[xx1943]

Directing today I decided to adjust the following:

Scoring: IMP

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
........ pass.... pass.. 2♥
pass.. 2♠...... pass.. pass
3♣.... X......... pass.. 3♠

---

EAST whispered to me after round changed to look the bidding of the board above.
First look: East opening is strange but such thinks happen in third seat white against red.
After EAST insisted I noticed the more stranger bid of 2♠ from NORTH.
I was convinced such a stupid bid must be from an absolut novice or they are cheating.
I asked NORTH and SOUTH to discuss the bidding with me after the tourney.
NORTH didn't answer to anyone of my questions. He was direct after the tourney playing in the main.
South told me, he was playing with NORTH for the first time. He had no problems if I subtract points for the board.
I decided A-+. I took the easy way out : South had no complaints; NORTH didn't answer and E/W were content.

Now I'm not happy with my decision. Afterwards I looked up the results of all hands played by N/S in this tourney.
They were: 75%, 78% 36% 75% 75% 36% 32% 50% 68% 0% 18% 7% 10%
Now I'm convinced: The 2♥ from South was a allowed psychic; the 2!S from NORTH was a very stupid but lucky bid getting them 68%.

Therefore decision was wrong. There was no infraction and no damage to E/W.
Therefore imo now: no adjust.

I set NORTH an my watchlist for strange bidding.
I set SOUTH on my watchlist for psyching.

What are your opinions about this?

Al = xx1943





To see the issue in detail I attached the whole chat:


All chat from W S E and N was private:

EAST: pls check bidding on brd 9 didn't understand it
EAST: did you check ?
->EAST: what is ur complaint?
EAST: look at bidding pls
EAST: opened a weak 2 !h
->EAST: yesterday opened someone 2♥ against me holding a !♦ ninecarder
EAST: how can the guy bid ♠ on a 4 card suit
EAST: its your game
->EAST: I'll relook that board
EAST: tks
->NORTH: TD here there is a complaint about ur bidding on #9. U bid 2♠ on a 4carder. That is very strange after pd's weak 2♥
->EAST: bidding is really strange
EAST: yes i know
EAST: 3 c should be penalty
EAST: the x
xx1943: TD here SOUTH and NORTH I must talk with u about bidding in #9 after this round!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EAST: we should be in 3 ♣ whacked
SOUTH: ok
EAST: making
SOUTH: I bid 2h (weak) partner bid 2 spades I passed lho bid 3 clubs my partner doubled I bid 3 spades(partner's suit)
->SOUTH: but ur pd had no reason not to pass 2!H
SOUTH (Lobby): first time I have played with him we had a few misunderstandings
SOUTH (Lobby): but maybe ask him why he bid 2 spades am really not sure
->SOUTH: bidding seems very strange
SOUTH (Lobby): I figured that he had 6 spades
SOUTH (Lobby): but I really don't know don't think he was trying to cheat Actually I think he may be a novice
->SOUTH: He didn't answer to me
SOUTH (Lobby): anyway thanks for nice tourney I love a fast-paced game
SOUTH (Lobby): I f you want to take away points, is ok with me. I just play for fun
->NORTH: Why did u bid 2♠ in board #9 after ur pds weak 2!H?
SOUTH (Lobby): also I think he had a problem with English
->SOUTH: I adjust to A+-
SOUTH (Lobby): ok
SOUTH (Lobby): good night see you soon
WEST (Lobby): thank you.... they obviously cheating
->WEST: be carefull with accusations pls; they were playing together first time; maybe it was only a goof
WEST (Lobby): i understand.... i would never say anything to their face
WEST (Lobby): how did you find that? were you watching us at the table?
->WEST: ur pd called me
WEST (Lobby): yes he tht the same
->WEST: SOUTH accepted A-+; NORTH didn'T answer
WEST (Lobby): i know all about accusations...... very good to keep low profile
WEST (Lobby): i agree that it could have been error... but the coincidence of her bad opening bid and his 2S is overwhelming

[hrothgar]

Comment the first:

I am continually amazed by directors that have "watch-lists" for psyches.
With this said and done:

What were North-South's agreements regarding weak 2H openings in 3rd seat White versus Red? From my perspective, this bid is "normally" highly undisciplined. 2H is in no way a psyche.

