[leonidas]

In the last Seville (Spain) International Open Pairs February 23-25, with good prizes only for the first 10 pairs (plus special ones), the first 7 on 9 pairs were portuguese.
The Portugal players were not so many: only around the 10% of the total, including some very good pairs from Italy, France and Germany.
Almost since the beginning of the tourney my pd and myself noticed a very strange movement of some players that at the end of each board raised and talked.
But it was only at the second of the 3 days that we realized that they were all portuguese and probably they were talking about the hands.
So we warned the Directors.
But we got back this curious answer "May be they go to the toilet or out of the room to smoke".
Now, because i do not believe that so many people have any body problem to go so frequently in a few hours to the toilet, i suppose that they went out to smoke!
But the last day came the board 22.
N-S (we) not vulnerable vs E-O (portuguese) vulnerable.
Dealer E.

Scoring: MP

---

The auction:
E: Pass
S: 2♦ alerted (=11-15p with 5+♦ without majors 4th)
W:Pass
N: Pass
E: 2♠
S: 3♦ (!! aggressive bid not vulnerable vs vulnerable)
At this point in time W asks to my pd the meaning of a so strange bid. My pd answers that may be a maximal bid or something similar. Then:
W:3♠
N: 4♣
E: 4♠
S: 5♣
And now W, without thinking one second, bids 5♠ that remains the final contract.
But after my lead W calls the Director claming for my Pd's thinking at his first bid (he only noticed that...) that gave me some further infomations.
The risult was that all the room bid (and made) 4♠, we were the only table that found out the 5♣ sacrifice and 5♠ was one down (with a top for us!).
The board od Directors corrected the score in 4♠ done, WITHOUT LISTENING OUR OPINION ON THE MATTER !!!
Our opinion was that the portugueses were well known about the par of the board (on witch they were well informed) and over 5♣ bid 5♠ hoping to do that (someone made 650), but keeping some guarantiee they called the Director (!!!).
We lodge an appeal, but the answer was "When a player claimS for a tinking we cannot know how the things run, so we assume he is right . Only if he repeatS for 3 or more times this behaviour we can suspect"

I didn't win any prize this time, but i learned a new method to win: when an opponent sacrifices on your game at 4 major and you are not sure if the punishment is good bid 5 but call the Director saying that one of the opponents have thought. So you cannot lose!!

Is it not fair?

[whereagles]

You are trying to transform what is a completely routine unauthorized information problem into A VERY SERIOUS ACCUSATION AGAINST PORTUGUESE PLAYERS.

Either you present more substantial evidence or just stop it.

[helene_t]

Did I read that correctly? The dummy called the TD just after the lead? If it was declarer I could understand the implication: after he realized that the contract was doomed, he called the TD. Anyway, the TD's decision seems wrong. The chain from pd tinking to you bidding 3♦ to pd bidding 4♣ is far-fetched.

As for the smoking thing: If this was a serious tourney, players would have been prevented from discussing the hands. If it wasn't, don't worry.

Anyway, Whereagles is correct of course.

[hrothgar]

Comment 1:

Its hard to whether the Director made the right ruling because you're spending so much time ranting about a (preceived) cheating scandal. However, if partner made a noticable hesitation, this conveyed UI. In turn, the existence of UI may limit your choice of bids later in the auction. Furthermore, in many cases Directors are encouraged to make an almost automatic ruling in favor of the non-offending side. The belief is that mistakes will get caught by the appeals committee. I don't see anything untoward in what you describe.

Did you bother to submit a formal appeal?
If so, what happened?

Comment 2:

Random whining about a nationality isn't going to make you many friends. If you genuinely believe a group of individuals deliberately conspired to cheat, you're going about things in a very poor manner.

First: You should be lodging a formal complaint to either the tournament organizers or the Spanish Bridge Federation. Random complaints on message boards like this one might make you feel good, but they will detract from your case.

Second: You're going to invest some serious time and energy documenting exactly what happened.

[inquiry]

I will dismiss the smoking and "knowing" issue as there is no where near the presences of any EVIDENCE to suggest prior knowledge by EW, and like others I find the public claim here slightly distasteful.

But as I understand the complaint, The bidding was....

(PASS) - 2♦ - (PASS) - PASS*
2♠........................

* Partner tanked over 2♦.

Assuming for the sake of this disucssion this is true, then there are restrictions on what south can do. Among those restrictions are what actions he can take subsequently in the auction.

