penalty doubles.