[jeremy69]

On Monday night my opponent held
♠ 3
♥ KQJ876543
♦ K3
♣Q

Her partner opened 1NT (12-14) Next hand bid 2♣ (♠+Ano). She bid 6H. It was cold. Extraordinary, incredible, her partner had 3 Aces for her Weak NT. Was she cheating? Had she fixed the board? Had she overheard? Don't be ridiculous! She gets 41% each week, tries many of these sort of efforts of which 98% do not work. Partner and I were fixed. It happens!

In England if you accused someone of cheating in a forum like this(and I accept it is disputed as to whether this has happened) then you might find yourself on the receiving end of a charge from the Laws and Ethics Committee which would not go away even if said person were convicted and sent too the gallows. Is there no concept of bringing the game into disrepute which is what the last 11 pages (or at least a lot of them) seem to do?
Indeed until about the end of page 4 of this thread when a few sane people said "Hang on a moment" accusation, trial, verdict and execution had already occurred.
Gnasher referred earlier to a case in the UK. It was the subject of painful and determined observation and discretion and featured no-one publicly discussing it or casting the first stone let alone the quarry load that has been cast here.

[Rossoneri]

The_Hog, on Jul 29 2010, 02:23 AM, said:

I find the behaviour of some of the posters in this thread to be absolutely disgusting. Perhaps they are just supporting a friend, but some of the comments and allegations that have been made are appalling.

....

Well said!

jeremy69, on Jul29 2010, 12:26 PM, said:

Indeed until about the end of page 4 of this thread when a few sane people said "Hang on a moment" accusation, trial, verdict and execution had already occurred.

Sad but true.

[Cyberyeti]

Fluffy, on Jul 29 2010, 06:09 AM, said:

I am not following all the trash in this thread, but Richard, didn't Ben clearly ask us to not let the player's name appear here?, maybe it has changed and I missed it, if that's the case sorry.

When his partner posted at length in the thread with the accused's permission I think this all changed.

[Codo]

Luckily I di not participate on the witch hunt which happened first.

I had seen no reason for the 6 ♦ bid besides a mechanical error.
So I may well had been guilty of more then one harsh word about this "cheat".

But now a lot looks different:

1. So far it is not disputed that this player tried to swing on many hands and was successless with this tactics on more then one hand. This could be verified by the hand records.
So why burn him for the one case where he was successfull?

2. There is nothing besides the bid itself which looks suspicious. No indication at all. Hard to built a case just because something was successfull.

3. You always have the benefit of the doubt.

I had never the "pleasure" to meet this guy in reality, nor do I have access to cases which included this person in the past. But even if he was guilty in former cases, this would not be important for this case. This would make a possible punishment harder, but it could not be used to make a punishment more likely.

[gnasher]

jeremy69, on Jul 29 2010, 12:26 PM, said:

Gnasher referred earlier to a case in the UK. It was the subject of painful and determined observation and discretion and featured no-one publicly discussing it or casting the first stone  let alone the quarry load that has been cast here.

I think you're referring to a post by MickyB, not me. The incidents I mentioned (breaking plates at breakfast, attempted misuse of EBU microphone, etc) would have been hard not to observe for anyone who was in the same room, although sadly I missed all of them.

[inquiry]

Cyberyeti, on Jul 29 2010, 08:34 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Jul 29 2010, 06:09 AM, said:

I am not following all the trash in this thread, but Richard, didn't Ben clearly ask us to not let the player's name appear here?, maybe it has changed and I missed it, if that's the case sorry.

When his partner posted at length in the thread with the accused's permission I think this all changed.

This is correct. Since permission has been granted to the person who posted the name, indeed it seems that things have changed.

Having said that, I think now that this is going before a committee, people should wait until that is over before reaching any conclusion.

[jeremy69]

Quote

I think you're referring to a post by MickyB, not me

Sorry. Yes, I was

[NickRW]

jeremy69, on Jul 29 2010, 11:26 AM, said:

On Monday night my opponent held
♠ 3
♥ KQJ876543
♦ K3
♣Q

Her partner opened 1NT...

