[blackshoe]

I don't recall WBF regs saying anything about "system sheets". They do say that where there isn't room for full disclosure on the system card, we are supposed to put a number in brackets on the card, and then under that same number on a "supplementary notes" form, expand the explanation. Is that what you mean?

If you're not playing in a WBF event, the WBF's regulations are irrelevant. The ACBL, for example, doesn't mention supplementary notes.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2020-December-04, 11:12, said:

I don't recall WBF regs saying anything about "system sheets". They do say that where there isn't room for full disclosure on the system card, we are supposed to put a number in brackets on the card, and then under that same number on a "supplementary notes" form, expand the explanation. Is that what you mean?

A supplementary-sheet by any other name would be a system-sheet Anyway, you need some place for agreements that don't fit on your system-card.

blackshoe, on 2020-December-04, 11:12, said:

If you're not playing in a WBF event, the WBF's regulations are irrelevant. The ACBL, for example, doesn't mention supplementary notes.

Such rule-variations provide employment for local regulators but serve no other purpose

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2020-December-04, 11:12, said:

I don't recall WBF regs saying anything about "system sheets". They do say that where there isn't room for full disclosure on the system card, we are supposed to put a number in brackets on the card, and then under that same number on a "supplementary notes" form, expand the explanation. Is that what you mean?

The WBF regs talk about 'supplementary sheets' and say what I said.

WBF SystemsPolicy said:

5. System Cards/Supplementary Sheets
The principle of adequate disclosure requires that competitors fully disclose all conventions and treatments
requiring defensive preparation. In addition to the System cards, pairs will use Supplementary Sheets to
achieve this objective.
The use of Supplementary Sheets is not strictly limited for all events, provided that the entries are properly
numbered to correspond to appropriately cross-referenced numbers on the System card itself. The sheets
must readily legible and the numbered entries must be separated by discernible heavy lines. While brevity
is encouraged, particularly for Category 2 and Category 3 events, full disclosure must not be prejudiced in
any way as a result.

blackshoe, on 2020-December-04, 11:12, said:

If you're not playing in a WBF event, the WBF's regulations are irrelevant. The ACBL, for example, doesn't mention supplementary notes.

Many RAs have regulations that closely mirror the WBF regulations.
FIGB for example.

[nige1]

According to Bobby Wolff, Nicolas Hammond and others, the WBF and NBOs avoid prosecuting their own suspected cheats. Worse, legislators rarely afford victims adequate redress.

Cameron French relates Collateral Damage a horrific but typical case of what happens to alleged cheats and their victims.

In the final of the 1979 ACBL Mens' BAM, in Norfolk, Dr. Jim Sternberg, Allan Cokin, Steve Sion, Alan Sontag, and Peter Weichsel beat Gary Hahn, Zeke Jabbour, David Hoffner, Mike Cappelletti, Sr., David Sacks, and Ron Feldman. During the final, Hahn's team asked for a ruling to investigate alleged cheating by Cokin & Sion, which decided the match. Kit Wolsey and others proved this allegation. Eventually, Cokin and Sion were banned. But, to this day there has been no redress for the victims.

Mike Passal relates. on BridgWinners, in The Whole Story, a more recent case. In an ACBL Swiss Teams, Mary Chilcote, Jeff Meckstroth, Eric Rodwell, Mike Passal and Chris Compton beat Marvin Darter's team. Their accounts of a decisive incident in the match:

Mike Passall said:

I tossed a board on the floor after we had gotten a poor result. Sometime during the next hand I noticed a card sitting face down next to a pocket and inserted it ...I counted the cards and found 14 in one hand and 12 in another, so I moved the extra card, which I thought was the one that had fallen out and I had replaced. I should have checked more thoroughly, but I thought I had fixed it. When we compared results, our opponents said there was a fouled board and I realized it was my screwup and owned up to it. They had won 2 IMPs on the board, and we decided to just let that result stand. I should have gone to the director, and I wish I could go back in time and do so.

