suspension of Norwegians
Stu G
cheating. Specifically they were in a national event to represent
Norway in international play but couldn't find a convenient time to
arrange the match, so turned in a ficticious result that allowed both
teams to proceed to the next round. The NBL suspended all of them
until the end of 2009 but subsequently modified the suspension to end
Sept 1, 2009. Some renown world class players were involved. They
did not try to hide their actions and admitted to the charges.
This is a clear case of cheating by anyone's definition.
Does this punishment seem light? Are there extenuating circumstances?
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
John Hall
<a36aa66a-9de2-462c...@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Based purely on the information in your post, it seems a very light
punishment to me. Especially if Norway is like most countries, and
relatively few events are played in the summer.
--
John Hall "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
pays off now." Anon
jblubaugh
Well, a similar thing happened in a Regional KO in Chicago a few
years. The captains of the teams in the final turned in the results as
a tie but they didn't play the match. It probably helped them that the
captain of one of the teams was the Chairman of the National Ethical
Oversight Committee and he was about to be appointed National Recorder
until someone ;-) blew the whistle on him and exposed this and other
suspensions the had for unethical behavior at the bridge table.
JB
Bertel Lund Hansen
> I have just heard that 8 Norwegians were suspended by the NBL for
> cheating.
The information (most of it anyway) appears on a news page at
bridge.no (near the bottom):
http://www.bridge.no/Organisasjon/Nyheter
It's in Norwegian which is easily readable for people who are
used to Danish or Swedish.
--
Bertel
http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/ FIDUSO: http://fiduso.dk/
t
> Stu G skrev:
>
> > I have just heard that 8 Norwegians were suspended by the NBL for
> > cheating.
>
> The information (most of it anyway) appears on a news page at
> bridge.no (near the bottom):
>
> http://www.bridge.no/Organisasjon/Nyheter
>
> It's in Norwegian which is easily readable for people who are
> used to Danish or Swedish.
This not acceptable they ought to be printed in the world language,
modified Friesian more commonly known as English ;-)
>
> --
> Bertelhttp://bertel.lundhansen.dk/ FIDUSO:http://fiduso.dk/
David Stevenson
>On May 21, 3:54�pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <unosp...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>> Stu G skrev:
>>
>> > I have just heard that 8 Norwegians were suspended by the NBL for
>> > cheating.
>>
>> The information (most of it anyway) appears on a news page at
>> bridge.no (near the bottom):
>>
>> � � � �http://www.bridge.no/Organisasjon/Nyheter
>>
>> It's in Norwegian which is easily readable for people who are
>> used to Danish or Swedish.
>
>This not acceptable they ought to be printed in the world language,
>modified Friesian more commonly known as English ;-)
The ACBL prints its reports in that strange language known as
American, which is an old modification of English not really
understandable except to Americans. If they do not use proper English,
why should the Norwegians?
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Lorne
> It's in Norwegian which is easily readable for people who are
> used to Danish or Swedish.
This not acceptable they ought to be printed in the world language,
modified Friesian more commonly known as English ;-)
>
Install the google toolbar into internet explorer and click the translate
button. To save you the trouble this is the google translation (not perfect
but you can get the general picture):
As known the eight players who represented the BK 1 and Heimdal Heimdal 7 in
NM for Local 2009 covered by a disciplinary decision that led to exclusion
in 2009.
After the application and thorough treatment Forbundsstyret has now decided
to pardon the players with effect from 1 september i �r. September this
year.
Article 12-7 (e) decision on forf�yning against eight players on the Heimdal
Heimdal BK 1 and BK 7.
The decision was made on the basis of the reporting of fictitious match
results from the first round in NM for Local 2009 and the players were
banned from from all gaming in the tournaments (except the club level)
according to the disciplinary laws � 3a, c, d and g - cf. � 5e. Section 5e.
After the appeal was later treated the matter in which the Cities Committee
12. maintained the decision taken by the disciplinary committee on
Exclusion from all play in tournaments with the circuit and the Association
points in the period 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2009.
It was later received an application for reprieve, and this is thoroughly
discussed by the Board of NBF in consultation with the disciplinary
committee and the Cities Committee.
In this context, it was, among other things, rated torque, which in
principle were not taken in the disciplinary Committee treatment. Similarly,
the extent to which the consequences were substantially larger than
predicted by the criminal utm�lingen. the possibility of international
participants with no financial consequences. At the same time, the case
received considerable attention, even internationally - with the personal
burden this entails. The players have recognized the responsibility and
apologize for what happened and the Board considers that the general
preventive considerations are addressed. The Board has in its assessment at
the same time been concerned about equal treatment of all involved.
The Board's task is not to review disciplinary or Cities Committee's
decisions, but Forbundsstyret can result in Article 12 - 9 in special cases
grant reprieve in forf�yning imposed after consultation with the Cities
Committee.
The Board has considered the sum of the consequences and decided it May be.
that in this case are sufficiently new moment of reprieve that may take
place. The players involved in Heimdal Heimdal BK 1 and BK 7 is thus Ben�det
with effect from 1 september 2009. September 2009.
