Report from the committee hearing the case: Robbg vs. ki, an accusation of cheating: Who: ---- ki is Guoping Zhou, a student (I think) at Boston College. He is not a member of the ACBL. jianzhl is ki's partner. Robbg is Robb Gordon, an expert player from New York City. Robb won the National Mixed Pairs with Linda Gordon and is a member of the National Appeals Committee. Roberto Scaramuzzi is the referee in charge of the event during which the hands in question took place. The event is the OKBridge Knockout Teams event, known as the OK KO. He also directed the match during which most of the hands in question occurred. Jeff Goldsmith prepared this document and chairs the committee due to neglecting to reject the opportunity to do so sufficiently frequently that Roberto was able to snare him into doing it. The committee consisted of the following players: Alan LeBendig, ACBL District 23 chair of committees, co-chair of the National Appeals Committee, ACBL Bulletin columnist on Ethics, Mike Dalton, colleague of LeBendig's, primarily a rubber bridge player, Danny Kleinman, expert player and analyst, prior Recorder for District 23, author of "Bridge Scandal in Houston," David Weiss, expert player and analyst, author of "Parity Leads," Mike Shuster, American junior internationalist John Fout, American junior internationalist Sven-Olov Flodqvist, Swedish expert, world champion What: ----- Robb Gordon is the captain of the Terminators, a team competing against ACC, ki's team, in the semi-final of the OK KO. Robb and his teammates noticed several unusual and successful actions by ki during their match. They became convinced that ki was cheating and suspended (with the referee's permission) the match until an inquiry could be made. The inquiry passed initial screening and was presented to a full committee. How the committee "met": --- --- --------- ------ Since ki's schedule was such that he could not attend a face-to-face hearing with all present, the committee was formed and deliberated without cross-examination of the principals. Instead, Robb prepared a statement, including analyses from two of his teammates, Kit Woolsey, and Jack Oest, and a further analysis from a friend, Chip Martel. Ki was sent this statement electronically and prepared a reply to it, including a reply to all charges stated. Robb was given a chance to rebut this reply; he did so. Ki was given one final chance to rebut Robb's reply and to make a final statement. He declined this opportunity. Each committee member was supplied with a copy of all statements from both sides, the hand records of the match, and some introductory information about the conditions of contest. They were also supplied with a statement from the director of the match, Roberto Scaramuzzi. This turns out to have been an unfortunate choice in that the whole procedure took far too long in my opinion. Next time, I would prefer to set a time and if a principal cannot make it, they should appoint counsel to represent their interests. Everyone, thanks for your patience; I'm sorry about the damage to OK KO I that ensued. Verdict: -------- The committee came to a consensus, declaring ki guilty of possession of illicit information. The committee members were requested to present a statement describing how certain they were of this judgment. All committee members were certain of their verdict beyond a reasonable doubt, except for one, who felt that the evidence was inconclusive. Some felt more strongly than that. The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge do not expressly deal with the possibility that a player may intentionally receive unauthorized information from source other than his partner. Law 16 B, however, discusses the possibility of gaining unauthorized information inadvertently. If a player does so, by any mechanism, he must inform the director. This doesn't truly apply here, since it is clear that the unauthorized information was obtained intentionally. This is not the first example of this problem. "Wires" are not covered in the Laws anywhere. As a result of this problem, the ACBL Ethical Oversight Committee ruled that Law 16 B can be used to prosecute in these situations. An additional benefit of this ruling is that we do not have to diagnose the source or mechanism of the illicit information. So, ki has been found guilty of multiple violations of Law 16 B. Prosecution of one example is normally done by score correction. In the case of multiple violations, disciplinary action is to be taken. Here we have an egregious case. The committee finds ki to have been guilty of at least ten violations of Law 16 B. In addition, the violations were premeditated and entirely intentional. This violation should receive the stiffest of penalties. Law 16 B Unauthorized Information Extraneous Information from Other Sources When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or is yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results, or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins: the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information. Ancillary questions posed to the committee: --------- --------- ----- -- --- ---------- The committee was also requested to determine if ki's partner was in possession of unauthorized information (for the purpose of perhaps beginning a committee action against him or to clear his name in the more likely case.) They were unanimous in concluding that he