[TimG]

There used to be a Law which basically said contestants had to try to win every trick possible. It was worded such that something like a hold up play could be considered a violation of the Laws. I know it existed because it was used to support anti-dumping cases; I'm sure it was referenced in an editorial or Letter to the Editor in the Bridge World in relation to a dumping case (in the 90s). I just skimmed through the 2007 Laws and could not find the rule. All I could find was Law 72: "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants". This is a better wording that the Law which I recall from the 90s.

Anyway, does anyone know of a current Law that addresses dumping? Anyone have a reference to the old Law? Anyone have any knowledge of the change or the proceeding involved in the change?

Thanks.

[RMB1]

Its not in the laws - I know because the EBU does not have an anti-dumping regulation and we are taught that there is no anti-dumping rule.

The WBF and ACBL do have anti-dumping regulations for their own competitions.

[blackshoe]

From the ACBL's General Conditions of Contest, on page 3, item 3 under "Play": "Players are required to play each hand to win at all times.".

[TimG]

Maybe I am confused and the "Law" I recall was actually an ACBL Regulation. Did there used to be a Law?

[RMB1]

WBF General Conditions of Contest, 4.1: "The WBF expects all teams and partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances."

[TimG]

Thanks, guys.

[blackshoe]

I don't think it was ever a law, but I'm no expert on the history of the laws.

[pran]

RMB1, on 2014-July-27, 14:04, said:

WBF General Conditions of Contest, 4.1: "The WBF expects all teams and partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances."

It must be a great misunderstanding to take this as applicable to each individual trick of a board.

The quoted regulation does not say that and it obviously does not imply that: It is a well known feature of bridge that you can win a board by deliberately losing a particular trick.

(If that was illegal then so would be most end-plays.)


(I have (an incomplete) library of bridge laws going back to pre-1932 and know of no such law text.)

[akwoo]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-27, 13:57, said:

From the ACBL's General Conditions of Contest, on page 3, item 3 under "Play": "Players are required to play each hand to win at all times.".

Genuine question: how far is this regulation meant to go?

I assume this regulation is not meant to prohibit knowingly taking anti-percentage actions in attempt to generate swings when behind.

Going further, I've certainly known cases of pairs or teams down by a significant amount switching to some fairly unfamiliar, barely discussed system (EHAA is particularly popular for this) before the last session, basically just to try something new (and have lots of interesting play problems) for a change. Is this okay?

When a Swiss field is only slightly bigger than the number of rounds (say 12 or 14 teams with 7 rounds), it is probably advantageous for a B or C team to lose a match early so that it doesn't have to play the best one or two teams. Is doing so semi-deliberately (i.e. by playing a little less carefully than usual, not by bidding 7N without reason) okay?

[pran]

akwoo, on 2014-July-28, 02:39, said:

When a Swiss field is only slightly bigger than the number of rounds (say 12 or 14 teams with 7 rounds), it is probably advantageous for a B or C team to lose a match early so that it doesn't have to play the best one or two teams. Is doing so semi-deliberately (i.e. by playing a little less carefully than usual, not by bidding 7N without reason) okay?

Just for that reason masterpoints are (in Norway) not awarded in Swiss events if the number of rounds exceed 40% of the number of participants. So with 12 participants you may not have more than 4 rounds and with 14 participants you may not have more than 5 rounds.

[blackshoe]

akwoo, on 2014-July-28, 02:39, said:

Genuine question: how far is this regulation meant to go?

I assume this regulation is not meant to prohibit knowingly taking anti-percentage actions in attempt to generate swings when behind.

Going further, I've certainly known cases of pairs or teams down by a significant amount switching to some fairly unfamiliar, barely discussed system (EHAA is particularly popular for this) before the last session, basically just to try something new (and have lots of interesting play problems) for a change. Is this okay?

When a Swiss field is only slightly bigger than the number of rounds (say 12 or 14 teams with 7 rounds), it is probably advantageous for a B or C team to lose a match early so that it doesn't have to play the best one or two teams. Is doing so semi-deliberately (i.e. by playing a little less carefully than usual, not by bidding 7N without reason) okay?

The ACBL appears to have left "how far" to TD discretion.

Attempting to generate swings is attempting to win, so it's within the reg, IMO.

Switching to another system should be okay, I would think.

Deliberately losing a match would, I think, run afoul of the regulation.