Comment the second:

Is North/South a regular partnership? This can be determined quite easily by searching through past bidding records. If North South are playing for the first time, its entirely possible that the wheels came off. For example, many expert players use a 2S response to a 2H as some kind or artifical ask (much more efficient than using 2NT). Alternatively, North could be worried that South opened 2H with a fairly strong hand and was using 2S as a cheap way to temporize. Personally, I don't think that the 2S bid is particularly strange. Nor do I consider the bid "stupid".

Comment the third:

From my perspective, the major issue is East-West. From my perspective, this pair epitomizes a species of bridge player that I detest.

(a) The pair is trying to win through committee what they can't achieve at the table.
( The pair is making unbased accusations of that the opponents are cheating based on highly subjective analysis. North did indeed hit 3C for penalty, just as he should. South pulled the penalty double, just as he should.
© The pair obviously has a significant chip on the shoulders. I don't give a rat's ass that "yesterday opened someone 2♥ against me holding a ♦ ninecarder".

Personally, I'd hit East/West with a significant proceedural penalty.

[luis]

I agree with hrothgar in everything he said.

2h is no way a Psyche, South decided to open 2h with a 5-6-2-0 hand NV vrs VUL and he is free to do whatever he wants.
2s is strange and South passing 2s with a 5 card hidden spade suit is even stranger. I think that investigating if NS was a regular partnership is the first TD task if they are not then they were just Lucky.

I think EW deserve a procedural penalty and a visit to the ethics comitee for calling NS cheaters.

If I werea TD I'd rule the result to stand and I'd impose to EW some kind of penalty.

Luis

[inquiry]

Well, the bidding does deserve another look. But after looking at all 12 hands, it is clear from the bidding and the play that the north involved here is a novice birdge player. From the one hand you of course can tell nothing (I personally don't like looking at the scores to figure out if cheating occured, but rather look at the bidding and play).

As a side issue, I doubt seriously that you south's bid was a pscyhe. After all, a weak two bid is not a "gross misrepresentation" of a weak two. Sure he has a side five card major, and certainly, I woulud open that hand in any seat at the one level, but in third seat, an opening bid of 1H, 1S, 2H, or even 3H are all possible, none of which would I consider a psyche.

However, I disagree with Richard on calling the director to take at least a look at the bidding. 2♠ on a four card suit is an odd bid, and it just happened to hit his partner with a five bagger. And, his partner, with a huge fit for a presumed long ♠ suit -- and presumably opposite ♥ shortness for 2♠ bid did nothing but pass??? Takeawy one of north's hearts and give him anohter spade and 4♠ is not a bad contract at all. The combination of north's lucky unusual call (2♠) with south's auctual holding, combined with south's remarkable conservative view not to invite to 4♠ (or even leap to 4♠) should at least raise a question in the mind of people who know nothing about the NS pair. And remember, xx1943 said that all the chat was private. I find the reporting normal, and done properly in private chat. After a review, xx1943 should have ruled that cheating was not involved, but there is no way to even guess at this from one hand. I would have never adjusted the board at the time, based on one hand, but of course, xx1943 couldn't get the north player to respond to inquiries, so I am sure that factored into the decision to adjust the board.

Ben

[xx1943]

Quote

I am continually amazed by directors that have "watch-lists" for psyches. 

I a player with his regular partner makes a lot psychic-bids in every tourney, there is the necessity to be suspicious. Therefore I have a watchlist of very strange bids.

Quote

Is North/South a regular partnership?

They played for the first time (as SOUTH said) and he said also his pd was an novice.

Quote

Alternatively, North could be worried that South opened 2H with a fairly strong hand and was using 2S as a cheap way to temporize.

Imo there is no hand opening weak 2♥ thinkable that justifies another bid from NORTH than pass. I'll make a poll to this question in another forum.

Quote

Personally, I'd hit East/West with a significant proceedural penalty.

Question to ABUSE: Do you want me to report deails from privat-chat to you?


Al

[xx1943]

inquiry, on Jun 22 2004, 10:13 AM, said:

xx1943 couldn't get the north player to respond to inquiries, so I am sure that factored into the decision to adjust the board.

