Elinescu-Wladow banned

[ArtK78]

If the USBF suspected an American pair of cheating but they had never been convicted, or even charged, with the offence, do you think they would be able to bar them from international trials without being sued?

Yes. From the USBF General Conditions of Contest:

 

III. ELIGIBILITY

 

A. All Participants

 

All participants in any USBF Championship (players and NPCs), and any player or NPC added to a team that has been nominated to represent the USBF as a result of its performance in a USBF Championship, must meet the following requirements at the time of the USBF Championship:

 

1) Be either an Active or Resident member of USBF who is in good standing.

2) Not be under suspension by USBF, ACBL or ABA.

3) Not be excluded from playing in the specific USBF Championship by a committee of USBF, ACBL or ABA.

 

So, if a player or pair were suspected of unethical conduct, a committee of the USBF could exclude the player or pair from playing in a championship.

 

As far as legal action, it is not likely to succeed unless the exclusion was based on some prohibited reason, such as race, religion or national origin. Alternatively, an excluded player would have to show that the exclusion prevented him or her from earning a living without justification. That would be a difficult case to make if the exclusion was based on some rational criteria.

 

In addition, the USBF General Conditions of Contest also provide as follows:

 

XIII. APPEALS AND CONDUCT AND ETHICS COMMITTEES

A. Establishment; Timeliness of Requesting Ruling or Appeal.

 

[text omitted]

 

B. Jurisdiction of Committees and Regulations.

 

By participating in a USBF Championship players agree to the following regulations and procedures.

1 Tournament Committees

Two committees will be available at any USBF Championship to hear director’s rulings and appeals of assessed penalties, conduct disciplinary proceedings and similar matters

a) The Appeals Committee for the USBF Championship will appoint a Tournament Appeals Committee and an Appeals Administrator. [text omitted]

b) The Tournament Conduct and Ethics Committee will hear serious matters such as those that might result in disqualification of a team or player, (including when such a player has failed to play the required percentage of boards), or such as would affect the participant’s USBF playing or membership rights. Matters may be brought to this committee through the DIC or may be referred to it by an Appeals Committee. Conduct and Ethics Committee members are appointed by the DIC and the Tournament Appeals Administrator. Sanctions by this committee may be appealed to the USBF Grievance and Appeals Committee in writing up to 15 days after the conclusion of the event. By entering a USBF Championship, participants agree to be subject to the Bylaws, rules, and procedures of the USBF. Such Bylaws require an aggrieved participant to seek binding arbitration after exhaustion of all other administrative remedies.

2 Regulations governing players in a USBF Championship

Playing in a manner to advance the interest of one’s opponent, or inducing or attempting to induce another to play against their best interest or against the best interest of their own team is subject to discipline. Providing any inducement to a player not to compete in the event is subject to discipline. Players are subject to the regulations in Section XII – Security and the regulations and By-Laws of the USBF. USBF Championships will be governed by the ACBL interpretation of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

 

So, aside from being a member in good standing of the USBF, and not being under suspension by any of the ACBL, ABA or USBF, a player can be brought before the Tournament Conduct and Ethics Committee of the USBF which can deal with issues affecting a player's eligibility to participate in international competition. Also, players agree to seek binding arbitration after exhaustion of all other administrative remedies, which limits their ability to sue the USBF for denial of the right to participate in international trials.

[MrAce]

Art as much as i want to agree with you, especially after GBF decided to defend these two, i am asking myself "what could they do ?" USBF suspension term is a little confusing to me or incomplete,, idk what they actually mean. Do they mean if a pair was complained and there are rumors about them, then they are suspended ? Or does it mean they are being monitored ? But in any case they are innocent until proven guilty and i don't know how can they be kept out of international events without damaging the reputation and names of these possible innocent people ?

[barmar]

This seems flawed reasoning to me. Often I play whole events with relatively little discussion of what happened at the other table. Perhaps we talk about a few interesting hands. Typically I concentrate on the hands where I perceive we could have done better at our table and just getting comparison from the other table as a point of reference.

