Cheating in bridge

Cheating in bridge refers to a deliberate violation of the rules of the game of bridge or other unethical behaviour that is intended to give an unfair advantage to a player or team. Cheating can occur in many forms and can take place before, during, or after a board or game.

Commonly cited instances of cheating include: conveying information to a partner by means of a pre-arranged illegal signal, viewing the opponents' cards in a board prior to their arrival at the table, altering the records as to the results of a board; in certain games, it may include illicit shuffling to deal favourable cards to oneself or one's partner or marking cards so as to make their denomination and/or rank apparent to the perpetrator.

Definition

Unlike games such as chess which provide perfect information to the competitors, bridge is a game of imperfect information, and the exact contents of partner's and opponents' hands remain unknown until later in the play. Players are only entitled to act upon information conveyed by calls made and cards played, along with the visible contents of their own hand (and dummy's hand when exposed). ''Unauthorized information'' (UI) (Law 16) is any information that a player obtains by means of:
* Partner's remarks, questions, mannerisms, hesitation and similar,
* Information from calls and plays which were legally withdrawn and/or substituted as a consequence of that side's infraction (the non-offending side may use this information),
* Overhearing remarks at other tables or seeing a wrong card.
Law 16 of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge states that ''Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law.''

The highest bridge ethics, expected from the top players, require that the players take extra steps neither to convey nor to act on any unauthorized information. However, as the stakes in terms of prize money, sponsor money and ranking are often high, throughout the history of the game there have been a number of players who have used illegal methods in order to gain an advantage over their opponents. A notable innovation in the 1960s and 70s was a move away from classic oral bidding at serious bridge events toward use of bidding boxes that contain cards. This allows players to signal their bids in a largely mute and orderly fashion with little opportunity for small talk, barring the use of an alert card wherein the players are in uncharted territory or otherwise using a custom bidding convention and may be required to explain if their opponents ask. This reduces the scope for unscrupulous players to smuggle in signals. An overt example in a casual game with oral bidding might go something like:

This example doesn't require coordination beforehand, but is illegal information sharing, as the partner can indicate the strength of their hand to allow for more accurate bidding. If attempting to cheat in at a more serious tournament, players might pre-arrange code words, hesitations, facial expressions, styles of speech, and so on as a ploy to share details on the strength and nature of their hand that would not even require small talk to execute.

Law 73 states:

and any deliberate act or behavior which conveys or obtains information other than by those means prescribed by the rules of the game constitutes cheating and is subject to sanctions by the governing bodies.

Apart from unlawful exchange of information, other forms of cheating include: viewing the opponents' cards in a board prior to their arrival at the table, altering the records as to the results of a board; in certain games, it may include illicit shuffling to deal favourable cards to oneself or one's partner, marking cards so as to make their denomination and or rank apparent only to the perpetrator, etc.

Certain errors or omissions by players which are inadvertent or purely procedural in nature, known as ''irregularities'', are subject to correction by the tournament director in a manner prescribed by the Laws and the governing bodies; this may include a procedural penalty. Similarly, the tournament director may impose a procedural penalty for any one or any repeated violation of the code of conduct for ethical behaviour (rudeness, coffee housing, etc.).

Related terms

Alcatraz coup – An illegal deliberate maneuver designed to gain information from the opponents by failing to follow suit during play. Suppose the dummy and declarer hold A J x and K 10 9 respectively, needing all tricks. The Jack is called from dummy and declarer revokes, pitching a card of another suit. If the Left Hand Opponent produces the Queen, declarer immediately announces the "careless error" and instead plays the King, then finessing the opponent out of the Queen. But if the Left Hand Opponent plays low, the declarer again quickly corrects the revoke playing low, since the finesse is assured.

Chicago Convention – An illegal (tongue-in-cheek) convention used against one's opponents to claim a fouled hand. For instance while playing rubber bridge, one dishonest player picks up a hand without values and through prior secret agreement, recites a phrase such as, "How is your aunt in Chicago?" Partner may reply with a coded negative phrase such as, "She died last week." (meaning both players have bad hands). One conspirator will then say, "I only have only 12 cards," to which the other conspirator will say, "and I have 14 cards!" The players then quickly throw their cards together on the table so their opponents' are unaware of the treachery. Also known as the 12-14 Convention.

