[jillybean]

Phil, on Jul 29 2010, 10:45 AM, 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

I disagree with your point here Phil, it's cheating any way you look at it. If your opponents are scared, stupid or unaware to call the td only makes it worse.

[matmat]

jillybean, on Jul 29 2010, 01:01 PM, said:

Phil, on Jul 29 2010, 10:45 AM, 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

I disagree with your point here Phil, it's cheating any way you look at it. If your opponents are scared, stupid or unaware to call the td only makes it worse.

My personal feeling is that ethics and a form of honour code is not hammered enough into beginning players and they are often allowed to get away with stuff because they're "new."

[Phil]

Fluffy, on Jul 29 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

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.

Sure I agree. Lets not bother the director for these little transgressions. I mean, whats the harm in a little playful 'table action'? Don't say anything when an opponent sighs, stares at the ceiling, makes extraneous comments during a live auction or while on defense. Don't be a wet blanket and ruin the game with a lot of director calls.

Better yet, play in stronger games.

[Lobowolf]

With respect to the legal ramifications, there are a couple of issues upon which some of the legal questions hinge.


First, the basic elements of defamation of character as a legal claim:

A. Statement is false and defamatory (harmful to one's reputation)
B. Statement went to a third party (or parties. In other words, if I confront someone and say something that would otherwise defame him, but it's just the two of us, there's no case. This ties into (A) - his reputation isn't hurt, because nobody else heard the statement).
C. Damage to the Plaintiff. In other words, the Plaintiff must demonstrate how he was harmed, e.g. sales at my store dropped 25% after someone sent out 10 million E-mails saying I smoke crack while driving without a seat belt and talking on my cell phone.


Now the "extras":

1. IF the defamation is a matter of public concern, then and only then must the Plaintiff prove at least negligence.
2. IF the person allegedly defamed is a "public figure," then and only then, he is required to prove an additional element of his case - malice (this goes to Adam's comment). Actual knowledge is not required; only a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement. And if the Plaintiff is not a public figure, this element is not required. A false, defamatory statement to a third party that causes damages is enough.
3. IF the statement causes harm to one's *professional* reputation, then damages are presumed, and do not have to be proven by the Plaintiff.

3. is one category (of four) of "defamation per se." Another category is allegations that a person committed a crime of moral turpitude. Again, in that case, the Plaintiff would not have to prove actual damages.


The public figure distinction makes it harder for celebrities to win lawsuits for defamation than for "ordinary people," and results in more unsuccessful lawsuits in the high profile cases (which tend to involve celebrities).


Nothing in this post should be taken as constituting legal advice, or should be relied on by anyone involved in, or contemplating, legal action.

[Lobowolf]

jeremy69, on Jul 29 2010, 06:26 AM, said:

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.

The question is, what about when her bid is 6♦, THAT contract is cold, and 6♥ goes down on a heart ruff at trick one.


<----Best smiley I could find to indicate a 3/4-facetious post.

[Cascade]

matmat, on Jul 30 2010, 06:04 AM, said:

jillybean, on Jul 29 2010, 01:01 PM, said:

Phil, on Jul 29 2010, 10:45 AM, 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

I disagree with your point here Phil, it's cheating any way you look at it. If your opponents are scared, stupid or unaware to call the td only makes it worse.

My personal feeling is that ethics and a form of honour code is not hammered enough into beginning players and they are often allowed to get away with stuff because they're "new."

Agree

[jkdood]

matmat, on Jul 29 2010, 01:04 PM, said:

My personal feeling is that ethics and a form of honour code is not hammered enough into beginning players and they are often allowed to get away with stuff because they're "new."

I personally feel M-M-'s post is so-so true. As a younger/serious aspiring player frequenting club games to gain experience, I was offended by the abundant coffee-housing and mannerisms so many times that I found myself calling for the club TD at least once a session...

...needless to say, the TDs were not amused, the perpetrators took more offense at the calls than I did at the presumed UI, and I gained a reputation not to be envied.

I eventually just gave up (club games as well) and wish I had given up sooner. As long as the new players think bridge can be played like poker because no one insisted otherwise in a calm convincing way, or remain oblivious to the UI from pauses and mannerisms, there is no good answer.

OTOH, having taught bridge beginners, I can't imagine an easy route to such education, as the struggle to learn bridge tactics and strategy is just all-consuming for most. I for one think getting the club TDs to be more engaged(perhaps a 1 minute educational comment about avoiding UI at the start of each club game) might help a lot, but I understand that with dwindling attendance they have other priorities.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Jul 29 2010, 01:21 PM, said:

jeremy69, on Jul 29 2010, 06:26 AM, said:

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.

The question is, what about when her bid is 6♦, THAT contract is cold, and 6♥ goes down on a heart ruff at trick one.


<----Best smiley I could find to indicate a 3/4-facetious post.

It's funny I was thinking. Take the actual hand - Axx AQxx AKQxxx. Suppose this hand jumped to 6NT over 3♠ instead of 6♦. And suppose this was the full hand:

---

If south had bid 6♣ or 6♦ he would have gone down. 6♣ by north makes but let's pretend it was a similar hand to this where it doesn't (I'm almost certain I could construct such a hand but I don't have time right now).

