Dazed and Confused

Dazed and Confused Soundtrack – Do You Feel Like We Do (Peter Frampton)

 

 

To state that the posting about this incident caused controversy, well that under-states the patently obvious. See for yourself.

U wrote:

(note: part of U’s statement contains his reporting of the events as recounted by Björn Åström. For the unabridged edition please see the comments section in What’s Goin’ On. )

First let me say that I do not in any way defend the Germans; they were certainly not victims.

My initial comment was more meant to provoke the thought than suggest anything else. I’m not friends with the Germans (I played the 1990 Rosenblum in Geneva myself). I just felt that the label of victim for Zia was so off base that I wanted to suggest that if that was true than the Germans must be “covered” as well.As for which felony is most severe, Zia was caught red-headed, in-the-act by opposing NPC and didn’t “cop” while the Germans were informed the day after. That they had known the error the same day, after scoring up, is news to me. (Bobby Wolff wrote of it in The Lone Wolff and the sentiment at the event was one of the Germans ridiculing their opponents’ scoring abilities.)

Btw, FYI it has been suggested that Zia’s revoke wasn’t unintentional. Some Swedes on site 1983 thought so…….but let me say that revokes are rare by world class players (not unheard of, Sementa revoked as declarer in 3NT a couple of years ago, costing his team an Italian teams championship) and even more so when defending a doubled part score in a World Championship – and that turns out to be the only way to beat the contract! 

This is published here with  permission of Björn Åström translation by me. {U} Some additional thoughts about sportsmanship and more from Björn is omitted.

This begs some observations. Zia claims in the editorial that ”I did revoke but wasn’t aware of it until some subsequent trick.” This isn’t true AT ALL according to Björn. Zia just claimed the remaining tricks FACE DOWN, thereby basically depriving the opponents a chance to check the validity of the claim without questioning HIS honesty (i.e saying “show me your cards” implies mistrust). This type of claim is something people sometimes do, but seems like it’s in violation of some bridge law (I don’t know the law well enough to point out which one). Doing that and ranting off when getting called is really depictable. How do you feel about that, Bobby?

What would then be a proper reaction when the opposing NPC calls attention to the fact? Fury? How would Bobby Wolff react?

Zia over ruffed and just claimed the last two tricks, immediately turning those down as winners, without showing them to anybody.….Everybody of course assumed honesty and that his last two cards were winners in another suit. That was, for a fact, not the case. I had seen his hand, knew his remaining cards and saw what happened. It’s beyond all doubt that he deliberately cheated. (No, it isn’t).

I immediately pointed out that he made a mistake and that it should be corrected. Zia broke out in profanity and rudeness, among other things saying I had nothing to do with it and should “shut up”. Zia’s behaviour did not exactly indicate innocence or remorse. (Granted such behaviour is beyond the pale.) This begs some observations. Zia claims in the editorial that ”I did revoke but wasn’t aware of it until some subsequent trick.” This isn’t true AT ALL according to Björn.

 I must say, as did Bobby, these observations cast a grim palor upon a great player and our game.  

 

Richard Grenside November 19th, 2010 at 11:19 pm

Has anyone considered Law 81C especially 81C3?

“The Director’s duty and power normally includes the following, to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner…”etc. etc

Did the intervention by the Swedish NPC negate the director’s power?  So again does the rule above supercede or yield to the rule about third party interference? Which reigns? 

 

Law 62

Correction of a Revoke

A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of it before it becomes established.

In this case the revoke was established so it could no longer be corrected.

Herein is the dilemma. Why does the law only specify that the player must correct his revoke before it becomes established? 

Why not say a player must notify his opponents immediately upon realizing his revoke?

Part of Proprieties 1 reads as follows:

The guiding principal: The side that commits an irregularity bears an obligation not to gain directly from the infraction itself;

In the case the offending side clearly “gained directly” through the irregularity. They defeated a contract destined to succeed. They knew that and withheld that information from the non-offending side.

At present (thanks to a legal opinion) we have this:

Law 72 CURRENTLY reads as follows,

72. B. Infraction of Law

1. A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is

a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

2. There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law

committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken

explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2).

3. A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by

committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke

or mixing the cards prematurely.

Does the law 72B (2) (no obligation to draw attention to an infraction by one’s own side) supesede “the guiding principal that the side that commits an irregularity bears an obligation not to gain directly from the infraction itself”?

Lawmakers – which is it? Own up or shut up.  No wonder there is confusion.

Law 72B3 is just plain silly. If I don’t turn my last two cards up, am I “concealing” my revoke? Let’s revise that law to state the goal clearly.  Like: A player must inform his opponents as soon as he becomes aware of the revoke by himself or his partner. Period, end of story, alibi, confusion. It isn’t that tough.

Bobby Wolff put it well:

“He {Edgar}  is no longer with us, but whether he would be or not it becomes necessary for our current individual world-level and best and brightest players to always play by the highest standards available, if for no other reasons than to set role model examples of what our game is about. Yes, sometimes it hurts to do so, but no pain, no gain and worse, no leadership. Not doing so will result in confusion and more importantly, will turn our marvelous game in the opposite direction to what we all want to aspire. Bridge used to be known as a “Gentleman’s game” with all the trimmings. Let’s not lessen that wonderful nickname and rationalize away our responsibilities.

