[2019bb]

Hi everyone, I am posting this on behalf of my friend (call him X) who is a tournament director at a medium/large-sized bridge club.

Recently, X's club was hosting a two-stage tournament. The first stage consisted of a full round-robin between all teams and the second stage would be a final betwen the top two teams from the round-robin.

Among the entrants for the tournament, there were two heavyweights: Team A, the defending champions, and Team B, the runners-up from the previous edition. Both teams contained experienced players who had chalked up tons of masterpoints in the past.

After the penultimate round of the round-robin, three teams remained in contention for the final. A were sitting pretty with a ~25 VP lead over second-placed B, who in turn had a 5 VP lead over Team C, a surprise contender full of young and inexperienced players. Notably, there were no masters of any level in C, unlike A and B.

In the last round, A played C (my friend admits that in hindsight, this schedule was a bad idea). Shockingly, C won the match 79-5 on IMPs and 20-0 on VPs (16-board rounds) to overtake B, who could only win ~13-7, into second place. C eventually lost by a considerable margin to A in the final, unlike the previous year where the final between A and B was hotly contested.

Shortly after the last round, several members of B approached X, who was directing at that time, and accused A of exhibiting "suspicious behaviour" in their match against C. They alleged that A had deliberately thrown the match against C in order to face a more favourable opponent in the final. Below are some boards they provided for my friend for reference (I am not a proficient player by any means so unlike X, I have no authority to judge the legitimacy of their claims):


Board 4, Closed Room (EW are from A).

---

Claim (by B): With 20 HCP, East jumped straight to 7NT, which is frankly ridiculous given that his partner can have as low as 15 HCP. Even though West had a good hand, he could have simply invited the grand by bidding 5NT or used a more scientific method, knowing very well that an ace might be missing.
Defense (by A): East held a good hand and felt that his clubs could provide a source of extra tricks even if partner was minimum. As they did not play Gerber, there was no way to tell if partner was missing an ace and they were willing to take a 'small' risk as they had already qualified.
Result: -1 when North cashed his ace. Other room was 6NT+1 after a diamond lead and North was squeezed in the club and heart suits.

Board 12, Closed Room.

---

Claim: Even NV against V, to preempt 3C with a Yarborough is completely insane - or a deliberate move to throw away thousands of points when the opponents have no game/slam.
Defense: It is in EW's convention card that they play light preempts (this is confirmed by X), which can become very light at favourable vulnerability. However, EW admitted that they had never preempted with a 0 HCP hand (but had frequently done so with 2-3 HCP hands) prior to this tournament.
Result: -6 for -1400. Other table: +1370 for NS in 6D.

Board 15, Open Room.

---

Declarer won the heart lead in dummy and led to the ace of trumps, before crossing to dummy and finessing in the spade suit. West won and promptly cashed the ace of diamonds to set the contract.

Claim: Finessing in the spade suit makes no sense at all - the norm is always to play for the drop with a 9-card fit.
Defense: The odds are very close and East played suspiciously quickly on the first round of trumps - so that swings the balance in favour of finessing. (According to X, observing an opponent's tempo is apparently AI.)
Result: -1, -100. At the other table, declarer played for the drop and made +1430.

After observing the boards with only B's input, X came to the conclusion that there was indeed instances of suspicious behaviour by A and hence sought clarification from members of A on their actions after the final had finished - to which they provided the defenses as stated above. While vehemently denying throwing the match, they did admit that they had played a bit "loosely" as they had already qualified for the final (see board 4 above). In the end, X ruled that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that A had thrown the match, but is still interested to seek other's opinions.

