[zasanya]

Most active bridge players are very concerned about the attitude of the officials who are in charge of administering bridge tournaments.All of them believe that officials have been inactive as far as catching cheaters is concerned.
I am more concerned about the inaction of ethical bridge players. Why don't they simply refuse to play in a team which includes players against whom there are whispers loud enough to strongly suspect unethical behaviour. If enough number of ethical strong players do it one of the following 3 things may happen.
1) The cheaters will not be a part of strong teams and will not have an opportunity to play in top level tournaments.
2) The WBF will notice that certain pairs who were successful at one time are now being shunned. WBF can then concentrate on the videos of these players thus greatly reducing the policing job.
3) The cheaters may change their methods and become ethical.
Am I being naive?

[awm]

The penalties for refusing to play can be quite severe -- its much worse than a match forfeit. And players who are known for refusing to play (regardless of the reasons) are not likely to find themselves on many good teams.

Besides, there are likely pairs who are "whispered about" but guilty of nothing.

[sfi]

The original poster is talking about refusing to play with suspected cheats, not against them. A much different and less fraught proposition.

[1eyedjack]

zasanya, on 2015-October-12, 22:12, said:

3) The cheaters may change their methods and become ethical.

4) The cheaters may change their methods and become more subtle.

[rhm]

sfi, on 2015-October-12, 23:51, said:

The original poster is talking about refusing to play with suspected cheats, not against them. A much different and less fraught proposition.

The original poster assumes that the remainder of a team know or suspect their team mates to cheat.
A very silly assumption.
Note, Boy Brogeland not long ago played with F-S many times in the same team and won quite a few national US titles with them.

Eric Kokish made some similar silly remarks about the rest of the German senior team when they played with the doctors in Bali.

At the time I replied with the Reese Shapiro scandal in Argentina 1965.
Whatever you believe about Reese Shapiro, if they cheated you seem to assume that their team mates at the time

Jeremy Flint
Albert Rose
Maurice Harrison Gray
Kenneth Konstam

either knew or suspected that Reese Shapiro cheated or these team mates are evidence, if you consider them gentlemen, that Reese Shapiro never cheated.

Do you really believe Helgemo, Hellness, Zimmerman, Moulton suspected Fantony Nunes of cheating and Zimmeman still payed them playing with them?
Do you want to claim that Auken and Welland are of dubious reputation because they formed a team with Smirnov Piekarek?
Note that Auken was instrumental in forcing a confession from them once there was serious evidence.

To me this is all absurd. Do you really want that based on gossip and flimsy evidence players should refuse to play with each other and against each other?

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

I think that for such a boycut to be effective a pair needs to have a very tainted reputation. So yes, except for extreme cases like the doctors I think you are a bit naive

[sfi]

rhm, on 2015-October-13, 03:46, said:

To me this is all absurd. Do you really want that based on gossip and flimsy evidence players should refuse to play with each other and against each other?

Rainer Herrmann

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I either believe any of the statements you rather fancifully attribute to me or that I want the outcomes you mention. If you read what I actually wrote, you may realise that I expressed no opinion one way or another on the desirability of acting as suggested by the original post. Nor am I intending to do so publicly.

And if you are going to be using inflammatory language to cast aspersions regarding someone's belief about cheating, it would be a good idea to make sure you understand what you are replying to first.

[aguahombre]

SFI: Rainer's choice to quote your post was unfortunate. But, to me it was clear he was addressing the OP, not you. He was sloppy, that's all. I have had my post quoted by forum members in the past where their thoughts actually agree with mine and expand upon them. But the mere fact that I was quoted makes a casual reader start out by assuming it is a rebuttal.

[zasanya]

helene_t, on 2015-October-13, 03:51, said:

I think that for such a boycut to be effective a pair needs to have a very tainted reputation. So yes, except for extreme cases like the doctors I think you are a bit naive

I followed the discussion on bridgewinners about cheating and I got the impression that the pairs accused of cheating indeed had a very tainted reputation. Many of the top players have openly stated there that they had suspected/known that these pairs were cheating.One of the pairs was admonished and punished when they were juniors and Mr Bobby Wolfe had even officially complained against another ten years ago.Now I am not saying Brogland or Helgemo/Helness KNEW about their teammates but surely they must have heard some loud whispers and surely they must have noticed some great results in their favour from apparently illogical plays and surely they have enough analytical ability to strongly suspect that there is a strong possibility of unethical behaviour and surely they are good enough to find another team worthy of their skills or even to prevail upon the sponsor to find a clean pair? And if this has not happened in the past why not consider it now, instead of cribbing about the inaction of authority? Cribbing may be a strong word and my apologies in advance if the words offend someone. Seems the malaise of using inflammatory language is infectious.
Please note that I have the highest respect for the players named and therefore I expect them to be proactive.A few months ago Fantunes were gods for me.They no longer are.
The players have certain rights but don't they have certain duties?

[captyogi]

rhm, on 2015-October-13, 03:46, said:

The original poster assumes that the remainder of a team know or suspect their team mates to cheat.
A very silly assumption.
Note, Boy Brogeland not long ago played with F-S many times in the same team and won quite a few national US titles with them.

Eric Kokish made some similar silly remarks about the rest of the German senior team when they played with the doctors in Bali.

