[mcphee]

Stamping out bad behavior and (ugh) cheating. Are we doing enough to get rid of it?

Question number 1: Lets say that you have a couple of players that were found to have altered score slips in a game. These players took scores and altered the slip so they were not the real and honest results. The action is discovered. The players who did the deed are banned from playing together for two years. Not banned from playing, but not together. The ban over the pair begin playing again. Should this pair be allowed to play for your countries national team?

Question number 2: A tournament is set up and a very small group attend. Lets say there are 11 to 13 teams entered in this team game. The director announces before the event begins that because of the small number of teams he is not going to have a carry over. His reason is because this would be a bit unfair to the majority of the players. The game is played over 2 sessions. The result at the end is team B wins, team A is enraged. Team A insists there should have been a carry over which would have placed them first and team B second. This team is so annoyed they go to their governing body The bridge league) and have them change the rules of the event. They win.

The players that composed the NEW winning team, some are members of the board. Their claim is that their bridge body wanted the event to be run with a carry over (this in fact was never established).In fact correspondence between an organizer and the director there is no mention of a carry over plan for the event at all. However they (The League Board) over rule the director, change the form of scoring to a carry over, and Bob's your uncle. New winners!

The governing bridge league did ask two different directors their opinion. These two directors told them the event was run fairly, within the rules of the leagues and the results should stand. But this advice was ignored.

Now for the final question number 3: What can we do if anything?

[glen]

What is question number two, there is no "?" anywhere between "Question number 2" and "Now for the final question number 3". I have a question about "question number two", that is "carry over" from what? Session 1 to session 2, or what is the format of this event, round robin, top plays top each round, Swiss etc.?

[mcphee]

Sorry for the confusion. I thought the implication of question 2 was, should this be allowed. Swiss event.

[glen]

#3 "What can we do if anything?" - get yourself and people who think like you elected/appointed to the League Board - this process takes time, but it will make things better in the longer term.
#2 "Should this be allowed?" - yes, given the event did not have Conditions of Contest, trying to have a higher body (i.e. somebody who could allow or not allowed it, otherwise the question is useless) sort it out based on "correspondence between an organizer and the director" seems hopeless. If the event did not have any big prize, feel free to allow members of the League Board to overturn the result, as it will make it easier to get them removed from the Board.
#1 "Should this pair be allowed to play for your countries national team?" - yes, assuming they have completed their suspension, and meet the event requirements on the previous and current conduct of participants, and can find team mates willing to be associated with their results. The suspension given (don't play with each other) seems clearly wrong, but not all details are given, but don't bother with the complete mess of it all.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure that "the event did not have conditions of contest" is a valid assumption. Where did this take place? Does the RA have "default" CoC in place?

If I understand the OP correctly, the outcome of the event in #2 was determined by the results of the second session alone (that's what 'no carryover' means to me). Is my understanding correct, McPhee?

[kenberg]

My view is that questions 1 and 2 are are of a totally different nature. First question 2, where I know little. Either the director has the authority to not include the carry-over or he doesn't. If he does have this authority then his rule should stick. If he doesn't, and if he had no reason to believe he had such authority and just decided to do it anyway, he should be fired. People have to know what the rules are when they are playing a game.

Now to #1. A two part answer. I. If the penalty was that they were not allowed to play as partners for two years then at the end of two years there should be no further penalty. II. The penalty was far too lenient. What were the authorities thinking? If these two guys were permanently bounced out of organized bridge the game would be the better for it. They are adults, no? If they are under the age of 18, we can make some allowance here. But adults? At a minimum send them off for five years, and tell them that after that time is up they can apply for re-admission and we will consider it. The authorities who came up with this "well, you can't play together for a while" rule are the ones who need to explain themselves. I gather everyone fears being sued. If that's the case, then I guess that's an excuse, or at least a reason. Yuk.

[mcphee]

My understanding is this event was victory points. The director stated at the start of the event there would be no carry over. He even stated his reasons, which were that because it was such a small field a carry over would be unfair. Most of the teams competing were more like intermediate level, and only a couple of teams were seasoned players in this type of competition.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2012-May-06, 13:22, said:

My view is that questions 1 and 2 are are of a totally different nature. First question 2, where I know little. Either the director has the authority to not include the carry-over or he doesn't. If he does have this authority then his rule should stick. If he doesn't, and if he had no reason to believe he had such authority and just decided to do it anyway, he should be fired. People have to know what the rules are when they are playing a game.

Now to #1. A two part answer. I. If the penalty was that they were not allowed to play as partners for two years then at the end of two years there should be no further penalty. II. The penalty was far too lenient. What were the authorities thinking? If these two guys were permanently bounced out of organized bridge the game would be the better for it. They are adults, no? If they are under the age of 18, we can make some allowance here. But adults? At a minimum send them off for five years, and tell them that after that time is up they can apply for re-admission and we will consider it. The authorities who came up with this "well, you can't play together for a while" rule are the ones who need to explain themselves. I gather everyone fears being sued. If that's the case, then I guess that's an excuse, or at least a reason. Yuk.

what he said

[TimG]

mcphee, on 2012-May-06, 13:23, said:

My understanding is this event was victory points. The director stated at the start of the event there would be no carry over. He even stated his reasons, which were that because it was such a small field a carry over would be unfair. Most of the teams competing were more like intermediate level, and only a couple of teams were seasoned players in this type of competition.