Wouldn't a hand where your teammates achieved a surprising successful result be "interesting"? Mightn't someone ask something like "How did you find that killing lead?" or "How did you bid that slam?"

 

Then the cheaters will have to come up with some Cthulhu-like explanation.

[ArtK78]

Art as much as i want to agree with you, especially after GBF decided to defend these two, i am asking myself "what could they do ?" USBF suspension term is a little confusing to me or incomplete,, idk what they actually mean. Do they mean if a pair was complained and there are rumors about them, then they are suspended ? Or does it mean they are being monitored ? But in any case they are innocent until proven guilty and i don't know how can they be kept out of international events without damaging the reputation and names of these possible innocent people ?

I can't answer your question. It has always been my understanding that those at the highest level of bridge competition know when the results a player or a pair gets don't match his/her/their bridge ability. So, it is a matter of time before players who are cheating are discovered and barred . In the meantime, one of the responsibilities of those who set up criteria for participation in events leading to representation of countries in international events have to find a way to make sure that those who are cheating but have not yet been thrown out are not allowed to represent their country in international competition - perhaps by peer review.

 

Easier said than done - I understand. But surely this could have been done in the case of the German Doctors. Even I knew that W was under suspicion for unethical behavior, and I have never played against him. In all likelihood, I have never been within 1000 miles of him. But I read these fora and Bridgewinners. The subject has come up. Surely the German bridge federation knew what the best players in Europe apparently all knew. It cannot reflect well on the German bridge federation that they allowed a player who was under a cloud of suspicion to represent it in international competition.

 

[i would have responded to your post earlier, but I actually got to play in a Regional Open Pairs event today in Wilmington, DE, and my partner and I won! It was a very small event - 19 tables qualifying to a 10 table final scored at barometer scoring. My partner and I barely qualified - we were tied for 18th out of the 20 qualifiers. But we won with virtually no carryonver (0.13 on a 9 top) by scoring over 67% in the finals]

[paulg]

I can't answer your question. It has always been my understanding that those at the highest level of bridge competition know when the results a player or a pair gets don't match his/her/their bridge ability. So, it is a matter of time before players who are cheating are discovered and barred . In the meantime, one of the responsibilities of those who set up criteria for participation in events leading to representation of countries in international events have to find a way to make sure that those who are cheating but have not yet been thrown out are not allowed to represent their country in international competition - perhaps by peer review.

 

Easier said than done - I understand. But surely this could have been done in the case of the German Doctors. Even I knew that W was under suspicion for unethical behavior, and I have never played against him. In all likelihood, I have never been within 1000 miles of him. But I read these fora and Bridgewinners. The subject has come up. Surely the German bridge federation knew what the best players in Europe apparently all knew.

Perhaps the fact that Bob Hamman and the Cavendish committee were very happy to let them enter that (very) big money event, despite 'everyone' knowing, is an indication of how difficult it is.

[Cascade]

Wouldn't a hand where your teammates achieved a surprising successful result be "interesting"? Mightn't someone ask something like "How did you find that killing lead?" or "How did you bid that slam?"

 

Then the cheaters will have to come up with some Cthulhu-like explanation.

 

It might happen. Many times my partner and I leave quickly to prepare for the next match. Occasionally someone will ask later about a hand at our table or I will notice something in the hand records and wonder what happened at the other table. However as I say, maybe i am pessimist or something, but I am much more likely to concentrate on where we have had a poor score not where our teammates have had a great score.

[Cascade]

If you have a friend or respected bridge acquaintance who is playing on a team with a person or a pair that you suspect of unethical behavior, it stands to reason that you would talk with your friend about it sooner or later.

 

From what I understand, W & E were under suspicion from a large segment of the bridge playing world for some time. Surely this did not escape the notice of the German Bridge Federation or W & E's teammates. Yet they continued to play with them and allow them to represent Germany in international competition.