Daniel Morgan
> > It's in Norwegian which is easily readable for people who are
> > used to Danish or Swedish.
>
> This not acceptable they ought to be printed in the world language,
> modified Friesian more commonly known as English ;-)
>
>
>
> Install the google toolbar into internet explorer and click the translate
> button. To save you the trouble this is the google translation (not perfect
> but you can get the general picture):
>
> As known the eight players who represented the BK 1 and Heimdal Heimdal 7 in
> NM for Local 2009 covered by a disciplinary decision that led to exclusion
> in 2009.
>
> After the application and thorough treatment Forbundsstyret has now decided
> year.
>
> Article 12-7 (e) decision on forføyning against eight players on the Heimdal
> Heimdal BK 1 and BK 7.
>
> The decision was made on the basis of the reporting of fictitious match
> results from the first round in NM for Local 2009 and the players were
> banned from from all gaming in the tournaments (except the club level)
> according to the disciplinary laws § 3a, c, d and g - cf. § 5e. Section 5e.
>
> After the appeal was later treated the matter in which the Cities Committee
> 12. maintained the decision taken by the disciplinary committee on
> Exclusion from all play in tournaments with the circuit and the Association
> points in the period 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2009.
>
> It was later received an application for reprieve, and this is thoroughly
> discussed by the Board of NBF in consultation with the disciplinary
> committee and the Cities Committee.
>
> In this context, it was, among other things, rated torque, which in
> principle were not taken in the disciplinary Committee treatment. Similarly,
> the extent to which the consequences were substantially larger than
> participants with no financial consequences. At the same time, the case
> received considerable attention, even internationally - with the personal
> burden this entails. The players have recognized the responsibility and
> apologize for what happened and the Board considers that the general
> preventive considerations are addressed. The Board has in its assessment at
> the same time been concerned about equal treatment of all involved.
>
> The Board's task is not to review disciplinary or Cities Committee's
> decisions, but Forbundsstyret can result in Article 12 - 9 in special cases
> Committee.
>
> The Board has considered the sum of the consequences and decided it May be.
> that in this case are sufficiently new moment of reprieve that may take
> with effect from 1 september 2009. September 2009.
A masterful translation, but what does "rated torque" mean in this
context?
brsri...@gmail.com
No, it is an exaggeration in my opinion. They will cheat in a more
intelligent way the next time. Nothing will really change. Same thing
happens in chess, nobody really bothers anymore even though it is
against the regulations.
Boris
David Babcock
> Same thing
> happens in chess, nobody really bothers anymore even though it is
> against the regulations.
Chess players can just show up and play a "grandmaster draw" anyway.
David
t
or even simpler white makes the first move and they agree to a draw.
This strikes me more as a conditions of contest issue than anything
else.
brsri...@gmail.com
It is not always between two players only. You have a match between
two teams and the draw is being agreed in advance by the two captains
of the teams. This is against the regulations of the game but nobody
really bothers anymore. Everyone knows what's going on.
Boris
Michael Angelo Ravera
This appears to be illegally agreeing to a score. Bridge is just about
the only sport in which you can turn in an inaccurate score that is
later corrected without being disqualified.
In addition, agreeing to the outcome of an event before the event is
what is often known as "throwing" and event or "taking a dive" or in
"point shaving". In effect, both teams have "thrown" the event.
The effect should, in so far as it effect others, be the same as if
the two teams involved withdrew from the event ethically.
The ACBL, it seems, would give a 6 month to 1 year suspension for such
behavior:
C7 OFFENSE: Fail to report a known incorrect score (CDR 3.2)
RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE: 90 days Probation to 30 days Suspension
E5 OFFENSE: Bid or play with the specific intent to achieve a poor
result
on that hand (CDR 3.2)
RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE:90 days Probation to 90 days Suspension*
E6 OFFENSE: Intentionally change a score or any information that could
result in awarding incorrect masterpoints (CDR 3.1)
RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE:180 days Suspension to 1 year Suspension*
Bertel Lund Hansen
> A masterful translation, but what does "rated torque" mean in this
> context?
"vurdert moment" => "evaluated factor"
vurdere - 1. evaluate 2. rate
moment - 1. moment 2. factor 3. torque
Stu G
wrote:
This is more relevant than you might think. A few of the 8 Norwegians
disciplined in Norway are members of the ACBL and play in ACBL
national events regularly. Their offense in Norway is subject to
discipline in the ACBL as well.
I would expect the offense to fall under the ACBL guideline:
C13 Knowingly submit false information or deliberately distort facts
to an ACBL official or committee (CDR 3.13)
for which the guidelines state a penalty of 90 days Probation to 1
year Suspension.
So the ACBL would impose a penalty similar to the Norwegian Bridge
Fed.
Having mulled this over for a day, I realize now that there are
different levels of cheating. Creating a ficticious score in
collusion with your opponents is less offensive than having pre-
arranged secret signals at the table (which is subject to explusion
in the ACBL).
Eric Leong
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think a more appropriate type of penalty is disqualification for
this years international event because no one factually qualified. But
also disqualification for the subsequent year's international play as
the actual penalty.
