[cherdano]

 Fluffy, on 2016-October-01, 17:26, said:

As I told Richard, we didn't play great, my partnership performed better than in 2012, but the others slighly underperformed. The real difference was that the others played worse. And it also happened in Budapest, everyone is making more mistakes with the cameras than they used to do 3 years ago. It is hard to explain but the feeling is very real.

In my view the likeliest explanation is that you have become better - you make fewer mistakes, but you still notice more that you could have done better, and you notice more mistakes by the opponents.

[barmar]

 hrothgar, on 2016-October-04, 08:22, said:

Your the one necroing a thread that hasn't seen a post in four days

Sorry, I was away for several days, and didn't notice the date on the post. Although I don't think a few days counts as a "necro"

[cherdano]

 barmar, on 2016-October-04, 08:16, said:

Do we really need to hash this out here? Wasn't there enough arguing on Bridge Winners about it?

I think what you meant to say is that you don't care about this topic, and you wish you wouldn't have to read more about this.

Fluffy's last post above genuinely added something to me, beyond what he and his team had written on bridgewinners.

[nige1]

The Spanish team told WBF officials that they found evidence of what might be an illegal agreement by an American pair. Other teams (including American teams) have done that. Here, the accused American pair are sure they are innocent. The accusation might be wrong. The evidence might be inadequate. But the Spanish team behaved correctly. Reporting what you believe to be an infraction is legal and sensible. The accusation isn't gamesmanship.

The WBF rule about agreements to open at the one level on less than 8 HCP is stupid, woolly, and hard to enforce. Understandably, directors are reluctant to rule on it. 3rd in hand, opportunities for such openings are rare. Hence some pairs argue that they are "psyches".

Most believe that this is just Bridge. A typical commentator wrote that, playing Precision and holding xxx xxx KQJ xxxx, 3rd in hand, not vulnerable, if he failed to open 1D, he would expect to be benched.

Initially, the WBF refused to give a ruling and the Spanish captain took umbrage. IMO, he was wrong and his action does smack of gamesmanship. But other teams (often American) have threatened not to play in the past -- with less justification -- and escaped sanction.

IMO, from beginning to end, the main culprit is the WBF. The WBF should simplify, clarify, and consistently enforce its rules. Some laws and regulations add no value. They are widely broken but rarely enforced. Such rules should be scrapped.

[PhantomSac]

 Fluffy, on 2016-October-01, 17:26, said:

A team-mate overheard a director saying after we won that it didn't matter, USA was going home one way or another. It probably was just the personal opinion of one of many directors, but hints that they were taking the thing more seriously than you'd think.

It is nice that you think it's cool to say things like this so nonchalantly. "I have hearsay evidence from my secret anonymous clearly biased source that he randomly overheard an anonymous director saying to an unknown person in passing that the USA team was going home one way or another."

Cool story. The WBF in their own statement said "Max Bavin has investigated the claims of the Spanish team and found them to be unsubstantiated." (Max Bavin being the head director).

I don't have a lot more to say about this subject but it is really ridiculous that you have not even learned from this that maybe you should be a little more careful with the things you say and the way you say them.

[Phil]

 nige1, on 2016-October-04, 10:57, said:

(Pseudo-intellectual rambling)

Nigel, your post contains so many inconsistencies that it's hard to respond to it.

Many (including me) are convinced that the nature, and especially the timing of the Spanish complaint are utter bullshit.

[billw55]

 Phil, on 2016-October-04, 12:00, said:

Nigel, your post contains so many inconsistencies that it's hard to respond to it.

Many (including me) are convinced that the nature, and especially the timing of the Spanish complaint are utter bullshit.

OK, on the timing, I cannot argue. I do not play internationally, obviously, but there seems to be strong consensus that the timing and mini-boycott were abnormal.

As for the nature, I think that if Spain genuinely believed that there was an infraction, they should report it for further investigation. They could be wrong, if so that will be decided (in fact it was so decided, as I understand). But reporting it at all seems like the proper thing to do, just that they should do so in a more commonly accepted manner.

[nige1]

 nige1, on 2016-October-04, 10:57, said:

Pseudo-intellectual rambling

 Phil, on 2016-October-04, 12:00, said:

Nigel, your post contains so many inconsistencies that it's hard to respond to it.

Phil, please point out a couple of the worst inconsistencies.

 Phil, on 2016-October-04, 12:00, said:

Many (including me) are convinced that the nature, and especially the timing of the Spanish complaint are utter bullshit.

The opinion of neutrals (neither American nor Spanish) carries more weight with me.

[Phil]

No time for it now Nigel. Maybe later.

[Fluffy]

 Phil, on 2016-October-04, 08:33, said:

I cannot think of a more perfect place since Gonzalo is a very frequent BBF contributor and can probably speak more openly about it here.

That was my feeling, except that anytime I post something I see it reposted/linked on BW

[Fluffy]

 cherdano, on 2016-October-04, 08:34, said:

In my view the likeliest explanation is that you have become better - you make fewer mistakes, but you still notice more that you could have done better, and you notice more mistakes by the opponents.

Maybe me, but the idea came from more experienced members of the team. You could argue that in WBG we were in the "weak" group, but I really had the same feeling in Budapest, and there I played with slight fever for the first half. Maybe it is just all the big names that are missing, not only suspended pairs.

