[nige1]

 billw55, on 2016-October-05, 07:03, said:

I think there is a problem even here. During a competition, if Spain feels that USA used a CPU on a particular board and that Spain was damaged, then Spain should call the director after play of that board (or perhaps, that session) and ask for a ruling on that board.

The Spaniards wanted to prevent opponents from playing what they suspected to be an illegal convention. For this allegation, I doubt that the evidence of one board would be enough to persuade the director

 billw55, on 2016-October-05, 07:03, said:

That is the extent of what should happen during competition. Large scale complaints based on a collection of deals from prior sessions or events should be advanced outside of competition, IMO.

This wasn't an accusation of cheating but the Spaniards felt that they needed to submit a lot of evidence in an attempt to substantiate their allegation. Max Bavin quickly ruled no infraction.

[hrothgar]

 billw55, on 2016-October-05, 12:19, said:

To be pedantic, it means that someone else made it up

I prefer the following "I am knowingly telling lies"

[hrothgar]

 nige1, on 2016-October-05, 15:37, said:

The Spaniards wanted to prevent opponents from playing what they suspected to be an illegal convention. For this allegation, I doubt that the evidence of one board would be enough to persuade the director This wasn't an accusation of cheating but the Spaniards felt that they needed to submit a lot of evidence in an attempt to substantiate their allegation.

If the Spaniards felt that they needed to submit a lot of evidence then they bloody well should have done so...

The quality of the data and the analysis backing their claim was pathetic and discredited their cause.

if you are going to pull this sort of shite then you have an obligation to dot your i's and cross your t's

[MrAce]

What shocked me the most was what Mr. Platnick wrote in BW.

He said, after they took down -32 imps to -10, he and Mr.Diamond and Oren approached to WBF people to object the decision. They were told that the decision by the committee was final and no appeal was available because there is no superior committee. But when Mr.Platnick mentioned Gonzalo and his pd being taken out from the room, in the middle of a board, the committee member said "What are you talking about? We never heard this!"


So it seems like WBF Committee met in rush due to threads by Spanish team and had to make a decision without even allowing the representatives of teams and without listening to them (Except that Rona spoke to a Spanish player privately, according to Official Spanish Team statement in BW) and without getting the facts straight. They had no clue that one pair of Spanish team started to play a board, but was taken out by their captain in the middle of the auction, and refused to turn back to table despite the TD instructions, according to Mr.Platnick.

Now...USA team may not have the right to appeal to the decision of how many imps penalty applies to a protesting team before the match started, but in my opinion they had hell of a right to appeal or make a new complain about leaving an already started match by 1 pair and refusing to turn to table for 30 something minutes. Because they just learned that the committee did not know this fact. Mr. Rona knew it, and he was also in that committee but for some reason he must have kept it to himself only. Or the guy who said "We never heard this" is lying.

Assuming that I understood everything Mr.Platnick said accurately, am I wrong to think that USA team had right to request a new decision in the light of facts that were not available in previous meeting?

[nige1]

 hrothgar, on 2016-October-05, 19:24, said:

I prefer the following "I am knowingly telling lies"

If you say so

 hrothgar, on 2016-October-05, 19:26, said:

If the Spaniards felt that they needed to submit a lot of evidence then they bloody well should have done so... The quality of the data and the analysis backing their claim was pathetic and discredited their cause.if you are going to pull this sort of shite then you have an obligation to dot your i's and cross your t's

I hope Hrothgar is wrong. My understanding is that when you suspect an infraction by opponents, then you tell the director what you know, but it's the director's job to investigate further, and it is up to him to make a decision on the evidence that he gathers. For example, in this case, Max Bavin investigated and ruled no infraction.

Why are so many BBOers obsessed with excrement?

[nige1]

Thanks to Google, I found what might be the basis of the story that I heard

IPBA Editorial said:

Even more recently, in an early round of the 2010 Vanderbilt, a world champion-calibre team was playing a young, unheralded, team. One of the unheralded pairs was playing Multi Two Diamonds, which the ACBL requires of its proponents to supply two copies of the official, standard, ACBL defence for its opponents. The pair had tried to obtain the approved defence from the tournament officials to no avail, so they wrote it out by hand. The first pair they played against on the team unwittingly allowed the transgression after a misunderstanding. The second pair they played against said, "We'll see how it goes," (according to the young pair, but denied by the champions), then called the TD when the young pair opened Two Diamonds later in the set. When the TD arrived, the world champion pair suggested a procedural penalty (again, this version is disputed by the champions) against the young pair. When the youngsters informed the TD that they had a handwritten copy of the defence, the world champion pair questioned its legibility and accuracy. The young pair was eventually informed that they could not play Multi and had now to play weak twos. The world champions' actions in this incident were generally looked upon unfavourably, but not by all.