 

I don't believe that the teammates or the German Bridge Federation should be held without responsibility here. It is one thing to state that the German Bridge Federation is without any involvment in W & E's conduct, and that W & Es teammates are entirely free and clear of any suspicion of unethical conduct. It is another to say they are totally free of any responsibility.

 

I have played with an individual who I later found out was guilty of unethical behavior in bridge (for which he had previously been penalized) and has been accused of cheating in another mind game (more than accused - tried and convicted in the court of popular opinion). I have not played with him since I found out about this. But, then again, I have not seen him in quite some time.

 

I also have a friend who has been told in no uncertain terms by a number of very highly respected bridge players that an individual with whom he plays with as a teammate is, shall we say, of less than sterling character. Yet my friend continues to play on teams with this individual. I can't explain it.

 

Bridge organisations do not want to deal with cheats.

 

For example, I reported a pair for cheating - using illegal prearranged communication. One of the pair has been the subject of a subsequent series of complaints. A friend of my wife's from the same club has confided that the locals know this player 'cheats'. No one wants to do anything about the cheating. In fact I was criticised for complaining to the director, even when the complaint came after talking to an official about my concerns in order to get advice on how to proceed.

 

On the other hand you cant have a vigilante justice system where people ostracise suspected cheats. This would too easily and quickly turn into damning the unpopular.

[MrAce]

I can't answer your question. It has always been my understanding that those at the highest level of bridge competition know when the results a player or a pair gets don't match his/her/their bridge ability. So, it is a matter of time before players who are cheating are discovered and barred . In the meantime, one of the responsibilities of those who set up criteria for participation in events leading to representation of countries in international events have to find a way to make sure that those who are cheating but have not yet been thrown out are not allowed to represent their country in international competition - perhaps by peer review.

 

Easier said than done - I understand. But surely this could have been done in the case of the German Doctors. Even I knew that W was under suspicion for unethical behavior, and I have never played against him. In all likelihood, I have never been within 1000 miles of him. But I read these fora and Bridgewinners. The subject has come up. Surely the German bridge federation knew what the best players in Europe apparently all knew. It cannot reflect well on the German bridge federation that they allowed a player who was under a cloud of suspicion to represent it in international competition.

 

[i would have responded to your post earlier, but I actually got to play in a Regional Open Pairs event today in Wilmington, DE, and my partner and I won! It was a very small event - 19 tables qualifying to a 10 table final scored at barometer scoring. My partner and I barely qualified - we were tied for 18th out of the 20 qualifiers. But we won with virtually no carryonver (0.13 on a 9 top) by scoring over 67% in the finals]

 

Actually i have found some data which may be related to what you are suggesting. From BW. Info was provided by Henk Uijterwaal

 

I lived and played in Germany from 1994 to 1997, in the same area as Wladow. At that time his reputation was quite bad, up to a point where organizers of local events asked him not to enter their tournaments. In these 3 years, he was stripped from the title in one pairs event, and suspended for some months after another event. In those years, Wladow played with Joe Piekarek, Elinescu wasn't around yet.

I was somewhat surprised that some 10 years later, Wladow entered the German open team considering everything that happened in the past.

 

 

When asked in which way his reputation was bad, just rude or cheating ?

 

Answer was

 

Both :-)

 

Case 1 was a tournament where a discussion with the TD got completely out of hand, up to a point where the organizers asked him to leave the venue. As he had already won, they simply didn't give out 1st prize.

Case 2: a pairs tournament consisting of a qualifier with the top X pairs qualifying for the A-final, the next X pairs for the B-final, etc. Wladow qualified for the A-final. For some reason, the number of pairs in the A-final was odd, so there was a sit-out. During the sitout, the pair kibitzed a pair in the B-final, not realizing that they were playing the same boards as the A-final. A few rounds later, Wladow and partner got to play the boards they just kibitzed and just played them. They scored 3 tops, making some unusual plays that only worked because they had seen the hands. This ended up with a suspension for the pair.