Would this be enough "proof" that the player holding this hand had in some way cheated? I only ask this question to gather peoples' opinions on whether purely circumstantial evidence could ever be strong enough to throw the book at someone.

[Echognome]

Unfortunately, some of the worst ethics perpetrated at the club I frequented while I lived in England, was by a person that taught beginner bridge classes.

[jkdood]

jdonn, on Jul 29 2010, 01:45 PM, said:

Would this be enough "proof" that the player holding this hand had in some way cheated? I only ask this question to gather peoples' opinions on whether purely circumstantial evidence could ever be strong enough to throw the book at someone.

Nice example, JD.
I would vote yes on that example.

But call it RoC or Law of Coincidence or whatever, if there is going to be any redress for a bid 0 in 1000 whatevers would find, that is spectacularly successful, as a matter of law, with no evidence of UI otherwise available, let's fully document, publish, define, and agree on the parameters and remedy first.

[BudH]

One more fact since there have been questions on the shuffling and dealing of the eight boards and whether all eight boards were shuffled in front of all four players.

15. An entire hand was face up in one of the pockets of all eight boards in full view of all four players before the shuffling of the eight boards started. All eight boards were shuffled and dealt in front of the four players with each board starting with a card showing face up before being shuffled and dealt.

[gwnn]

An uncanny amount of ostensibly valid evidence against cheating.

[jkdood]

I suppose JD could also move the K of D around and find a layout where 7NT makes.

Reminds me of an amusing Justin tale. (Hope he finds it amusing as well.)

When he was still wet behind the ears (but loaded with talent) he played with his mom at a nationals and during the session some wheels came off the cart and he felt a need to "show his mom" by up and bidding 7NT on one hand for no apparent logical bridge reason.

If I remember correctly, the bid was not at all a success and he was in the hotel lobby at 3AM locked out of the hotel room in retribution. (I was returning from creights with Treadwell.)

Now think, if that had just been a 1 in 1000 (1000000?) layout like JD's?

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Jul 29 2010, 09:45 PM, said:

Would this be enough "proof" that the player holding this hand had in some way cheated? I only ask this question to gather peoples' opinions on whether purely circumstantial evidence could ever be strong enough to throw the book at someone.

Hi Josh

I'm very leery about using expressions like "proof" in cases like this one. I'm much more comfortable with

1. Posterior probability or
2. Statistically significant

Assuming that I was a passive, outside observer with no emotional investment in the case I'm not sure whether I would ever be willing to use the expression "cheating" based on a single observation.

If I did, I'd want to see a fairly thorough analysis accompanying this...

[TimG]

jdonn, on Jul 29 2010, 01:45 PM, said:

Would this be enough "proof" that the player holding this hand had in some way cheated? I only ask this question to gather peoples' opinions on whether purely circumstantial evidence could ever be strong enough to throw the book at someone.

A single case? I don't think so.

It would take repeated cases for me. I don't know how many.

[gnasher]

TimG, on Jul 29 2010, 09:17 PM, said:

A single case? I don't think so.

It would take repeated cases for me. I don't know how many.

Me too.

[Echognome]

I think we are somewhat missing the point. No single bidding sequence is sufficient without further details. You can take any bid that works out and if at the table, the person looks sheepish and says "I thought I pulled out bid X, but then saw Y on the table after partner had already passed." However, there is the other extreme where you investigate and they really don't have a good answer or even admit to something. Clearly one case is enough if they admit to it. Right folks?

The number of cases is irrelevant in my view. However, Josh has provided us with an example where it would be pretty tough to explain one's actions if they didn't misbid. It doesn't mean they can't be explained, it's just harder. In my view, the bidding is just one part of the evidence. The critical remaining pieces of evidence have to be explored by the TD after being called to the table.

[gnasher]

I assumed that Josh's question was whether this would be sufficient evidence in a case like the one being discussed, where the player would offer no explanation other than that he thought it was the right action on his hand in the particular circumstances of the match.

I don't see how the number of cases can be irrelevant. If a player takes ten bizarre actions which all work, without any unsuccessful actions of the same sort, that is obviously stronger evidence than a single successful instance.

[OleBerg]

Can't help thinking of the incident from approx. one year ago, from a tournament in Europe.

The incident is most remembered for the match where the german team quit ½-way thriugh the last segment.

But the match before, a player (Wladow, I think), had single-handedly staged a 60-imp comeback. Fortunately for him it was under circumstances where he could not have UI. So sometimes crazy bids are made by high-level players. And sometimes they work. Why shouldn't it happen to someone in ACBL-land, once in a while.


And as an aside:

I haven't delved into this, but reading Wolff's book is not convincing to me. He presents to few facts, and expect people to simply believe him, because of who he is.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Jul 29 2010, 04:54 PM, said:

I don't see how the number of cases can be irrelevant. If a player takes ten bizarre actions which all work, without any unsuccessful actions of the same sort, that is obviously stronger evidence than a single successful instance.

Well no matter what someone answers to my question, obviously multiple occurences is more suspicious than 1. The question is whether 1 can be suspicious enough. I would at least suggest that not only does number of occurences matter but magnitude does as well. For example it would be very unusual for a player to jump to 7♣ over 3♠ on the hand in question, but it would be far more unusual for a player to jump to 6NT over 3♠.