I had forgotten a long BBO thread on this incident, The laws the law, with more alleged facts gradually revealed as discussion progressed.

Amusingly, both Hrothgar and I contributed to that thread.

[hrothgar]

 nige1, on 2016-October-06, 08:05, said:

Thanks to Google, I found what might be the basis of the story that I heard I had forgotten a long BBO thread on this incident, The laws the law, with more alleged facts gradually revealed as discussion progressed.

Amusingly, both Hrothgar and I contributed to that thread.

I just reviewed that thread.

I am happy to say that the opinions that I ventured then feel consistent with my more recent statements.

It is amusing to look at some comments that Fluffy and Jlall made in light of the Wroclaw incident...

[cherdano]

 nige1, on 2016-October-06, 07:02, said:

I hope Hrothgar is wrong. My understanding is that when you suspect an infraction by opponents, then you tell the director what you know, but it's the director's job to investigate further, and it is up to him to make a decision on the evidence that he gathers. For example, in this case, Max Bavin investigated and ruled no infraction.

Nigel, we all agree that if you have a suspicion that your opponent (or any other pair) is cheating, then it is fair and right and ethical to privately approach the director and inform him of your thoughts. However, you also have to understand that serious accusation need a serious investigation, and they (the TD director plus whatever committee looks at such infractions) might not be able to come to a decision immediately.
What the Spanish team did was instead was to
- expect an immediate ruling on a complex issue,
- publicly accuse their opponents of cheating, and
- make a big stunt sabotaging the match in order to get their way about an immediate ruling.

Meanwhile, even if you view from the most charitable angle for their side, they did so on extremely flimsy evidence. More to the point, they were flat wrong.

I think it's telling that almost everyone defending the Spanish team's actions brings up some random action of very different nature by a completely different US pair in the past. I guess you have to believe that there is some permanent unfair war waged by all US players against all European players to justify their actions.

[nige1]

 cherdano, on 2016-October-06, 09:53, said:

Nigel, we all agree that if you have a suspicion that your opponent (or any other pair) is cheating, then it is fair and right and ethical to privately approach the director and inform him of your thoughts. However, you also have to understand that serious accusation need a serious investigation, and they (the TD director plus whatever committee looks at such infractions) might not be able to come to a decision immediately.
What the Spanish team did was instead was to
- expect an immediate ruling on a complex issue,
- publicly accuse their opponents of cheating, and
- make a big stunt sabotaging the match in order to get their way about an immediate ruling.

Meanwhile, even if you view from the most charitable angle for their side, they did so on extremely flimsy evidence. More to the point, they were flat wrong.

I think it's telling that almost everyone defending the Spanish team's actions brings up some random action of very different nature by a completely different US pair in the past. I guess you have to believe that there is some permanent unfair war waged by all US players against all European players to justify their actions.

The Spanish captain didn't accuse the Americans of cheating.

Fluffy has repeatedly affirmed his respect for the ethical standards of Lall/Bathurst.

FWIW, I agree with Fluffy.

I don't think that presentation of evidence to the director is gamesmanship. Refusing to play is illegal and might smack of gamesmanship. Even for the latter, however, there are examples of precedents that are more suspect.

It's dreadful that so many players regard director calls as an accusation of cheating. IMO, this means director calls are more fraught than they should be.

Nevertheless, if my team suspected opponents of unwittingly playing an illegal convention, I would still tell a director in the hope of immediate resolution.

What would Cherdano and Hrothgar do?

[cherdano]

 nige1, on 2016-October-06, 10:13, said:

The Spanish captain didn't accuse the Americans of cheating. Fluffy has repeatedly affirmed that he has the utmost regard for the ethical standards of Lall/Bathurst. FWIW, I agree with Fluffy.

I don't think that presentation of evidence to the director is gamesmanship. Refusing to play is illegal and might smack of gamesmanship but there are examples of precedents that are more suspect.

IMO it's dreadful that so many players regard director calls as an accusation of cheating. IMO, this means director calls are more fraught than they should be. Nevertheless, if my team suspected opponents of unwittingly playing an illegal convention, we would still tell a director in the hope of immediate resolution.