As a total aside to the thread, that hand was a right pain. The club secretary's wife didn't overcall the NT opening, but thought about it. 4♥ from the hand above, by nothing less than a trained TD. Then 4♠ from his LHO, the secretary himself, normally a very mild mannered man. At which point I got summoned as director for the night. Well, I won't go into all the detail - but the "c" word or allusions to that effect were said by both sides. Fortunately I was able to restore order and was glad of having a couple of experienced appeal committee people playing that night.

First time I've ever had to convene an appeal committee!

Nick

[Echognome]

Somewhat of an aside here. I have heard a lot more when I lived in England that when anyone insinuated "cheating" that "you will hear from my solicitor". It seemed such an idle threat to me. I don't know that much about defamation (slander or libel) of character in law (in the U.S. or in England), but I never hear about any cases in the media. To me it just seems like gusto and bravado that you will hear from my lawyer.

Also, aren't there defenses of the statement being true or that the statement is just an opinion? I'd be interested in hearing from our legal experts on the board if they actually deal with any defamation lawsuits. I understand that sanctions from the acbl are quite another story.

Note that I do understand that the acbl accusing someone of cheating is quite different in that they are an organization that can be sued. I recall reading that settlements have been made in such cases in the past. I just haven't heard of any lawsuits involving individuals. However, they may be out there.

[cherdanno]

gnasher, on Jul 29 2010, 03:48 AM, said:

awm, on Jul 29 2010, 07:00 AM, said:

I'm not sure why the dealing of hands is particularly relevant.

The two highest profile cheating cases (in the ACBL) in recent years both involved hand-dealing. It's been suggested in this case is that if cheating occurred it was probably done during the dealing.

OTOH, I would guess the most frequent type of cheating that happens (besides using UI from partner's manner and tempo) is based on overhearing remarks at other tables.

[TimG]

gnasher, on Jul 29 2010, 03:48 AM, said:

awm, on Jul 29 2010, 07:00 AM, said:

I'm not sure why the dealing of hands is particularly relevant.

The two highest profile cheating cases (in the ACBL) in recent years both involved hand-dealing. It's been suggested in this case is that if cheating occurred it was probably done during the dealing.

That's probably just because it is a bad way to cheat. I suspect there are lots more people cheating through overheard information than board fixing and that the perpetrators get away with the overheard information form of cheating a much higher percentage of the time.

[aguahombre]

Rossoneri, on Jul 29 2010, 05:35 AM, said:

jeremy69, on Jul29 2010, 12:26 PM, said:

Indeed until about the end of page 4 of this thread when a few sane people said "Hang on a moment" accusation, trial, verdict and execution had already occurred.

Sad but true.

Not really true. At least two posts as early as page two might constitute a "hang on a moment."

[awm]

My understanding is that despite the US reputation as a litigious society, lawsuits for slander (or libel) are much more difficult here than in Europe. In the US it's not enough that the statement in question be false and harmful to a person's reputation; one also has to show that the person saying it knew (and not just should/could have known but actually knew) it was false at the time. A very difficult standard to meet.

[mikeh]

As far as I know, defamation cases are far more difficult to bring in the US than in either Canada or the UK. It's a question of balancing of public policies, with the US tending to favour freedom of expression at the possible cost of reputation, while the UK and Canada tend to favour protection of reputation. I should add that I understand that Canadian and UK law seems to have diverged somewhat over the years.

I actually know a fair bit about defamation....my client won one of the largest judgements in BC libel history a few years back.

It is a very complex area, and the laws in Canada will not necessarily apply elsewhere....altho some Commonwealth countries will likely be very similar.

It is important to distinguish between expressions of opinion (generally protected unless expressed maliciously) and allegations of fact. At the risk of greatly over-simplifying, many statements contain both fact and opinion, and the standard defence of 'fair comment' is based on proving that the factual allegations are true and that the comment was opinion based on true fact. Fail to make out the facts, and you lose no matter how fair the comment was...assuming it was defamatory. But make out the facts and, generally speaking, the comment is protected even if it would appear to be a bizarre comment to most people.