These are his questions:

1. Was X's decision correct? Was there ample evidence to conclude that A was game throwing?
2. Even if they had been found guilty of game throwing, would A have faced disciplinary action? In other words, is game throwing
(a) Illegal, i.e. is it against any specific Law;
(b) Unethical, meaning it can be investigated in the same way that cheating has been?
3. If game throwing is both legal and ethical, then by extension can match-fixing be as well? For example, if two teams agree to pass out all boards so that they can both get 10 VPs, would this be skirting the boundaries of permissible behaviour?
4. If game throwing is either illegal or unethical, how much evidence is needed to conclude that a team is game throwing, and how strong must the evidence be? For instance, a team biding 7NT on all boards and then conceding 13 tricks is obviously game throwing, but the boards mentioned above may not be.

Thanks all!

[Tramticket]

I can see that I might take any of these actions. None look exceptional to me.

[chrism]

My remarks here consider only the accusation that Team A may have been trying to throw the match without the collusion of Team C.

On board 4, the action chosen could easily have succeeded. If it were my plan to throw the match, I would not try to do so by making high variance choices that have a big up-side. It does seem a little odd that a strong pair had no way to find out about controls after a 1NT opening bid, however, so that assertion should be verified.

On board 12, the actual cost of the sacrifice was 1 IMP. If my team were trying to throw the match, they needed to avoid bidding the D slam at the other table, or have a keycard accident to reach 7D off a cashing ace.

On board 15, the finesse is again a high variance action with a big up-side. If I wanted to throw the match, I wouldn't choose that way to do it; I would go with the expected action at the other table to minimize the chance of a big accidental gain. If I had found no credible way to stay out of slam, then I might play on side suits for a few tricks "to get a better count" in the hope of giving EW a ruff. Or just wait for a better opportunity on a different board.

I see no prima facie evidence of unilateral match-throwing in the hands presented.

[Cyberyeti]

I thought it was established that dumping for the purposes of increasing your chance of a better draw was legal anyway (unless you're in a part of the world whose RO specifically prohibits it). You ARE doing your best to win the competition if not the match.

In this case the only suspicious one is the first, in a sense A are right, a 4-2 club break and there are 13 tricks, but this is reckless in the extreme. It could however have easily gained them a swing as could the last one. The second one would only be suspicious at other vulnerabilities, I'd probably find that. However they lost the match by a LOT more than the IMPs they lost on these hands, I'd take a closer look at some of the others if dumping is illegal where you are.

[sfi]

2019bb, on 2019-October-02, 00:12, said:

2. Even if they had been found guilty of game throwing, would A have faced disciplinary action? In other words, is game throwing
(a) Illegal, i.e. is it against any specific Law;
(b) Unethical, meaning it can be investigated in the same way that cheating has been?

I believe this is not against the laws. However, this is covered in the regulations of all jurisdictions I've checked. A brief look at the WBF General Conditions of Contest state that "the WBF expects all teams and partnerships to play to win." Other regulations I've seen have made this more explicit - for example the Australian Bridge Federation states (Tournament Regulations item 2.14):

Quote

Competitive integrity requires that every contestant in an ABF Tournament aim to do as well as possible on each board played and play accordingly. This regulation is directed to intention.

This behaviour is not inherently unethical IMO, although others may disagree. However, it does contravene the regulations and is subject to serious disciplinary action.

[jvage]

There is also a natural explanation for this result. Since team A had already won the qualification they had much less motivation to play their best game in the final match. I have seen this many times; In the final round where one team has won the event they often lose big, even when the team they meet is supposedly much weaker. This is likely more due to subconciously relaxing than actively throwing the match.

[VixTD]

Law 72 states that

Quote

The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws.

This is interpreted, certainly in England, to mean that deliberately playing badly to improve your chances in a later stage of the competition is not illegal or unethical.

The White Book states:

Quote

In England it is not, of itself, improper to attempt to influence the results of an event, or part of an event, so as to try to increase one’s own overall success in the event. If a Tournament Organiser wishes to prevent such tactics then the competition should be designed accordingly.
This action, called ‘dumping’, is considered against the spirit of the game by some people. A solution is to design Conditions of Contest such that it is always in the best interests of competitors to play well.