I still don't quite understand. Did only a certain number of teams qualify for the final session?

Anyway, my answers:

1) If that was the penalty imposed, and they served their time, they would appear eligible to me. I don't think the penalty was sufficient, but if that is what the ruling body imposed, then there's nothing to be done retroactively.

2) I'd want to refer to the CoC. Absent something specific in the CoC, I would assume the the director had authority to change or determine the procedure and the result stands.

3) Establish good rules and CoC before such things happen. I think that trying to "fix" the past would be more of the meddling that appears to have taken place in #2. Just establish rules so that these sorts of issues do not arise in the future (so that when there is a question, there is an established answer).

[nigel_k]

In the first case the penalty was much too lenient, as kenberg said. If this was a criminal matter, it would be wrong to impose another penalty. But this is not a criminal matter. And in this case, the second penalty can be imposed by a different organization. Assuming the national organization imposed the original penalty, I would suggest that their club should revoke their membership and every other club refuse to accept them. That should put an end to their international aspirations. If that's not an option, I don't have a problem with the national organization declaring them ineligible, even several years later.

In the second case, either the original result should stand or the event should be cancelled. In general, if the director gets the format or conditions wrong and nobody objects immediately, then I think you are stuck with that. Allowing an objection after the fact, when others have relied on the director's statement of the conditions, is just not on.

[Bbradley62]

nigel_k, on 2012-May-06, 14:14, said:

In the second case, either the original result should stand or the event should be cancelled. In general, if the director gets the format or conditions wrong and nobody objects immediately, then I think you are stuck with that. Allowing an objection after the fact, when others have relied on the director's statement of the conditions, is just not on.

It sounds like OP has heard this story at least second-hand (maybe even less directly than that). It's entirely possible that Team A, upon hearing the director announce that there would be no carryover, immediately said "that's really stupid -- you can't have a two-session Swiss and only count the second session to determine the winner. We are contacting the RA." (Any form of tournament with qualifying and final rounds is not a "two-session Swiss".)

[Fluffy]

It doesn't matter wtf says the CoC or whatever paper, director announced that there was no carry over, and that was the same rules for everyone, when the winning team played the final, they played it with the assumption that there was no cary over.


Nobody has any business removing directors decision and asigning a new winner. If anything, they could have the rights for the final to be replayed. But even that is a total overurun over the real winners of the event.


It is very easy to assume the positions are reversed and ask yourself who would win the tournament then. Would the bridge league make the other team the winner in case they needed the carry over to win? no way, and we all know it. This is so outrageous.

[blackshoe]

My questions remain unanswered.

[gerry]

Have to agree with nigel_k and fluffy. This is beyond outrageous; corruption more like it. Sounds like something the morally bankrupt board of New Zealand bridge would pull.

[mcphee]

The director was given ZERO instructions from the bridge body how they wanted the tournament run. This director has refused to work with this group again. Someone does care about fair ball it seems.

My own view on cheating is public flogging. They should have made these two players and example, and to let them serve a sentence and later play on the national team because they (ahem) won a birth

[mikestar13]

Question 1 is the easy one: for such egregious cheating, the penalty is much too light. Make me the boss and we're looking at a lifetime ban, perhaps with the chance to asks for reinstatement after 5 years, if the overall circumstances suggest mercy. I'd need to be convinced that there were significant mitigating factors to even allow the possibility of reinstatement.


Question 2 needs better facts--what exactly happened here. I do believe that members of Team A (or for that matter, members of Team B if had been any) should recuse themselves from considering the matter when it was appealed to the league. A rather settled concept of law in most jurisdictions is that no man should be a judge in his own case.


Question 3 is also easy: vote for better leadership, throw these guys out.

[mikestar13]

mcphee, on 2012-May-06, 18:23, said:

The director was given ZERO instructions from the bridge body how they wanted the tournament run. This director has refused to work with this group again. Someone does care about fair ball it seems.

My own view on cheating is public flogging. They should have made these two players and example, and to let them serve a sentence and later play on the national team because they (ahem) won a birth.

Mcphee posted this while I was writing my post. In view of this clarification, it seems obvious that the results should stand in case #2. As to the public flogging, this is an overbid but not by much.

[Bbradley62]

The event was advertised as a two-session team event, with qualifying and finals. To start, the 12 teams were divided into two groups of six, and they played matches scored by VPs. The top three teams from each group qualified for the finals and the others played in the consolation round. Three of the four members of the winning team (after including carryover) are on the nine-member Board of the RA.

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2012-May-06, 19:35

[Statto]

mcphee, on 2012-May-06, 06:44, said:

Should this pair be allowed to play for your countries national team?

If they are resorting to doctoring score sheets to get a good result, I doubt they would ever be good enough for national selection, so this is probably a moot point.

[nige1]

Bbradley62, on 2012-May-06, 19:24, said:

The event was advertised as a two-session team event, with qualifying and finals. To start, the 12 teams were divided into two groups of six, and they played matches scored by VPs. The top three teams from each group qualified for the finals and the others played in the consolation round. Three of the four members of the winning team (after including carryover) are on the nine-member Board of the RA.

An international said he could predict likely rulings from the names of disputants and committee-members, regardless of the facts. IMO, potential committee-members should recuse themselves, when asked to rule on disputes, in which they have a personal interest. Unfortunately, that rarely happens -- sometimes for obvious practical reasons.

A long-term solution to all McPhee's problems might be to elect a different board.