[Huibertus]

As for any other sport or game, players are allowed to make mistakes, if that were not allowed no skill difference would be allowed.

And for psychs, they are regulated and allowed. So using a psyche is not cheating (unless it is known a bid can be a psych and this is not disclosed) Bridge law 40;

C. Deviation from System and Psychic Action
1. A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings, provided that his partner
has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation [but see B2(a)(v)
above]. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the
partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing
disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has
damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may assess a procedural penalty.
2. Other than in C1 above, no player is obliged to disclose to the opponents that he has
deviated from his announced methods.


As for this (type off) bidding sequence, remember who did it. I used to regularly play against a partnership where we basically knew, we were very likely to be able to cash the first two tricks in the suit of the first control bid N/W player of the pair, very usefull knowledge

[AL78]

gordontd, on 2020-September-29, 01:19, said:

Since she thought that this situation indicated cheating, we have no way of knowing if she really had been a victim of it in the past. Perhaps it had been another misbid or a psyche. Since she has asked the opinion of those who seem to think that psyching is tantamount to cheating, she might well have gained the wrong impression about her previous experience.

She definitely has experienced cheating from players at our club, buth at the physical club and online, although as said it means nothing regarding this instance.

First occasion: At the physical club before COVID, her partner alerted her to one of her opponents trying a subtle peek-a-boo to get a glimpse of her hand, who then took a very anti-percentage line of play on the basis of her holding a specific honor card which got them a top.

Second occasion (not proved but highly likely): BBO auction by opponents: 1♥ - 2♦ - pass. The 2♦ response was based on a long suit and a four count. The 1♥ opener held a 15 count. They get a top because 2♦ makes and no-one else finds it, it is the only contract that makes their way. These opponents were a married couple (and are poor players) so had the capability to look at each others hands. It is easy to get away with this because it is virtually impossible to prove.

There have been other suspicious occasions on BBO by a different married couple (suspected by more than one other player).

Sadly there exist people who just want to win, don't have the ability to be a winner, can't be bothered to put in the time and effort to become a winner, and lack a moral compass, so take the attitude anything is good if they can get away with it.

These past experiences may have made her a bit oversensitive. Whilst I was disputinig her claim, it appeared she didn't really understand the difference between a mis-bid, a psyche, and a mis-explanation. I tried to explain that if the opponents have given an accurate description of their agreements (which he had), then if one of them has a hand inconsistent with that agreement, that is not against the rules.

[dsLawsd]

If, as it appears, that this auction was brought to the attention of the TD then that should be the end of the matter and the incident should be recorded. In the ACBL that would be a memo to the recorder. The TD should urge the person who said they mis-clicked to change their settings to verify their bids. These things do happen.

But well regarded players should be extra careful when playing against lower rated or inexperienced pairs (if that was the case). The TD did have the option to adjust the score and apparently chose not to do so.

ACTIVE ETHICS///

[nige1]

Al78 "My bridge partner has just told me a situation which cropped up on BBO where she got a bottom because they were diverted from the killing lead by one of the opponents doing what sounded to me like a psyche, but she is adamant they were cheating."
+++++++++++++++++++
As everybody has pointed out:

Whether deliberate or a mistake, departure from your agreements is legal (provided it's as much a surprize to partner as to opponents).

Edited to remove names as GordonTD requested.

---

[sfi]

dsLawsd, on 2020-September-29, 03:29, said:

But well regarded players should be extra careful when playing against lower rated or inexperienced pairs (if that was the case). The TD did have the option to adjust the score and apparently chose not to do so.

ACTIVE ETHICS///

The director has no legal basis to adjust the score, and should be subject to sanction for doing so. Ethics doesn't come into play here.

[gordontd]

pilowsky, on 2020-September-29, 02:28, said:

I specifically said that you were not chaeting.

I must have missed that.

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2020-September-29, 03:32, said:

Al78 "My bridge partner has just told me a situation which cropped up on BBO where she got a bottom because they were diverted from the killing lead by one of the opponents doing what sounded to me like a psyche, but she is adamant they were cheating."

+++++++++++++++++++
As everybody has pointed out:

Whether deliberate or a mistake, departure from your agreements is legal (provided it's as much a surprize to partner as to opponents). [/hv]

Hi Nigel,

I've identified myself so I don't mind being named but I don't think you should have the other three names in the hand diagram.

[gordontd]

dsLawsd, on 2020-September-29, 03:29, said:

The TD should urge the person who said they mis-clicked to change their settings to verify their bids.

He didn't misclick.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2020-September-29, 05:04, said:

Hi Nigel,I've identified myself so I don't mind being named but I don't think you should have the other three names in the hand diagram.