Nigel, if a pair agrees to open every hand non-vulnerable 3rd seat, and decides not to inform the opponents about that agreement, then this is an intentional serious infraction of both the letter and the spirit of the bridge laws in order to gain an advantage. Intentionally committing a serious infraction of rules in order to gain an advantage is cheating.

In order to convince himself that his team wasn't accusing Justin and Kevin of cheating, Gonzalo had to come up with the idea that they unconsciously developed this agreement. This doesn't pass the laugh test for a pair at their level. They are a partnership with a lot of experience playing together, and are very much aware of each others tendencies. They know each other's tendency extremely well in auctions that are much much rarer than "non-vulnerable third seat".
This explanation is just something Gonzalo came up with in order to tell himself that his team wasn't actually accusing Justin and Kevin of cheating. That's part of his behaviour that I find so disappointing - he should know better than this. And he still doesn't know better, apparently.

[nige1]

 cherdano, on 2016-October-06, 10:42, said:

Nigel, if a pair agrees to open every hand non-vulnerable 3rd seat, and decides not to inform the opponents about that agreement, then this is an intentional serious infraction of both the letter and the spirit of the bridge laws in order to gain an advantage. Intentionally committing a serious infraction of rules in order to gain an advantage is cheating.

In order to convince himself that his team wasn't accusing Justin and Kevin of cheating, Gonzalo had to come up with the idea that they unconsciously developed this agreement. This doesn't pass the laugh test for a pair at their level. They are a partnership with a lot of experience playing together, and are very much aware of each others tendencies. They know each other's tendency extremely well in auctions that are much much rarer than "non-vulnerable third seat".
This explanation is just something Gonzalo came up with in order to tell himself that his team wasn't actually accusing Justin and Kevin of cheating. That's part of his behaviour that I find so disappointing - he should know better than this. And he still doesn't know better, apparently.

I'm not a mind-reader but I feel that Fluffy is telling the truth.

Cherdano's other mind-reading assertions seem equally unlikely. Top players

• Expressed surprise about the existence of WBF strength restrictions on opening bids,
• Protested that the regulations are ridiculous and unenforceable.
• Admitted that they often open ultra-light, 3rd in hand.
• Claimed that doing so is just Bridge.
• Pointed out that psyches are perfectly legal.
• Explained that opportunities are too infrequent to create an implicit understanding.

I accept that the American team are likely to know the rules but I feel that any pair, even a top pair, can develop unconscious understandings. My guess is that is what the Spaniards suspected.

In the Spanish hand-sample, the Americans always opened, 3d in hand, non-vulnerable. You might still have a relevant illegal agreement, however, even if you don't open every hand non-vulnerable 3rd seat,

Amusingly, in BW threads, other internationals not only admit that they deliberately break the law but they also accuse opponents who call the director of despicable and unsporting gamesmanship. For example see threads on claiming without explanation.

[hrothgar]

 nige1, on 2016-October-06, 11:17, said:

I accept that the American team are likely to know the rules but I feel that any pair, even a top pair, can develop unconscious understandings. My guess is that is what the Spaniards suspected.

All fine and dandy, but the Spaniards did a piss poor job making their case...

This is what I object to.
If you are going to do something like this, you need to dot your i's and cross your t's.

The claims that the Spaniards made really hurt their credibility.

[hrothgar]

 nige1, on 2016-October-06, 11:17, said:

I'm not a mind-reader but I feel that Fluffy is telling the truth.

Top players

• Expressed surprise about the existence of WBF strength restrictions on opening bids,
• Protested that the regulations are ridiculous and unenforceable.
• Admitted that they often open ultra-light, 3rd in hand.
• Claimed that doing so is just Bridge.
• Pointed out that psyches are perfectly legal.
• Explained that opportunities are too infrequent to create an implicit understanding.

At best, this seems to be a fuzzy area with a lot of room for improvement.