wasn't. They were also requested to determine if ki's partner knew that ki had unauthorized information. They concluded that he probably was unaware, but were not certain of this answer. They all agreed that he knew that his partner was trying to take solo actions and that he was trying to avoid getting in his partner's way. This is not illegal. Cheating Mechanism: -------- ---------- The committee was not asked to address this question unless they felt that they wanted to do so. Some of the committee discussed it a little. The overall conclusion was that ki had information on only some of the hands, not all. This probably suggests the use of a confederate, rather than a program hack. No strong conclusions were reached on this topic. Some conclusions from Jeff: ---- ----------- ---- ----- I didn't get a vote in the proceedings, but I'd like to add an opinion or two of my own. I get to go first because I'm writing this. Ki's statements, in general, were very insulting to his opponents. Instead of attempting to state logical reasons for his actions (if there were any,) he typically used ad hominem attacks. Among other punitive actions, I strongly suggest that an apology be demanded of him. Ki declined the opportunity to make a closing statement and to have counsel available to him. I think both of these choices were clear errors. I also think that they showed a disdain for the committee and committee process. This was foolish and insulting. As far as I can tell, Ki is not an ACBL member, unless Guoping Zhou is a pseudonym. As the committee has discovered, Ki is not a good player. He also declined to supply a curriculum vitae to try to refute this conclusion. I think this failure, plus the evidence that he's not an ACBL member, underscores their conclusion: Ki is a very weak player. His outrageous actions could not have occurred due to some inferences that the committee might have missed. I'd like to thank the committee members. They did a great job. I'm sorry that I chose so many, since this turns out to have been an open-and-shut case. Again, thanks for your effort and time. I'd also like to thank the committee, especially Alan, for helping me learn a great deal about cheating cases. I'm still not an expert on them, but this has been an unusual opportunity to learn a great deal about the subject. Alan, in particular, is a gold mine of information about things that I wish had never happened. The committee concluded that ki might not have had illicit information on every hand. I am not convinced of this finding. I think, rather, that ki (and/or his confederate) is a poor analyst and made errors even with the illicit information. In some cases where he felt that there would be no reasonable way to take advantage of the information, perhaps due to his partner's interference, he did not do anything out of the ordinary. As it was, in the second half of the ACC-Terminators match, he demonstrated possession of unauthorized information on nearly every hand. I see no reason to believe that there was even one hand on which he did not have it; instead, I attribute the less- than-perfect results to error, rather than lack of information. This opinion is of minimal importance, except when considering the mechanism of cheating. Reasons and discussion from the committee: ------- --- ---------- ---- --- ---------- I have excerpted each of the committeemembers' reports. Typing in all of the written or oral ones was a large task that I chose partially to avoid, and the electronic ones contained some redundant information that is summarized elsewhere. Notes in square brackets follow the usual convention; they replace antecedents with subjects for clarity or they add editorial remarks, clarifications, or background information. Mike Shuster: Ki points to 4 hands in his defense that he claims he could have done better on had he been cheating. In any given set of 28 boards, most of us could point to a lot more hands than that. Mike Dalton: This seems to be someone I wouldn't want to have in a rubber bridge game. There's an awful lot of solid indications that the guy is cheating. You can never really be 100% certain, but there's a very high probability that he's cheating. Sven-Olov Flodqvist: [suggesting that jianzhl didn't know Ki was cheating,] To excuse himself [Jianzhl] for doubling 3S with A-10-x when partner made a vulnerable overcall in the suit is very strange, but playing with such a strong personality might very well intimidate anyone. David Weiss: Although it is impossible to read someone's mind, my best guess is that Ki had illicit information on several hands. He did not act as if he had every board, but several of his actions are incomprehensible without having extra knowledge. In particular, his bid of 1NT, followed by 3NT on the second Board 1 of Feb. 9, is beyond belief. His 5H bid on Board 5, of Feb. 9, is also incomprehensible without illicit information. [David claims that the bridge logic of the hands is convincing, but that no one can ever be sure without being inside someone's head.] John Fout: It's very difficult to tell whether Ki was in possession of outside information or not. I find that some of the actions he's taken are "within reason," especially given the circumstances--- down a bundle to a team of sharks. I don't know what I would have done in his circumstances and I don't know how much can be attributed to computer foul-ups or human foul-ups. I can