Coffeehousing – A player may not perform extraneous or overt actions with the express purpose of frustrating or distracting a player. Some unscrupulous players use various emotional hooks, snapping cards, drumming fingers on table, inducing FUD: Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt, false flattery, sarcasm, embarrassment, greed, etc. Also known as "coffee housing", such misdeeds include making improper remarks, gestures, hesitations or the like, with the intention to confuse or mislead opponents (Law 73). After numerous deliberate opponent hesitations, Charles Goren advised a perpetrator, "Madam, that second hesitation certainly was an overbid!" Similarly, George Kaufman once retorted to his opponents, "Let's have a review of the bidding again, with all the inflections."

Irregularities – A breach of procedure, as described in the Laws and Proprieties, in bidding or play. If one is available, a director should be called to the table to make a ruling.

Procedures

Bridge governing bodies have established procedures for the reporting of cheating allegation and their investigation.

World Bridge Federation anti-doping regulations

The WBF is recognised as an International Sports Federation by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and has incorporated the IOC anti-doping regulations into its constitution and by-laws. The anti-doping regulations as published in the General Conditions of Contest are mandatory and refusal to take a drug test is subject to penalties. The regulations allow for participants to take prescription medication if prior notice is given to the laboratories.

Notable incidents

Willard S. Karn, 1933: Accusation, withdrawal from bridge and vindication

Willard S. Karn (1898 – 28 April 1945) was ranked the number one American bridge player in 1932 by Shepard Barclay, a bridge writer for ''The New York Herald Tribune''.''Hall of Shame - Willard S. Karn 1933''
by Stein Statle at the Norwegian website bridge1.no He was a member of the famous ''Four Horsemen'', a team formed a year earlier, headed by his playing partner and captain P. Hal Sims and with Oswald Jacoby and David Burnstine as the other team members. Karn also played for high stakes in New York rubber bridge clubs, including the Crockford Club which was owned by Ely Culbertson.

The growing popularity of contract bridge in the early 1930s gave rise to intense rivalry among many of the competing and self-anointed bridge authorities, formerly of Whist and Auction Bridge renown, including the emergence of Ely Culbertson as the brash interloper. The Four Horsemen dominated the US national tournament scene in 1931 and 1932 thereby providing considerable support and sway to Hal Sims' methods and public profile to Culbertson's chagrin.

Early in 1933, the Crockford Club (Ely Culbertson) hired card detective Mickey MacDougall to watch Karn for cheating. Posing as a waiter, MacDougall claimed that Karn would interleave high and low cards when gathering a trick before his turn to deal. When shuffling, Karn would use a false pull-through shuffle, crimp the deck before offering the cut and restore the deck with a hidden return cut before dealing favorable cards to his side in their rubber games. Karn denied the accusation but nevertheless resigned from the club and withdrew from competitive and social play.

In 1938, Karn brought a one million dollar defamation suit against Culbertson, six others and Crockford Inc. (the Crockford Club of New York), accusing them of spreading rumors and conspiring to remove him from the bridge world. In an eventual 1941 decision, the judge ruled against any monetary awards but found Karn has been wrongly accused, and required the defendants to write apologies to Karn.

Incidents involving Karl Schneider, 1937-1957

Playing with Hans Jellinek, 1937: Strong suspicion

In 1937, an international tournament in Budapest had eighteen teams entered; the American team, composed of Ely Culbertson, Josephine Culbertson, Charles Vogelhofer and Helen Sobel, met the Austrian team of Karl Schneider, Hans Jellinek, Walter Herbert and Carl von Bluhdorn in the finals. Austria won to become World Champions, but post-mortem analysis suggested that Schneider–Jellinek had exchanged illegal signals.Truscott (2002), pages 73-74.

In his 1945 book, ''Why You Lose at Bridge'' S. J. Simon referenced the Austrian team playing the British team the following year and noted the "devastating leads" made by the Austrians, alluding to their cheating on the choice of opening leads.

Request that Jean Besse refused, 1954

The French were to play the Americans at the 1954 international contest but since it was a European-based championship, France was entitled to add two non-French players to their team; they chose Karl Schneider of Austria and Jean Besse of Switzerland.

Playing with Max Reithoffer, 1957: Accusation and end of partnership

In 1957, Austrian pair Karl Schneider and Max Reithoffer were found by the Swiss team member Jaime Ortiz-Patiño to hold their cards in peculiar positions. Ortiz-Patiño made notes of their activities and later deduced that the pair were exchanging information about the number of aces they held. Ortiz-Patiño recruited Alan Truscott as an additional witness to the code being used so as to corroborate his findings. Reithoffer was the President of the Austrian Federation hosting the tournament and Truscott much later recounted that in order to avoid embarrassment, the accusation was discreetly presented without a formal inquiry and no public finding of guilt; the pair agreed never to play again, except for a minor event in London for which they were already entered.Truscott (2002), page 139-140.