 

So after all you may be correct that letting these guys, at least one of them playing in national team could be prevented.(Assuming the info posted in BW is correct)

[nige1]

Bridge organisations do not want to deal with cheats. For example, I reported a pair for cheating - using illegal prearranged communication. One of the pair has been the subject of a subsequent series of complaints. A friend of my wife's from the same club has confided that the locals know this player 'cheats'. No one wants to do anything about the cheating. In fact I was criticised for complaining to the director, even when the complaint came after talking to an official about my concerns in order to get advice on how to proceed. On the other hand you cant have a vigilante justice system where people ostracise suspected cheats. This would too easily and quickly turn into damning the unpopular.

The doctors case seems absolutely typical. Their cheating methods seem crude and consistent. For decades, players have suspected them and reported them to directors. Like Cascade, I wonder why no proper official investigation was started, long ago. Eventually, an opponent makes a few notes on a score-card and their code is cracked, overnight.

 

The WBF are goaded into reluctant action. To begin with they excel themselves: they appoint neutral observers to continue watching the suspects, checking that predictions conform with previous observations. (Next time, they may even realise that they shouldn't explain the code to their observers).

 

Then, unfortunately, the WBF fall from grace: they appoint a US commission chairman of the same nationality as the accusers; they fix a date, known to be impossible for the DBV. They fix a USA venue that suits ACBL members but would involve at least 6 other participants travelling from Europe. The DBV complain that they haven't seen all the evidence. They try to rebut the evidence that is available to them. Their efforts arrive too late or are ignored. The WBF convict the suspects in their absence and immediately publish their verdict.

 

On Bridgewinners, there are several topics about the German Doctors. The pack commend the WBF verdict. They bay for blood. There's a feeding frenzy. If the DBV appeal, it will be hard to find an unbiased jury.

 

All agree that the doctors' putative way of cheating is stupid. There are many examples e.g.

• Partner is on lead to 7♥. You cough -- allegedly to ask for a ♣ lead. Surely, It's gilding the lily to follow with a Lightner double. Admittedly you might get an extra 50 but you also warn opponents, who can and do escape into 7N.
• Over your 2NT bid, partner enquires with 3♣. With only 4♠, you jump to 4♠. You explain that you thought you had bid 3♠. This is cited as evidence of cheating but you could easily have bid 3♠ without engendering suspicion.

In the current set-up, sophisticated cheating is virtually undetectable, even if the authorities had the will to do anything about it. Deliberate cheating is not the only problem. Many top players rationalize: the employment of crude gamesmanship; the use of unauthorised information. and inadequate disclosure.

 

Hrothgar is right that isolated computers would mitigate these problems -- as would "virtual screens". Simpler rules would also help.

 

The rules should nullify results obtained with the help of cheats. In future, pairs and selectors might take more care in selecting team-mates. Also, other competitors should move up one place. This is theoretically unfair. Fro example the cheats might have knocked out the rightful winners, at an early stage. But it is simple and practical. With luck, other players might be less swayed by the argument "If you can't beat them, then join them". From a player's point of view, experience shows that complex Bridge legislation is not deterrent and produces unfair and incomprehensible outcomes.

[rhm]

Yes. From the USBF General Conditions of Contest:

 

III. ELIGIBILITY

 

A. All Participants

 

All participants in any USBF Championship (players and NPCs), and any player or NPC added to a team that has been nominated to represent the USBF as a result of its performance in a USBF Championship, must meet the following requirements at the time of the USBF Championship:

 

1) Be either an Active or Resident member of USBF who is in good standing.

2) Not be under suspension by USBF, ACBL or ABA.

3) Not be excluded from playing in the specific USBF Championship by a committee of USBF, ACBL or ABA.

 

So, if a player or pair were suspected of unethical conduct, a committee of the USBF could exclude the player or pair from playing in a championship.

 

As far as legal action, it is not likely to succeed unless the exclusion was based on some prohibited reason, such as race, religion or national origin. Alternatively, an excluded player would have to show that the exclusion prevented him or her from earning a living without justification. That would be a difficult case to make if the exclusion was based on some rational criteria.