certainly believe that either could have happened since they have happened to me on okbridge. Do I think he had outside information? He might have. There are three main hands that most people thought corroborated some cheating. First, was the hand that Ki got to 6 Spades. I don't know why he misresponded on the hand, but he did. Once he partner bid blackwood he had a moose, and made what I think is a reasonable decision to bid on---he had a 4.5 loser hand---I would have been worried about missing slam. I don't know how to discuss the play he made in the spade suit. Was that cheating? I don't know. Was it the wrong play? Probably. Would you expect a bad player to make the wrong play? Yes! Another hand that is discussed a lot is the hand he preempted 4 Hearts in a live auction. Well, to confess I would have also bid the same thing! I think the 4 heart bid was totally reasonable. Was that cheating? I don't think so. Was the 5 heart bid cheating? I don't think so. I think Ki is trying to be a hero and single-handedly win the match. I believe that his 4 heart bid had probably already won the board. His partner probably would have raised to five hearts over 4 spades. Ki just assumed that if good players hadn't doubled him, then he could bid on. The other hand that people thought was suspicious was when Ki had 7xxx JT QJ9xx xx. I don't know If he miscounted his points or not. I personally hate to pass partners opening bid. I wouldn't pass with this hand. I would have bid one diamond, but that's my opinion and that's my bridge judgment. I actually rate 1NT as a better bid than one spade. 1NT has a way to win tactically. The opponents could get confused and miss their major suit game because they think that you have a better hand. In other words, 1 spade is a bad bid as it will get you into trouble. Partner will jump in spades or double the opponents and lead a spade. I agree that the auction worked out well for Ki. Was his 3N bid cheating? I don't know. Given that he was down a bunch and needed a swing he thought that game was the most likely swing when actually getting to the right partscore was probably a good swing. Little swings build up if they keep going in your favor. I don't think he was thinking in these terms. He claims to have miscounted his high cards. Maybe. I've done it. You've done it. It's possible. This is very strange, though, I have to admit. The other hand that was considered unusual was where he passed 2N with a 14 count. He says he had a computer foul-up. I don't know that I can disagree with that. If I were looking at the hands double dummy I would have bid game knowing the defenders would have a tough time beating it. The two hands that actually make me think that something strange was going on were the two hands that Ki was on opening lead. On one hand, he made a passive trump lead when that didn't have to be right. I would have led away from one of my kings blowing the contract. Then he made a super-aggressive underlead of an ace on another hand. This contrast of hyper-aggressive versus very passive is very strange. It's even stranger that both happen to be right. Did he have information? Maybe, but he could have just be doing something random and it worked. I wouldn't have done the same thing but that's me. There actually were some other hands that could have gone in Ki's favor. He didn't have to go for 800 on a board. He could have settled for beating 4 spades. He could have bid a game on a hand when they beat 5 clubs 2 tricks undoubled. Some other hands were relatively normal. He could have done better and didn't. These were bread-and-butter hands--- hands that if you were cheating, you could easily get right. You could see that 4 spades for your side is cold and that you can beat their 4 spades as long as they get to it and you get your ruff. Is this evidence in support that he wasn't cheating? Not really, maybe he wasn't cheating on these hands. I have to admit something. A ton of strange things happened in this match, and most of them happened after the Terminators took a pretty decent lead in the match. My guess is that lots of strange things happen when people get down in a match especially if they players are inexperienced and the majority of their experience has been on okbridge. Back to the question, did Ki have outside information? Well, if Ki was a player at my level and took the actions that he did then I would quickly say yes, he cheated. Given that Ki is not a good player, all I can surmise from the information given is that he's a random player, and I can't really say whether he cheated. Did his partner have knowledge that Ki had outside information? I don't believe so. His partner did know that was Ki was trying to be a hero on every hand and he safety played things in those regards. The only piece of information we might have is that jianzhl wanted to stay in the open room. Maybe he just wanted his friends to watch. They were playing against some great players. Did jianzhl act as if he knew his partner was cheating? Again the answer would have to be "no." The main problem I believe came from a disparity in ability. A very bad team played a very good team in a knock out final. The very good team infrequently plays against bad players, and hasn't seen the horrendous things that bad players can do on okbridge---amazingly bad. Some of the things that happen that are random happen to work out famously, in fact. It becomes easy