[blml] Cheat?

[Guthrie]

[Richard Hills]
Indeed.  I agree that one of Nigel's apparent points over his
recent series of postings - that the current Lawbook encourages
and rewards cheating - is just silly.  And another of Nigel's
apparent points - that cheating is difficult to detect - is
even sillier.

(Advance apologies to Nigel if I have again misinterpreted a
nuance in the tenor of his postings.)

There is no purpose in cheating unless the cheater wants a
better-than-normal result.  But given the statistical nature
of bridge, and the fact that bridge experts and weather
forecasters are unique in their ability to accurately predict
outcomes, a cheat who consistently gains better-than-normal
results for no readily apparent reason will be noticed.

A case in point was the 1980s scandal involving the ACBL expert
partnership Cokin-Sion.  They consistently gained better-than-
normal results on the most difficult aspect of bridge, the
opening lead.  This inexplicable outcome caused Cokin-Sion to
be closely observed by spectators, and eventually a kibitzer
noticed a correlation between the suit of the opening lead and
the orientation of the pencil of the opening leader's partner.

[Nige1]
I overlooked this interesting posting by Richard.

My often stated belief is that few players cheat but many players 
rationalise rule-breaking (easy to do, given the current state of 
legislation).

Richard is right that I think it is hard to *prove* that a pair cheat.

Richard claims that cheating is easy to detect because "a cheat who 
consistently gains better-than-normal results for no readily
apparent reason will be noticed."

I concede some truth in Richard's assertion. For example, over the 
last 70 years, after a  good performance against an American team, a 
foreign pair were often accused of cheating :( Admittedly, in a few 
instances, it seems that a pair was actually cheating :( :( :(

The Reese-Shapiro case is a counter-example to Richard's scenario. At 
Buenos Aires, R-S results were worse than usual. The so-called 
"internal evidence" (from bidding and play) was inconclusive. The 
potentially damning evidence was the "observation and decoding" of 
"finger-signals". The WBF initially delivered an ambiguous verdict -- 
based on a preponderance of kibitzer evidence. However when the 
year-long British investigation exonerated R-S, the WBF unsheathed its 
claws and pronounced them guilty.

In the Kokish-Sion" case, Richard implies that "internal evidence" 
gave rise to suspicion. OK. But Richard admits that they were 
condemned by the evidence of a kibitzer who alleged a correlation 
between pen-orientation and lead.

Katz-Cohen were also exonerated. In their case, did "internal 
evidence" give rise to suspicion? What method were they alleged to 
have employed?

Has any pair been convicted on "internal evidence" alone?

Has a *contested ban* on alleged cheats ever lasted a full year?

Have the WBF published a comprehensive protocol to investigate 
cheating allegations? Has the WBF specified appropriate standards of 
"proof"? Has the WBF issued guidelines as to how to proceed when a 
"adequate" evidence is collected against a pair.