[pran]

akwoo, on 2014-July-28, 02:39, said:

Genuine question: how far is this regulation meant to go?

I assume this regulation is not meant to prohibit knowingly taking anti-percentage actions in attempt to generate swings when behind.

Going further, I've certainly known cases of pairs or teams down by a significant amount switching to some fairly unfamiliar, barely discussed system (EHAA is particularly popular for this) before the last session, basically just to try something new (and have lots of interesting play problems) for a change. Is this okay?

When a Swiss field is only slightly bigger than the number of rounds (say 12 or 14 teams with 7 rounds), it is probably advantageous for a B or C team to lose a match early so that it doesn't have to play the best one or two teams. Is doing so semi-deliberately (i.e. by playing a little less carefully than usual, not by bidding 7N without reason) okay?

blackshoe, on 2014-July-28, 08:01, said:

The ACBL appears to have left "how far" to TD discretion.

Attempting to generate swings is attempting to win, so it's within the reg, IMO.

Switching to another system should be okay, I would think.

Deliberately losing a match would, I think, run afoul of the regulation.

I agree with Ed, but there is one thinkable situation which may cause terrible problems:

Two "friendly" contestants (e.g. representing the same club) meet in the last (or a very late) round. Contestant-1 is well positioned for a total victory, Contestant-2 is a bit down the list.

Say that Contestant-2 deliberately tries to create large swings as being their only chance to win the event, knowing that if they fail they almost certainly ensures the victory for Contestant-1.

Now what?

For this and similar reasons we have in Norway for years "seeded" Round-Robin events so that matches between "friendly" contestants are scheduled as early as possible in the event (and I know that for instance WBF do the same in their championships).

In Swiss events we let "friendly" contestants meet in the first round(s) as much as possible to avoid the possibility that they shall Draw each other in a late round.

But what is done in the average regional event?

[ArtK78]

pran, on 2014-July-28, 08:28, said:

I agree with Ed, but there is one thinkable situation which may cause terrible problems:

Two "friendly" contestants (e.g. representing the same club) meet in the last (or a very late) round. Contestant-1 is well positioned for a total victory, Contestant-2 is a bit down the list.

Say that Contestant-2 deliberately tries to create large swings as being their only chance to win the event, knowing that if they fail they almost certainly ensures the victory for Contestant-1.

Now what?

For this and similar reasons we have in Norway for years "seeded" Round-Robin events so that matches between "friendly" contestants are scheduled as early as possible in the event (and I know that for instance WBF do the same in their championships).

In Swiss events we let "friendly" contestants meet in the first round(s) as much as possible to avoid the possibility that they shall Draw each other in a late round.

But what is done in the average regional event?

I don't have any problem with your scenario, as long as the reason for the creation of large swings is an honest attempt by Contestant-2 to win.

By the way, it is my experience that so-called "friendly" adversaries are more interested in beating their friends rather than assisting their friends towards victory. But I can see that this would not be universal, and there would be an appearance of impropriety if the trailing team lost badly to its "friend."

[billw55]

akwoo, on 2014-July-28, 02:39, said:

When a Swiss field is only slightly bigger than the number of rounds (say 12 or 14 teams with 7 rounds), it is probably advantageous for a B or C team to lose a match early so that it doesn't have to play the best one or two teams. Is doing so semi-deliberately (i.e. by playing a little less carefully than usual, not by bidding 7N without reason) okay?

blackshoe, on 2014-July-28, 08:01, said:

Deliberately losing a match would, I think, run afoul of the regulation.

pran, on 2014-July-28, 08:28, said:

Say that Contestant-2 deliberately tries to create large swings as being their only chance to win the event, knowing that if they fail they almost certainly ensures the victory for Contestant-1.

Now what?

Indeed, it is difficult to list every scenario where something resembling dumping could happen, and even more so to prevent every such situation via tournament rules. We just have to judge each case on its merits. I suspect such cases rarely get much scrutiny - can anyone cite an actual ruling or hearing?

[helene_t]

There was the Pairs World Cup 2006, won by Zhao/Fu. There were some rumours/suspicion about another Chinese pair that might have helped Zhao/Fu to the victory by playing badly against them. http://bridgewinners...erona-incident/

There was an incident in 2003 or thereabouts in the Netherlands where a pair asked the TD for permission to deliberately lose imps on a couple of rounds because they had figured out that that would improve their chances of winning. The TD was OK with it but later they were disqualified. I can't find any references to it now unfortunately.