 

In addition, the USBF General Conditions of Contest also provide as follows:

 

XIII. APPEALS AND CONDUCT AND ETHICS COMMITTEES

A. Establishment; Timeliness of Requesting Ruling or Appeal.

 

[text omitted]

 

B. Jurisdiction of Committees and Regulations.

 

By participating in a USBF Championship players agree to the following regulations and procedures.

1 Tournament Committees

Two committees will be available at any USBF Championship to hear director’s rulings and appeals of assessed penalties, conduct disciplinary proceedings and similar matters

a) The Appeals Committee for the USBF Championship will appoint a Tournament Appeals Committee and an Appeals Administrator. [text omitted]

b) The Tournament Conduct and Ethics Committee will hear serious matters such as those that might result in disqualification of a team or player, (including when such a player has failed to play the required percentage of boards), or such as would affect the participant’s USBF playing or membership rights. Matters may be brought to this committee through the DIC or may be referred to it by an Appeals Committee. Conduct and Ethics Committee members are appointed by the DIC and the Tournament Appeals Administrator. Sanctions by this committee may be appealed to the USBF Grievance and Appeals Committee in writing up to 15 days after the conclusion of the event. By entering a USBF Championship, participants agree to be subject to the Bylaws, rules, and procedures of the USBF. Such Bylaws require an aggrieved participant to seek binding arbitration after exhaustion of all other administrative remedies.

2 Regulations governing players in a USBF Championship

Playing in a manner to advance the interest of one’s opponent, or inducing or attempting to induce another to play against their best interest or against the best interest of their own team is subject to discipline. Providing any inducement to a player not to compete in the event is subject to discipline. Players are subject to the regulations in Section XII – Security and the regulations and By-Laws of the USBF. USBF Championships will be governed by the ACBL interpretation of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

 

So, aside from being a member in good standing of the USBF, and not being under suspension by any of the ACBL, ABA or USBF, a player can be brought before the Tournament Conduct and Ethics Committee of the USBF which can deal with issues affecting a player's eligibility to participate in international competition. Also, players agree to seek binding arbitration after exhaustion of all other administrative remedies, which limits their ability to sue the USBF for denial of the right to participate in international trials.

I see this differently.

 

Players are selected on their prior Bridge results to represent their country. The NBO should decide, which Bridge results matter and how the selections is executed, but I do not want a committee of wise men, who use their own subjective criterias, which personalities are eligible and which ones are deemed not.

Personalities of Bridge players are largely immaterial. This is how it is in other sports too.

If you want to disqualify someone, he or she should be already under a finally convicted penalty, saying he/she is ineligible.

You can and should not disqualify anyone due to hearsay, rumours etc. This would open the door to pure arbitrariness.

For example before Armstrong participated in his last "Tour de France" there were a lot of rumours and also already some evidence.

But this is not a basis to disqualify him or others.

 

Even if there has been instances before, you can not disqualify somebody.

For example If the verdict is upheld Elinescu and Wladow will be individually banned for ten years and as a pair for life from WBF events.

The DBV can (and probably will) do some of its own.

But assume after 11 years Wladow qualifies again with a different partner and the DBV will now not impose a penalty saying Wladow will not be eligible for life anymore.

 

If you would disqualify him then based on the current incident, in effect you ban him now for life. Then the verdict should say so now.

Punishing somebody again for the same offence is in my opinion not acceptable and in most countries illegal for good reasons.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[aguahombre]

Rainer, I agree with every sentiment above. However, sending a representative into international competition after sentence has been served or while under suspicion but not convicted could be a frightful thing for an NBO. Influential people are looking for blood.

 

Repercussions could financially cripple an organization and permanently prevent its future participation in the world of Bridge.

[paulg]

Rainer, I agree with every sentiment above. However, sending a representative into international competition after sentence has been served or while under suspicion but not convicted could be a frightful thing for an NBO. Influential people are looking for blood.