Here you rebid 3♦, an unsual bid to say the least. Your partner described the bid as "may be a maximal bid or something similar". The logic for the need of a maximal hand is clear, it is very risky to be bidding at the three level on your own with a hand limited to 15 hcp opposite a passing partner and a potential "trap pass" behind you hoping for a reopening double. The fact that you were very minimal for the opening bid, and no were near "maximal or similar" shows the unexpected nature of your bid.

If I was sitting on an appeals committee, I would rule the 3♦ WAS NOT a logical alternative to PASS after the unathorized information contained in partners slow pass over 2♦. The fact that your partner took so long to "pass" with a hand that, face it, has nothing at all to think about over a natural 2♦ limited to 11-15 hcp, buts 10000% burden on your side to make the logical alternative bid. Sorry, you may think 3♦ is the right bid and if your partner had passed in tempo, no one would argue with your rights to bid 3♦. But given your partner's hesitation, you are SIMPLY NOT ALLOWED to bid again with this hand. His hesitation makes your "action" safer than it would have been if he had passed in tempo.

The directors rulling stands, and if you appeal this case, I would uphold the directors ruling AND you would forfeit your deposit.

The exception would be if your side disputed the claim that North had a break in tempo. I see no evidence in the write up (so far) that your side disputed the claim that there had been a break in tempo at your partners first bid. IF there was a dispute over the break in tempo issue, this would be a bit muddier.

[leonidas]

First of all.
I do not want to accuse all Portuguese players to be unfair!
Nor "whining about a nationality"
I know personally some portuguese players (high level players) and i can assure that they are very honest and correct.
Nor i can claim against Portuguese in general that i like as People.
I can only say that i observed THAT PAIR (after board 22, that occurred at the beginning for us) almost every board to raise and go out the room.
Again i can say that i saw some pairs, portuguese speaking (i understand that language), standing amongst the tables during boards changes or moving frequently out of the room.
I officially advised the Directors.
I saw one time one Director reprimand THAT PAIR, but nothing happened.
The fact that 7 portuguese pairs (of 15, in a field of 150 international pairs) ranked in the first 9 places is purely accidental and i do not want to add any other meaning to that.

Second.
I absolutely did not notice my pd to think more than a normal thinking neither after my first bid nor after the second. We have a well organized system and after a 2Diamonds opening the system is very simple.
And after my first bid the auction run in a very regular way by everybody: nobody thought more than necessary (neither us nor them...)
That's why i talked about people moving during tourney....

Third.
My purpose, when i posted, was to talk about a curious way to take advantages in some difficult competitive situations. Who of us never found himself in the terrific situation of not being able to decide if was better to double or to bid?
Well, those portuguese found a very clever solution: if you are sure that 4 Spades is cold and the opponents compete 5 Club in sacrifice, you call 5 Spades but call the Director in advance, claiming for thinking by one of the opponents. You never be lost!!
In fact as hrothgar well sayd "in many cases Directors are encouraged to make an almost automatic ruling in favor of the non-offending side"

Final comment.
Some of you did not appreciate the long post.
Unfortunately English is not my mother language, so i find some difficulties to be brief. But perhaps many of you do not understand the difficulties one foreign finds to express his concerns in your language and (that is most important) with a different mentality
I decided to write in this forum because i think miself "a citizen of the world" and the world speaks English and i like to speak with other people trying my English.
Easy for you to be clear and effective.
Difficult for me...
Keep in your mind for ever if you like that this forum is not only an American one

[inquiry]

Ok... you have added now to the condition of this problem.

There is little to worry about parnter thinking after your second bid, as he TOOK a call. You claim that you didn't notice a huddle (hesitation) after the first call. That is the relevant one.

So now we have a dispute. The director should try to determine the facts.

1. Ask your partner and the second opponent if your partner huddled.
2. Ask if they "reserved the right" to call the director at the time of the huddle
3. IF they reserved the right, and you disagreed that there was a huddle, you should have called the director yourself to get the director to the table.

If your partner agrees he did not huddle, my experience is that the director will put more weight to his statement, as he was the one making the bid. Also looking at his hand, it is impossible to see what in the world he would HUDDLE on. He has so little, but enough to suggest game will not make EW.

If the did reserve the right and you did not call director, however, the director should rule that a huddle did occur.

If they did not reserve the right (law 16A1), and your partner (and you) disagree that there was a huddle over 2♦, in all likelyhood, the director should have ruled in your favor. In addition, after your "unusual 3♦ bid", West should have called the director immediately. Once he suspect the possibility you choose a bid not among logical alternatives law 16A2 requires he call the director.