Victor Mollo alluded to the 1957 incident in his 1958 book, ''Bridge Psychology'', but without acknowledging that there was no public finding of guilt. He and his publisher were sued by Schneider and Reithoffer but settled out-of-court. While no official reasons were disclosed, it was later speculated by Truscott that although evidential testimony by him was available, the publisher and insurance company "wanted a cheap way out".

Adam Meredith, 1950s: Refusal to play

Adam Meredith was a fearlessly honest British bridge professional who played rubber bridge for stakes and tournament bridge as a member of the British international team. In his 1968 book ''The Bridge Immortals'', Victor Mollo wrote:

Franck Bodier and Pierre Figeac, 1954: Accusation and withdrawal from bridge

In the 1950s, Frenchmen Franck Bodier and Pierre Figeac were winning virtually every major competition they entered. Under observation at the 1954 European Championships in Montreux, Switzerland and after too perfect a performance in making opening leads, they were summoned before a tournament committee. They resigned from the French Federation and "disappeared from the game".BridgeHands website article on cheating
/ref>

Accusation by Tobias Stone, 1958

The 1958 Bermuda Bowl was held in Como, Italy. The Italian team was leading and, as was usual at the time, were holding their hands over their heads so that kibitzers could see them and follow the action. However, Tobias Stone claimed that the Italians were holding their hands aloft only when they were strong but lower when weak. The officials asked the Italians, who felt insulted by the insinuation, to keep their hands low at all times.Clay (1985), pages 96-100.

Back in the United States after having lost by a large margin, Stone continued to accuse the Italians of cheating and the Italians threatened a lawsuit. The American Contract Bridge League (ACBL)
censured Stone and barred him from international play for one year owing to his "conduct unbecoming a representative of the American Contract Bridge League." Stone sued the ACBL for $25,000 in damages for defamation and asked the court to set aside the one-year ban. A petition by one hundred prominent players moved the ACBL to drop the ban and Stone dropped the lawsuit.

Analysis of the boards played at the match was undertaken by Charles Goren and also by Edgar Kaplan together with Alfred Sheinwold. Kaplan and Sheinwold concluded that it was impossible to prove either side of the issue. Goren was unconvinced that the Italians cheated and felt that the Americans did not do well because they were distracted by the thoughts of being cheated; Goren publicly apologised to the Italians.

Accusation against Claude Delmouly and Gerard Bourchtoff, 1960

and Gerard Bourchtoff were members of the French national team that won the World Team Olympiad in Turin, Italy in 1960. Months later they were accused by Simone Albarran, widow of Pierre Albarran, of using signals at another event prior to Turin to show hand strength. Specifically, it was alleged that they used an illegal signal known as ‘l’ascenseur’ in French (‘the lift’ in English and ‘the elevator’ in American) in which the user holds his cards opposite his chest with maximum values, opposite his belt with minimum values and in between when in between.

A committee of the French Federation found the trail too cold to reach any conclusion but suspended both the accused and the accuser for failing to report the incident in a timely manner. The suspension was appealed by Mme Albarran and she won a nominal one sou in damages.

Problem at the Bermuda Bowl, 1963

The 1963 Bermuda Bowl was held in St. Vincent, Italy with the Americans and Italians in the finals. An anonymous letter written in Italian was delivered to the American coach John Gerber. He secured a translator to read it aloud but asked the translator to stop after the first paragraph, to deliver the letter to Italian captain Carl'Alberto Perroux, and to explain that Gerber had heard only the first paragraph. The writer had accused the Blue Team of cheating by signaling with the positioning of their cigarettes. After reading the letter to his team, Perroux suggested that the match be played with screens running across the tables (12 years before modern screens were introduced), but Gerber would have none of it. The goodwill engendered by this exchange inspired Perroux and his team to present their championship trophies to Gerber and the American team in what was described as the greatest act of sportsmanship in bridge history.

The winning Italian team members were Massimo D'Alelio, Giorgio Belladonna, Eugenio Chiaradia, Pietro Forquet, Benito Garozzo, Camillo Pabis Ticci.

The string of Blue Team victories was also followed by some cheating allegations—mainly against "lesser" team members and none against Belladonna–Avarelli, Garozzo–Forquet, or Garozzo–Belladonna.

Accusations against Terence Reese and Boris Schapiro, 1949-1965

Terrence Reese and Boris Schapiro were among the world's best partnerships between 1948 and 1965.Truscott (2002), pages 144-152.

Early incidents

Having been on the team in 1948 when Britain won the European Teams title, Reese and Schapiro were invited in late 1949 to play on the next British team but were disinvited four months later without explanation.