 

Repercussions could financially cripple an organization and permanently prevent its future participation in the world of Bridge.

I suspect the financial repercussions for sending a player (or pair) who has served their sentence or who are under suspicion but not suspended are minor by comparison with not permitting such players to compete in trials. Suspicion really means insufficient evidence to prosecute, which surely means they are innocent in the eyes of the law.

[gnasher]

The doctors case seems absolutely typical. Their cheating methods seem crude and consistent. For decades, players have suspected them and reported them to directors. Like Cascade, I wonder why no proper official investigation was started, long ago.

Why do you believe that no proper official investigation was started long ago?

 

Eventually, an opponent makes a few notes on a score-card and their code is cracked, overnight.

It seems quite likely that their code and method of communication have varied over the years, and that they didn't use it all of the time. If they usually refrained from using it when they thought they were being watched, that might explain why they weren't caught earlier.

[MrAce]

This is way too much excessive coughing. I did not play against them but imho they were either using a different method in the past or they had too many balanced hands. It is kinda hard to not notice that much coughing.

 

Once someone is aware of the coughing, cracking the code is easy. (I mean this particular code)

[billw55]

Why do you believe that no proper official investigation was started long ago?

 

It seems quite likely that their code and method of communication have varied over the years, and that they didn't use it all of the time. If they usually refrained from using it when they thought they were being watched, that might explain why they weren't caught earlier.

This is way too much excessive coughing. I did not play against them but imho they were either using a different method in the past or they had too many balanced hands. It is kinda hard to not notice that much coughing.

 

Once someone is aware of the coughing, cracking the code is easy. (I mean this particular code)

Perhaps they had another method ready, but at a late moment came to fear that it had been detected, or would be detected. Then they might switch to a hastily prepared method which is less subtle.

[PhilKing]

Why do you believe that no proper official investigation was started long ago?

 

 

It seems quite likely that their code and method of communication have varied over the years, and that they didn't use it all of the time. If they usually refrained from using it when they thought they were being watched, that might explain why they weren't caught earlier.

 

I am pretty certain the Doctors played "straight" against us in Beijing after set 2 (and I only saw one dodgy lead in that set), but they may have known they were being closely watched - certainly by us, but also, as I mentioned, by the WBF officials.

[nige1]

Why do you believe that no proper official investigation was started long ago? It seems quite likely that their code and method of communication have varied over the years, and that they didn't use it all of the time. If they usually refrained from using it when they thought they were being watched, that might explain why they weren't caught earlier.

Or they might not have been cheating at all. Although, on BLML, Henk Uijterwaal relates an incident, long ago, where one of them was banned.

 

The doctors were playing in the final of a world-championship. They knew they were being video-taped. The alleged coughing method of cheating seems stupid and crude. It's possible that their previous methods (if any) were more subtle and clever. But unlikely.

 

Over the years, players, including PhilKing, told directors of their concerns about the doctors. WBF officials told PhilKing that the pair were under observation. At Bali, however, to begin with, the US team's concerns were ignored. I also believe Cascade that when he reported cheating by other players, nothing was done about it.

 

IMO, Cheating is a "hot potato" that nobody wants to grasp. When a Bridge-law is broken, the "Equity" principle is geared to restoring the status quo, eschewing harsh deterrent penalties, minimising hurt to anybody's feelings, and, in general, avoiding any hassle. There's little incentive for a director to instigate a proper cheating investigation with unpleasant repercussions.

 

If there had been a thorough official investigation into cheating allegations against the doctors, earlier, then you would expect its findings to be mentioned in the WBF committee report.

 

On this topic, everything I write relies on hearsay. I know no cheats. I haven't met the doctors. I've no first-hand evidence about whether they cheated at Bali. Or in any previous event.

[Trinidad]

IMO, Cheating is a "hot potato" that nobody wants to grasp. When a Bridge-law is broken, the "Equity" principle is geared to restoring the status quo, eschewing harsh deterrent penalties, minimising hurt to anybody's feelings, and, in general, avoiding any hassle.