The approved solution is to design the contest so that teams are not in this position, so they don't know their score going into the last few rounds. This may not be easy.

I share the view that none of these actions are obvious acts of "dumping".

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2019-October-02, 05:23, said:

This behaviour is not inherently unethical IMO, although others may disagree.

I can see circumstances in which I would consider it unethical - if we dump to gain a minor advantage but in doing so we change who wins, or if there is some element of do ut des in the dumping, or if there are paying spectators. But I agree that it is not inherently unethical.

[Tramticket]

sfi, on 2019-October-02, 05:23, said:

This behaviour is not inherently unethical IMO, although others may disagree.

Deliberately dumping would be a breach of my personal ethics.

But deliberately dumping is at one extreme end of a whole spectrum of behaviours, that a team with an unassailable lead might exhibit.
- A team of six might choose to field the weakest pair. Or field untried partnerships, to give them some match experience.
- Players might lose focus since there is "nothing to play for".
- Players might take some gambling actions since there is "nothing to lose".
- Players might play quicker than usual to get the "dead rubber" over with.
- A team might experiment with new systems and methods.
- Players might feel that they had earned the right to have a beer or two.

All of the items listed are behaviours which might be a source of annoyance for other pairs who are still playing for meaningful objectives. But it is very difficult and (in my opinion) undesirable to regulate against such behaviours. It is also difficult to distinguish between these behaviours and deliberate dumping. I guess that this is the reason why the EBU has the White Book regulation quoted above. This is also the reason why tournament design should attempt to avoid this type of situation.

I certainly see no evidence of deliberate dumping in the op example. But team A might have exhibited some of the behaviours that I listed.

[2019bb]

Thanks everyone for the responses.

It seems like the general consensus here is that A indeed did not throw the match (or engage in "dumping", as it is called). In addition, most posters seem to concur that throwing is not illegal (except in certain bridge federations - X and I have done a check and it is not illegal in mine), while some have taken the view that even blatant throwing may not be unethical.

To those posters who argue that dumping is justified as long as the federation allows it, I am curious to know your answers to the third question I asked. That is, whether match-fixing by extension can be ethical as well. I found this quote in particular very interesting:

Quote

Cyberyeti said:

I thought it was established that dumping for the purposes of increasing your chance of a better draw was legal anyway (unless you're in a part of the world whose RO specifically prohibits it). You ARE doing your best to win the competition if not the match.

If the primary aim of participants in a competition is to win it at all costs, as long as it is within the rules, what is to stop them from fixing a match with another team in the qualifying round(s)? For example, in the instance I mentioned, two teams needing 10 VPs to qualify could just agree to pass out all boards and ensure a draw. If they are of roughly similar level, such a move would maximise their chances of advancing and winning the competition as a result. Therefore it could be argued that fixing the match here would be the most logical action to win.

However, if such match-fixing were to be allowed in bridge, it would be the only sport (that I have heard of, at least) that allows tacit collusion to win. Many other sports, such as football or rugby, have banned players, coaches and directors alike for match-fixing. Such fixing need not even be blatant - one of the team if asked could just say that the other team "threw" the match and they knew nothing about it. Since throwing is allowed, nothing would happen to either team.

I am eager to hear your thoughts on the matter.

[Cyberyeti]

2019bb, on 2019-October-02, 08:53, said:

If the primary aim of participants in a competition is to win it at all costs, as long as it is within the rules, what is to stop them from fixing a match with another team in the qualifying round(s)? For example, in the instance I mentioned, two teams needing 10 VPs to qualify could just agree to pass out all boards and ensure a draw. If they are of roughly similar level, such a move would maximise their chances of advancing and winning the competition as a result. Therefore it could be argued that fixing the match here would be the most logical action to win.

However, if such match-fixing were to be allowed in bridge, it would be the only sport (that I have heard of, at least) that allows tacit collusion to win. Many other sports, such as football or rugby, have banned players, coaches and directors alike for match-fixing. Such fixing need not even be blatant - one of the team if asked could just say that the other team "threw" the match and they knew nothing about it. Since throwing is allowed, nothing would happen to either team.

