[campboy]

Certainly in EBU-land we would not normally give a PP for a fielded misbid, and this looks like a pretty run-of-the-mill fielded misbid to me. East may have used UI, but it wasn't particularly blatant. And if they genuinely didn't realise that this convention was not allowed, I don't see why we should be rushing to give a PP for that either. On the other hand, three separate reasons on the same board which aren't quite enough individually for a PP certainly should add up to one...

[dburn]

[RMB1]

dburn, on May 25 2010, 02:34 AM, said:

Now: should the Director rule that East-West keep their "table score" after the adjustment that would have been made once the hand had been played to a finish?

Grattan Endicott answered in the affirmative (in another place).

He said that you should adjust for misinformation (if an illegal convention was wrongly explained) before considering whether an artificial adjustment (for use of an illegal convention) should be applied. I imagine the same would apply for the use of unauthorised information where the offenders had also used an illegal convention.

Searching the RGB or BLML archives (and having to guess how Mr Endicott expressed this) is not something I will attempt.

[awm]

There really should be an automatic PP for playing an illegal convention. The problem is that most players (and directors!) do not know/understand the convention charts, so a pair playing an illegal method will get away with it the vast majority of the time. If there's no actual penalty when a pair is actually caught using an illegal method (just tell them to take it off the card), then playing illegal methods is very much to the advantage of the offenders. It's also not clear what it means to say "opponents were damaged by the illegal method" -- without the illegal method the auction would be totally different and it's impossible to say what would actually have happened.

In addition, west seems to have fielded east's "forget" of drury. East has also taken advantage of UI in the bidding to bid his clubs so many times (why not pass at some point and let west raise? because west doesn't know east has clubs... why not bid diamonds at some point? because west doesn't know what's going on).

South's opening spade lead is bad as it turns out, but assuming east actually has his call as described (i.e. spade fit with very long clubs) it is a good lead. I don't think we can blame south for not working out that east has "psyched" his illegal convention and west has fielded it, even though that does perhaps seem likely for the auction. Ducking the heart at trick two is a more serious error, but under the circumstances...

I'd rule average-plus and average-minus (unless N/S table result is already better than average-plus); I believe this is fairly standard in situations where a result on the board cannot readily be obtained (for example due to an illegal method). I'd also give E/W an additional procedural penalty for playing an illegal convention and for their conduct on this board (psyching or forgetting the illegal convention, fielding the psych/forget). This is really pretty bad. Perhaps we should give them multiple PPs on the same board, but probably the one PP combined with the adjustment to "average-minus" will be sufficient.

[awm]

I'd also comment that "table result stands" on this board without even a PP for E/W is the kind of awful ACBL ruling that makes me not want to play in their events.

What more could E/W have done wrong here? They play an illegal method. They didn't have the hand described. They fielded the misbid (or whatever it was) by west never correcting to spades. East arguably used his UI (west doesn't know what he holds) to find a sacrifice.

Yet the directors decide to shoot the non-offending side and let them keep their lousy table result. They don't even penalize the offending side for what amounts to blatant cheating. It sounds like they didn't even tell E/W to take the illegal method off their card.

[bluejak]

dburn, on May 25 2010, 02:34 AM, said:

Now: should the Director rule that East-West keep their "table score" after the adjustment that would have been made once the hand had been played to a finish?

EBU White book #90.4.2 said:

Illegal method, fielding of psyche, deviation or misbid

If a contestant uses a method that is not permitted, or is adjudged to have fielded a psyche, deviation or misbid then the deal should be completed. If he attains a score of Ave– or less then the score stands. Otherwise he gets Ave– and his opponents get Ave+.

Examples
(e) A pair fields a misbid, and gets a score of 50% on the board. The board is re-scored as Ave– to them, and Ave+ to their opponents. However, theopposition appeal because of a hesitation, and the Appeals Committee decide a weighted score would be suitable. If the weighted score gives the non-offenders 60% or better when calculated, that score is applied: if less than 60% then it remains as Ave–/Ave+.

Yes.

[gerry]

awm, on May 25 2010, 02:16 AM, said:

I'd also comment that "table result stands" on this board without even a PP for E/W is the kind of awful ACBL ruling that makes me not want to play in their events.

