[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2014-July-28, 09:29, said:

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.

Seems to me if the TD okayed it, and they were "later disqualified" (by whom?) they should have had their entry fee returned.

[TimG]

The entry fee would not be foremost in my mind if I was disqualified for something a TD okayed.

[blackshoe]

TimG, on 2014-July-28, 15:17, said:

The entry fee would not be foremost in my mind if I was disqualified for something a TD okayed.

Nor in mind, but what else do you think should have been done (or not done)?

[barmar]

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).

To give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe the author of that regulation thought that "flagrant" did not include ordinary ducking strategies.

[EricK]

barmar, on 2014-July-28, 18:24, said:

To give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe the author of that regulation thought that "flagrant" did not include ordinary ducking strategies.

Or maybe the author thought that using 'tricks' rather than 'a trick' exempted the situation where you give up one trick now to gain two tricks later (as in a squeeze or throw-in). i.e. when you consider the hand as a whole, the sacrifice of the trick is a 'flagrant and deliberate attempt to gain one or more tricks'.

[fbuijsen]

helene_t, on 2014-July-28, 09:29, said:

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.

Tammens-Wintermans. There is a write-up of the whole incident (in Dutch) in WekoWijzer 82: http://www.bridge.nl...ekowijzer82.pdf

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-28, 15:14, said:

Seems to me if the TD okayed it, and they were "later disqualified" (by whom?) they should have had their entry fee returned.

It was the organizing comitee that decided not to invite them for the final after they managed to qualify by means of dumping some boards in the qualifying round.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2014-July-29, 02:57, said:

It was the organizing comitee that decided not to invite them for the final after they managed to qualify by means of dumping some boards in the qualifying round.

Google translate is not nearly as good as I'd like it to be.

Hm. Apparently there was nothing in the existing regulations prohibiting the dumping. They were told it was legal. Then they were told "yeah, it was legal. We don't care. Go away." (Paraphrasing, not quoting).

Back in the 1970s, I watched Pete Gogolak (I think it was Pete, might have been his brother) miss a field goal because the opposing team formed a pyramid on the line of scrimmage. The NCAA later decided they didn't want people doing that, so they made it illegal - for the future. They did not go back and retroactively change the rules for the game in which the incident occurred. IMO, that's the right way to do it.