Deliberately throwing a board

495670

In an IMPs event I was directing today, one pair who were losing going into the final round deliberately bid 7NTxx and went off 11/12, giving their opponents two +24 boards. These two boards comfortably dwarfed the impact of any other boards in the session and led to the opponents winning the event having been just below par prior to the final round. Whilst an IMP event naturally carries a risk of unusual scores skewing the field, which I acknowledge, I find it strange that (as far as I can tell) there is no power for the director in the laws or White Book to reduce the IMP score of the non-offending side from +24 to eg Ave+. The offending side could be given a further penalty and quite possibly disqualified but that unfortunately doesn’t really address the issue of these two rogue and deliberate scores swinging the event. In a less extreme scenario, a pair could throw boards at the end of the event knowing that it would guarantee their opponents a prize - the opponents might not be involved at all and entirely non-offending but the field has been hard done by a deliberate action as opposed to a legitimate bridge action (if that makes sense).

Would be interested to know if anyone has any thoughts on this or perhaps a law that I’ve missed that I could have used?

JeremyChild

Well there's 74C6: "showing an obvious lack of further interest in a deal", but that only allows you to penalise the offenders.

72A states that "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants", but it doesn't say you have to, and again you can only penalise the offenders.

It's clearly a breach of BB@B (Make bridge enjoyable for yourself, partner and opponents)

I can't find anything that allows you to adjust to other side (unless there is collusion).

Perhaps, disqualification from future events?

Martin

An interesting situation... it seems to me that whilst there may not have been explicit collusion, there may be implicit collusion.
The NOS should be given the benefit of the doubt on the 1st hand (probably) but I think that they should have called the director when the second board reached 7NTxx...

It seems clear to me that the NOS side should have realised that their ops were not playing bridge and the director alerted to the fact at that stage.

Then the director could have taken action - issue a PP, cancelled the second board and give ave +/-.

So, after the fact, becoming aware of what happened, it seems reasonable to me to allow the stand of the 1st board, cancel the second and issue ave -/-. Give a PP to the offending side, with consideration for barring from future events.

The above is what I think would be fair, however, looking at the laws, this seems to be what the laws indicate:

LAWS 74 B1 and C6 have been broken.
Rectification is no longer possible, as the infraction was not brought to the director's attention. Essentially, by accepting the 2nd 7NTxx and not calling the director, the NOS has tried to accept the irregularity (to their own benefit) and the director is entitled to correct under 10 A and B.

Looks like 11A allows a director to take away the score that was advantageous and leave the score as is for the other side. Essentially, remove the +24 for the NOS and leave -24 for the OS.

Law 12 allows for adjusted scores. For the application of this, I would assume that the side benefitting from 7NTxx are now also OS, for trying the rectify (or not) the clear infraction of LAWS 74 B1 and C6 by their ops.

With all that in mind, this is what I would rule - 1st board result stands. Second board in cancelled and adjusted scores of Ave -/- applied (I think that is -3 IMPS to both sides?). Removal from the event for the 7NTxx bidding side (I appreciate that this was the last board, but what can you do?). Disciplinary hearing to consider the banning of that pair from future events - for unsportsman like behaviour and bringing the game into disrepute.
To both sides: Appeal if you like!

It seems to me to me that this would cause egregious damage to the reputation of this event and the game of bridge to allow such flagrant flouting of the laws of bridge by a pair to ruin the event and alter the top slots in the results by such action. A ban from future events for some time seems to me to perfectly acceptable.

Senior_Kibitzer

The quote from Law 72A is one I have used on rare occasions. I had noted from the White Book:

Law 72 8.72.1 . General Principles
Actions to influence qualifying positions In England it is not, of itself, improper to attempt to influence the results of an event, or part of an event, so as to try to increase one’s overall success in the event.
If a Tournament Organiser wishes to prevent such tactics then the competition should be designed accordingly.
This action, called ‘dumping’, is considered against the spirit of the game by some people. A solution is to design Conditions of Contest such that it is always in the best interests of competitors to play well.

But this refers to tactical dumping which must be incredibly rare.

What I have very occasionally dealt with is something like a player, as per the OP, deliberately redoubling 7NT and playing Misere. It tends to be done when a player has not only lost interest, but has decided to punish their partner. In Bridge Club Live, I have treated these very rare incidents as extremely serious behavioral issues.

However, I have dealt with nothing comparable in any EBU regulated game, so I will follow this thread with interest.

Incidentally, was the OP game F2F or online? Just curious.