What more could E/W have done wrong here? They play an illegal method. They didn't have the hand described. They fielded the misbid (or whatever it was) by west never correcting to spades. East arguably used his UI (west doesn't know what he holds) to find a sacrifice.

Yet the directors decide to shoot the non-offending side and let them keep their lousy table result. They don't even penalize the offending side for what amounts to blatant cheating. It sounds like they didn't even tell E/W to take the illegal method off their card.

Agree completely. 5cx-2 AND a PP. Anything less will ensure that this kind of cheating becomes even more common than it already is.

[jeremy69]

Quote

At some point these players are going to feel pretty hard done by.

That's good. It might make them check as to whether they can play something or not (ignorance being no defence) and also to be rather more careful when cheating after playing their illegal method.

[blackshoe]

My point was that it shouldn't be necessary to give a long list of transgressions and a large PP for each to get the point across.

[jeremy69]

And my point is that unless you make the point clearly and unequivocably you won't alter their behaviour.

[peachy]

blackshoe, on May 26 2010, 08:14 AM, said:

My point was that it shouldn't be necessary to give a long list of transgressions and a large PP for each to get the point across.

I think it is necessary to give the reason for PP, and if there are more than one reasons, to give the full list however long.

[blackshoe]

I agree, Peachy, that if you give a PP, you should say why.

Don't forget, Jeremy, that PPs are very rare here. It would be quite a shock to most players to get one at all. That said, at a Sectional or Regional, if the TD did give a PP for each offense, he would probably give the "standard" 25% of a top for each, because it's the standard.

Adam (and others) if EW are truly blatant cheats, should you not be calling for an ethics hearing?

[nige1]

blackshoe, on May 26 2010, 12:05 PM, said:

Adam (and others) if EW are truly blatant cheats, should you not be calling for an ethics hearing?

This is a problem with laws designed to restore equity -- rather than to deter law-breakers and to encourage their victims to report infractions.

PPs and DPs are sporadically and inconsistently enforced. Players resent them.

Accusations of cheating require cast-iron evidence certain to convince a lay jury; because a lost libel-case would bankrupt most NBAs and their officers.

Another problem is that law-breaking is common but deliberate cheating is rare. Ignorance or carelessness or rationalisation are the usual reasons for law-breaking.

The simple solution is to incorporate deterrent penalties into the ordinary rules. Likely consequences ...

• It would concentrate players' minds and drastically reduce infractions.
  
• The game woud become fairer. Hence more enjoyable for would-be players and for those trying to obey the rules.
  
• The downside is that directors would have to cope with hassle from habitual law-breakers, as infractions become less profitable.

[blackshoe]

Deterrent penalties are incorporated in the current rules - see laws 90 and 91. Or are you suggesting they be made mandatory, rather than left to TD discretion? That's pretty much what the ACBL has done with its "Zero Tolerance" policy. Not sure that's working all that well.

[awm]

Well it's not clear what E/W are doing deliberately and what they are doing through ignorance. Calling an ethics committee based on this one incident might be going a bit far, but it certainly should be recorded in case similar situations occur in future. This decision may also depend on how experienced the pair is, with inexperienced pairs being educated as to their responsibilities rather than brought before an ethics committee.

Nonetheless the facts seem to indicate that:

(1) E/W are playing an illegal method.
(2) East apparently has difficulty remembering the methods they play on the first round of an uncontested auction, or else has made a very weird psych.
(3) West seems to have fielded this psych or misbid.
(4) East seems to have taken advantage of the UI from west's alert in the subsequent bidding.

Combining all four of these on a single hand is pretty damning.

Perhaps I can believe a decision that the N/S defense does not entitle them to full redress (for example, if ducking the heart ace is viewed as a really poor play) but allowing E/W to keep their table result without any consequences for their actions on this board is truly awful.

[Vampyr]

I assume that Bergen raises are permitted in the ACBL, since Marty Bergen is American. Is it really legal to play that 1M-3♣ is a raise of the major, but illegal to play 1M-2♣ as a raise?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on May 26 2010, 06:32 PM, said:

I assume that Bergen raises are permitted in the ACBL, since Marty Bergen is American. Is it really legal to play that 1M-3♣ is a raise of the major, but illegal to play 1M-2♣ as a raise?

Yes, Bergen Raises are GCC legal. No, 2♣ as a raise is not, unless it's GF.