According to Alan Truscott, during the trials for the 1950 British team, Reese and Schapiro were in the lead when Maurice Harrison-Gray withdrew, asking for an inquiry into Reese and Schapiro's performance; his request was refused and he was reprimanded and barred for one year from international play. However, Gray led the British team to victory in the 1950 European Championship, and captained it in the 1950 Bermuda Bowl. Other sources suggest that Gray withdrew from international play because of disagreements with the British Bridge League over the running of the game.

Rumors about the British pair resulted in Edgar Kaplan being designated to keep an eye on Reese and Schapiro during the 1955 Bermuda Bowl in New York; Kaplan found nothing.

At the 1960 championship held in Turin, Eric Murray told Reese "your opponents are quite convinced they were being cheated". Don Oakie of the USA also identified suspicious mannerisms but was asked to keep quiet to avoid embarrassment. Harold Franklin was asked to pass the information to the British Bridge League; he did not do this but did tell Reese that there were suspicions. Truscott wrote that Reese and Schapiro did not participate on British teams again until 1964 in New York when they lost a semi-final to Italy, but in fact they were on the team which won the European Championships in Baden-Baden in 1963.

Bermuda Bowl, 1965

At the Buenos Aires Bermuda Bowl, Reese and Schapiro were accused of signaling information about their heart holdings and were found guilty by the World Bridge Federation appointed committee. The WBF did not announce a penalty, deferring to the British Bridge League. Instead, the BBL established a formal inquiry into the matter and ultimately found that the case against Reese and Schapiro was not proven to the required standard of proof.

Henry Itkin and Kenny Rhodes, 1970: Accusation and confession

When confronted, Henry Itkin and Kenny Rhodes confessed to illegally exchanging information about suit holdings at a Washington sectional. They were expelled from the ACBL, with an opportunity to apply for readmission available after five years.

Conviction of Manoppo brothers, 1974

Suspicions about Indonesian brothers M.F. Manoppo and F.E. Manoppo were raised by the Australians after the brothers won three consecutive Far East Championships. An investigation of their "astonishing" performance and "incredible" leads in 600 deals by a WBF committee found 75 cases of suspect leads. The brothers were barred from playing together for life and were suspended for a "long period".

Incidents involving Facchini-Zucchelli 1974 and 1975

Monte Carlo 1974

The final standings of Monte Carlo contest in June 1974 were reported in ''Le Bridgeur'' as follows:
:1. Facchini–Zuchelli (Italy), 253.45%
:2. Cohen–Katz (USA), 251.94%
:3. Belladonna–Garozzo (Italy), 248.13%
:4. Teverini–Vives (France), 241.02%
:5. Mr et Me Gandini (Italy), 239.28%
:6. Russel–Sontag (USA), 239.33%
:7. Chagas–Assumpçao (Brasil), 239.12%

In his 1977 book ''The Bridge Bum'' Alan Sontag writes as follows:

Bermuda Bowl 1975

At the 1975 Bermuda Bowl, Facchini and Zucchelli were accused of communicating by means of foot tapping under the table. A committee was unable to find specific correlation between the foot movements observed and the bidding or play of the hands, a factor usually considered essential to conclusive proof of cheating.

The event was subsequently won by the Italian team of Giorgio Belladonna, Benito Bianchi, Pietro Forquet, Benito Garozzo, Dano De Falco, Arturo Franco.

In the aftermath of their mischief, boards now run beneath the table.

An editorial by Eric Milnes in ''Bridge Magazine'' complimented the Italian team on their success in the 1975 Bermuda Bowl, but continued:

Accusation by Leandro Burgay, 1976

:Also known as "the Burgay tapes" and "the Burgay-Bianchi affair"
In the February prior to the May 1976 Bermuda Bowl in Monte Carlo, Leandro Burgay, a leading Italian expert in the '70s, claimed that he had had a telephone conversation with Benito Bianchi, Pietro Forquet's partner in both the 1973 and 1974 Italian World Championship victories, during which Bianchi had discussed illegal signaling methods, using placement of cigarettes in the ashtray or in the mouth, which he had used with Forquet Pages 233-23
viewed here at the John Swanson website- Inside the Bermuda Bowl
/ref> and that Giorgio Belladonna had used with Renato Mondolfo.

