[blml] L27

[Konrad Ciborowski]

> For several years now, the laws of bridge have been subject to a process
> of
> watering down, to cater for the assumption that no one who plays bridge
> is
> actually a cad and a bounder. 

True. All this weighted adjusted score business means cheating
in bridge has become a no-lose strategy. If, prior to the
infraction committed by East-West (MI or UI) which
made North-South stop in 2S, the probabilities 
of the North-South side getting to 4S and 3NT were 

4S  = 60%
3NT = 40%

then the assigned adjusted score is 60% * 4S + 40% * 3NT.

So where is the penalty? You commit an infraction and
you get what you would otherwise have gotten.
This means that people who cheat intentionally get an advantage 
because especially weaker pairs don't call the TD for UI rulings.
If they do call the TD - makes no difference, cheaters will
get the same score as their average expectancy was without
the infraction. But if they don't call the TD - bonanza.

This means players who knowingly use partner's hesitations
or purposfully give muddled explanations gain big time
over the rest of the field.

Failing to acknowledge the existence of such players is 
sheer lunacy.

I could give you names of a few - they have no problems
coming up with huge scores in pairs tournaments for
300 pairs but somehow their skills seem
to vanish when playing on screens against their
peers.

I remember once having heard a conversation between
such players when one of them was saying that
in a particular sequence his partner went into
a tank and came up with a 3H bid. "Then I started
thinking - what was he thinking about? And I this is how
I figured that his hand was...".

So the player in question openly admitted to cheating.
Now what can you do against such a pair under the
current laws? If I nail them when they are playing
against me they will get the same score they would
otherwise get. And weak pairs won't call the TD
against them because weak pairs are unaible
to catch all the inferences (sometimes very subtle)
from hesitations.

And please don't tell that I have to report them 
officailly - I have no hard proofs in my hand. 
No one has. And no one ever will. The only method
to get rid of them would be to make them pay
for using UI but the current laws offer no deterrent
element for this.

A general remark - people who created the laws are usually
from the Anglo-Saxon cultures. And it is my impression
that they naively think that the ethical standards they
know are typical for the rest of the world. I remember
an interview Zia once gave in one of the Polish biggest
newspapers. When he was asked about cheating in bridge
he said - bridge has always been a game of gentlemen
there used to some problems in the past but not any more.
If you cheat then your millieu excommunicates you and this is the
highest punishment.

O sancta simplicitas! Maybe in the US, may in Great Britain.
But in principle the farther to the East the worse it is.
I have an impression that the drafters have never seen 
a full blooded cheat of the deepest dye at the bridge
table. I have - sometimes they were willing to tell stories
about how they fooled some little old ladies unaware of
anything. 

One of the Polish rising stars, a junior, in Montreal walks 
to the playing area, has a first time look at the pairs world
championship facility, and comes back smiling - "Splendid,
the tables are small" and winks.

Another incident - declarer in 3NT takes nine tricks but
she is persuaded by another junior that she went down. Dummy
is not convinced but then the defender uses the decisive
argument "but you didn't take the KD!". "No, indeed.", replies
declarer. "So 8 tricks", concludes the defender. The opponents
concede.

Of course declarer took 9 tricks and the fact the he did
indeed lose a trick for the KD had nothing to do with
it - the remark about the KD was simply a psychological
ploy. How do I know it was intentional? Because the defender
in question was gloating about the cleverness of this trick
and how often it worked for him in the lobby of the tournament.
And the chap in question used to represent Poland in one
of the world junior events.


I'm not saying that people of this kind are a majority -
in fact there are very, very few of them. And bridge
players generally know who they are.
But in order to work the current system requires 100% of honest 
players, 99% is not enough. No one has enough time and resources
to record every single deal played by other player to
gather enough condemning stuff and initiate a disciplinary
process. Those who do cheat get a huge advantage. If the
laws of the game made using UI unprofitable then they
wouldn't start getting caught every single time, of course,
but if they had to suffer the most unfavorable result
that was even remotely possible every time they cheated 
then it would seriously limit their effectiveness 
especially in open no-screens tourneys. 

As it is - they have been given a free run.




-- 
Konrad Ciborowski
Kraków, Poland

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mamy worek pelen prezentow. Te prezenty sa dla Ciebie.

Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f1cbf