Accused of Cheating

[swanway]

EBU

 

Could you please give me some advice about a problem that occurred recently in our bridge club. I was directing and at the end of the session, as we were packing up, a member came to me, quite upset, and said that another member had accused him and his wife of cheating. His wife has the habit of drumming the table with her fingers and the accuser said they were signalling each other by this method and asking for the lead of a certain suit. The accuser did not use the word 'cheating' at any time. I asked the accuser what evidence he had to justify such an accusation. He said they had done it on other occasions. I felt the accuser should have come to me privately and told me of his concerns and not blurted it out in this manner.

 

How do I deal with this problem? What advice are directors given to deal with problems of this kind where the accuser is wrong or in some cases where the accuser is right?

[jonottawa]

I'm not in England, but I wouldn't expect a club director to adjudicate this issue (other than to tell the accuser in no uncertain terms that making such an accusation publicly is not acceptable.)

 

Over here we have Unit recorders/disciplinary chairmen and District recorders/disciplinary chairmen. I'd direct the accused cheaters to them if they want to escalate the issue.

[gnasher]

The EBU website has a list of directors who are available to help with rulings. And you will get better advice in Laws forum.

 

This is what I would do:

 

Tell the accuser that communicaing by drumming one's fingers is cheating, that he has therefore made a cheating allegations, and that such an allegation is a serious matter and should have been made to the director, preferably in private. Tell all four players that they should have called you as soon as the accusation was made, and in fact are required to do so by Law 9B1.

 

Tell the finger-tapper that her habit may interfere with other people's enjoyment of the game, that this makes it illegal, and therefore she should stop doing it.

 

Ask the accuser what evidence he has for making the accusation, other than the drumming itself. If he can't provide any, tell him to apologise and withdraw the accusation. If he won't do that, throw him out of the club.

 

If the accuser can provide evidence, investigate it. Don't rely on your own judgement - get expert advice. Depending on the quality of the evidence, it may be appropriate to take action against the accuser, the accused or both. If you are satisifed that cheating has occurred, throw the culprit out of the club.

Edited August 27, 2012 by gnasher

[shintaro]

:blink:

 

Surely the First thing you should do is report the matter to your Club Committee assuming you have one B-)

[aguahombre]

What I really like about Andy's post is he tells how he would go about doing the job, not just quotes regs.

 

If anyone has knowledge of similar guidance given to ACBL directors at various levels on preferred ways of accomplishing the task, I would be interested. Sometimes my eagerness to get something done overrides my limited people skills.

[TimG]

Ask the accuser what evidence he has for making the accusation, other than the drumming itself. If he can't provide any, tell him to apologise and withdraw the accusation. If he won't do that, throw him out of the club.

I think your advice is spot on except that you didn't go quite far enough with this bit. The accuser should apologize for the public accusation whether or not there is any evidence to back it up. If the accusation was made such that people other than the accuser and accused were made aware, I think sanctions are also in order (should the club or national bylaws/disciplinary code provide for such).

[Bbradley62]

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.

[CSGibson]

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.

 

Drumming fingers is not giving UI in an obvious way - and if there is a hidden message like "lead a spade" in the drumming, it is very much more likely to be intentional and nefarious, rather than moving cards around to make sure cards of the same color are not next to each other.

 

These are not similar situations.

[TimG]

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.

 

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

[aguahombre]

Three comments:

 

1) I wish I remembered Morse Code.

2) It would never occur to me to comment about an opponent's card-moving, which probably only I would be able to notice or use.

3) I wish this thread would focus on the methods of handling the accusation rather than the method of presentation by the accuser.

 

Hopefully we all know how delicately we should handle accusations.

[Vampyr]

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

 

Well, you have to do something if a ruff ensues.

[Cyberyeti]

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.

Not guilty of this one but put me down for:

 

1♣ not alerted.

 

"Is that club natural ?"

 

"Why how many have you got ?"

 

I have wondered if the guy doesn't bat an eyelid and says "6" his partner is allowed to treat this as AI as I did ask :)

[han]

I am not convinced that this episode has to end with one person being thrown out of the club.

[kenberg]

I also am not in the EBU but the issue seems universal. Here are two incidents involving myself, with different approaches and different results.

 

1. I was playing at a tourney and noticed a director standing off to the side. What?? After the round she took me aside and commented that someone said that I stare at my partner during the auction and that this raises questions, I shouldn't do it. I apologized, I said I had not realized I was staring, and since then I have, I think successfully, kept myself from doing this.

 

2. Another time, at the conclusion of a hand, declarer on my right announced "You got me". Huh? He said that I had hesitated on a certain play and had misled him, certainly implying that this was intentional . If I hesitated, and I don't believe that I did, it was with no such intent. It was particularly upsetting because I thought he and I knew each other well enough that he would trust I would do no such thing.,

 

In case 1, I am upset with no one and I have corrected behavior I was unaware of. In case 2, I have seriously revised my regard my rho. There are right ways and wrong ways to handle the normal problems that arise at the table. Trusting that, until it is clearly proven otherwise, a person is intending to play an honest game is a good start.

 

The woman should not drum her fingers. It is unlikely, thought of course possible, that this is a signal of anything other than a nervous habit.

[blackshoe]

One of my regular partners does this drumming. People ask him to stop, he says "okay". Two minutes later, he's doing it again. It's a habit. He can't stop it. Not without a lot of effort anyway. Effort that he needs to apply to his bidding and play, which is abysmal enough already.

[mycroft]

The problem with the drumming for me is that it badly affects the effort I have to put into *my bidding and play*, which while not abysmal, doesn't need any extra effort. And if it's an issue of who gets inconvenienced, there's a little phrase in the lawbook.

 

The person that does this regularly in my area only does it as dummy, and it's part of her routine for every trick telling partner what hand she's in (despite being told that that is far beyond "attempting to prevent an irregularity by declarer" and well into "assisting with the play" repeatedly. Not important enough, I guess). But it does happen at other times.

[blackshoe]

The problem with the drumming for me is that it badly affects the effort I have to put into *my bidding and play*, which while not abysmal, doesn't need any extra effort. And if it's an issue of who gets inconvenienced, there's a little phrase in the lawbook.

Oh, I quite agree that it's wrong for him to do it. I just haven't been able to think of a way to get him to stop it.

 

The person that does this regularly in my area only does it as dummy, and it's part of her routine for every trick telling partner what hand she's in (despite being told that that is far beyond "attempting to prevent an irregularity by declarer" and well into "assisting with the play" repeatedly. Not important enough, I guess). But it does happen at other times.

How does the director handle this? At some point, it seems to me, the PPs ought to start flying. "Dummy must not participate in the play". "Must not" is a very strong prohibition - for violation of which, it seems to me, one ought to err on the side of giving PPs rather than withholding them.

[Bbradley62]

The "way to get him to stop" is the same as for the dummy-drummer: the director(s) should be applying PPs.

[Quantumcat]

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]

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?

Procedural Penalty

[aguahombre]

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?

 

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. :P 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]

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.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/35322-welcome-forum-rules-abbreviations/page__view__findpost__p__409377

[gnasher]

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.

[Finch]

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]

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.