The next day,Wilsmore (2018), page 44 Burgay gave a tape of the conversation to Luigi Firpo, president of the Federazione Italiana Gioco Bridge (FIGB) - the Italian Bridge Federation. The tape contained unusual sounds - “odd clicks as if it had been spliced” and after listening to it, Bianchi acknowledged that while it was he speaking, the tape had been doctored. Burgay then produced a second tape, this time without the unusual sounds. He had deliberately added the sounds to a copy of the tape to get Bianchi's admission that the conversation had taken place. Bianchi claimed that the discussion only concerned how a cheating method would be possible, not that it had actually occurred.

The FIGB suspended Burgay for six years and Bianchi for six months. After Burgay threatened civil action, his suspension was reduced to eighteen months and Bianchi's suspension was rescinded. Until that point, the matter had been dealt with internally by the FIGB, but it became a public scandal days before the start of the 1976 Bermuda Bowl when the incident hit the newspapers.

Even though Burgay was not a member of the current Italian team, Forquet was and the World Bridge Federation decided it was necessary to take some action but there was little they could do before the tournament and simply requested that the FIGB conduct an investigation. The FIGB claimed to have already conducted an investigation, but the WBF wanted a written report. A year later at the 1977 Bermuda Bowl in Manila, there was no evidence of the promised FIGB investigation and the WBF considered suspending the FIGB from membership in the world organization, but instead gave the FIGB another year to address the matter.

Before the 1978 Olympiad in New Orleans, a new slate of officials was elected by the FIGB who were able to satisfy the WBF that the required investigation had been performed. The threat of suspension was lifted. Alan Truscott later characterized the FIGB actions as "defensive stonewalling by his urgay'snational organization".

The first entry on the matter in ''The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge'' was made under CHEATING ACCUSATIONS in its fourth edition (1984) and remained throughout to the seventh and latest edition (2011) stating that "The case came to the attention of the WBF, but nothing ever came of it because it was never proved that the tapes were authentic."

Richard Katz and Larry T. Cohen, 1977: Accusation, legal proceedings, end of partnership

:''Also known as 'The Houston Affair
During the January 1977 North American Team Trials, an allegation of improper communication between partners Richard H. Katz and Larry T. Cohen, two members of the John Gerber team, was made. Tournament officials investigated and resulted in ACBL President Louis Gurvich announcing that Katz and Cohen had resigned from their team and from the ACBL. Reduced to three members, the Gerber team was forced to forfeit. (NB This is not the Larry Cohen who authored the Law of Total Tricks.)

When newspaper articles quoted "reliable sources" as saying that the pair had been guilty of serious infractions against the proprieties of bridge, Katz and Cohen filed a $44 million lawsuit alleging defamation of character, interference with business interests, false accusations of cheating, coerced withdrawal from the trials and forced resignation from the ACBL. They demanded that they be reinstated as ACBL members and that the trials resume. Katz and Cohen later filed another suit accusing the ACBL of violation of federal antitrust actions.

An out-of-court settlement was reached on February 23, 1982 where it was agreed as follows:
# Katz and Cohen would be readmitted to the ACBL except that they would not play as a partnership.
# Katz and Cohen could make application to play together again on or after March 1, 1984.
# Commercial Union Assurance Company, insurer of the ACBL, would pay for costs and attorneys' fees incurred with respect to the lawsuit: Katz and Cohen to receive $75,000.
# The lawsuit was dismissed with mutual release of all claims.

The ACBL defended the decision in its monthly magazine with the following statement:

Steve Sion and Alan Cokin, 1979: Accusation and confession, end of partnership

Steve Sion and Alan Cokin had come under suspicion because of unusual bids and leads and were under observation at the 1979 spring NABC in Norfolk and at the Grand National Finals in Atlanta the same summer. It was concluded that they were using improper pre-arranged communication, a contravention of Law 73.b.2, by signaling their distribution, especially about short suits, by the way they placed their pencils on the table after writing down the contract.Bobby Wolff in The Lone Wolff, pages 237-238. Both confessed and the ACBL barred the pair from ACBL play for five years and vacated their share of the team win in the Mitchell Board-a-Match Teams at Norfolk.

After five years, both players applied for and were granted reinstatement, with certain stipulations, the most important of which was that they would not be allowed to play as a partnership. Since then, Cokin devoted himself to removing the blemish on his record by promoting bridge youth programs while Sion became involved in another serious proprieties case in 1997 and was again expelled this time for life.

;Aftermath
It remains a point of contention as to whether or not the title won by the remaining Sternberg team members at Norfolk should be vacated by the ACBL. Despite a timely request by the second-place finishers (the Hann team) for a Committee, none was held. The Bridge World July 1984 editorial raised the matter again in connection with an issue of Sion–Cokin being on a team with potential to represent the US in an upcoming Bermuda Bowl.

Suspension of Moses Ma et al., 1984