At the time I replied with the Reese Shapiro scandal in Argentina 1965.
Whatever you believe about Reese Shapiro, if they cheated you seem to assume that their team mates at the time

Jeremy Flint
Albert Rose
Maurice Harrison Gray
Kenneth Konstam

either knew or suspected that Reese Shapiro cheated or these team mates are evidence, if you consider them gentlemen, that Reese Shapiro never cheated.

Do you really believe Helgemo, Hellness, Zimmerman, Moulton suspected Fantony Nunes of cheating and Zimmeman still payed them playing with them?
Do you want to claim that Auken and Welland are of dubious reputation because they formed a team with Smirnov Piekarek?
Note that Auken was instrumental in forcing a confession from them once there was serious evidence.

To me this is all absurd. Do you really want that based on gossip and flimsy evidence players should refuse to play with each other and against each other?

Rainer Herrmann

some times you need to keep quiet, but alert and keep collecting evidence , without even letting cheaters get the smell of it, that others have noticed it and keep cheaters under impression that nobody knows nothing.

If team mates do not realize it soon enough, they have to be dumb / dopes. which certainly none is in bridge at higher level.

More over it is very serious matter, so team mates need good time for confirmation.

[barmar]

Don't forget about cognitive dissonance. It can be a strong psychological barrier to admitting that your teammates, who you may be good friends with, are severely unethical. It's like when a battered spouse makes excuses for their spouse's behavior rather than admitting that they're a monster, alcoholic, etc. It had to take Boye great integrity to call out problems with his own teammates, and it's understandable why it took him so long. Rumors are just that, and you don't want to shun your teammates on unsubstantiated claims.

[rbforster]

1eyedjack, on 2015-October-13, 00:12, said:

4) The cheaters may change their methods and become more subtle.

5. The cheaters play with other cheaters.

[Vampyr]

zasanya, on 2015-October-13, 08:35, said:

I followed the discussion on bridgewinners about cheating and I got the impression that the pairs accused of cheating indeed had a very tainted reputation...

Now I am not saying Brogland or Helgemo/Helness KNEW about their teammates but surely they must have heard some loud whispers and surely they must have noticed some great results in their favour from apparently illogical plays and surely they have enough analytical ability to strongly suspect that there is a strong possibility of unethical behaviour and surely they are good enough to find another team worthy of their skills or even to prevail upon the sponsor to find a clean pair? And if this has not happened in the past why not consider it now, instead of cribbing about the inaction of authority? Cribbing may be a strong word and my apologies in advance if the words offend someone. Seems the malaise of using inflammatory language is infectious.

LOL I have no idea what "cribbing" means, but what few advocates of this position seem to acknowledge is that innocent pairs against whom there are whispers (and these can also easily be part of a malicious campaign) will find themselves pariahs.

And I do believe that it is possible to be unaware that your teammates are cheating. The cleverer cheats have not yet been detected, and they are probably much harder to catch because they don't cheat on every hand. The pairs that have so far been caught have been using ludicrously simple methods and using them too often.

EDIT: Have discovered that "cribbing" is a behavioural disorder found in, er, horses.

[shyams]

Vampyr, on 2015-October-20, 04:59, said:

LOL I have no idea what "cribbing" means, but what few advocates of this position seem to acknowledge is that innocent pairs against whom there are whispers (and these can also easily be part of a malicious campaign) will find themselves pariahs.

EDIT: Have discovered that "cribbing" is a behavioural disorder found in, er, horses.

Oft-used idiom in Indian English. It roughly means complaining, bickering or moaning about something.

Another word used commonly in India is "prepone" instead of advance or bring forward -- as in opposite of postpone

[steve2005]

captyogi, on 2015-October-13, 08:43, said:

If team mates do not realize it soon enough, they have to be dumb / dopes. which certainly none is in bridge at higher level.

It took months of reviewing video with help from others for Boye to know there was cheating. I don't think it fair to question someone's intelligence cause they didn't figure something out which takes 100's of man hours to reach a conclusion.
Yes, your going to say should know from whispers. Well in real life (not necessarily talking about just bridge) whispers are wrong as often as they are right.

[captyogi]

steve2005, on 2015-October-20, 14:56, said:

It took months of reviewing video with help from others for Boye to know there was cheating. I don't think it fair to question someone's intelligence cause they didn't figure something out which takes 100's of man hours to reach a conclusion.
Yes, your going to say should know from whispers. Well in real life (not necessarily talking about just bridge) whispers are wrong as often as they are right.

It need not be applicable to all Team Mates. I Do not say Boye was Dumb/ Dope, he was far too intelligent.
He took good time to make sure his doubts and keep collecting evidence, so once the operation has been launched, no need to retreat any time.

Mine is applicable only to those, who pretend to be not realizing, as they are the beneficiaries.

[0 carbon]

New Yorker article on bridge cheats.

[0 carbon]

Whispers should not be judgements. If cheating is suspected, it should be proven and the cheaters banned.

[lcsmw]

There will always be cheaters in any competitive sport. The most subtle of these is private partnership understandings.
I've complained about opponents who open 1 nt with a singleton. I ask the partner if this is usual and they play dumb. If a player does it at our table they have likely done it before. I have complained to a director about bad behavior and to the head director and was not at all satisfied with the action taken. Bad behavior and cheating are normally not a one time thing but a pattern and action taken against these issues is inadequate.

[barmar]

I read that the ACBL Board of Directors passed a resolution this week that 1NT with a singleton A, K, or Q should now be considered natural, as it has become common practice among good players. Not to mention there was an article in the Bridge Bulletin a few months ago that recommended it.