I cannot stress this enough:

 

Breaking a bridge law is not cheating. There is a huge difference between leading out of turn (an honest mistake) and communication through secret messages (cheating).

 

After an honest mistake, we try to repair the damage (equity) and move on.

 

After a case of cheating, we nail the $0&$. They get banned for 10 years, which in the case of E-W is pretty much the rest of their life.

 

Yes, I do think that we have gone a little too far when it comes to equity. I think non-offenders should get a little more credit and offenders a little less. But that question doesn't belong in a cheating discussion. Cheaters should not get any credit at all for a looong time.

 

Rik

[gwnn]

For David Mitchell fans: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/06/all-little-dishonest-cheating-bridge-step-too-far-david-mitchell

[nige1]

I cannot stress this enough: Breaking a bridge law is not cheating.

But cheating is breaking bridge law :(

There is a huge difference between leading out of turn (an honest mistake) and communication through secret messages (cheating). After an honest mistake, we try to repair the damage (equity) and move on. After a case of cheating, we nail the $0&$. They get banned for 10 years, which in the case of E-W is pretty much the rest of their life. Yes, I do think that we have gone a little too far when it comes to equity. I think non-offenders should get a little more credit and offenders a little less. But that question doesn't belong in a cheating discussion. Cheaters should not get any credit at all for a looong time.

IMO there's less practical difference than Trinidad thinks. In another topic, Trinidad objected to my attempt to define terms. I hope, however, for the purposes of this argument, we can agree to define cheating as deliberately and knowingly breaking the law in the hope of personal gain. Complex rules don't help ...

• It's hard to ascertain whether the suspect knows the rules. Many are familiar with the words of the law but It's a moot point whether anybody understands its meaning. Top directors are confused about the meaning of bridge rules and often argue about them in on-line discussions like this. Among ordinary players, ignorance and incomprehension is the norm. For example, the ACBL directors handbook said that after partner's huddle, players are well-advised to make the bid they would have made anyway. In a Bridge-winners poll, more than half the members said that when in receipt of unauthorised information, they would just select the action they would have taken without the UI. Presumably, if such a player sometimes takes a suggested action when there is a non-suggested logical alternative, we would categorise such an action as deliberate. Should we classify all these people as chronic cheats?
• Some rules are rarely enforced, so fall into disrepute. Should we classify a declarer as a habitual cheat who often designates dummy's card by saying "low", although he is aware that this might annoy punctilious opponents?
• In general, equity rules reward law-breaking, so they encourage rationalisation and carelessness. You would need to be a mind-reader to work out when and if such behaviour becomes deliberate cheating.

[Cascade]

I cannot stress this enough:

 

Breaking a bridge law is not cheating. There is a huge difference between leading out of turn (an honest mistake) and communication through secret messages (cheating).

 

After an honest mistake, we try to repair the damage (equity) and move on.

 

After a case of cheating, we nail the $0&$. They get banned for 10 years, which in the case of E-W is pretty much the rest of their life.

 

Yes, I do think that we have gone a little too far when it comes to equity. I think non-offenders should get a little more credit and offenders a little less. But that question doesn't belong in a cheating discussion. Cheaters should not get any credit at all for a looong time.

 

Rik

 

When a bridge law is broken and a ruling sought in almost all cases the ruling is based on the equity flawed laws whether or not the law was broken deliberately. Further even when the laws suggest that penalties be applied more often than not, for example when a player fails to do that which "must" be done in my experience director's are very reluctant to impose penalties. That environment encourages unscrupulous 'cheats' who have close to zero chance of being found to be deliberately breaking the law and therefore benefit significantly from their law breaking even when caught as the presumption is that it was not deliberate.

[barmar]

But cheating is breaking bridge law :( IMO there's less practical difference than Trinidad thinks. In another topic, Trinidad objected to my attempt to define terms. I hope, however, for the purposes of this argument, we can agree to define cheating as deliberately and knowingly breaking the law in the hope of personal gain.

