[Codo]

I really think this is an everyday and ordinary problem, but the bad thing about it is, that it does not adress two problems which are everyday problems too.

1. There are players everywhere, even between the best who hate to answer questions. There is more then one pair who tries to answer as short as possible. Now what shall you do? Ask again and getting a PP after your partner made a suspicious double? There was no objection to N/S to make a clear statement. Everything could have been better if they had said: "We just met 15 min. before the event, but we are sure that 1 diamond shows real diamonds, so 1 club could be based on a low doubleton."

2. Like Ken wrote, if you just ask in case you want to bid, you always send an UI to your partner. This is accepted to make the game more fluent, but it is still far from an optimal solution.

[MFA]

kenberg, on Dec 14 2009, 01:49 AM, said:

Sneaky things, while generally wrong, are exactly right when cheating is suspected.

(snip)

In this case at  hand,  the committee, I think, rather strongly insinuated that these guys were cheating. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. With a little more work, it would all have been much clearer.

Where do you find justification fur such a claim about insinuation of cheating?

Every reasonably good TD (or appeals committee) usually goes out of his way to explain to the players that getting a UI judgement against you is NOT an accusation of cheating.
Misstepping is part of the game because these things are so tough to get right. We can't pull the C-word every time, makes no sense. And pulling the C-word was NOT what the AC did here.

Quote

The following happened with me many years ago.  Between rounds, a director approached me. She said that an opponent had noted that I stared at my partner during the auction, she had monitored me, and agreed that I did this. I said that I had no idea I was doing it, she accepted this, and now I try to remember to avoid eye contact with partner, or anyone, during the auction. I was not insulted, I appreciated the handling of it, I have, I hope, corrected it.

Nice story, but that has nothing to do with cheating either. You had a bad habit (like so many other players) which in this case was easy to spot and handle elegantly by the TD.

[kenberg]

It is not an accusation of cheating. True enough. Directors are all taught this, just as police officers learn to refer to a suspect in an alleged burgarly when they catch him walking out of the jewelry store with the diamonds in his pockets.

A few posts back, Cherdano said: I think "this requires a pre-alert" was just a polite way of saying "We believe you are lying".

That's the way it sounds to me also.


For example:
On the auction at hand, I probably would not have asked anything at all. Then, if partner had doubled as he did, I seriously doubt that a claim by the opponents that they should have been pre-alerted to the possibility of a light balance would have been taken seriously.

So maybe I should be skeptical of the players explanation, that's understandable, but I am also skeptical of the committee's announced reasoning. I don't believe they really think a pre-a;ert was necessary, rather thay are saying, As Cherdano said, we think you are lying.


It's true that I have known a few experienced players who have the remarkable ability to totally fail to understand the proprieties no matter how many times they are explained, but that is sort of rare. Here we are in the life master pairs at a Nationals, it seems to me we can trust that the players know they are not supposed to send UI to their partners by prolonged questioning. If they ignore this, cheating seems to me to be the correct word. So I see the issue as "What is their questioning style?" It's not my style, but as I have noted this is partly because I have pretty much given up expecting to be able to learn what the opponents are actually playing. Taking the auction as a whole, I can usually figure it out.


Let me make a constructive suggestion. The acbl could go further than they do in providing guidance about when questions are appropriate and what sort of answers are adequate. When answers are not adequate, and I think they were not adequate here, that would be a significant issue in the appeal. This committee totally ignored the inadequacy of the responses.

[blackshoe]

For a committee to claim that a pre-alert was required, when they do not believe that to be the case, is untenable.

I agree with Ken wrt the answers to the questions at the table.

[jdonn]

It seems like the pair is saying "We bid so aggressively in this situation that it would be virtually unthinkable for us to pass." This goes well beyond 'normal aggressive' so it's perfectly reasonable for the committee to say that style requires a pre-alert.

I also have no problem with the committee making that statement to insinuate they don't believe the pair. You come to a hearing claiming self-serving bologna like that and you deserve at least a very subtle insinuation in return. Probably the pair won't pre-alert in the future anyway because they 'know' they are only 'normal aggressive' in that situation, which may help them understand that their argument was rubbish.

[Keeper1]

The pair in question didn't pre-alert this the next time I played them....

[jdonn]

Keeper1, on Dec 14 2009, 11:40 AM, said:

The pair in question didn't pre-alert this the next time I played them....

Exactly. There's a shocker...

[TimG]

Keeper1, on Dec 14 2009, 11:40 AM, said:

The pair in question didn't pre-alert this the next time I played them....

Maybe they were convinced by the proceedings that the methods they claimed to be playing were unsound, so decided to change their style...

Or, maybe they were told by another director that they didn't actually have to pre-alert.

[kenberg]

I think that this sort of follow up, like the quiet observation I had in mind, is useful. A cynic might say of course it was BS what they said and maybe it was. But it would be better for everyone and better for the game if there was some follow through, checking to see if what they say is what they do. Perhaps it is. It's possible.

Many years ago an opponent asked about partner's bid and I said that we had no agreement. He mentioned that I could just say that anytime. I replied that I only say it when it is true. Skepticism is legitimate, it comes easily to me. But sometimes, surprise, it turns out to be the truth.


Trust but verify, also be skeptical but allow for the possibility it's true.