Ben

Thanks for given me another reason for my wrong decisison.


Al

[hrothgar]

xx1943, on Jun 22 2004, 06:20 PM, said:

>Question to ABUSE: Do you want me to report deails from privat-chat to you?

What does ABUSE have to do with anything?
This is YOUR tournament. You are the Director, with the rights and responsibilities to adjust scores.

You adjusted this score to A+/A-, in effect rewarding E/W for reprehensible behavior. If it were me, I'd hit E/W with a zero, along with a pretty good talking to regarding ethical responsibilities.

[xx1943]

hrothgar, on Jun 22 2004, 10:40 AM, said:

xx1943, on Jun 22 2004, 06:20 PM, said:

>Question to ABUSE: Do you want me to report deails from privat-chat to you?

What does ABUSE have to do with anything?
This is YOUR tournament. You are the Director, with the rights and responsibilities to adjust scores.

You adjusted this score to A+/A-, in effect rewarding E/W for reprehensible behavior. If it were me, I'd hit E/W with a zero, along with a pretty good talking to regarding ethical responsibilities.

Sorry my english is not good enough. I had an misunderstanding and thought "procedural penalty" meant I should report to ABUSE.

I'm searching for the right line to direct tourneys online.

I'm thankful for every hint.

Btw: does software allow to hit a ZERO?

Al

[hotShot]

Hi!

Asuming that North is a novice, i can understand the bids......

But opening 2♥ showing a 2 suited hand (5-5) with ♥ is a common thing.
2♠ is a normal response asking for the second suit, having at least 3 ♠ and not enough ♥.

In that case a lot of alerts would be missing.

I would check myhands for other results and keep an eye on both players.

2 ♥ is not a psyche, point range and color are within normal limits, having a 5 card major is highly unusual but no crime.

Bidding with 2 ♠ with 10 hcp is something i would expect from an Novice.

If i would have been on the E/W side i would not be happy either an probably report that board to the td, but calling opps oviously cheating is something one should avoid even in privat chat.

I would not adjust the score.

Have a nice day
hotShot

[McBruce]

Hrothgar, are you really suggesting that a pair that complains in private to the Director about a sequence of fairly unusual actions by the opponents should get a zero as a penalty?

I would not adjust the score but I would have a very close look at this pair's boards after the tournament. If there were several like this and they never made a wrong move, I would add them to my banned list.

But penalizing E-W for protesting in exactly the way we ask disgruntled players to do so is just bizarre. I would let E-W know that I would be looking at all of the N-S pairs results, but that their auction on this one is insufficient evidence of foul play.

[hrothgar]

>Hrothgar, are you really suggesting that a pair that complains in private to the
>Director about a sequence of fairly unusual actions by the opponents should get >a zero as a penalty?

No. I am, however, suggesting that an abusive pair of whinny SOBs be hit with a penalty which will, hopefully, encourage them to reconsider their tactics. The case that we are discussing seems very different from the strawman that you are constructing.

From my perspective, the behaviour of the East-West pair is reprehensible. The fact that they chose to slander North-South in private does nothing to redeem their behaviour in my eyes. If you are going to accuse another pair of cheating (this is a VERY serious charge), then you should have the decency to stand up and do so in public rather than engaging in back channel innuendo.

Equally significant, the Director should not be rewarding E/W for this type of behaviour.

[inquiry]

Has anyone seen Richard's base? I only ask, because he clearly isn't on it.

Richard, do you understand in the message above, when the text reads...

-->EAST: Some text

The person typing the some text was the TD, not EAST?

Here is what you complain about is excessive whinning.

EAST: pls check bidding on brd 9 didn't understand it
EAST: did you check ?
EAST: look at bidding pls
EAST: opened a weak 2 !h
EAST: how can the guy bid ♠ on a 4 card suit
EAST: its your game
EAST: tks
EAST: yes i know
EAST: 3 c should be penalty
EAST: the x
EAST: we should be in 3 ♣ whacked
EAST: making

AT THIS POINT TD CORRECTED SCORE AND EVENT WAS OVER. NOW WEST GETS INVOLVED, THANKING TD
WEST (Lobby): thank you.... they obviously cheating
WEST (Lobby): i understand.... i would never say anything to their face
WEST (Lobby): how did you find that? were you watching us at the table?
WEST (Lobby): yes he tht the same
WEST (Lobby): i know all about accusations...... very good to keep low profile
WEST (Lobby): i agree that it could have been error... but the coincidence of her bad opening bid and his 2S is overwhelming

First off, this is far, far from excessive whining. Some of EAST and WEST comments were in response to things xx1943 asked or did. This all seems normal.