The last part about "in the hope of personal gain", is important. I sometimes knowingly violate the proper procedure for using bidding boxes (I'll sometimes just pick up my bidding cards to indicate that I'm making the final pass, rather than pulling out the pass card first), but I (and I expect everyone else who makes this common mistake) do this because I have no expectation that it will make a difference. If it really were likely to confer an advantage to the perpetrator, I don't think it would ever have become common because opponents would object.

 

But some things are so obvious that it's not even necessary to reference the laws. It's intuitively obvious to any player of the game that information should only be exchanged by bidding and card play. This is fundamental to the whole exercise, and violation of this is clearly one of the most blatant forms of cheating. There is an explicit law about it, but even if there weren't I think we would all know it.

[gnasher]

I hope, however, for the purposes of this argument, we can agree to define cheating as deliberately and knowingly breaking the law in the hope of personal gain.

 

In a Bridge-winners poll, more than half the members said that when in receipt of unauthorised information, they would just select the action they would have taken without the UI. Presumably, if such a player sometimes takes a suggested action when there is a non-suggested logical alternative, we would categorise such an action as deliberate. Should we classify all these people as chronic cheats?

No, because it doesn't meet your own definition of cheating: they're not trying to gain, and they probably don't even know that they're breaking the rules.

 

Should we classify a declarer as a habitual cheat who often designates dummy's card by saying "low", although he is aware that this might annoy punctilious opponents?

Only if he does so in the hope of improving his score.

[mycroft]

But some things are so obvious that it's not even necessary to reference the laws. It's intuitively obvious to any player of the game that information should only be exchanged by bidding and card play. This is fundamental to the whole exercise, and violation of this is clearly one of the most blatant forms of cheating. There is an explicit law about it, but even if there weren't I think we would all know it.

I would disagree with this on the face. There are millions who play, like Barry Rigal's Grandmother (from his Precision book), "a club", "one club", and "I'll start with a club" (obviously less obvious with bidding boxes, but think of all the kitchens!) There are those who believe in the face of the Law that they are not only entitled to use partner's questions (or lack thereof) and their answers to the opponent's questions (and the questions the opponents ask), but that it would be insane not to. There's nothing inherently wrong with the Secret Bridge Olympics or the CryptoClub, nor to Adjective Bridge or bridge played as poker. It's just that the game grew up saying that that wasn't the way it was played; people are introduced to the concept very early as a "basic mores of bridge"; and it gets to the point where "it's so obvious it's not necessary to reference the Laws". But I guarantee, like the rest of the Proprieties (which used to not be Law, just "proper behaviour we assume that everybody will follow", and before that weren't even written down, just "known by all gentlemen") and many laws in other games and sports that are codifications of "what oughtta be", that there was a reason why it was moved from "it oughtta be" to Law, and it wasn't because "[we] all know it".

 

In other words, yes, it's "so obvious", but it's only "so obvious" because it's present from day 1, and while it may not be said straight up, all the things that come from that *are* said.

 

In passing, I see that person of note (in my area, at least) has made a significant achievement in the last little while. I hope he's run out of "Oh, I didn't know that wasn't approved of" ploys by now (he moved away, to great "dismay", a few years ago, so I wouldn't know). It sure was fun pointing them out to him, and watching that less-Proper behaviour stop, only to be replaced by something he hadn't been told was imProper yet.

[nige1]

No, because it doesn't meet your own definition of cheating: they're not trying to gain, and they probably don't even know that they're breaking the rules.

If gnasher doesn't like that definition, he can suggest another. I don't know if Bridgewinners, who always do what they would have done without UI, know the rules. Some might know the rules and might be aware that choosing a suggested action over a non-suggested logical alternative will sometimes gain. I agree that it's hard to tell whether any do. They might know whether they cheat. For an observer, it's a grey area. (FWIW, I don't think they cheat).