Silly me, like Bobby I thought the foundation of the game was based upon sportsmanship and fair play. Nothing confusing about that.

Linda’ comment

“The rules seem quite clear to me. The only “wrong” thing would be to revoke on purpose. You have no obligation to draw attention to it. It would be too confusing if we all start operating under another set of rules based on being sportsman-like. (emphasis added)

This is clearly at odds with Bobby’s opinion and makes it clear we aren’t all singing from the same hymn book. And that’s a good thing because it showcases the disparity of opinion and thus – the confusion within the laws.

Wolff again.

With my vision of how the laws should read, it would be better put, for example, to say concerning Law 72, B2: There is usually not an obligation to disclose a violation against oneself (such as a revoke), but if the violator realizes that by so not doing, a possible significant skewed result may occur, then it becomes at least a moral obligation to so disclose. In other words if one decides to not disclose it, with the skewed result, which may occur, and then recorded, is not a specific violation of the laws, but it is nevertheless an unnecessary blight on the game itself.

 

David Turner

My thoughts:

It seems clear that we need a new, simple code whose guiding principle is equity and sportsmanship. I propose an unofficial “experts’ agreement”: regardless of the laws “fess up to a revoke as soon as you become aware of it, and call the Director”. Anyone disagree? We can let the Laws catch up in due course.

Writing, dialoguing and debating this episode, unfortunate and sordid as it may have been will be for naught if we cannot learn something from it. Please note this was never intended to be an examination of anything other than the confusion within the rules.

That is what TBW was referring to. We should laud my friend David Turner’s “expert agreement” idea, but what of those experts who disagree? Better yet, change the damn rule so clarity trumps ambiguity.

Linda feels the laws are clear.

72.B There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2).

But this conflicts with

Part of Proprieties 1 reads as follows:

The guiding principal: The side that commits an irregularity bears an obligation not to gain directly from the infraction itself;

So which is it?

Door #1: No obligation to draw attention to an infraction by one’s own side?

Or

Door #2” An obligation not to gain directly from the infraction itself?

Door #3; Dazed and confused, that is where we are now.

Let’s keep our eye on the ball here. This is not about Zia’s reaction or the Swedish NPC’s intervention though granted – they make good copy. The Swedes obviously and justifiably see this through their own lens, and it is not rose-tinted but blood-splattered. Jeff and TBW have expounded about the contradictions and lack of clarity imposed upon the player leaving them in “untenable predicaments.” Even the dialogue of the commentators sustains the fact that there is ambiguity.

Ross’ example about Keith Balcombe is telling.

During this year’s Canadian National Team Trials, we were playing an important third day round robin match against one of the pre event favorites. We had just bid and made a vul 3NT which rated to be a clear 13 imp pick up.

Declarer, Keith Balcombe, at the conclusion of the hand, called attention to an accidental revoke on his part – one that had made absolutely no difference to the outcome of the hand.

The director was called; an adverse ruling was made; we pushed the board and lost the match by a few imps. This was at a time when VP’s were very precious – in fact the next day it took an almost bizarre confluence of favorable circumstances in the last match of the round robin for our team to eke into the playoffs.

Virtue was rewarded but it sure didn’t feel that way until the very end of the round robin. Some would say Keith exhibited the highest form of “Active Ethics” – but rather we feel he was just doing what he was supposed to do by calling the revoke on himself.(After the fact others speculated that a “win-at-all-costs team mate” should quietly have tucked his cards into the duplicate board and gone on to the next hand)

So in this case, Keith who confessed an irrelevant self-committed infraction and just to show how much we appreciate that the director assigns “an adverse ruling”. What the hell does that say to the state of the union? It tells me the rules need adjustment. Congrats to Keith and shame on the rules which punish disclosure.

David Turner’s analogy of the Zia case was

From a strictly legal perspective, I think the original incident was analogous to the situation in law where a criminal goes scot- free because of a technical error by the police. The kibitzer thought he was doing the right thing, but the moment he spoke up, he prejudiced the situation beyond recovery, from a strict Laws perspective.

So one confesses and is skewered by the laws. Another does not and the case is contaminated by a third party and the offender walks into the sunset without repercussion. You gotto love that. Is this what the Laws intended?

If I fail to realize my revoke and simply put my cards (without showing them) back into the board – am I hiding them as in Law 723B?

A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by

committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke

or mixing the cards prematurely.

Or am I oblivious? And another thing while we are taking potshots at rules – why does a third party’s interference negate the infraction? I get the fact that kibitzers should be seen and not heard but what if my buddy or NPC discloses my revoke? I guess it didn’t happen. Hmmmmm….

Confusion?

I should say so – my head is spinning and I am only on my first Chardonnay. A lot of readers weighed in with insightful comments, although I thought the thread veered off course. The question remains, how can we amend the rules to minimize uncertainty and illuminate lucidity?

The rules are clear to some and clearly ambiguous (an oxymoron if there ever was one) to others.

TBW editorial stated “Adjust irregular occurrences by equity.”

I can imagine no better resolution. Please – lawmakers, address this issue. Add clarity and consistency to the rules.

So there is no confusion – sooner better than later would be preferred.