Quote

16A1 When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may, unless the regulations of the sponsoring organisation prohibit, immediately announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorised information might have been conveyed).

Quote

16A2 When a player has substantial reason to believe  that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage

SUMMARY: The fact that you dispute the claim of hesitation, the fact that he did not annoucne the right to call the director, and the fact that when he probably suspected you didn't choose from amoung logical alternatives (your 3♦ bid) he didn't summon the director all argue in your favor (as does your partners hand, there is no way anyone would huddle with that over the 2♦ bid you described with both opponents already having passed once... unless he frequently raises to 3♦ on doubleton with no major values).

[leonidas]

inquiry, on Mar 1 2007, 09:07 AM, said:

I will dismiss the smoking and "knowing" issue as there is no where near the presences of any EVIDENCE to suggest prior knowledge by EW, and like others I find the public claim here slightly distasteful.

But as I understand the complaint, The bidding was....

(PASS) - 2♦ - (PASS) - PASS*
2♠........................

* Partner tanked over 2♦.

Assuming for the sake of this disucssion this is true, then there are restrictions on what south can do. Among those restrictions are what actions he can take subsequently in the auction.

Here you rebid 3♦, an unsual bid to say the least. Your partner described the bid as "may be a maximal bid or something similar". The logic for the need of a maximal hand is clear, it is very risky to be bidding at the three level on your own with a hand limited to 15 hcp opposite a passing partner and a potential "trap pass" behind you hoping for a reopening double. The fact that you were very minimal for the opening bid, and no were near "maximal or similar" shows the unexpected nature of your bid.

If I was sitting on an appeals committee, I would rule the 3♦ WAS NOT a logical alternative to PASS after the unathorized information contained in partners slow pass over 2♦. The fact that your partner took so long to "pass" with a hand that, face it, has nothing at all to think about over a natural 2♦ limited to 11-15 hcp, buts 10000% burden on your side to make the logical alternative bid. Sorry, you may think 3♦ is the right bid and if your partner had passed in tempo, no one would argue with your rights to bid 3♦. But given your partner's hesitation, you are SIMPLY NOT ALLOWED to bid again with this hand. His hesitation makes your "action" safer than it would have been if he had passed in tempo.

The directors rulling stands, and if you appeal this case, I would uphold the directors ruling AND you would forfeit your deposit.

The exception would be if your side disputed the claim that North had a break in tempo. I see no evidence in the write up (so far) that your side disputed the claim that there had been a break in tempo at your partners first bid. IF there was a dispute over the break in tempo issue, this would be a bit muddier.

While i was posting my last, inquiry posted his own (very interesting indeed).
So i feel important to answer once again.

Comment 1.
We were in not vuln vs vuln.
I calculated max 3 down if they had game.
Ofcourse could be -2 (or -3) vs nothing.
But this is a matter of style (depending on particular moment feeling and so on).
How often did you see risky (stupid) bid to be winning?
May be you think to forbid every stupid, risky player to play tourney? (If yes may be you are right and bridge would be a better game, but unfortunately this is not possible...)

Comment 2
Looking at my Pd's hand now once again i cannot understand why he would have felt the necessity to think: he knew very well i didn't own a 4 cards major, i had 5 or more Dias, i had max 15 points...
I can absolutely agree with everybody that my 3 Dias bid was a quite mad one, but 2 mad in a same time...
Further: why would he have thought? Imagining at the beginning the 5 Clubs sacrifice? With his cards?? Strong pd indeed!

Comment 3 (the most important)
Why W bid immediately 5 Spades over 5 Clubs without thinking one second?
And then, immediateley on my lead called the Director (he was the dummy please remember) when my card was covered again!

Yes to speak about smoking is "distasteful" (thank you for the word, new for me, but very effective, i'll remember that ). But not speaking about the contest do not allow to well realize the situation.
Nobody of you noticed this fact in my post?
If not i beg your pardon, my fault

[leonidas]

Inquiry.
I'm so long in reading and then in writing that when i answer you have already wrote others...
But i need a lot of time to well understand what you think, because i find some difficulties with some american english words.