Eric Leong
Michael Angelo Ravera
Deliberately creating a result in contravention of the rules to your
perceived advantage is my definition of cheating. Making up a result
benefitial to both parties is not on the same plain as stationing a
kibitzer with a mirror behind your opponents or monitoring the
location of a couple of cards as you deal, but it does undermind the
Conditions of Contest.
One of the reasons that I like Round Robin Team events better than
Swiss is that there is never even a perceived incentive ever to lose a
match or to shave points. In fact, up to a point, you have incentive
to win each match by as much as possible. You just play the best
Bridge that you can. It helps to keep the ethics in line.
To my way of thinking, it is detrimental to the game to arrange CoCs
such that anything but a best effort to win by as much as possible (at
least up to a threshhold where we'd consider invoking a "mercy" rule)
is ever to the advanatage of either team.
For a pair or team that is way out of the money, we have only ethics
and sanctions to keep them from tanking a match or some boards to the
benefit of whom they choose. On the other hand, CoCs can easily
provide a situation where the teams can say to each other "Look, we
will both 'win', if we keep the score within 3 IMPs, so we're going to
play this one tight" and then proceed to attempt to anhilalate each
other. If they agree to a draw that simply didn't take place (or have
an agreement to pass out every board), they should each be penalized
3IMPs per board. Duplicated boards and score sheets can help to prove
this sort of colusion.
The problems with both agreeing to draws and to catching those who do
so unethically are that, very frequently, two evenly matched teams
_could_ have drawn in actual play.
brsri...@gmail.com
Not always, sometimes the draw is sufficient for winning an event or
for getting promoted in a higher event.
Boris
axm...@hotmail.com
In the end the winner of a contest is determined by the highest score
at the conclusion of the event- which may have a lot less to do with
the quality of the performance than with other factors.
The grand fallacy resides in the conditions of contest that [a]
encourage behavior unbecoming a sportsman and [b] creates a barrier to
entry so high that few have the opportunity to gain the experience
needed to learn how to win world championships- let alone engage under
battle conditions the players they eventually would have to beat to
win the championships.
One of the powers that bridge has is to bring players together. The
effect of nationalistic competition is to keep them apart. The
qualification process has the effect of making advancement to the next
event so important that it invites manipulation in order to obtain any
temporary edge. I am reminded of the 1975 WC [Japan was it?] where
the conditions of contest were surprisingly altered with the apparent
expectation that an underdog could overpower the Aces merely with 4 or
5 fortuitous boards- yet made it possible for the contest to be
decided without playing the full schedule which in fact did happen
when the last days’ boards became meaningless.
If you want a large pool of players with world championship skill then
nurture** them rather than impede them and dispense with
qualification to enter world championship events.
** for instance, by holding competitions where the prize is coaching
regards
axman
henry...@yahoo.com
I am reminded of the 1975 WC [Japan was it?] where
the conditions of contest were surprisingly altered with the apparent
expectation that an underdog could overpower the Aces merely with 4 or
5 fortuitous boards- yet made it possible for the contest to be
decided without playing the full schedule which in fact did happen
when the last days’ boards became meaningless.
*****************
I believe you are referring to the 1970 Bermuda Bowl (Stockholm) where
the final became four 32-board matches scored at VP. The Chinese team
won the first match 13-7 but were destroyed in the 2nd and 3rd, giving
the Aces a lead that could not be overcome (I think the VP totals were
18-2 and 20 - -3, but I'm not 100% sure of that). I recall the final
tally being 64-14 or thereabouts.
henrysun909
Are Akselsen
If I have the facts right (and I admit I'm not a hundred per cent sure
that I have), what happened was something along these lines:
Two teams from the same club (Heimdal) were to meet in the first round
of the knock out tournament (the winner of the tournament become
norwegian champions). The (presumably) weaker team was responsible
for finding a date ("home team") when to play the match. Because of
busy schedules this proved difficult, and the match could not be
played before the dead line. In these circumstances the "home team"
lose the match by default if the "away team" has suggested a couple of
dates when the match could be played. The tournament is a knock out
event, but in the first round some of the teams that lose with a close
margin also advance to the second round to avoid byes later (there
must be eigth teams left for the final round, played round robin).
Heimdal 1 (with players from the national team) was thus already in
the second round, but by agreeing a close result they helped the other
Heimdal team to the second round. That they did nothing to hide the
cheating, and admitted to the charges probably influenced how strict
the punishment was.
Several of the involved players had planned to play in the open
european championship, but when he EBU heard rumours of the punishment
they decided that the players were not "in a good standing" with their
federation (a must to be able to play in the championship). The
punishment was only meant for norwegian tournaments (and for national
team representations), so being denied the open european championship
was seen as an extra, unplanned punishment, so the board of the
norwegian federation decided to pardon the players. However, the
pardon was not to be take effect until sept.1., when participation in
the european ch.s. would be impossible! The board can not alter the
punishment, but they can pardon he players. Is a pardon at some later
time really a pardon, or is it a shortening of the punishment?
The norwegian bridge festival is played in the summer with several
campionships to be won (the pairs championship for example).
Are Akselsen
Norway (but do not know any of the involved players or have any inside
information about the process)