Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Max Schireson
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Geoff,
It was actually quite striking to me that while I saw the UI the first time the bidding came back around to me by the second time my obligations somehow vanished.

Yet another example of my brain malfunctioning at the bridge table, but definitely illustrates the importance of making a real effort to learn ethics. Eventually I hope that a pass over 3S will become automatic for me, but now as with any bridge action I have to think it through and often err.
Aug. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My partner was not at all unethical, but I was.

At the end of the auction I reported my partners failure to alert my intended-as-Drury 2C bid. Even if I had been certain that the bid not Drury and had been my error, I think it is correct for me to continue acting as though it was Drury including announcing a FTA.

Thus my opponents were aware of the irregularity and could have called the director. While they could have done so, I did not feel their failure to notice entitled me to benefit from a blatantly improper bid.
Aug. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I thought amid all the bad news it would be nice for people to hear about a pro who does the right thing. As awesome as I think Debbie is I think there are many with very high ethical standards and I didn't want all the news to be depressing.
Aug. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think passing 3S is normal / required so I get a very poor grade during the auction. I think going back and correcting it later seems ordinary but I understand not everyone would do it, so I will give that an average plus. No medals for me for anything here.
Aug. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wasn't sure in the heat of the moment, but felt that I should continue the auction under the assumption Drury was on rather than being woken up by the FTA. I announced a failure to alert at the end of the auction consistent with my state of mind at the time of the bid. My partner corrected me. This at least gave our opponents the context of my bids.

(Fixed two word gibberish autocorrect)
Aug. 7, 2016
Max Schireson edited this comment Aug. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Better done had I not taken advantage of the UI in the first place, but certainly having done that the right thing was to correct it.

I feel very fortunate to have a teacher who cares about ethics and teaches them. I think new players are often taught bidding, declarer play and defense; without being taught some ethics even well intentioned players will get it wrong.
Aug. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The opponents did not call the director, but I still felt that our score was undeserved. My partner was supportive of my desire to have it corrected.

Yes, competitive bidding is part of the game, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. What should not be part of the game is gaining by making bids that are suggested by UI, although in this case I didn (before I noticed and corrected it).

Debbie is a wonderful teacher and a very ethical player.
Aug. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actual agreement is that Drury is off in competition, including over a double.
Aug. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was during lunch with my partner between sessions that I discovered my error. I did discuss it with my partner, but I agree with Ed that it was my error and while pard played it well it is not clear we would have have reached that contract but for my (accidental) use of UI.
Aug. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oy, *another* bad habit for me to work on!

Thankfully we all have our normal directions so we've never had an issue, but Kevin's approach does seem safer.
Aug. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This may be a bad habit but we don't always stop at our home table. Sometimes the pairings take a little while, I see something paired and go find my teammates, “we are NS at Q6 and you are EW at R6” or some such and off we go. If I mix it up on the way back my teammates have no idea they are sitting EW at our home table. If opponents do likewise and also mix it up then we get two teams sitting the same direction.

This doesn't excuse turning in a false score, but does make it easier to mix up directions.
Aug. 4, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And just hope that both pairs don't swap directions and you have the same problem again! Now *that* would be a story!
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would much rather err on the side of disclosing something I know that might be unnecessary than in the other direction.

My reading of the intent behind the laws is slightly different: to attempt to give opponents an equal chance (other than differences in ability to apply bridge logic which could cut either way, and looking at 13 different cards) to interpret our bids as we have. In particular I don't think the intent is that opponents who are less familiar with “standard” bidding (of whatever flavor/level) are disadvantaged.

Let's say I am playing with a partner I know to be a reasonably strong bridge player but with whom I haven't discussed much system, first time playing together. We are at a sectional and they ask us to play in the 299er to balance the movement (this has happened to me with a regular partner).

We have agreed to play RKC 1430 and haven't discussed further. Now this auction comes up and my partner raises my 4NT to 5NT. In practice in my local area I am 90% sure he has 2 keycards and a void, but it's undiscussed. I don't consider this an “inference” drawn from matters generally known, I consider it an agreement (albeit an uncertain one) reached from general knowledge of the player. I also expect that my opponents when asking might not be familiar with that bid. I have to disclose it.

Now say I am in the Blue Ribbons playing against Levin and Weinstein. I can say “we haven't discussed this bid specifically but we agreed to play RKC 1430” as I think their likely guess is as good as mine or better. If they ask further I am happy to tell them what I suspect it means away from the table.

Now say I am playing with my son who is just learning and we somehow wound up in an open regional. Say I taught him blackwood a few months ago and I decide to try it out. He raises 4NT to 5NT. I think he is confused and just giving me a raise not knowing what to do. I should disclose this at the appropriate time as opponents would otherwise likely put him on a void.