But now it seems to me we are reaching some agreement.
And:
1. Ask your partner and the second opponent if your partner huddled.
No he didn't

2. Ask if they "reserved the right" to call the director at the time of the huddle
No he didn't. (And infact the opponents did not reserved during the auction and we were astonished when they called)

3. IF they reserved the right, and you disagreed that there was a huddle, you should have called the director yourself to get the director to the table.
Ofcourse. But i didn't because they didn't

If your partner agrees he did not huddle, my experience is that the director will put more weight to his statement, as he was the one making the bid. Also looking at his hand, it is impossible to see what in the world he would HUDDLE on. He has so little, but enough to suggest game will not make EW.
Exactly!! I have the same opinion. Agree totally.

Thank you for your comments

[inquiry]

leonidas, on Mar 1 2007, 09:58 AM, said:

Comment 1.
We were in not vuln vs vuln.
I calculated max 3 down if they had game.
Ofcourse could be -2 (or -3) vs nothing.
But this is a matter of style (depending on particular moment feeling and so on). How often did you see risky (stupid) bid to be winning? May be you think to forbid every stupid, risky player to play tourney? (If yes may be you are right and bridge would be a better game, but unfortunately this is not possible...)

We have come to a meeting of minds that if there was a dispute about the hesitation by partner, with the facts as you stated above, the director should have ruled in your favor.

But I want to deal with your comment 1 quoted above. For this discussion, lets change the facts, and agree (for this hypothetical discussion) that your partner had indeed huddled.

So while you say, "How often did you see risky (stupid) bid to be winning? May be you think to forbid every stupid, risky player to play tourney? "

You are correct, stupd, risky bids will often turn out to be winners, and we can not stop people from making such bids... absences Unathorized inforamtion. However, if your partner has made a bid, gesture or otherwise passed unathorized inforamation to you, you must bend over backwards not to make such bids. But rather, must make the bid that would be normally made by players of your ability and experience.

Technically this is covered by the following bridge law

LAW 16 - UNAUTHORISED INFORMATION
Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. 

A. Extraneous Information from Partner 
After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like,  [I][B] the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. [/B][/I]
1. When Such Information Is Given 
When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may, unless the regulations of the sponsoring organisation prohibit, immediately announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorised information might have been conveyed). 
2. When Illegal Alternative Is Chosen
When a player has substantial reason to believe  that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage. 

So the logic here is that if your partner hesitates and then passes it suggest he holds something of value. The fact that he has some values would make bidding with a dead minimum "safer". Thus bidding would have been suggested by the hesitation. Thus without the hesitation, you are allowed to make risky bids that work for you, but in the face of such a hesitation, you must (as stated above in the law) the partner (YOU) may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

[leonidas]

Jlall, on Mar 1 2007, 10:14 AM, said:

so I will assume your only reason for posting it is that you are a troll.

Ok...i do not know what is a troll, but imagine that it is not a good thing (or person)

My only comment to you is that it is too easy to be effective in his own opinions when one speaks is own language.
Again is too easy to be scornful (i found this word on the dictionary...) when one feels the common mentality of the majority of people with whom he is.
This is exaclty the reason because some pople do not understand why the others do not appreciate their opinions.
If you want that i understand your opinions please try to understand mines!
If you don't want, why waste your time to answer??

I assume that the major part of the persons who have written here are North American (i imagine from the language).
I'm European.
I believe that BBO is a world community based on the common pleasure of bridge.
May be the bridge game is a "bridge" all over the world to unifie the Peoples.
I prefer to play with foreigner instead of with persons of my country exactly for this reason: because in the solitude of my home every night i feel myself in a wide square full of People of different colours.

But if i look like a "troll"...

[leonidas]

inquiry, on Mar 1 2007, 11:01 AM, said:

leonidas, on Mar 1 2007, 09:58 AM, said:

Comment 1.
We were in not vuln vs vuln.
I calculated max 3 down if they had game.
Ofcourse could be -2 (or -3) vs nothing.
But this is a matter of style (depending on particular moment feeling and so on). How often did you see risky (stupid) bid to be winning?  May be you think to forbid every stupid, risky player to play tourney?    (If yes may be you are right and bridge would be a better game, but unfortunately this is not possible...)

We have come to a meeting of minds that if there was a dispute about the hesitation by partner, with the facts as you stated above, the director should have ruled in your favor.

But I want to deal with your comment 1 quoted above. For this discussion, lets change the facts, and agree (for this hypothetical discussion) that your partner had indeed huddled.