for the good players to assume that the bad players are cheating. There have been many times that I've played on okbridge and wondered if someone has cheated. I always think about it and then decide that the person was probably just totally random. I have no way to know if they were cheating. I'm sorry that I can't say as Robb suggests I should and let the hands talk to me. They do say to me that someone could have been cheating, but if you want me to say 100% that Ki was cheating I can not. I can say that he's random and it's surprising that they won as much as they did, but sometimes hands go in your favor. He might have been. I don't have enough evidence to corroborate it. Maybe he was; I'm not sure. I'm not saying that Ki's innocent and shouldn't be punished but I don't really know if he's guilty. Something that does bother me is that Robb Gordon is adamant that Ki was cheating. I think Robb's stipulations are bad for bridge. Okbridge is a place where random players can practice bridge at their own pace and maybe even take part in a knockout event to get more experience. It seems to me that accusing people of cheating is just bad for bridge and may stop beginning players from playing. Furthermore, I'm very unhappy that this incident ever occurred and I think this accusation is bad for bridge in general. [Jeff: I have taken this point to heart. The next OK KO will be flighted so that peers will play peers. Roberto thinks this is a great idea, too.] Alan LeBendig: There's an overabundance of evidence that he's cheating. Jianzhl is not cheating; he's just a weak player. Jianzhl does not know that his partner is cheating; he's just a very random player. With the exception of Feb9 Board 4, no single action is clear evidence of cheating, but add them all together and it's obvious. He took unusual actions on nearly every hand! Specific hands: Feb2 Board 1: [ki bid 2S in response to a takeout double on 3 instead of his six-card diamond suit.] No question as to strangeness of 2S. Feb9 Board 3: [Jacoby 2NT/ drops SKQ offside hand in 6S] Noteworthy continuation after the signoff. His explanation of the bidding might not be too unreasonable, but the play is unreasonable. Feb9 Board 4: [ki passes 2NT invite with a max] This one is just too much! The explanation of the bidding is hard to believe. Why didn't he say anything? The play of the hand is the most damaging of any evidence. Ki led towards the SK, risking his contract, when he could have cashed eight tricks and then led towards the SK. The play on this hand was "in-your-face, I know the hand." [Jeff: Alan was the only committeemember to notice this. I think it's very perceptive and very very convincing. Ki tries to pass himself off as a strong player; miscounting his tricks shouldn't happen; even a decent beginner would cash first.] Feb9 Board 5: [The 4H, 5H bid on K10-seventh] Another noteworthy hand; 4H is not irrational by a very inexperienced player, but 5H is unbelievable. But, I've seen weak players take this sort of "single-sided save." Feb9 Board 6: [Failing to double 5C with three kings] It is noteworthy that there was no double. Without foreknowledge of the hands, double is a no-brainer. Failing to double is a clear error, regardless of cheating, so it does not imply lack of cheating. Feb9 Board 8: [jianzhl takes a practice finesse in hearts and none in diamonds] This hand is not incriminating of jianzhl. The diamond hook that he didn't take was pretty likely to lose, so it seems reasonable. The practice finesse in hearts was almost certain to win, and we've all been guilty of taking such finesses only to realize they were for practice afterwards. Feb9 Board 1 (second half): [8764 J10 QJ942 86] This was truly incredible. It proves he wants it all. This hand would fit in perfectly as if played by the Handys [a pair of expelled cheaters] or Steve Sion [another one]. His explanation is unacceptable. Feb9 Board 2 (second half): [Underleading the DA] Great lead! Probably way too hard for a player of ki's level to find. The explanation was silly. Feb9 Board 3 (second half): [the psyche] Jianzhl's comment [apologizing for doubling 3S] is not unreasonable from a weak player trying to share blame for the travesty. This hand also is a suggestion of foreknowledge. He wants it all again, but he forgot to consider his partner. The explanation is hard to buy. The hand suggests that his confederate who feeds him information is a weak player. For example, ki might have been told "4S is cold, 3NT has no play by them," which is a hasty analysis, not unlikely by a weak player. It's possible that ki was the "confederate," in which case the actions were taken due to an error in analysis. This hand is a typical example of one played by a cheater. It smacks of the famous "black two-suiter." [a hand played at IMP pairs that demonstrates illicit information. The protagonist held xxx K108x A108x Jx. The bidding went Pard RHO Hero LHO ---- --- ---- --- Pass Pass Pass 1C Pass 1H 1S! Pass Pass Dbl 2C! Dbl Pass Pass Pass!!! result was -300 vs. 4S making vulnerable. His partner held xx xxx xxx AKxxx. A committee found our hero guilty of possession of unauthorized information and prosecuted him due to violation of Law 16 B. They took away the good result and added a procedural penalty of 7 IMPs. Some of the committee felt this was inadequate---some were suggesting a 72 IMP penalty, since this was so egregious.] Feb 9 Board 4 (second half:) [ki bid 2H over a 1NT overcall with a ten-count] There's some IMP merit for not hitting 1NT. What would he do over a 2S runout? Dec 4 Board 20: [ki bid 7D with the stiff ace after partner signed off in six] Incredible. Give me a break. Dec 4 Board 25: [ki bid 6D solo with AK10-seventh] Incredible when added to the others. Danny Kleinman: [Jeff's note: I just read Kleinman's book on the Katz/Cohen case. He strongly argues for their innocence, even when their behavior directed towards him strongly suggested their guilt. I think it showed a very dedicated (he did all that work for free) and unbiased viewpoint.] Danny sent a five-page letter making a full case against ki. I excerpted six of the seven examples and several of the introductory and concluding paragraphs.] Of the 19 deals presented, 11 offer evidence that Ki received illicit information about unseen hands sufficiently early to affect his own bidding and play. ... In four of these 11 deals, the evidence is marginal. On Feb 9 second Board 3, Ki psyched a vulnerable 1S over his nonvulnerable RHO's first-seat 1H opening on a hand where anyone else would pass, bid 2C, or bid 3C: 84 K109 5 AJ97643. Looking at all four hands, or just at [jianzhl's] hand, I cannot see how this would figure to gain. But it is characteristic of players with illicit information (witness Reese and Schapiro in Buenos Aires, 1965) to think they can mess up their opponents' auctions and psych with impunity. Example 1: December 4, Board 20. IMPs, both sides vulnerable AK93 J52 A A7652 YOU LHO PARTNER RHO --- --- ------- --- 1C Pass 1D Pass 1S Pass 3D Pass * yes, 3H is better 4C* Pass 4NT** Pass ** interpreted as RKCB 5C*** Pass 6D Pass *** 0 or 3 keys ? It is clear to pass: the partner of a Blackwood asker is barred unless the Blackwood asker confirms possession of all keys. KI bid 7D, which requires (1) partner to have the two missing keys, (2) partner to have trumps solid except for the ace, (3) partner to have substantial extra strength, and, (4) a missing queen to fall doubleton. All four occurred. [jianzhl's] hand: 75 AK8 KQJ10753 4. Example 2: February 2, Board 1. IMPs, neither side vulnerable J86 9743 KJ9643 --- YOU LHO PARTNER RHO --- --- ------- --- Pass 1H Double 2H Pass Pass Double Pass ? It is clear to bid 3D. Partner is asking you to bid your best suit, with emphasis on a 4-card or longer spade suit if you have one, and you have a decent 6-bagger. Partner can't have a good 5-card or longer spade suit or he'd have bid spades at one of his two turns. KI bid 2S. True, he is a bad player, but even bad players would rather bid decent 6-card suits than weak 3-card suits. [jianzhl's] hand: AK10532 5 8 AK1052. Example 3: February 9, first Board 3. IMPs vulnerable against not AJ1093 AK987 K4 4 RHO YOU LHO PARTNER --- --- --- ------- Pass 1S Pass 2NT* * artificial forcing raise Pass 3S** Pass 4NT*** ** balanced, extra strength Pass 5H**** Pass 5S *** RCKB Pass ? **** 2 keys, no spade queen It is clear to pass. Presumably, you're off two aces ... or one ace and the king of trumps. You've shown your extra strength already. Partner knows the combined assets; you don't. Perhaps he has something like KQ542 QJ10 9 KQJ2 (if your methods permit a Jacoby 2NT with a singleton). The partner of the Blackwood asker is barred unless specifically invited. Ki bid 6S. Partner had misbid. NO aces were missing, and 6S was odds-on. 6S goes down with the technically correct line. But Ki chose a slightly inferior line which succeeded ... on the actual lie of the cards. [jianzhl's] hand: 7542 Q1054 A AJ32. KI offers these defenses: (1) For his 3S bid: he "overlooked" his singleton club. If he'd seen it, he'd have bid 3C, then [jianzhl] "would have easily reached" 6S. My appraisal: a lame excuse. And there's no reason to think that [jianzhl] would have reached 6S had Ki bid 3C. [jianzhl] has never displayed good bidding judgment in any of the deals shown, and Ki has consistently overridden [jianzhl's] decisions anyway. (2) For his 6S bid: by this time, he realized he should have bid 3C, so he compensated. My appraisal: illogical. It's immensely probable that partner has second-round club control for his RKCB 4NT. (3) For his line of play: though two finesses is the percentage play, after losing the first finesse to Bjorn Fallenius' king, he sought a swing and "based on the assumption" that Bjorn would play king and not queen from KQ, played his ace on the second round of spades. Elsewhere (inconsistently) "Bjorn would very likely" play king from KQ. My appraisal: poor reasoning. A top expert like Bjorn may be expected sometimes to play king, sometimes queen from KQ, randomizing his plays precisely to prevent any such assumption as Ki's from working. It's not enough if Bjorn is "very likely" to play king rather than queen from KQ unless he does so over 90% of the time. This is far too lopsided a randomization to expect from any expert. Example 4: February 9, first Board 4, IMPs, both sides vulnerable 63 QJ9 AQJ A10987 YOU LHO PARTNER RHO --- --- ------- --- 1C Pass 1S Pass 1NT* Pass 2NT Pass *12-14 ? This is a maximum, so it is clear to bid 3NT. Though the three honors without a small card in the diamond suit are a defect, the fifth club, good club spots, and H9 are all assets. There is no reason to rate this hand worse than 14 HCP. [Jeff: K&R = 14.00] Ki passed. His partner had a flat 9-HCP hand and had overbid. Good defense will beat 3NT in any number of ways, though the actual defense against 2NT let Ki make an overtrick. [jianzhl's] hand: K1082 K32 K64 652 Ki's defense: he "probably" hit the return button and passed inadvertently, then said nothing about this slip of the finger when he saw Bjorn's opening lead next. My appraisal: hard to believe, though not inconceivable. Example 5: February 9, first Board 3, IMPs, not vulnerable against vul 6 K1086542 A43 K6 LHO PARTNER RHO YOU --- ------- --- --- 1C Pass 1S 4H* * yes, highly dubious Pass Pass 4S ? A player who preempts must not bid again unless invited to do so by partner. Such invitations are unusual, and partner has certainly not issued one here. The preempt has done its job. The opponents were forced to guess, and may have guessed wrong. 