OK I've removed the names
(but the information is publicly available and none of the players did anything wrong so I don't think anonymity is necessary)

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2020-September-29, 05:28, said:

OK I've removed the names
(but I the information is publicly available and none of the players did anything wrong so I don't think anonymity is necessary)

Thanks. That may be so, but I think there is a principle on this forum of not naming people in these instances, and some of the comments might be construed as critical of some of the other players.

[Zelandakh]

gordontd, on 2020-September-29, 05:37, said:

Thanks. That may be so, but I think there is a principle on this forum of not naming people in these instances, and some of the comments might be construed as critical of some of the other players.

Some of the comments here are way out of line and I think you are showing remarkable patience in your responses. To be frank, the entire thread here is a clear breach of BBF policy and I think Barry should be issuing a warning to AL78 for bringing it. We have all gotten used to the phrasing "Some people think..." in the past few years but it cannot be a way of circumventing the forum rules here. The simple truth is that you are owed an apology, not only by the OP but also by some of the other posters. I would like to think that might happen, privately if not publicly, but sadly experience suggests that that is less likely than a 13-0-0-0 hand.

[doccdl]

There does not appear to be any cheating whatsoever .If I was a director I would let the scores stand as there does not appear to be an infringement of any rules or laws for that matter.

[SelfGovern]

AL78, on 2020-September-29, 02:48, said:

She definitely has experienced cheating from players at our club, both at the physical club and online, ...

If you grouse about cheating on BridgeBase Forums or to your partners or friends or anywhere else... nothing happens.
It's a waste of your breath, your keystrokes, electrons.

Instead, _report_ the cheaters to people who can do something about it.

On BBO, you can export the hand, and Send Abuse Report from the history context.

If you see someone cheating in an ACBL game (whether on BBO or live) , fill out a "Player Memo" to have BBO investigate possible cheating or ethics violations. The links (one for ACBL games held on BBO, one for non-BBO ACBL games) and explanation about the process are at https://www.acbl.org...uct-and-ethics/

There do seem to be many people taking advantage of the online environment to cheat. Talking about it won't help. Taking the appropriate action will.
(note: Many players have been banned or suspended from BBO for cheating. The ACBL has held disciplinary hearings based on reports of cheating and has suspended players in the last six months. Nobody will know that you saw someone you believe to be cheating unless you report it.)

[pilowsky]

SelfGovern, on 2020-September-29, 17:33, said:

If you grouse about cheating on BridgeBase Forums or to your partners or friends or anywhere else... nothing happens.
It's a waste of your breath, your keystrokes, electrons.

Instead, _report_ the cheaters to people who can do something about it.

On BBO, you can export the hand, and Send Abuse Report from the history context.

If you see someone cheating in an ACBL game (whether on BBO or live) , fill out a "Player Memo" to have BBO investigate possible cheating or ethics violations. The links (one for ACBL games held on BBO, one for non-BBO ACBL games) and explanation about the process are at https://www.acbl.org...uct-and-ethics/

There do seem to be many people taking advantage of the online environment to cheat. Talking about it won't help. Taking the appropriate action will.
(note: Many players have been banned or suspended from BBO for cheating. The ACBL has held disciplinary hearings based on reports of cheating and has suspended players in the last six months. Nobody will know that you saw someone you believe to be cheating unless you report it.)

She has definitely alleged cheating - you don't 'know' anything.

[RD350LC]

Huibertus, on 2020-September-29, 02:36, said:

As for any other sport or game, players are allowed to make mistakes, if that were not allowed no skill difference would be allowed.

And for psychs, they are regulated and allowed. So using a psyche is not cheating (unless it is known a bid can be a psych and this is not disclosed) Bridge law 40;

C. Deviation from System and Psychic Action
1. A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings, provided that his partner
has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation [but see B2(a)(v)
above]. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the
partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing
disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has
damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may assess a procedural penalty.
2. Other than in C1 above, no player is obliged to disclose to the opponents that he has
deviated from his announced methods.

Yes, deviating from your partnership agreement is permissible. If you make a certain call, saying that it means one thing-and that is your agreement-it is very much permissible, even though the actual hand does not match this.
In this case, if the agreement was to have the 3♠ bid indicate a singleton ♠, and the person made that call, it is entirely legal to have any sort of hand.
There is a variation of this call to make a psychic cue bid, indicating first round control, when in fact you do not have this. This is entirely legal. As long as your partner thinks that you have first round control, there is no ground for redress.

[shaky44]

<snip>

blackshoe, on 2020-September-28, 16:54, said:

This case demonstrates one problem with the online custom of explaining the meanings of your own calls.

<snip>

I've always assumed that when I am explaining my own bid online, that I am explaining what the bid means, not what my partner thinks it means. Is that incorrect?