Marvin Darter said:

When the board was played at our table, Mr. Passell's pair could make a vulnerable game in either major while we had a minus 300 save in 5D. We took the save and Mr. Passell bid 5H, got doubled, and went down one. At the end of the match, Mr. Passell immediately picked up the boards from the floor and gave them to us to take to our table as it was a round robin. He did not put them on his lap, he did not put them on the table. Thus, he did not have any opportunity to count the cards in any of the hands. After the match was over, we approached Mr. Passell and told him there was a problem with a board. His response was that some cards (not "a" card) had come out and he had put them back in as well as he could. Besides, he said, you won 2 imps on the board. And that's when Linda and I - not Mr. Passell – went to the director. The tournament director told us our recourse was to file a player memo explaining what happened and so we did.

The TD didn't give a ruling. He told Mike's victims to write a player memo. The rest of the story is obscure because ACBL procedures are opaque. Eventually, Mike was suspended from play over the Chrismas holiday with his international career unaffected. His victims received no encouragement and no redress.

As usual in Bridge-Law cases, BridgeWinner comments divide on patriotic lines, ACBL pros defend Mike's actions and opine that the ACBL handled him harshly.

A couple of lessons...

• NBOs should not handle allegations against their own top players and officials.
• Victims should be afforded some form of redress, however belatedtoply. Preferably places and titles should all be moved up. Inevitably this process will often be crude and unsatisfactory (for example, cheats can eliminate a likely winner, in the first round of a KO). Nevertheless it should be attempted: in as simple and fair way as is practicable.

[pescetom]

I agree with most of what nige1 says and consider it a disgrace that the TD did not rule on the Passal case. I don't think it is right to conclude that NBOs should not handle allegations against their own players, however. In the Passal case it is clear that the NBO simply failed to do its job and if that happens repeatedly then it should be reformed or replaced, not derived of its basic disciplinary powers.

That does not mean there should be no international anti-cheating authority however. Think about the WADA model where national sports bodies retain internal anti-doping responsibility but are governed and top level athletes are monitored centrally.

[nige1]

On BridgeWinners, Michael and Debbie Rosenberg highlight a simple way for an individual to cheat on BBO without "self-kibitzing".

• Play slowly then..
• Using a different BBO account log into My hands
• Find the hand-records of a fast player, competing in the same tournament.
• With any luck, he will have already played the hand that you are about to play.
• You can see all 4 hands, and even perform a double-dummy analysis.

They have reported this security flaw to BBO; it should be easy to plug; but BBO need to address the issue, urgently.

[paulg]

nige1, on 2021-January-15, 08:40, said:

On BridgeWinners, Michael and Debbie Rosenberg highlight a simple way for an individual to cheat on BBO without "self-kibitzing".

• Play slowly then..
• Using a different BBO account log into My hands
• Find the hand-records of a fast player, competing in the same tournament.
• With any luck, he will have already played the hand that you are about to play.
• You can see all 4 hands, and even perform a double-dummy analysis.

They have reported this security flaw to BBO; it should be easy to plug; but BBO need to address the issue, urgently.

This is a misrepresentation of the security flaw, as it is not as widespread as this post implies. In fact I regard it as a minor issue, as I suspect would 99% of the BBO members.

It does not affect BBO tournaments. If you are playing an event based on multiple team matches that use the same boards, perhaps run by multiple hosts or a BBO user with the privilege to run multiple team matches, then these individual team matches will be available on BBO Hand Records when they finish. At this point, if you are a slow player and know who is playing in a fast match, you could look up the results.

The answer is to play different boards in the matches. Or ask BBO for some way to delay publication of results for organiser XYZ, assuming that this does not adversely affect the platform or annoy the faster players.

[pilowsky]

There is another way that I have personally witnessed.

• Get together in a small group.
• Simultaneously join a tournament.
• Stream the tournament live and discuss the play of each hand while watching one of you playing it on TwitchTV
• Then, when you know the outcome of the deal, play it yourself.

This method is called past-posting for those of you that recall Paul Newman and Robert Redford in George Roy Hill's film "The Sting."