[aguahombre]

 Quantumcat, on 2012-August-28, 19:45, said:

At the risk of sounding stupid, what exactly is a PP? This word appears all over the forums. All I can figure out from the contexts it appears in is that it's something very nasty?

 Bbradley62, on 2012-August-28, 20:03, said:

Procedural Penalty

Yes. It is called a procedural penalty, so the TD can just apply it without calling the offender something very nasty in the process. Your interpretation from the contexts is quite perceptive.

If someone would like to find an example of applying a PP where they believe something nasty is not implicit, I will be happy to fill in an appropriate adjective describing the offender.

[Antrax]

 Quantumcat, on 2012-August-28, 19:45, said:

At the risk of sounding stupid, what exactly is a PP? This word appears all over the forums. All I can figure out from the contexts it appears in is that it's something very nasty?

There's a sticky thread in the "Laws and Rulings" forum that explains many abbreviations. Here's the relevant post from it: http://www.bridgebas...post__p__409377

[gnasher]

 aguahombre, on 2012-August-28, 20:16, said:

If someone would like to find an example of applying a PP where they believe something nasty is not implicit, I will be happy to fill in an appropriate adjective describing the offender.

I have heard of procedural penalties being awarded for late arrival, slow play, having a mobile phone ring, not having a convention card, being inappropriately dressed, misboarding, playing the wrong boards, and discussing a board so loudly that it can be heard at another table. I don't think any of these imply something nasty, but merely carelessness or stupidity.

[FrancesHinden]

Procedural penalties are awarded for violations of correct procedure (Andy has given a few of them). They aren't given for deliberate breaching of the rules.

[aguahombre]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-29, 01:23, said:

I have heard of procedural penalties being awarded for late arrival, slow play, having a mobile phone ring, not having a convention card, being inappropriately dressed, misboarding, playing the wrong boards, and discussing a board so loudly that it can be heard at another table. I don't think any of these imply something nasty, but merely carelessness or stupidity.

PP's don't just fly around. If they do, then the nasty adjectives would apply to the TD.
The phone ringing PP at many levels is automatic. "Stupid, oblivious, inconsiderate", etc. are adjectives. PP's often follow warnings. Continuing some behavior after such warnings? Well, folks can supply their own labels.

[barmar]

I seriously doubt whether even PPs would work to curtail old habits like drumming fingers and card snapping. I crack my knuckles and bite my fingernails frequently, and I know there are some people who find them annoying; should TDs start handing out PPs to me? What does any of this have to do with bridge?

This thread seems to have wandered way astray. The question was about handling cheating accusations, not about dealing with personal habits. If the finger-drummer drums consistently, rather than modulating it based on her holdings, then it's merely annoying, not cheating. To determine if she's using it as a signaling mechanism, some kind of investigation will have to be done, although it seems like it would be difficult to do so now that the pair have been alerted to the suspicion -- there's no record of her past drumming, and who's going to continue to cheat like this if they know people are monitoring them?

[kenberg]

I think bad habits, at least some of them, have at least some relationship to ethics. Card snapping is very distracting, and while I perhaps can entertain the possibility that the snapping is just a bad habit, no intent at distraction intended, I don't really believe it. At any rate, the idea that people simply cannot control, or should not be expected to control, their bad habits does not sit well with me. And it can be dealt with. Last night I was in the waiting room at a hospital, a guy far away was talking loudly into his cell phone, not about anything medical I think he was some delivery guy,very loud, very annoying, particularly to those of who were there for medical reasons. Eventually he passed me as he left. The conversation:
Are you leaving?
Yes
Thank you.

It may give him something to consider. Or maybe not.

At the table I have put my hand down on the table and announced that I will bid (or play) shortly after you stop humming, finger cracking, jabbering, whatever.

Of course people can learn to control their bad habits. And it strains credulity to believe they are unaware of the competitive upside, to them, of their annoying ways. In any serious contest, such matters simply have to be dealt with. Sure, I have learned to shut a lot of it out. But sometimes enough is enough.

[blackshoe]

Nasty? No, procedural penalties are not nasty. They're a necessary part of the game.

[Scarabin]

Sorry if it's off topic, but the discussion has raised an old concern of mine: Nearly every partnership I have encountered has unequal partners with the stronger compensating for the weaker's weaknesses. Over the years partners become attuned to each others attributes and methods. This must apply particularly to professional-sponsor pairings.

At what stage does this become an understanding, a special understanding, cheating?

Somebody said it's very easy to cheat. Truth is, I think it's very difficult not to?

[rhm]

 Bbradley62, on 2012-August-27, 16:39, said:

This whole thread has been very one-sided, based on one person's possibly-overly-sensitive interpretation of an opponent's comment.

I'm declarer at a club game against a couple who's been playing together for 20+ years. LHO leads ♣A and RHO follows with ♣6. LHO leads ♣K; RHO plays ♣5 then takes three cards from the right side of her hand and moves them to the left side of her hand. I turn to RHO and ask "when she moves those cards like that, does it mean that she doesn't have any more of the suit you led?"

Might LHO go to the director and complain that he was accused of cheating? Maybe. Am I going to apologize for my comment? Not in this lifetime. If that gets me reported, then so be it.

 TimG, on 2012-August-27, 17:18, said:

Whether you will apologize or not, your question is inappropriate. I admit I have asked a similar question. But, I do regret it.

Why?
In my experience very few people signal illegally by intent. But many do so unintended.
The question does not amount to a cheating allegation, but to make someone aware of the problem.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

 Scarabin, on 2012-August-31, 01:04, said:

Sorry if it's off topic, but the discussion has raised an old concern of mine: Nearly every partnership I have encountered has unequal partners with the stronger compensating for the weaker's weaknesses. Over the years partners become attuned to each others attributes and methods. This must apply particularly to professional-sponsor pairings.

At what stage does this become an understanding, a special understanding, cheating?

Somebody said it's very easy to cheat. Truth is, I think it's very difficult not to?

To cheat requires the intention to use illegal means.
I disagree that the problem what you describe is illegal, nor that it applies to uneven partnerships.
It does not matter how strong your partner is. He will have strengths and weaknesses.
In any long standing partnership, a good player should be aware of the strength and weaknesses of his partner and taking that into account is legal and not trying to compensate for them is plain stupid.

For example, I may be aware that my partner has a tendency to jump too quickly to the conclusion that 3NT is the right contract.
When he bids 3NT in some bidding sequence I am not bound to assume that he has the hand described for this bid in bidding manuals.
If my partner has a tendency to raise me with inappropriate weak balanced hands in competition, I may compensate by being more conservative after being raised, etc.

Rainer Herrmann

[aguahombre]

 rhm, on 2012-August-31, 03:27, said:

To cheat requires the intention to use illegal means.

If my partner has a tendency to raise me with inappropriate weak balanced hands in competition, I may compensate by being more conservative after being raised, etc.

We could go off on a tangent here. Compensating, adjusting, fudging, etc. is legal if based on legally obtained information and done within the rules of the game. It also comes under an alternate definintion of "to cheat".

Cheating is not always a bad thing

[TimG]

 rhm, on 2012-August-31, 03:07, said:

The question does not amount to a cheating allegation, but to make someone aware of the problem.

The way that question was worded does make it an allegation of cheating.

If you want to take the matter into your own hands, there are more polite and less accusatory ways of doing it.