And I totally disagree with you claim that accusastions of cheating should be made public. They should only be made to abuse@bridgebase.com, to a TD if you are playing in a TD, and maybe (but only occassionally when nothing else will do) to a yellow (I really prefer you send to abuse than me). But this all seems fine to me.

Ben

[hrothgar]

The following is self serving tripe:

>EAST: 3 c should be penalty
>EAST: the x
>EAST: we should be in 3 ♣ whacked
>EAST: making

There is no chance that any decent player will sit for 3CX with a club void and undisclosed 5 card support for his partner.

The following comment is inexcusable

>WEST (Lobby): thank you.... they obviously cheating

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Jun 22 2004, 08:30 PM, said:

And I totally disagree with you claim that accusastions of cheating should be made public. They should only be made to abuse@bridgebase.com, to a TD if you are playing in a TD, and maybe (but only occassionally when nothing else will do) to a yellow (I really prefer you send to abuse than me). But this all seems fine to me.

This is a topic that I am somewhat sensitive about...

The_Hog and I were involved in a rather nasty cheating allegation in one of BBO's private clubs. We were playing MOSCITO. Ron opened in a major. The opponents eventually settle in 3NT.

I chose to lead off a QJx holding in an unbid minor rather than leading partner's suit. This was the only lead to break the contract. The opponents were not especially amused.

We later discovered that there was a rather large "private" gripe session held after the events to discuss this "issue" and a number of others. From my perspective, I would MUCH rather have these sorts of issues handled openly and in an above board manner.

[inquiry]

The complaint should in fact, be made in private. There really shouldn't be a gripe session about it. The TD listens to the argument, reviews the hands (presumably after the event). If the TD thinks cheating is going on, he then reports it to abuse@bridgebase.com, along with whatever evidence he thinks he has.

Your private club issue is a different kettle of fish. I believe I know what club you are referring to, and they had a committee to review cheating allegations. They also tracked cheating allegations and if found they were baseless, penalized the people making the allegaton (and they track psyches too). I ssupect the "griping" session was this committee reviewing the evidence by looking over the hand you and Ron played. Clearly one opening lead against one contract will never get a gripe session going. We are all entitled to be lucky.

I assume you heard about the "gripe session" because maybe they asked you to explain your bidding/play not on one hand but on a series of them. That is the "above board" issue you want. They must have reviewed your play/bidding and found something "suspesioius" in their eyes to warrent further investigation. No doubt because you guys played moscito, and you used freeling 2 bids, and like me, some outlandish preempts, there must have been things they didn't understand. Even you will admit your methods would look odd to the naked eye of a 2/1 player who tried to fanthom what the heck you were doing. Add to that, every time your opening preempt on a four card suit turned out to hit your partner, they would be certain you "knew" your partner held that suit, or why would you risk such a bid (few understand frelling). Now, if they had asked me to review you and Ron, I can assure you I would have stood up for you guys and said, as wacky as some of these bids are, this is how they bid. I have read their detail system notes, and this is normal for them. I assume that after you responded you were vindicated (although if memory serves me right, didn't they tell you that you could no longer play moscito? I could be wrong about that). Like it or not, this seems ok. Of course, I don't mind if the player accusing you of cheating, informs you as well as the TD of the allegation, and in fact, the TD should have told you of the allegation at the time or immediately after the session. But this should not be announced in pubic chat where others can see it (like kibitzers, etc). And one assumes the private club has safeguards to prevent "keaking" of who is being investigated and the like.

Now to the comments about the EAST/WEST. You are right there is no way opener will stick for 3♣X on that hand. East was, er, blinded by the oddity of the auction to think straght. But in protesting to the TD, east has a right to express his opinion. The TD then makes whatever ruling he is going to make, which in this case should be nothing.

