All they perhaps had to do was create a few off-the-track calls or plays that didn’t work, but they just never seemed to find that willpower. Perhaps a sign of their psyche. And I hope I am not giving prospective cheaters any ideas!

The less frequent actions like 6D suffer from lack of frequency, and no matter how outrageous, there is no objective way to prove that a single such action is IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT UI. Perhaps if 1000 of the player’s peers skill-wise, creative-wise, and mental-aberration-wise were given the full conditions and carefully polled, and 0 found the call or play, that would be evidence. But that is too tough to do. So however distasteful and suspicious the action, citing a handful or two or three of “top experts” that agree to such a characterization is still unconclusive for court.

Of course, the court of public opinion is another matter, and even the pre-investigative word of mouth in my dealings with JRM was useful in uncovering those worthy of formal investigation.

It is unfortunate that there are liabilities to this, as well as indignation by some with strong views. Were it practical, I might suggest that the ACBLs have a “special recorder” to whom one could funnel suspicious actions, like JRM received in a former role, with NO alerting the suspect. At some point, roll the video cameras, as has been done before. And you have your evidence that cannot be refuted by bridge explanation or logic.

I wish this was practical as well as possible, as a way to deal with suspicious actions. Maybe the recent **** hitting the fan will further that wish.

The arguments against doing so are that it can interfere with an orderly investigation, as you note. It was my understanding from Justin’s post that the investigation, such as it was, had been completed when the hand was posted.

I do think that if you have any trust at all in the investigating agency, and the investigation is not complete, that it’s a good idea to wait.

–JRM

Lets just say that after smoking some strong weed a player make some crazy anti percentage bid/play that work. Its basically the same bid/play as what a cheater would do.

What make more sense to do ?

The punisher approach would be to sandbag and investigate the players hands record and play ..If the guy is a cheater than after many more victims we can do something but all the victims cannot be compensated. If the guy is a smoker than we are going to laugh at some hands records.

In both case however the victims will of course insinuate cheating and rumours and opinion will spread like wildfire.

If we need a guilty verdict for the victims to be compensated, than its normal for the victims and for “punisher” to push the case too hard. (talking about cases in general, not this one)

The lets think about victim first approach.
Director gets called and see the highly suspicious play/bids. Bring the hand at the director table and they agree its suspicious. They ask the accused the logic or reasoning behind play/bid. If the response insnt convincing they ask for appeal committee. If committee agree then its correction of score under laws of “protecting against highly suspicious play/bid”

The smoker/cheater might accept the decision more smoothly than being directly accused of cheating (without direct evidence very important not to forget) and be more careful the next time.

If i were a “victim” of a smoker play. I would be happy if a committee is formed and their goal is to protect my score rather than detect any sort of cheating.

Im sure many players would you find this as an acceptable compromise, and more importantly one that is practical of a domain without direct evidence.

Based on your prior experience, do you think it’s important that the hand details – even anonymously, as Justin provided in all forums – be withheld from judgment from the public until investigations with the relevant bridge organizations are complete?

Please disregard the question if your experience hasn’t involved any crossover with face-to-face bridge organizations.

>Because of how hard cheating is to catch and
>prosecute in bridge, I think the nature of the
>self policing that goes on is fine.

Its not that difficult to make dramatic improvements to the security at ACBL events. The problems is not the difficulty with catching cheats, its the unwillingness to adopt obvious safeguards.

ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING….

Glenn

Do you really think the 2 hands you gave more than 10% of experts will think you need UI or cheat to make these bids or leads ? I sure no expert will put the example you gave in the same bag as Jlall hand.

With that auction the K of D is probably the proper lead and with AKx and a doubleton 4M cannot be such an ugly contract.

Sure appeal take time and energy, but its nowhere near the time an energy to investigate & condemn a cheater.