[Fluffy]

 cherdano, on 2016-October-06, 09:53, said:

What the Spanish team did was instead was to
- expect an immediate ruling on a complex issue,

I am not certain here, but I think we expected an investigation in the 90 minutes that were given to directors. I don't know the exact exchange between my team and directors but from the official statement it transpires that what we got did not fulfill our expectations... because they did nothing at all.

 cherdano, on 2016-October-06, 09:53, said:

- publicly accuse their opponents of cheating, and

You need to define publically, AFAIK it was Oren who publically said something, not us. Not that it mattered at that point really, but I think it is obvious we didn't want things to go this way. About accusing, or claiming, we could never allegue anything about anyone, but if we could it would not be "cheating". On BW Brogeland related how Meckstroth accused him of playing ilegal methods or lack of disclosure because their 2-way 2/1 responses were not listed on special bids that might require a defence. Meckstroth got away with it, but do you think he accused him of cheating?

 cherdano, on 2016-October-06, 09:53, said:

- make a big stunt sabotaging the match in order to get their way about an immediate ruling.

There was no stunt, we just retired, for some reason that is still unclear to me they didn't want us to, and we didn't retire in the end, but I can assure you when I stood from the table that I was determined to leave.

[hrothgar]

 Fluffy, on 2016-October-06, 15:59, said:

On BW Brogeland related how Meckstroth accused him of playing ilegal methods or lack of disclosure because their 2-way 2/1 responses were not listed on special bids that might require a defence. Meckstroth got away with it, but do you think he accused him of cheating?

Fluffy,

I have long maintained that the games that Meckstroth play are perfectly legal.
I have also defended the actions that the Spanish team took as being legal (if ill advised)

Moreover, I strongly believe that it is a mistake to conflate personal aesthetics with regulations and that the written rules are what matter.

With all this said and done, on a more personal level, I think that you could chose a better role model than Meckstroth....

(And, of course, anyone with half a brain should be personally embarrassed by the piss poor quality of the "analysis" that your team submitted)

[Fluffy]

I was simply pointing out that it doen't imply calling the other cheater.

[nige1]

 hrothgar, on 2016-October-07, 06:36, said:

(And, of course, anyone with half a brain should be personally embarrassed by the piss poor quality of the "analysis" that your team submitted)

You suspect opponents might have damaged your team by unwittingly playing an illegal convention. You judge that, if they're allowed to continue, the advantage conferred might be enough to win the match.

I'm intrigued as to what Cherdano and Hrothgar would do In this context.

I would do what the Spanish captain did. I would hastily assemble what evidence I could. I would present it to directors, well before the next session. I would hope that the CTD had time to investigate further, to reach a decision in my favour, preferably, before the match re-started.

Cherdano and Hrothgar disagree with me but, IMO, prima facie, the Spanish team had a reasonable case. Given time and other constraints, I don't know how they could make a better case to back their allegation.

After spending hours, collecting and assessing more evidence, Max Bavin ruled in favour of the American team, presumably, on the balance of probability.

[Phil]

 nige1, on 2016-October-07, 08:20, said:

You suspect opponents might have damaged your team by unwittingly playing an illegal convention. You judge that, if they're allowed to continue, the advantage conferred might be enough to win the match.

I'm intrigued as to what Cherdano and Hrothgar would do In this context.

I cannot speak for Richard nor Arend, but here's what I would do.

If I felt like they were playing something illegal, I would bring it up early and hopefully even before the match started.

If I felt the need to wait until the last segment (dubious) I would accept the timing of the director's ruling with grace, since I could have brought it up sooner.

There is no way in hell would I ever pull the players. Everyone came to Wroclaw to play bridge and not to protest.

Spain could have handled this a lot better. I doubt their captain will be nominated for the Sportsmanship Award.

[nige1]

 Phil, on 2016-October-07, 08:39, said:

I cannot speak for Richard nor Arend, but here's what I would do.

If I felt like they were playing something illegal, I would bring it up early and hopefully even before the match started.

If I felt the need to wait until the last segment (dubious) I would accept the timing of the director's ruling with grace, since I could have brought it up sooner.

There is no way in hell would I ever pull the players. Everyone came to Wroclaw to play bridge and not to protest.

Spain could have handled this a lot better. I doubt their captain will be nominated for the Sportsmanship Award.

Phil's criticism is unusual. You need to play a lot of boards to provide any evidence of, and to suspect damage from, this kind of putative infraction. Some argue that the Spanish team acted prematurely.

[Phil]

 nige1, on 2016-October-07, 11:18, said:

Phil's criticism is unusual. You need to play a lot of boards to provide any evidence of, and to suspect damage from, this kind of putative infraction. Some argue that the Spanish team acted prematurely.

You do realize that nearly all of the data was from matches prior to the Spain match right? There was 1, maybe 2 hands in the match and if they are claiming a CPU that's just nearly not evidence.