So while you say, "How often did you see risky (stupid) bid to be winning? May be you think to forbid every stupid, risky player to play tourney? "

You are correct, stupd, risky bids will often turn out to be winners, and we can not stop people from making such bids... absences Unathorized inforamtion. However, if your partner has made a bid, gesture or otherwise passed unathorized inforamation to you, you must bend over backwards not to make such bids. But rather, must make the bid that would be normally made by players of your ability and experience.

Technically this is covered by the following bridge law

LAW 16 - UNAUTHORISED INFORMATION
Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. 

A. Extraneous Information from Partner 
After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like,  [I][B] the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. [/B][/I]
1. When Such Information Is Given 
When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may, unless the regulations of the sponsoring organisation prohibit, immediately announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorised information might have been conveyed). 
2. When Illegal Alternative Is Chosen
When a player has substantial reason to believe  that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage. 

So the logic here is that if your partner hesitates and then passes it suggest he holds something of value. The fact that he has some values would make bidding with a dead minimum "safer". Thus bidding would have been suggested by the hesitation. Thus without the hesitation, you are allowed to make risky bids that work for you, but in the face of such a hesitation, you must (as stated above in the law) the partner (YOU) may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

I agree totally.
No one of your word is wrong for me.
Thanks you for your comment.
I appreciated.

[the hog]

One comment. East/West should have called the Director as SOON AS one of them thought there was a hesitation. Not to do this and then to call the Director after the lead sounds like double dipping to me.

[barmar]

Also, dummy isn't allowed to draw attention to an irregularity. West could have called the Director any time during the auction, but once he becomes dummy he can't call the Director unless someone ELSE draws attention to the irregularity.

[leonidas]

The_Hog, on Mar 3 2007, 03:58 AM, said:

One comment. East/West should have called the Director as SOON AS one of them thought there was a hesitation. Not to do this and then to call the Director after the lead sounds like double dipping to me.

Completely agree.
One question please:
What does it mean "double dipping" please?

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Mar 3 2007, 03:58 AM, said:

One comment. East/West should have called the Director as SOON AS one of them thought there was a hesitation. Not to do this and then to call the Director after the lead sounds like double dipping to me.

Ron, law 16A1 quoted above suggest the appropriate action is NOT TO CALL THE DIRECTOR immediately, but rather state that your reserve the right to call the director (unless the SO prohibits it). So immediately calling the director seems an over-reaction.

Double dipping is often referred to as a double shot. This is when one player takes a very risky (wild gambling) action after an opponent has committed an infraction. IF the gamble comes home, then score up the result on the gamble. If the gamble fails, rely on the infraction to "correct the score". Heads the gamble wins, tails the infraction wins. This is a bad thing, and directors should never allow it.

[Fluffy]

Sorry for being late in here, I have many things to say about this matter.

It is not the first time that Portuguese pairs get 80% of the top spotts on the table, nor will the last, on Sevilla is not quite common because level is higher, there are some tourneys on Galicia (north-west of spain) wich I don't often play where they can get all the prices.

I've palyed several tourneys already when the only Spanish pair at the prices is daddy and me, and there is just one reason for this: THEY ARE BETTER THAN SPANNISH PAIRS. (best spannish players play with sponsor normally)

Portuguese players don't make 700 km to lose 500€-800€, they come to Spain to win, and they have the level to do it.

I've heard this nonsense accusations before, also from La Manga (Murcia) who has had 8-15 Norwegian pairs last 3-4 years, of course ranking on top, BECAUSE THEY ARE BETTER. Some can argue that they talk on their own language during postition changes, what would you expect from them? don't you talk with your friends as wekk?, appart from a couple of them playing with more alcohol in their blood than should be permitted, I don't think they cheat.

The Portuguese matter is even funnier, how could they tell each other about hands? EVERYONE IN SPAIN CAN UNDERSTAND A BIT OF PORTUGUESE.

Also I know of almost every portuguese pair in Sevilla, they are friend of mine, I would bet my hands that they don't cheat (from sevilla every player from the top10 except 1 had represented Portugal in international event at least once). Also its funny to think they can tell hands to each other because some deeply HATE each other.

[Fluffy]

The_Hog, on Mar 3 2007, 08:58 AM, said:

One comment. East/West should have called the Director as SOON AS one of them thought there was a hesitation. Not to do this and then to call the Director after the lead sounds like double dipping to me.

There wouldn't be enough directors if everyone did that

Here it is normal for people to forgive penalized cards, even revokes, people think badly of us because director spends more time at our table than any one elses (Also they think we cheat beacuse we win)