As for WEST, he was minding his own business when all of a sudden he gets a message that the result of board 9 was changed. Happy days, he thanks the TD. A small conversation happens, and West is basically agreeing with the TD decision, saying to him it was obvious that NS were cheating. I will admit this hand looks very suspecious, but one only has to look at the other hands in this event to realize that North was totally clueless bidder and player (and I mean no disrespect, but this guy clearly was not cheating, and he was bidding and playing funny all day, with the typical great/horrible results.. depending upon whether his horrible bid/play turned out to be remarkably lucky or to be punished).

Ben

[the hog]

I assume that after you responded you were vindicated (although if memory serves me right, didn't they tell you that you could no longer play moscito? I could be wrong about that)."

No Ben. Actually from what I can remember it was just a gripe session in a chat room; I don't think there was a review of hands or whatever; or if there was I am not aware of it. This however is one of the reasons I don't really want to play Moscito on line in a tournament anymore. I am happy to play it against friends, but I can't be bothered with the hassles. Its funny in a way, because you have NO problems playing it ftf in ANY event here, even the Sat afternoon duplicate.

[McBruce]

I think the comment about "we should be in 3♣ doubled making" is the sort of comment players often make when they feel damaged, looking for the maximum penalty. I've been guilty of this as well on occasion--this is why we have impartial Directors. The non-offending side gets the best result possible, not the best possible result. The complaint would not affect my decision on what to do with the deal.

I must agree totally with inquiry, that cheating allegations should never be publicly made. A player who has a problem with an auction must have someone to complain to and that is what the TD is for. Cheating allegations made in public should warrant a serious suspension, and I know several cases where this has happened in local tournaments.

But I understand where hrothgar is coming from. If a private club holds a committee to hear evidence against a suspect action, inviting both sides to present evidence and keeping other out, well, fine, although there surely are better ways of doing it (e-mail for example). But players starting an impromptu chat room in order to discuss possible cheating by opponents is hypocrisy: there are accepted ways to report cheating, and they do not include getting together and planning strategy.

[JRG]

McBruce, on Jun 22 2004, 06:28 PM, said:

(snip)
The non-offending side gets the best result possible, not the best possible result.
(snip)

McBruce,

you appear to be an experienced director, so I'd like to ask you to explain the quoted text. It seems whenever I see things like this expressed, I have difficulty understanding (though I can usually work out some reasonable understanding). For context, I've been studying the Laws and some other material with the objective of becoming a certified director.

So nobody gets the wrong idea, I'm not being funny. I really do want to know. An example of a similar kind of statement is something along the lines of:

If a player is in possession of unauthorized information, he should not (is not allowed to, ...) choose from the logical alternatives one that is suggested by the unauthorized information. This is one that I believe is straightforward and easy to understand. But "the best result possible" versus "the best possible result", eludes me (unfortunately!).

[McBruce]

BPR = the result that gives the most advantage to the non-offenders.

BRP = the result that favours the non-offenders only when there is actually a doubtful situation. Perhaps this should be called Best Result Plausible.

In this case, as others have pointed out, it is extremely implausible that South will pass 3♣ doubled, holding completely unexpected five-card support for spades. 3♣ doubled making four would be the BRP. Most here (or is it just me!?) are arguing that there should be no adjustment, but that the N-S pair's results should be looked at more closely. So the BRP is whatever was acheived at the table. (Actually, after this auction, the ACBL's Rule of Coincidence indicates that the TD might award a trick or two in the play to E-W if it could be shown that they misdefended based on playing N-S for what they showed during the auction.)

BTW, I'm not even a certified ACBL Club Director yet: took the exam several weeks ago and am still waiting for Memphis to mark it. My charade of appearing to know what I'm talking about comes from far too much time on r.g.b. and forums such as this!

[Flame]

Catching cheaters is a big problem in bridge, the law almost always assume that people dont cheat, when someone cheats you need to find a punish outside the law book. In this case i suspect they did cheat, i don't believe their story.
I dont know what the directors options here, an adjust score is not what the bridge law would want here, but online bridge with annonimous players might not give you a better option , so an adjust score might be just the right answer.