Deliberately throwing a board
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?
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?
Comments
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?
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.
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.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I think where I'll land is for the pair in question to be disqualified after the event (WB 8.80.4 applies which means that all other scores stand, even though they're ridiculous). There's no suggestion of collusion at all and I don't think it would be fair for a pair to be penalised for the fact their opponents are doing ridiculous things in the absence of any guidance suggesting that I should do otherwise.
However, bidding 7NTxx -12 is highly unusual. This should stand out to the pair that benefited.
When the 2nd hand reaches 7NTxx, it would become abundantly clear what is going on. Anyone but the most inexperienced beginner would recognise that. At that stage they have 2 options. 1) play it out and gain another massive score
2) call the director and point out the obvious infractions to LAWS 74 B1 and C6.
By going with option one, they are essentially colluding after the fact and without drawing attention to the irregularity. They are attempting to rectify (or not) the situation off their own back, which just happens to be massively in their favour!
Imagine what you would have done had you been called to the table at the end of the auction. Would you let this stand and make them play it out or would you cancel the board, disqualify the offenders and award ave+ to the NOS?
And submit the session for NGS.
And report to the club.
Thanks, 495670. I asked as I have never come across this at F2F. I think your approach is reasonable, though the offender's final result might be so low that disqualification is irrelevant. Your offender's motive would be of interest.
I would not be as hard as Martin on the benefiting pair. If this was an ordinary bridge club session, they could be so dumb-struck at the proceedings that they wouldn't think of calling a TD, and they might even be very upset at the end of the session by what has happened. Players tend to not to want to win in this way.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
That sounds ideal, but where does it say you can do that?
> That sounds ideal, but where does it say you can do that?
I was about to reply asking exactly the same thing 🙂 on later review of the results, there are a couple of other dubious scores from earlier rounds but not quite to the same extent so there’s also a question around where you draw the line as it’s not just clear cut to say remove the last round only.
There's always strange scores. And often generous ones from demorilised pairs that aren't at their best. But this is something very different. Are we in the territory of there being no defined penalty for this particular breach of the law? 74B1 doesn't specify any particular rectification, so we could invoke Law 12A, I think.
Unless there was any collusion, I don't think there is any way to adjust the scores of the benefitting side and I'm not sure there should be. It may well be that the pair behaving irrationally were actually punishing each other for what had gone on earlier in the evening, but in any case it's not uncommon to benefit from your opponents actions and sometimes to win because of them.
It may well be that the law does not permit adjusting the scores and the fact is that all this has affected who won the event but perhaps action might be taken to stop the pair concerned playing in the next event/at the club (as appropriate) because they have spoilt the event.
Yes, I rather took that as given and was just commenting on the score of the beneficiaries.
A lot of years ago a player deliberately went -9 in 3NTx after a misunderstanding regarding Kelsey (a popular defence to NT in those days). This was in an EBU trial and the TD and subsequently the selection committee took an exceedingly dim view of it.
I know that I've called the Director in the past due to an opponent intentionally throwing the board (although this was at matchpoints, so the impact on other contestants was lower). The auction had started fairly normally, so we were able to figure out what contract the opponents should have reached and imposed that (this left me with a good score anyway, so part of the reason for the board throw may have been that the auction had already started to go off the rails).
At IMP Pairs (which is famously volatile with respect to scoring), I'm not sure that there's any good solution. A bidding accident by one pair can easily end up throwing the tournament to their table opponents even when no malice is involved.