[ArtK78]

There should never be any rule against a tactic that players honestly believe will inprove their chances of winning.

Note that I use the term "tactic' to mean a plan of competition, excluding the use of any methods specifically barred by rules or regulations.

So, for example, if a player or players believe it is in their best interest to lose some IMPs on some boards then they should be allowed to do so.

Players often jokingly refer to the loss of an early match in a Swiss Team competition as the "Swiss Gambit" - lose an early match in order to obtain more favorable draws for the remainder of the event. I say jokingly because I do not know of anyone who has done this deliberately. But if a team decided that they wanted to throw away the first match in an 8 match event, thinking that they would be better placed to win the event by doing so, who am I to tell them that they cannot do that?

Would anyone seriously argue that sacrificing a piece in a game of Chess to obtain a territorial advantage is against the rules of Chess? Or that deliberately choosing to run in the middle or the back of the pack in the early stages of a long race is against the rules of the race?

[billw55]

ArtK78, on 2014-July-28, 11:56, said:

Players often jokingly refer to the loss of an early match in a Swiss Team competition as the "Swiss Gambit" - lose an early match in order to obtain more favorable draws for the remainder of the event. I say jokingly because I do not know of anyone who has done this deliberately. But if a team decided that they wanted to throw away the first match in an 8 match event, thinking that they would be better placed to win the event by doing so, who am I to tell them that they cannot do that?

Would anyone seriously argue that sacrificing a piece in a game of Chess to obtain a territorial advantage is against the rules of Chess? Or that deliberately choosing to run in the middle or the back of the pack in the early stages of a long race is against the rules of the race?

I think the term Swiss Gambit actually originated in chess. There, it refers to taking an early draw (not a loss) - most specifically, using a free half point bye in the first round.

In bridge, Swiss events are mostly scored by VPs, so actually losing the match is not necessary in order use the gambit. In fact, in this format wins and losses seem to be irrelevant, only VPs matter except perhaps for tiebreaks.

[TimG]

billw55, on 2014-July-28, 12:17, said:

In bridge, Swiss events are mostly scored by VPs, so actually losing the match is not necessary in order use the gambit. In fact, in this format wins and losses seem to be irrelevant, only VPs matter except perhaps for tiebreaks.

The term was used in bridge before VPs became the norm. Yes, Swisses (in bridge) used to be scored by wins and losses.

[TimG]

I found the Bridge World issue that I was incorrectly referencing: August 1989. The ACBL Regulation cited: "Flagrant and deliberate attempts to lose tricks are detrimental to the game of bridge. Such action will subject the offenders to disciplinary penalty."

The BW Editor asked: "Did you ever hear of this dumb regulation, astonishingly dumb even for the ACBL?"

Have not figured out when this regulation was eliminated (or changed to that cited by blackshoe).

TimG, on 2014-July-27, 13:40, said:

There used to be a Law which basically said contestants had to try to win every trick possible. It was worded such that something like a hold up play could be considered a violation of the Laws. I know it existed because it was used to support anti-dumping cases; I'm sure it was referenced in an editorial or Letter to the Editor in the Bridge World in relation to a dumping case (in the 90s). I just skimmed through the 2007 Laws and could not find the rule. All I could find was Law 72: "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants". This is a better wording that the Law which I recall from the 90s.

Anyway, does anyone know of a current Law that addresses dumping? Anyone have a reference to the old Law? Anyone have any knowledge of the change or the proceeding involved in the change?

Thanks.

[pran]

TimG, on 2014-July-28, 13:21, said:

I found the Bridge World issue that I was incorrectly referencing: August 1989. The ACBL Regulation cited: "Flagrant and deliberate attempts to lose tricks are detrimental to the game of bridge. Such action will subject the offenders to disciplinary penalty."

The BW Editor asked: "Did you ever hear of this dumb regulation, astonishingly dumb even for the ACBL?"

Have not figured out when this regulation was eliminated (or changed to that cited by blackshoe).

I do indeed wonder when ACBL in case discovered that a player may have to lose one trick (only) in order to obtain the right tempo for a squeeze?

Haven't I somewhere read the most astonishing story about a fight between Declarer who needed to give away (just) one trick and defenders struggling for their life to avoid taking it? (I wonder if it wasn't in "Right through the pack" but I am too lazy and tired to look it up now.)