'I saw John running from the store with an unwrapped box....I think he stole it'

That is defamatory...suggesting John is a thief. But if you can prove that John was running from the store with an unwrapped box (He was late for a bus, and asked the clerk not to wrap it), the opinion is protected even if unfair. But, if you knew the truth and made the statement in order to harm John, that is malice and no longer fair comment.

'John's a thief! I saw him take a box from the store' That is, arguably, not opinion....it is a statement of fact...he 'is a thief'. You'd need to prove he stole the box.

This is a very simplistic summary of a complex legal topic, and the rules will differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

In addition, and very important in defamation, is the concept of innuendo...the setting out of language in a manner that will lead some of the readers to infer a defamatory meaning even tho the writer has been careful to avoid explicit language. One can be liable for damages for the innuendo as much as if one had been explicit.

It is not my intention to express any opinion as to whether anyone posting on this thread has crossed the line that divides protected speech from speech that would attract sanction. Not only is that a complex issue in and of itself, but there are (to a legal mind) fascinating issues as to where precisely any possible defamation may have occurred, given that posters write all over the world and the words appear on the internet.

Nothing herein should be relied upon by anyone as constituting legal advice.

[bluecalm]

Quote

overhearing remarks at other tables.

Well, I agree with that.
Both Bermuda Bowl and European Championship as well as all other European big tournaments are played that way though.

If they think it's just not possible to have the same boards they can generate different set for every match, that's not really any kind of problem is it ?

[Cyberyeti]

awm, on Jul 29 2010, 10:37 AM, said:

My understanding is that despite the US reputation as a litigious society, lawsuits for slander (or libel) are much more difficult here than in Europe. In the US it's not enough that the statement in question be false and harmful to a person's reputation; one also has to show that the person saying it knew (and not just should/could have known but actually knew) it was false at the time. A very difficult standard to meet.

This is correct, and is (in conjunction with the rewards awarded here) why many libel cases are brought in the UK even when the libel only has very tenuous connections here.

[jdonn]

It's true that pre-dealt cards are better than hand dealing but why stop there? Obviously playing on individual computer monitors is the best way of all to prevent both cheating and transmission of UI. It's funny that people always think the level they are used to is the optimal one.

[Fluffy]

jdonn, on Jul 29 2010, 04:36 PM, said:

It's funny that people always think the level they are used to is the optimal one.

This is as human as blaming someone else for your faults

[Phil]

cherdanno, on Jul 29 2010, 10:19 AM, said:

I would guess the most frequent type of cheating that happens (besides using UI from partner's manner and tempo) is based on overhearing remarks at other tables.

Disagree. The most frequent form of cheating is peeking at an opponents cards. Against weaker/older opponents, this is surprisingly easy to do.

Taking advantage of partner's mannerisms, etc., I suppose is cheating, but only if the opponents are too scared / stupid / unaware to call the TD

Re: overhearing results at other tables, because of usual Mitchell movement, it is pretty tough for an EW pair to get any information because the boards for the next round are being played two tables away. I suppose if someone was nefarious, they can make a little note on their cc for boards that are played later on, but this is unusual. I do agree a NS pair can get advance information on a board, especially when the other table commits the unpardonable sin of opening a traveler and discussing the results at other tables. At the NABCs, people are generally conscientious enough not to talk about the boards, and the tables are farther apart than in a club game.

Obviously it is about impossible to overhear anything in a swiss or KO unless the tables are set up in some fashion where the corresponding tables are too close.

I think its human nature to act on information just received, than to store it away and act on it later. The impulse to cheat tends to decrease with time.

[Fluffy]

Phil, on Jul 29 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

Taking advantage of partner's mannerisms, etc., I suppose is cheating, but only if the opponents are too scared / stupid / unaware to call the TD

If I called TD every time my opponent's took advantage of an UI... lol, well I only call for very obvious UI and a lot of people do hate me for that, just imagine if I called 10x times.

The real thing is, people are unaware that they are cheating, and as you said, human brain cannot make decisions ignoring facts he knows. Whenever I've tried to make a decision trying to ignore an UI, to my brain there could only come small nuances that leaned towards making the decision I knew was right.