I am eager to hear your thoughts on the matter.

It is NOT within the rules, as a load of top Norwegian players found out, to collude in fixing a result (in their case without actually playing the match).

Also I've been involved in the appeal of a case that ruled director error where the 20 VPs available to the 2 teams for a match expanded to more than that, so it can be risky anyway.

[pescetom]

2019bb, on 2019-October-02, 08:53, said:

If the primary aim of participants in a competition is to win it at all costs, as long as it is within the rules, what is to stop them from fixing a match with another team in the qualifying round(s)? For example, in the instance I mentioned, two teams needing 10 VPs to qualify could just agree to pass out all boards and ensure a draw. If they are of roughly similar level, such a move would maximise their chances of advancing and winning the competition as a result. Therefore it could be argued that fixing the match here would be the most logical action to win.

During the recent Bermuda Bowl in Wuhan, USA1 and Italy didn't quite pass out the boards when they met during qualification, but they weren't exactly out for blood either - there was a tacit agreement to seek a pass to the final against other and weaker opponents.
During the current World Athletics championships in Doha, nobody was scandalised or surprised that the best athletes performed far from their best in the qualifying rounds, doing the minimum necessary to reach the finals without revealing their form. During F1 racing it is absolutely normal for the best teams to hide their real potential during the qualifying days by experimenting with tyres, carrying unnecessary fuel, or just easing up on the pedal. And so on.

2019bb, on 2019-October-02, 08:53, said:

However, if such match-fixing were to be allowed in bridge, it would be the only sport (that I have heard of, at least) that allows tacit collusion to win. Many other sports, such as football or rugby, have banned players, coaches and directors alike for match-fixing. Such fixing need not even be blatant - one of the team if asked could just say that the other team "threw" the match and they knew nothing about it. Since throwing is allowed, nothing would happen to either team.

Not sure about explicit allowance of collusion, but tacit allowance is pretty much the norm in most sports. Take soccer where there are famous examples even at international level such as Sweden - Denmark 2-2 during the 2004 European Finals.

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2019-October-02, 09:32, said:

Not sure about explicit allowance of collusion, but tacit allowance is pretty much the norm in most sports. Take soccer where there are famous examples even at international level such as Sweden - Denmark 2-2 during the 2004 European Finals.

Soccer being the benchmark for upright behaviour...

There are counterexamples. Eight badminton players were ejected from the 2012 Olympics for attempting to throw matches to achieve a better draw in the knockout stages. And rightfully so - the spectacle was pathetic for paying customers.

[barmar]

Dumping tends to be a subject of Bridge World editorials every 6 months or so, usually when there's news of some other sport where a team was accused or found guilty of dumping. And the conclusion they usually make is that the only real solution is to design the competitions so that dumping isn't advantageous.

Complaining about dumping is like complaining about people or companies taking advantage of tax loopholes.

Unfortunately, it can be difficult to design perfect competition methods that don't provide some way to bend the rules to your advantage.

[chasetb]

These three hands are interesting. Ultimately, I agree that while they each are unusual, I don't think they threw the game at all. Here's my take on each one, and I will answer the questions after them.

Hand 4 - Most pairs play Gerber, but I also play a system where you can't over 1NT (at least on the first round). I have also heard with 35-36 HCP and a 5-card suit, to just bid 7. They likely don't have an Ace, and if they do, opening leader might not have it. This link on Expected Controls by a balanced hand backs that up. If I could do simulations, I would expect that having 5 and 6 controls is higher than what is listed because of the strength of dummy, so no problem here.

Hand 12 - Larry Cohen did an analysis of 1 million deals where the most effective opening bid was 3♣! While it was taken to an extreme on this hand, the result ultimately works out.