4S may be going down---partner may be able to apply the ax. Or slam may be on: perhaps RHO has extras but LHO is giving him leeway because of your preempt. These are arguments for passing without reference to any particular hand. When you look at your hand, the argument for the pass becomes even stronger. For your 4H bid, you have deficient offense (a thin suit) and undisclosed defense (an ace and a king on the side). Conceivably, 5H doubled may be down SIX, for a 1400-point loss, almost the value of an (unbiddable) enemy slam. Ki bid 5H (double-dummy, a make on the actual lie of the cards) and pushed the opponents up to 5S, which partner was able to double for a 1-trick set. [jianzhl's] hand: 54 A7 J106 AJ10542. Ki's defense: he "felt" they could make 4S, and the vulnerability was favorable. My appraisal: that's no justification at all. Example 6: February 9, second Board 1, IMPs, neither vulnerable 8764 J10 QJ942 86 LHO PARTNER RHO YOU --- ------- --- --- Pass 1C Pass ? What's the problem? An easy pass. If you decide to bid, 1D is the least harmful (nowadays many experts might bid 1D!) and 1S is a distant second choice. But either figures to lead to trouble if partner rebids 2NT (or 2H). Ki bid 1NT. Ki's defense: he "miscounted" his points and thought he had 6 HCP. My appraisal: "miscounting points" is an alibi that might be used to justify any overbid or underbid and it doesn't account for Ki's choice of the third best bid. If he thought he had a bid, then why not 1D (which wouldn't even be unusual for today's overbidders) or 1S? Besides being misdescriptive of Ki's pattern, 1NT is anti-directional, and might prove disastrous if his partner had SAQ or SK2. Ki's 1NT led to a second problem: 8764 J10 QJ942 86 LHO PARTNER RHO YOU --- ------- --- --- Pass 1C Pass 1NT Pass 2D Pass ? Having overbid, you may be tempted to pass. Indeed pass may be the winning action. But partner expects you to bid again. He may have 2 A93 AK103 AK1095, in which case you belong in 5D and have reasonable play for 6D. Bid 3D. If partner then bids 3NT, you probably should remove to 4D. Ki jumped to 3NT, which made only because the opponents could do no better than take the first four spades, and the king of hearts was on side. [jianzhl's] hand: 32 AQ2 AK103 AQ105. Ki's defense: with a combined "24-26 HCP" and a diamond fit, "3NT was a good bet" and "there was no sense" in raising diamonds. My appraisal: unfounded opinions without a shred of bridge logic to support them. Frankly, it puzzles me that anyone would want to cheat in computer network tournaments without the incentives of money (as in rubber bridge clubs), master points and glory (as in ACBL tournament) or obtaining employment (as with hired partners in ACBL tournaments). But it seems that for many people, "winning" is incentive enough. Finally: Thanks again to all participants in this process. I am very sorry that it happened and even more so about the verdict. I appreciate everyone's help in trying to ensure that a fair trial be given to the defendant and I appreciate all the effort done, especially since many were volunteers and were unassociated with the event. Another copy of the hand records: IMPs West Feb9 Board 1 Dlr: North ki Vul: None S Q4 North East South West H 982 BjornF jianzhl kwoolsey ki D T9 C AKJT82 pass pass 1D pass South North 1NT 2S (all pass) kwoolsey BjornF S T75 S 863 Opening Lead: DK H KQ76 H AJ4 Result: +2 D AK543 D J76 Score: 110, IMPs: 2.0 C 9 C Q643 East jianzhl S AKJ92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 H T53 S DK-H6 HQ-HK-DA-H7 S5 S7 D Q82 W D9 H2 H8 H9 DT C2 SQ-S4 C 75 N D7 HA-HJ H4 D6 S8 S3 S6 E D2 H3 HT H5 D8 S9-S2 SA Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Feb9 1 N none N BjornF S kwoolsey 2S E DK +2 0 0.0 0 E jianzhl W ki 110 2.0 100 =============================================================================== IMPs West Feb9 Board 2 Dlr: East ki Vul: N-S S AT East South West North H Q863 jianzhl kwoolsey ki BjornF D A987 C 654 1C pass 1D pass South North 2NT pass 3NT (all pass) kwoolsey BjornF S J87 S 9543 Opening Lead: CQ H A42 H JT975 Result: +5 D K6542 D J Score: 460, IMPs: 0.0 C QJ C 982 East jianzhl S KQ62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 H K S CQ CJ D2 S7 H2 S8 DK D QT3 W C4 C5 C6 H3 H6 SA-D7 C AKT73 N C9 C2 C8 H5 HJ S3 DJ E CA-CK-CT-C7-C3-S2 DQ Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Feb9 2 E N-S N BjornF S kwoolsey 3NT E CQ +5 0 0.0 50 E jianzhl W ki 460 0.0 50 =============================================================================== IMPs East Feb9 Board 3 Dlr: South jianzhl Vul: E-W S 7542 South West North East H QT54 kwoolsey ki BjornF jianzhl D A C AJ32 