[xx1943]

Hi all

I was directing a tournament when player xx whispered to me privat:
xx: I think you may watch the pair yy-zz
me: why?
xx: just watch them

I asked xx to explain his complaints but got no more answer.

I looked up the last round xx playing against yy-zz, nothing remarkable happened.

May i suggest xx was accusing yy-zz?

I would like to hear your opinions.


Sincerly

Al

[McBruce]

My reply (in private) would be: "Innuendo such as this concerns me more than unexplained allegations. I'll be watching you, not them. Any public chat alleging impropriety will be severely punished."

[Mirjam_3]

Hi dear,

In this case i would have watched xx-yy and as you did i would have looked up the boards. Often i ask another player to look at boards after a tournament. Some BBO-players are very experienced in this matter.
Further i always would tell the whisperer to write to abuse and i write to abuse also.
It takes only a little time. One sentence is enough.

If the accusation is made in public the accuser gets a warning. Further i make notes on the cards of the involved players.

So i would have done 5 things:
1. Tell the whisperer to write to abuse
2. Watch xx-yy
3. Ask someone to look into the boards
4. Make notes on the cards
5. Write to abuse

Your poll didnt give the possibility to fill in more than one thing so i chose watch xx-yy. I always take such whisperers seriously but i dont think it is enough to only watch, we should collect such whisperers in one database so that is the reason i report to abuse.

[uday]

I would have said, as a TD

- pls contact abuse with board details

and left it at that. We don't often act on these reports but we rarely roundfile them without looking into the issue, if the complaint is at all credible.

[McBruce]

Reminder, folks: the player complained without offering even a hint as to what his problem with the other pair was. The Director asked again and the complainer refused to say. All this is is innuendo. There is no credible basis to launch an investigation.

If you act at all on these sorts of empty complaints, you encourage more of them.

Investigating by looking up the boards, based only on vague reports that do not include any 'probable cause,' or in fact any cause at all is very dangerous. How would you like to be excluded from a tournament because someone you don't know, or maybe someone who holds a grudge, makes a complaint without providing details, and it just so happens that you got genuinely lucky on a board or two in that tournament?

All the complainer has to say is "there was a tempo problem," or "their bids don't make sense," or "they were chatting in Krakozhian* during the auction" some such. Then I will look. Otherwise it's 1984.

* - Go see The Terminal. You'll like it. I just wish they were playing bridge and not poker for those unclaimed lost and found items...

[JRG]

McBruce, on Jun 21 2004, 12:13 AM, said:

Reminder, folks: the player complained without offering even a hint as to what his problem with the other pair was. The Director asked again and the complainer refused to say. All this is is innuendo. There is no credible basis to launch an investigation.

If you act at all on these sorts of empty complaints, you encourage more of them.

Whoa!!!

Be VERY, VERY careful. You may be perfectly correct -- it may have been nothing but inuendo.

HOWEVER, perhaps the "whisperer" was simply trying to avoid biasing the TD's review of the hands. If I were to say to you, "Look at how xx-yy always seem to lead their partner's suit, even when there is no indication in the auction that suit is held", then you are automatically focused on that possible problem. But maybe I'm imagining it and if you look at the hands without my planting a seed in your mind, you will conclude nothing is amiss.

On the other hand, perhaps when you look at the deals, some very odd bids or plays will jump out at you, especially when you see they always work -- but on other deals no such odd bids or plays are made.

[McBruce]

HOWEVER, perhaps the "whisperer" was simply trying to avoid biasing the TD's review of the hands.

There is no indication from the original conversation that he is thinking in this way. He didn't even mention a specific board. The way this should work is that you first identify a few unusual actions, then you point them out the the TD, and the TD can check the rest of the boards if he feels it neccessary from the examples given. It takes a fair amount of time to check boards thoroughly and properly: no TD will go through the hoops unless there is a good reason. Here there was none. It's most likely a personal problem multiplied by frustration over bad results.

My suggestion for these problems several months ago was to allow players to send hands to a server along with the player(s) whose actions they felt were suspect. The server would strip the player names and any other identifying details and send the record of bids and plays to 3 randomly-selected members from a panel. The panel would vote independantly on whose actions were suspect. Only if the panel (not seeing the names) were to finger the same player as the original complainer would any further action be taken.

But in a player-TD setting, there is no basis for a TD to begin checking results based on a Nike complaint ("just do it"). There has to be a reason. Bias comes in later, when you have decided that a very few actions are sufficient enough to warrant a thorough and unbiased examination of a set of deals.

If the complainer complains that on both boards in the round the opponents made speculative guessing leads that worked out, I will (step 1) look at those two boards. If I agree that they were lucky, I will (step 2) look at the boards of the suspect player or pair later--but in the meantime I am NOT adjusting the score or kicking anyone out. You have the right to be lucky and the presumtion of innocence. If I find that they are making the right lead on every hand, now there is evidence and I will take action. But if the complainer will not say why he is complaining, he doesn't even get to step 1.

[JRG]

McBruce, on Jun 21 2004, 04:31 PM, said:

HOWEVER, perhaps the "whisperer" was simply trying to avoid biasing the TD's review of the hands.

(snip)

But in a player-TD setting, there is no basis for a TD to begin checking results based on a Nike complaint ("just do it"). There has to be a reason. Bias comes in later, when you have decided that a very few actions are sufficient enough to warrant a thorough and unbiased examination of a set of deals.

(snip)

OK. Good point.