Hand 15 - (S)he shouldn't normally finesse, but I could see it working out.

1.) I am okay with them making a report, but there wasn't match fixing based on only these 3 boards.

2.) Yes - it depends on the bridge association. It is usually unethical, and personally I wouldn't do it.

3.) No, because then it involves more than one party, and it usually targets a third group.

4.) Usually you need more than a few boards (or a few events), but in very specific instances I can see it proven based on one or two hands. For example, in a Swiss teams event I played in years ago (where we shuffled the boards every round) the first 6 boards were flat. On the final board, there was a swing that decided the result (the opponents used Capp against a Strong NT, and we didn't - it wasn't even a good Capp double). In that instance, a crazy result could be enough.

[pescetom]

chasetb, on 2019-October-02, 10:53, said:

Hand 4 - Most pairs play Gerber, but I also play a system where you can't over 1NT (at least on the first round). I have also heard with 35-36 HCP and a 5-card suit, to just bid 7. They likely don't have an Ace, and if they do, opening leader might not have it. This link on Expected Controls by a balanced hand backs that up. If I could do simulations, I would expect that having 5 and 6 controls is higher than what is listed because of the strength of dummy, so no problem here.

I don't see that it does any harm to check that there is no missing ace so long as it does not impede a check on the HCP, which is much more important. So a 5NT grand slam invite is more appropriate and effective than Gerber with traditional developments, but a Range ask followed by an Ace ask would be better than either.

[barmar]

chrism, on 2019-October-02, 04:39, said:

I see no prima facie evidence of unilateral match-throwing in the hands presented.

Why would a team with a comfortable lead take high-variance actions like these? Isn't that what you do when you're behind in a match and trying desperately to catch up?

Or is it the case that since they've already locked up first place, there's little downside to taking these risks? If they succeed, they look great; if they fail, they get to play an easy team in the final. It does seem suspicious that none of them paid off, so that they achieved the latter result. But they hardly could have known that this would happen in every case.

And while none of them on their own would be evidence of dumping, the fact that there were several risky actions in this critical match seems supicious.

Also, we've only been shown the actions that failed. But since the score was 79-5, I guess there were no risky actions that succeeded, unless team C also did the same thing and they pushed.

[Vampyr]

VixTD, on 2019-October-02, 06:46, said:

The approved solution is to design the contest so that teams are not in this position, so they don't know their score going into the last few rounds. This may not be easy.

I share the view that none of these actions are obvious acts of "dumping".

Perhaps a multiple-teams format would help a bit, with 4-board matches played before a break, and an additional 4-boards after the break. This format prohibits scoring up after each match, since you are not playing head-to-head matches. Thus it is possible to know only the scores from the first half.

[Coelacanth]

2019bb, on 2019-October-02, 08:53, said:

It seems like the general consensus here is that A indeed did not throw the match (or engage in "dumping", as it is called). In addition, most posters seem to concur that throwing is not illegal (except in certain bridge federations - X and I have done a check and it is not illegal in mine), while some have taken the view that even blatant throwing may not be unethical.

Firstly, I agree with most of the other posters that there is not convincing evidence that A was attempting to throw the match. However, I note for completeness' sake:

ACBL General Conditions of Contest said:

Players are required to play each deal to win at all times.

Admittedly there is some ambiguity as to whether this means playing to win the event, or playing to win each deal. The intent is to make clear that deliberately attempting to achieve a poor score on any deal is not permitted. So if this took place in the ACBL and if it was determined that A had deliberately thrown the match, then Team A would be in violation of the Conditions and subject to discipline. In the actual case it appears that neither of those conditions were met.

[pescetom]

Coelacanth, on 2019-October-04, 12:06, said:

Admittedly there is some ambiguity as to whether this means playing to win the event, or playing to win each deal. The intent is to make clear that deliberately attempting to achieve a poor score on any deal is not permitted.

If that was their intent then they could easily have written "Players are required to play each deal to win it at all times".