I've seen many players -- and I've done it myself -- explain their bid as a mis-click. In this situation (where I've mixed up two suits) I would explain the bid as a mis-click / mistake. Maybe I should just give an explanation based on our agreements, even if it's wrong.

[Zelandakh]

shaky44, on 2020-September-30, 04:34, said:

I've always assumed that when I am explaining my own bid online, that I am explaining what the bid means, not what my partner thinks it means. Is that incorrect?

I've seen many players -- and I've done it myself -- explain their bid as a mis-click. In this situation (where I've mixed up two suits) I would explain the bid as a mis-click / mistake. Maybe I should just give an explanation based on our agreements, even if it's wrong.

You should explain your agreements, even if you have psyched or misbid and your hand does not match that agreement at all. After the hand, or when you put down dummy, you might apologise to the table/partner if the call was a mistake due to misclicking, misreading the auction, etc.

Note also that this can come up in f2f play as well. If you have an alertable agreement with partner but they do not alert it, you have an obligation to draw attention to this before the opening lead if you become declarer or dummy. This can occasionally result in a scenario where the opps feel that they have been misled.

[miamijd]

pilowsky, on 2020-September-29, 02:28, said:

You seem to be going out of your way to deliberately misunderstand me. What exact point are you trying to make Gordon?
What I said was that Tournament Directors are I the position of Caesar's wife this is a well-known legal principle. I specifically said that you were not chaeting.
If you are unfamiliar with the expression, it means "

• (proverb) Those in positions of authority should avoid even the implication of impropriety."

Do not persist in trying to call me out in this way it is childish. How do you know what other people 'think'? Is this something that you seriously believe yourself capable of?

I don't know about the other people in this thread but I am not accusing you of anything.

What you seem to be saying is that in your opinions, psyching has the appearance of impropriety, so that TDs shouldn't do it if they are playing.

Where I (and I think Gordon, too) disagree with you is in your implication that psyching has the appearance of impropriety. Why do you think that?

Cheers,
Mike

[mycroft]

Not only that, he's saying that *partner* psyching (a legal and ethical tactic, remember), is shady enough that he shouldn't be in a partnership that does it. Actually, since that's so bad, partner can't misbid, either, in case he misbids what might be a good (or a "classic") psychic.

• I sometimes misbid, so I can't play with him, or any other TD.
  
• I guess I can't play myself at all, either, because I am a (part-time, not EBU) TD, and I still misbid.
  
• Even if I admit to all of my misbids and get them ruled on as psychics (or, better yet, "he made a mistake, we get a good score"), that way I get to play; all of my partners misbid, too, so oh well.
  
• I've been known to straight-up psych, too (horror of horrors!)
  
• I play EHAA, which means I open 2♠ on 85432 KQT J942 8 red on white, that probably looks suspicious, too, when that works (or when 2♠ on AKJT8532 QT84 -- 6 floats and only makes +140 due to awful breaks). I guess I can't do that any more either.
  
• I've even played, in the midnights, an (at the time) illegal system, and won masterpoints with it. With full knowledge from the opponents and the DIC of the event.
  
• Since I did do these things, even if I don't any more, D.M. can't play with me at all (at least not if he wants to play with his wife ever again, because she's also a TD).
  
• Who's also misbid before (as my teammate, even, grumble!) So I guess she's out, too!

It would be not just implication of impropriety, but actually *very* improper, if:

• his partner deliberately bid 3♠ knowing he had two, and told the TD "sorry, thought my clubs were spades" anyway, and he didn't call that out
  
• he and his partner have talked about the fact that they should expect Zia cuebids from each other, and that wasn't mentioned before or after
  
• his partner has done this frequently enough in his experience as partner, opponent, or TD, that he would wonder if he did it again this time - and didn't inform the opponents or the TD of that.

Luckily, the chance of any of those things having happened is effectively zero, because as far as anyone has been willing to mention, he *does* in fact avoid implication of impropriety, and clarifies when others might have so implied. On that note, I am reminded that the principals in the case can avail themselves of English libel law, which is much more friendly to the complainant than other places in the world (Arkell v Pressdram notwithstanding).

[pilowsky]

miamijd, on 2020-September-30, 12:37, said:

What you seem to be saying is that in your opinions, psyching has the appearance of impropriety, so that TDs shouldn't do it if they are playing.

Where I (and I think Gordon, too) disagree with you is in your implication that psyching has the appearance of impropriety. Why do you think that?

Cheers,
Mike

Now I can't tell if you are being childish or delusional. You are saying that not only can you project thoughts into my brain, but also into Gordon's brain. Using invisible technology.

There are a lot of people in the world with the surname 'Pilowsky' that care for people who believe that they know what other people think when they don't. Two of them (my father and sister) were world-famous at it.
I'm not one of those Pilowsky's, but I do have a medical degree. If you come to Australia I can give you a referral. Or I can recommend someone for you.