[cherdano]

 nige1, on 2016-October-04, 10:57, said:

But the Spanish team behaved correctly.

LOL.

[nige1]

 nige1, on 2016-October-04, 10:57, said:

...The accusation might be wrong. The evidence might be inadequate. But the Spanish team behaved correctly. Reporting what you believe to be an infraction is legal and sensible...

 cherdano, on 2016-October-05, 02:33, said:

LOL.

Why does Cherdano find that amusing? IMO, players don't call directors often enough.

[nige1]

 Phil, on 2016-October-04, 12:00, said:

Many (including me) are convinced that the nature, and especially the timing of the Spanish complaint are utter bullshit.

 billw55, on 2016-October-04, 12:40, said:

OK, on the timing, I cannot argue. I do not play internationally, obviously, but there seems to be strong consensus that the timing and mini-boycott were abnormal. As for the nature, I think that if Spain genuinely believed that there was an infraction, they should report it for further investigation. They could be wrong, if so that will be decided (in fact it was so decided, as I understand). But reporting it at all seems like the proper thing to do, just that they should do so in a more commonly accepted manner.

The Spanish team began to suspect that an American pair had an agreement to open at the one level with illegally weak hands, 3rd in hand, non-vulnerable. If true, this put the Spanish team at a disadvantage because they assiduously complied with the rules. Hence I agree with BillW55 that they had a right to report their allegation. They hastily collated what evidence they could and presented it to officials, well before the start of the session.

Refusing to play is a quite different matter but it's normal to report a putative infraction that causes you damage. The latter seems sporting to me although I can imagine circumstances that, arguably, might make a similar action less sporting. An apocryphal account:

A young foreign pair, who play Multi, entered a big American tournament. They asked officials for copies of the approved defence to Multi. No copies. They asked if they could print copies from the net. No printer available. They laboriously hand-wrote 2 copies. A pair of seasoned American internationals complained that they couldn't read the defence. The director banned the young pair from playing the convention. The top American pair play Multi themselves. Each had a copy of the official Multi defence. One of them had invented it.

[billw55]

 nige1, on 2016-October-05, 05:47, said:

The Spanish team began to suspect that an American pair had an agreement to open at the one level with illegally weak hands, 3rd in hand, non-vulnerable. If true, this put the Spanish team at a disadvantage because they assiduously complied with the rules. Hence I agree with BillW55 that they had a right to report their allegation. They hastily collated what evidence they could and presented it to officials, well before the start of the session.

I think there is a problem even here.

During a competition, if Spain feels that USA used a CPU on a particular board and that Spain was damaged, then Spain should call the director after play of that board (or perhaps, that session) and ask for a ruling on that board. That is the extent of what should happen during competition. Large scale complaints based on a collection of deals from prior sessions or events should be advanced outside of competition, IMO.

Furthermore, the competitive bridge community as a whole should strive to foster an environment where such concerns can be advanced for fair study, without fear of hostility on all sides. A concern should not automatically be thought of as an accusation, nor be brought as such. The pair under scrutiny should welcome investigation. And third parties on forum sites and elsewhere should not line up to take sides. Behaviors which make the whole situation hostile discourage advancement of concerns to begin with, and thus ultimately promote the hush-hush culture that helped enable actual cheating for so many years, decades even.

[PhantomSac]

I don't think anyone (including myself and my team) is critical of the Spanish team for going to the directors when they viewed there to be an infraction. Does anyone really think that is what the issue is?

[Phil]

 PhantomSac, on 2016-October-05, 11:09, said:

I don't think anyone (including myself and my team) is critical of the Spanish team for going to the directors when they viewed there to be an infraction. Does anyone really think that is what the issue is?

Not me for sure. The timing of the complaint was bad but pulling players was a joke.

[hrothgar]

 nige1, on 2016-October-05, 05:47, said:

An apocryphal account:

A young foreign pair, who play Multi, entered a big American tournament. They asked officials for copies of the approved defence to Multi. No copies. They asked if they could print copies from the net. No printer available. They laboriously hand-wrote 2 copies. A pair of seasoned American internationals complained that they couldn't read the defence. The director banned the young pair from playing the convention. The top American pair play Multi themselves. Each had a copy of the official Multi defence. One of them had invented it.

Sorry, you say "An apocryphal account"

Please explain if this is different than "I am making ***** up"...

[billw55]

 PhantomSac, on 2016-October-05, 11:09, said:

I don't think anyone (including myself and my team) is critical of the Spanish team for going to the directors when they viewed there to be an infraction. Does anyone really think that is what the issue is?

 Phil, on 2016-October-05, 11:25, said:

Not me for sure. The timing of the complaint was bad but pulling players was a joke.

OK Phil, thanks for clarifying. I had misunderstood your previous statement that "the nature of the complaint is utter bullshit" - I (mistakenly) thought you were referring to the content of the complaint rather than its implementation.

 hrothgar, on 2016-October-05, 11:33, said:

Sorry, you say "An apocryphal account"

Please explain if this is different than "I am making ***** up"...

To be pedantic, it means that someone else made it up

[Phil]

In my mind, the *nature* of the complaint is different from its *content*.