Since with some partners I would consider 5NT 2 KCs and a void and with others I would consider it confusion, I feel like both are based at least in part on my knowledge of my partner and need to be disclosed if there is a reason opponents would be likely to guess wrong, including general inexperience.

This is my interpretation of 6a, where I may be interpretating “inference” differently from you.
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David,
What I think I would support is that the additional (apparently) mandatory penalty for collusive cheating should be restricted to certain types. I agree that this cheating was collusive, I just don't know that it is the type of collusive cheating for which it is intended that partners and teammates lose all masterpoints going back 4 years.
It appears to me that under the CDR the presence of collusion impacts the consequences quite significantly. I agree with you that it doesn't automatically impact the severity.
Edit:fixed one word gibberish typo
Aug. 2, 2016
Max Schireson edited this comment Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Linda,
Do we know when the director corrected it? If it was immediately or nearly so this would not be required.
Even if it was not until the end of the event, it is also possible that an innocent participant, upon hearing what happened asked another participant on another team to report it desiring to correct the result while avoiding a confrontation with a teammate. I have no reason to specifically believe this occurred but I just think the accused deserve a fair trial and while I have heard enough to strongly suspect someone is guilty of something I don't think we have all the data to convict everyone.
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bobby,
Thanks. Two comments on further thought:
1. While I agree that this is very very different from previous “collusive cheating”, and I don't think it should be punished similarly, CDR specifies, with no exception apparent to me, that consequence for teammates and partners of those convicted of “premeditated or collusive cheating”, with no specific definition given. Thus on a literal reading it seems this might qualify, as it seems to me to be both cheating and collusive. It is different in not being premeditated but the CDR specifically states “or”. Perhaps the CDR should have a definition of collusive cheating, or perhaps it does and I missed it.
2. While I had previously agreed that a continuance should not be granted, I am now not so sure. It seems that the CDR allows accused to request a continuance, which multiple accused did. If approval under these circumstances would be normal, I don't think the rights of the accused should be abrogated to avoid appearance of favoritism. Of course if the continuance would not normally be granted it should not be granted. I don't know what is normal and how these decisions are made.

Finally I want to say that while it seems clear that some are guilty, it may be that not all are guilty. Some players may have been sitting at their table glumly expecting 0 VPs while their captain and the other team made a different and wrong decision without their knowledge.
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While I think everyone would like this resolved ASAP, I believe the CDR allows for requesting a continuance to the next NABC, which appears to have been requested by many of the charged parties.

It seems quite clear that at least some team members did something wrong. What is not at all clear is which ones. I could imagine one team member from team A walking over to team B to discuss, expecting to submit a not-played 0-O victory point result and being convinced to report a tie, with the rest of team A unaware. That makes only 5 members guilty, or perhaps 4 or fewer if one or more members of team B had left to use the restroom or perhaps to kick the wall and curse and have a drink.

Sorting this out could be complex, with potentially conflicting testimony from eyewitnesses on other teams. I am not saying this occurred but I think we need to allow for due process before we convict these players in our minds.

Einstein said things should be made “as simple as possible but no simpler.” Let's have a fair hearing as soon as possible but no sooner.
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I strongly agree that delaying the hearing was not appropriate.

Under 4.1.8a, if any of the team members were found guilty of collusive cheating their partners and teammates would lose all titles and masterpoints going back 4 years. While this is not the same type of collusion cheating as FS et al, it seems to me that whether this qualifies is something for the committee to decide and the answer is not obvious to me. If there is even the smallest chance that they would find it to be collusion cheating, then it is quite unfair to unknowing partners and teammates who may be playing for a title that would have to be vacated.
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks Judy.
While I agree with some of what you right, I still think it is useful to distinguish degrees. Premeditated murder where you make a plan to ambuush and kill someone is, in most jursidictions, viewed and punished differently from an argument that gets out of control and eventually guns are drawn and someone is killed.
I think lifetime bans for FS and FN seem right. This is bad but I do not think it merits a lifetime ban.
Aug. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Cornelia,

While I in no way find this even remotely acceptable behavior, I think it was not “premeditated” in the same sense as FS. I don't think they spent lots of time before the tournament discussing their plan to evade penalties for playing the same direction at both tables.

The bad decision to evade the consequences may have been made on the spur of the moment when the director arrived and was sent away, then putting the team in a pickle. A cover up decided over the course of a few minutes is not ok but imo not nearly the same as FS etc al.

I can also imagine them thinking they are not trying to gain advantage, just to obtain a result based on their bridge play not compromised by their seating error. While still wrong, illegal, and in my opinion cheating, I think it is not at all the same as an effort to systematically obtain better results than those based on the pairs actual ability at bridge play.
Aug. 1, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top