In recent bridge publications there is little written on ethics and cheating. Not so in days past. Victor Mollo and Nico Gardener in Bridge for Beginners devote a section to ethics in the second chapter.
"What a player should bid will be discussed in the next lesson. How he should bid can be laid down firmly this minute. The manner must be impersonal and the voice even."
"Intonation and inflection, and even bouncing up and down in one's chair, all are frowned upon in the best circles. The word for these emotional aids to science is 'unethical', and that is almost a synonym for cheating."
The 1947 book Steamlined Bridge or Bidding without Tears by Mollo has an entire chapter devoted to the subject and from there I have stolen the title of this blog.
"A number of honest and highly respected people cheat at Bridge. They don't mark their cards or slip Aces or even signal to their partners by means of snorts and kicks. If they did anything so crude, they would be quickly exposed and disgraced. But many a man with a virtuaous past and many a woman with a rosy future, pursue tactics that are fraudulent, both in the letter and in the spirit. Sometimes it is practiced in a moral twilight, consciousness being obscured partly - though not wholly - by ignorance. Occasionally it is quite deliberate."
How have things progressed in the sixty plus years since those words were written? Very poorly. With little or no education how could they? In a word the cheaters flourish. By and large they are not reprimanded and there is therefore no incentive for them to mend their ways.
Sure there are a few high profile cases where players are penalized or even banned for cheating. I am not writing about those incidents.
And on the other extreme we all or almost all probably commit some minor misdemenour from time to time. It can be hard to do the right ethical thing every time when faced with extraneous information from partner etc. Again I am not writing about those incidents.
I am referrng to a significant number of players who always or almost always bid based on their partner's hesitation or mannerisms. Who never deliberately choose the losing option when their partner has illegally and perhaps subtlely indicated the winning option.
For me this issue came to a head last weekend at a tournament where two hands in my mind very similar in nature came up two boards apart. The closeness of the hands emphasised the use of unauthorized information.
Swiss Pairs (IMPs v Datum)Board 5
North Deals
N-S Vul | ♠ 5 4
♥ Q 9 8 7 2
♦ 9 8 6
♣ Q 6 2
|
♠ 3
♥ K J
♦ A K J 7 5
♣ A 9 8 4 3
| |
♠ 7 2
♥ 10 6 5 3
♦ Q 10 3
♣ J 10 7 5
|
| ♠ A K Q J 10 9 8 6
♥ A 4
♦ 4 2
♣ K
|
| West | North | East | South |
| Pass | Pass | 4 ♠ |
| Dbl | Pass | 5 ♣ | All pass |
Swiss Pairs (IMPs v Datum)
Board 7
South Deals
Both Vul | ♠ —
♥ A K J 10 4
♦ Q 5 2
♣ 9 8 6 3 2
|
♠ J 8 2
♥ Q 5 2
♦ A K 8 7
♣ A K 5
| |
♠ Q 5 3
♥ 8 7 3
♦ J 9 6 4
♣ Q J 10
|
| ♠ A K 10 9 7 6 4
♥ 9 6
♦ 10 3
♣ 7 4
|
| West | North | East | South |
| | | 3 ♠ |
| Dbl | All pass |
As you can see one double was taken out and the other left in. So what its a game of judgement and these things happen you say. However I have not told you the whole story. This pair were playing their version of optional doubles. A method that is very sensitive to unauthorized information. Its very easy to leave in or take out an optional double when partner's speed or mannerisms convey additional information.
When asked East explained the double on the first board as "Either takeout or penalty. I have to decide". In the presence of the director West concurred with this saying "Yes we play optional doubles".
Perhaps this is not what everyone would call an 'optional double' but that is what was said at the table.
When the second double was made the specific question asked was "Do you play this double the same as the previous one?" This was answered in the affirmative.
So why was the first double removed and the second double passed?
The secret is in the tempo of the double.
These hands were played where a stop card is required before a jump bid. South on both occasions used the stop card and waited the required ten seconds before removing it.
On board five west angonized for a further 20+ seconds (30 seconds in all) before doubling and her partner pulled the double.
On board seven west doubled immediately after the bid was made and while the stop card was still on the table. Surprise surprise this double was left in.
Amazingly the director allowed both actions.
Superficially 4♠ fails on the first board so at first glance you might see no damage. However the play is interesting. After three rounds of diamonds, the third ruffed in hand, declarer can put west to the test by playing the ♣K. This may give the illusion of trying to create an entry to dummy in order to take a trump finesse. And even if west takes the ♣A it is not completely clear how to continue - a trump or a diamond defeat the contract and a club or a heart see declarer home.
On the published datums declarer is winning 13 IMPs or losing 3 IMPs in 4♠ doubled. While 5♣ -1 was worth 4 IMPs to north south. So the misdefense needs to occur a little less than one time in two for declarer to in profit on average playing in 4♠ doubled. One commentator has suggested that 4♠ might make around 60% of the time. On that basis an adjusted score of 60% of 13 IMPs and 40% of -3 IMPs, a total of 6.6 IMPs, would be justified.
The second hand was taken to appeal.
The relevant laws are:
Law 73 C
"Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner
When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information."
Law16B1a
"Extraneous Information from Partner
1. (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information."
Law 73 is the most interesting. The player "must carefully avoid taking any advantage" this is a very strong statement. The pattern of the two boards suggests that for this player taking advantage of partner's tempo is routine rather than something to be avoided.
Board Five established that for this player removing one of these 'optional' doubles it a logical alternative with balanced rubbish. On the assumption that the fast double suggests leaving the 'optional' double in Law 16 disallows that action.
To me this seems clear.
Nevertheless the appeal committee allowed the pass. Thus east west gained an advantage over the two boards of up to 23 IMPs (or perhaps even more if their final contract had been doubled had the double of 3♠ been removed). 9 IMPs on the first board losing 4 rather than losing 13 IMPs if 4♠ doubled made and 14 IMPs on second where they won seven rather than losing seven (more if they get doubled).
These sort of rulings are patently absurd. The offenders gain a significant advantage whilst the non-offenders are left to lick their wounds.
In fact in addition to the redress for the damage caused I believe east west should have suffered a sizeable penalty. The word "must" in Law 73 is very strong. The preface to the laws state that the weaker term "shall" when not complied with will be penalized more often than not therefore for failing to do what one "must" do ought to receive a nearly automatic penalty.
Failing to give redress and failing to penalize whilst contemporaneously failing to make any attempt to educate these unethical players just encourages them to continue with their skullduggery. Sadly this is born out in that in some circles these tactics are fast becoming the norm rather the exception.
Well then "Do you Cheat?"
