[TimG]

mrdct, on Jul 26 2010, 08:08 PM, said:

Why on earth are they using hand-dealt boards in such a prestigious event?

It's the ACBL.

Quote

This one seems so blatant that there must just about be a presumption that the 6♦ bidder was in possession of UI.  I'm not 100% on how the laws operate if there is clearly UI on the hand but nobody can pin-point what the UI actually was. Can the TD and/or appeals committee still award an adjusted score?

It seems to me that any adjustment would be equivalent to saying this player cheated. And, for that there should be evidence of how the presumed information was obtained.

[blackshoe]

You can't adjust the score unless you can point to a law that says you can adjust the score, and there's no law that says you can adjust the score just because you think there must have been something strange going on.

[Keeper1]

I guess all you can do is file a recorder form...did the directors encourage you to do so, or indiate they would do so themselves?

[mrdct]

Laws 16A3 and 16A4:

Quote

3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).
4. If there is a violation of this law causing damage the Director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12C.

It is entirely reasonable to conclude that the 6♦ bid could only have been made if the bidder was in possession of "extraneous" UI and therefore the TD, if he makes such an assessment, would be able to award an adjusted score as there has been a violation of Law 16A3.

Law 85A1:

Quote

1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.

In a legal sense "balance of probabilities" is generally synonomous with "more likely than not" which is a much easier threshold to get over than "beyond reasonable doubt" and appears to be a test that could be satisfied in this case.

If I was in Justin's shoes, I'd come right out and say "I believe the 6♦ bid was a call based on extraneous information (as there can be no other reasonable explanation for it) and ask that the TD determine the facts in accordance with Law 85A1 and adjust the score accordingly". It would be a good one to take to an appeals committee to get it on the public record.

[aguahombre]

As much as I would like it to go down as Mrdict wrote, I don't think that can happen (currently) unless Justin can allege what extraneous information the player had. I don't think he has to prove it to get to commitee, but must do more than just assume there was some.

Anyway, that is what has happened in the past when I tried for a ruling in similar circumstances. In fact, I have been warned to be careful of putting myself at risk.

[kfay]

This is mind blowing.

[Cascade]

I don't see why a director cannot ask the player on what basis the 6♦ bid was made. In fact if it is drawn to his attention the director must investigate.

As a director I would give a player quite a lot of latitude without more evidence or a history.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jul 27 2010, 12:06 AM, said:

I don't see why a director cannot ask the player on what basis the 6♦ bid was made. In fact if it is drawn to his attention the director must investigate.

As a director I would give a player quite a lot of latitude without more evidence or a history.

According to the edit in the first post there is a history.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 27 2010, 05:14 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 27 2010, 12:06 AM, said:

I don't see why a director cannot ask the player on what basis the 6♦ bid was made. In fact if it is drawn to his attention the director must investigate.

As a director I would give a player quite a lot of latitude without more evidence or a history.

According to the edit in the first post there is a history.

I know.

I am just trying to emphasize that one can ask this question without necessarily being threatening or accusatory. I seem to get a lot of questions of this type when directing online. Many of which I think don't require further investigation. And many of the others I let go with any semi-reasonable explanation - online it is almost always misclick.

Here it is hard to imagine an innocent explanation except perhaps I pulled the wrong card. But if this was drawn to my attention I would want the player to tell me that as it just doesn't seem reasonable that anyone with any experience at all would deliberately offer a four-card suit at this level with no way of getting back to their primary suit.

[mrdct]

Nothing that I can see in the Laws would require Justin to detail precisely what the extraneous information was. All that needs to happen is Justin calls the director and suggests that the 6♦ bid may have been based on extraneous UI. The 6♦ bidder will disagree and come up with some lame explanation for his bid following which the TD is now dealing with a disputed facts situation and has no choice but to follow the procedure set out in Law 85:

Quote

LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS
When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:
A. Director’s Assessment
1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.
2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84.
B. Facts Not Determined
If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue.

As the original post indicates that the TD was in fact called and did in fact rule that the table result stands, one has to assume that the TD either formed an opinion that on the balance of probabilities the 6♦ was not based on extraneous UI or was unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction (the latter being more likely I guess). That decision is, of course, appealable.

[matmat]

Obvious mechanical error, didn't notice it was 6♦ until after lho passed

[peachy]

I hope you filled out a recorder form. This is two continents beyond strange.

[aguahombre]

Justin survived it by a healthy margin, at least.

[mrdct]

aguahombre, on Jul 27 2010, 03:08 AM, said:

Justin survived it by a healthy margin, at least.

Snuck home 234-97.

[JLOGIC]

I asked a bunch of people who are like chairmen of AC etc level what I should do. Most of them indicated it would be tough for me to get an adjustment, some said I would get an AWMW since I offered no new info from the ruling.

ALL of them told me I should push for a C&E committee though. Honestly the team was weak enough where I thought I was 99 % to win the match anyways, so it may have influenced my decision to not appeal during the match.

However, I discussed this with the directors who we filed a recorder form with, and all of them basically said to push it harder than a recorder form and get a C&E hearing immediately, which is what I have done.

All of the top players I talked to about this with basically said I should win and appeal and def should etc, but most of them are not laws experts and were just outraged by what they perceived happened.

Even though I won by a lot I am definitely pursuing this for as long as I can.

The player in question never said he pulled the wrong card (though I said to someone that this is their best play).

As some know I often get disheartened by the ethics of top players, let alone less than top players. I love bridge but it will never be played for a ton of money or on TV because cheating is too easy. But this just shocked me. I mean wow.

[Hanoi5]

I'm amazed that ACBLand allows people to shuffle boards in that kind of tournament. IMO what happened is that he prepared the cards but what is more amazing is that he didn't even made up some kind of 'story' to back up the fancy contract. I think it's amazing 'cause it means that he knows he can get away with it or even, he has gotten away with it before.

Of course he lost but I wonder how many non-Jlall's have suffered and lost to this player, I hope Jlall's action end up in something.

[tgoodwinsr]

Matmat seems to have it right: a bidding-box fumble, not caught in time. If that is it, it sets a new record for serendipity -- and I would have expected that explanation to be included in the original report.

[cherdanno]

Did the director know about the previous suspension/probations of this player?

[Cascade]

What is the procedure here before the match.

Are those cards dealt at the other table by the opponents with no member of your team present?

[mrdct]

Hanoi5, on Jul 27 2010, 05:20 AM, said:

IMO what happened is that he prepared the cards but what is more amazing is that he didn't even made up some kind of 'story' to back up the fancy contract.

So how does he do that? Does he bring a pre-rigged deck of cards with him and substitutes it by some slight of hand technique?

The last time I played bridge with hand-dealt cards back in the early 90s the shuffling and dealing always took place in front of your opponents and it was incumbant upon everyone to keep an eye out to make sure that everything was kosher.

I look forward to hearing how this case pans out, but it's a shame that it's probably going to all happen behind closed doors in a secretive C&E committee rather than a more publicly accountable appeals committee.

I'd also be really interested to know how thoroughly the director attempted to establish the facts and what sort of questions he asked the players.