pass 1S pass 2NT* North South pass 3S* pass 4NT BjornF kwoolsey pass 5H pass 5S S KQ S 86 pass 6S (all pass) H J2 H 63 D 976532 D QJT8 Opening Lead: CT C T98 C KQ765 Result: +6 West Score: 1430, IMPs: 14.5 ki S AJT93 1 2 3 4 5 H AK987 N CT SK-C9 D2 SQ D K4 E CA-S2 C2 DA-S4 C 4 S C5 S6 CK DJ S8 W C4 S9 S3-D4 SA Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Feb9 3 S E-W N BjornF S kwoolsey 6S W CT +6 0 0.0 0 E jianzhl W ki 1430 14.5 100 [Jeff: 2NT is Jacoby 2NT; 3S denies shortness or a decent side five-card suit and promised extra values.] =============================================================================== IMPs East Feb9 Board 4 Dlr: West jianzhl Vul: Both S KT82 West North East South H K32 ki BjornF jianzhl kwoolsey D K64 C 652 1C pass 1S pass North South 1NT pass 2NT (all pass) BjornF kwoolsey S AQ S J9754 Opening Lead: CK H T76 H A854 Result: +3 D 952 D T873 Score: 150, IMPs: 0.0 C KQJ43 C West ki S 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 H QJ9 N CK CJ-H6 H7 CQ-HT C3 C4 SA-SQ D AQJ E C2 C5 H2 HK-C6 H3 S2 D4 S8 SK C AT987 S S4 D8 HA-H4 H8 H5 S5 D3 S7 S9 W CA-C7 H9 HJ C8 HQ-C9-CT-S3 S6 Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Feb9 4 W both N BjornF S kwoolsey 2NT W CK +3 0 0.0 50 E jianzhl W ki 150 0.0 50 =============================================================================== IMPs North Feb9 Board 5 Dlr: North BjornF Vul: N-S S KJ82 North East South West H QJ9 BjornF jianzhl kwoolsey ki D K7 C Q973 1C pass 1S 4H West East pass pass 4S 5H ki jianzhl 5S X (all pass) S 6 S 54 H KT86542 H A7 Opening Lead: S6 D A43 D JT6 Result: -1 C K6 C AJT542 Score: -200, IMPs: -4.0 South kwoolsey S AQT973 1 2 3 4 5 6 H 3 W S6 H2 HK-DA-C6 D Q9852 N S2 SJ H9 D7 CQ C 8 E S4 S5 H7 D6 CA-C2 S ST-SQ-H3 D2 C8 Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Feb9 5 N N-S N BjornF S kwoolsey 5S-X S S6 -1 0 -4.0 0 E jianzhl W ki 200 0.0 100 =============================================================================== IMPs South Feb9 Board 6 Dlr: East kwoolsey Vul: E-W S AQ7 East South West North H Q93 jianzhl kwoolsey ki BjornF D AJ98 C K75 1S 1NT 2S 3C East West pass 3NT pass 4H jianzhl ki pass 5C (all pass) S 86532 S KT94 H A2 H K84 Opening Lead: HA D QT5 D K6432 Result: -2 C AQ6 C T Score: -100, IMPs: -1.0 North BjornF S J 1 2 3 4 5 6 H JT765 E HA-H2 C6-S6 S2 CA D 7 S H3 H9 HQ SA-S7 C5 C J98432 W H8 HK-H4 S9 ST CT N H5 H6 H7 SJ C2-C3 Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Feb9 6 E E-W N BjornF S kwoolsey 5C N HA -2 0 -1.0 0 E jianzhl W ki 100 0.0 100 =============================================================================== IMPs North Feb9 Board 7 Dlr: South BjornF Vul: Both S QT965 South West North East H A92 kwoolsey ki BjornF jianzhl D 653 C KT 1NT pass 2H pass West East 2S pass 3NT (all pass) ki jianzhl S K4 S J32 Opening Lead: D8 H T54 H Q87 Result: -1 D KJ98 D QT7 Score: -100, IMPs: -8.0 C 7432 C A865 South kwoolsey S A87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 H KJ63 W D8 DJ-DK S4 SK-D9-C2 D A42 N D3 D5 D6 S5 S6 H2 CK C QJ9 E DQ-DT D7 S2 S3 C8 CA-C5 S D2 D4 DA-SA-S8 S7 C9 Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Feb9 7 S both N BjornF S kwoolsey 3NT S D8 -1 0 -8.0 0 E jianzhl W ki 100 0.0 100 =============================================================================== IMPs West Feb9 Board 8 Dlr: West ki Vul: None S 763 West North East South H AJ93 ki BjornF jianzhl kwoolsey D Q864 C 85 pass pass 2D X South North 3D (all pass) kwoolsey BjornF S AKT2 S QJ5 Opening Lead: SK H K876 H T54 Result: -2 D K9 D T2 Score: -100, IMPs: 2.0 C KT9 C AJ742 East jianzhl S 984 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 H Q2 S SK-S2 C9 ST-CK-H6 H7 D9 DK D AJ753 W S3 S6 C5 S7 C8 H3 HJ-D4 D6 C Q63 N SQ SJ-CA-S5 C2 HT H4 D2 DT E S4 S8 C3 S9 C6 HQ-H2 DA-D3 Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Feb9 8 W none N BjornF S kwoolsey 3D E SK -2 100 0.0 0 E jianzhl W ki 0 2.0 100 =============================================================================== IMPs North Feb9 Board 9 Dlr: North BjornF Vul: E-W S Q8 North East South West H A6 BjornF jianzhl kwoolsey ki D QT97 C AJ876 1C pass 1H pass West East 1NT pass 4H (all pass) ki jianzhl S JT75 S A92 Opening Lead: H7 H 87 H KT3 Result: -1 D K852 D J3 Score: -50, IMPs: -4.0 C K94 C QT532 South kwoolsey S K643 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 H QJ9542 W H7 H8 C4 C9 D2 CK DK-SJ D A64 N H6 HA-C6 C7 DT CA-DQ S8 C E HK-H3 C2 HT DJ-C3 D3 SA-S2 S H4 H5 H2-HQ-D6 S3 D4 S4 Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Feb9 9 N E-W N BjornF S kwoolsey 4H S H7 -1 0 -4.0 0 E jianzhl W ki 50 0.0 100 =============================================================================== IMPs East Feb9 Board 1 Dlr: North jianzhl Vul: None S 32 North East South West H AQ2 lapt jianzhl robbg ki D AKT3 C AQT5 pass 1C pass 1NT North South pass 2D pass 3NT lapt robbg (all pass) S KQT9 S AJ5 H K987 H 6543 Opening Lead: SQ D 8 D 765 Result: +3 C J742 C K93 Score: 400, IMPs: 5.0 West ki S 8764 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 H JT N SQ SK-ST-S9-C4 D8 C2 H7 H8 D QJ942 E S2 S3 C5 CT CA-DA-D3 H2 HQ C 86 S SA-SJ S5 C3 C9 D5 D6 H3 H4 W S4 S6 S7 S8 C6 D2 DJ-HT-HJ Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Feb9 1 N none N lapt S robbg 3NT W SQ +3 0 0.0 0 E jianzhl W ki 400 5.0 100 =============================================================================== IMPs North Feb9 Board 2 Dlr: East lapt Vul: N-S S AQJ86 East South West North H Q8 jianzhl robbg ki lapt D KJ54 C Q9 pass 1H pass 1S West East pass 2H pass 4H ki jianzhl (all pass) S T974 S 52 H J4 H 632 Opening Lead: D6 D AT6 D Q732 Result: +6 C A874 C K532 Score: 680, IMPs: 1.5 South robbg S K3 1 2 3 4 H AKT975 W D6 H4 HJ C4 D 98 N DK-HQ-H8 D4 C JT6 E D3 H2 H3 H6 S D8 H5 HA-HK Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Feb9 2 E N-S N lapt S robbg 4H S D6 +6 680 1.5 100 E jianzhl W ki 0 0.0 0 =============================================================================== IMPs East Feb9 Board 3 Dlr: South jianzhl Vul: E-W S AT5 South West North East H 7652 robbg ki lapt jianzhl D J8643 C 2 1H 1S 2D pass North South 2NT 3C 3S X lapt robbg pass 4C X (all pass) S K762 S QJ93 H 4 H AQJ83 Opening Lead: H4 D AKQ97 D T2 Result: -3 C T85 C KQ Score: -800, IMPs: -3.0 West ki S 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 H KT9 N H4 C5-DQ-S6 C8 CT D7 D 5 E H2 H5 D3 SA-C2 D4 H6 C AJ97643 S HA-HQ D2 S3 CQ CK-HJ-DT W H9 HK D5 S4 CA-CJ HT Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Feb9 3 S E-W N lapt S robbg 4C-X W H4 -3 800 0.0 100 E jianzhl W ki 0 -3.0 0 =============================================================================== IMPs East Feb9 Board 4 Dlr: West jianzhl Vul: Both S K542 West North East South H K7 ki lapt jianzhl robbg D J2 C QJ432 pass pass 1C 1NT North South 2H (all pass) lapt robbg S JT8 S Q763 Opening Lead: DT H 862 H AJ5 Result: +3 D QT94 D K87 Score: 140, IMPs: 3.0 C T98 C AK6 West ki S A9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 H QT943 N DT-H2 H6 CT SJ H8 C8 D4 C9 D A653 E D2 H7 HK-C2 S2 S4 CJ DJ C 75 S D8 HA-H5 CK-S6 HJ CA-DK W D3 H3 H4 C5 SA-HQ-C7 DA-HT Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Feb9 4 W both N lapt S robbg 2H W DT +3 0 0.0 0 E jianzhl W ki 140 3.0 100 =============================================================================== IMPs South Feb9 Board 5 Dlr: North robbg Vul: N-S S Q3 North East South West H 96 lapt jianzhl robbg ki D AJT93 C J652 1H pass 1NT* 2S East West pass pass 2NT pass jianzhl ki 3D (all pass) S A752 S JT9864 H 742 H A85 Opening Lead: SA D K62 D Q Result: +3 C 987 C AQT Score: 110, IMPs: 2.0 North lapt S K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 H KQJT3 E SA-S2 D2 DK-D6 H2 H4 C9 D 8754 S S3 SQ-DA-DJ DT-H9-H6 C2 C K43 W S8 S6 DQ S9 ST H5 HA-CA N SK C3 D4 D5 D7 H3 HT C4 Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Feb9 5 N N-S N lapt S robbg 3D N SA +3 110 2.0 100 E jianzhl W ki 0 0.0 0 [Jeff: 1NT was forcing, one round.] =============================================================================== IMPs West Dec4 Board 20 Dlr: West ki Vul: Both S AK93 West North East South H J52 ki gini jianzhl hopo D A C A7652 1C pass 1D pass South North 1S pass 3D pass hopo gini 4C pass 4NT pass S QT862 S J4 5C pass 6D pass H Q6 H T9743 7D (all pass) D 862 D 94 C JT8 C KQ93 Opening Lead: S2 East Result: +7 jianzhl Score: 2140, IMPs: 20.0 S 75 H AK8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 D KQJT753 S S2 C8 CJ D2 CT D6 D8 S6 S8 H6 HQ ST C 4 W SA-CA-C2 DA-C5 S3 C6 H2 H5 HJ C7 S9 N S4 C3 CK D4 CQ D9 H3 H4 H7 H9 HT E S5 C4 D3-D5 DJ-DK-DQ-DT-D7-HA-HK-H8 Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Dec4 20 W both N gini S hopo 7D E S2 +7 0 0.0 0 E jianzhl W ki 2140 20.0 100 =============================================================================== IMPs East Dec4 Board 22 Dlr: East jianzhl Vul: E-W S Q962 East South West North H J52 jianzhl hopo ki gini D AK2 C A75 1C pass 1H pass North South 1S pass 1NT pass gini hopo 2NT pass 4H (all pass) S AK4 S JT753 H 98 H AT Opening Lead: SK D Q65 D T84 Result: +4 C KQ963 C T42 Score: 620, IMPs: 11.5 West ki S 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 H KQ7643 N SK-CK S4 H8 CQ-C9 H9 SA D5 D6 D J973 E S2 CA-S6 H2 C5 C7 HJ-S9 D2 C J8 S S3 C2 S7 HA-CT C4 HT ST D4 W S8 C8 H3-HQ CJ H4-H6 H7-DJ-D3 Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Dec4 22 E E-W N gini S hopo 4H W SK +4 0 0.0 0 E jianzhl W ki 620 11.5 100 =============================================================================== IMPs East Dec4 Board 23 Dlr: South jianzhl Vul: Both S QT92 South West North East H KQ87 hopo ki gini jianzhl D 943 C 53 1NT* 2D 2S pass North South pass 3C (all pass) gini hopo S KJ8543 S A76 Opening Lead: H2 H 952 H J43 Result: -1 D Q D AK8 Score: -100, IMPs: -3.0 C T96 C J842 West ki S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 H AT6 N H2 H9 DQ H5 C6-S4 C9 CT S3 SK-S5 S8 SJ D JT7652 E H7 HQ-D3 D4 D9 S9 C3 C5 S2 ST SQ-HK-H8 C AKQ7 S HJ H4 DK-DA-D8 SA C2 C4 C8-S6 S7 H3 CJ W HA-H6 D2 D5 DT C7-CA-CK-DJ D6 HT D7 CQ Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Dec4 23 S both N gini S hopo 3C W H2 -1 100 0.0 100 E jianzhl W ki 0 -3.0 0 =============================================================================== IMPs North Dec4 Board 25 Dlr: North gini Vul: E-W S J98 North East South West H T975 gini jianzhl hopo ki D 93 C AQ65 pass 1H 4S 4NT West East pass 5S pass 6D ki jianzhl pass pass 6S X S 6 S AT4 (all pass) H Q84 H AK632 D AKT8754 D QJ Opening Lead: DK C 94 C K72 Result: -4 South Score: -800, IMPs: -8.0 hopo S KQ7532 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 H J W DK-DA-C9 H4 H8 S6 HQ D4 D 62 N D3 D9 C5 H5 H7 SJ H9 C JT83 E DQ DJ CK-HK-HA SA-H2 S D2 D6 C3 HJ S2-S3 S5-SQ Board No Dl Vul Players Cntrct By Ld Res Score IMPs MPs Dec4 25 N E-W N gini S hopo 6S-X S DK -4 0 -8.0 0 E jianzhl W ki 800 0.0 100