[awm]

After reading Kathryn's long post on another forum about "soft cheating", I thought I'd relate a recent experience at our local club. This is in part an ask for advice, and in part to relate why it's difficult to do anything about the sort of antics mentioned in her post.

Last Friday afternoon, we played in our local club duplicate. We do this occasionally, in part to support the club (we've already had one local club go out of business and would prefer not to see that happen to the last one in town), in part because we think the occasional practice with real cards helps keep us in good shape for serious competitions, and in part because it's a way to get out of the house and do something on hot summer days. Note that we are not particularly invested in winning this club game, and we are also very likely to wind up winning it regardless (the club games are not particularly strong and we are international-level players). It's important to us that we continue to be welcomed at the club and also that we don't scare off the regulars. Perhaps also worthy of mention is that most of the club is German-speaking, and while we do speak German it's not our first language and our ability to communicate nuance may be lacking.

Anyway, we produced the following auction:

1♦ - 1♠ - Pass - 2♦!
Pass(1) - 2♠ - 3♦

(1) Long break in tempo

Should we call the director? Say something to opponents? Wait until the end of the hand and then do something if the 3♦ bid seemed obviously influenced by the tempo?

Obviously in a major tournament we would call. But in this context it seems like the negative repercussions of calling (might upset the opponents, causing them to complain about us and/or stop coming to the club... might annoy the playing director) outweigh the positives (might get some sort of ruling in our favour that helps us win a club game we rate to win anyway).

[awm]

In the end we chose to do nothing. We pushed to 3♠ and opener bid 4♦, which we set by two tricks for a 93% board:

---

While we can in principle make 4♠, no one was there (most people opened 1NT and played either 1NT or 3♦ by N/S). South's 3♦ bid is pretty obvious regardless of the tempo (although why she couldn't bid over 1♠ is a good question).

[jillybean]

Adam, I don’t want to hijack your thread, this raises an important question which I was contemplating raising on that other site. It would carry a lot more weight if you shared your post over there

You are in an impossible situation, and I think you took the best action by not calling the Director. But how sad is this situation — when players are put in a position like this, left feeling uncomfortable and may not return to the club. Now the club and players miss out on the benefit of your experience.

This is a dilemma for what I call the Rules-Conscious group of players: they do their best to follow the Laws and call the Director when required, or they don't — knowing they'll likely be admonished and accused of "causing trouble."

I witnessed this first-hand at the Sectional. A young (in context) top player called the Director after a BIT situation. After the Director left the table, the player in question initiated a nasty exchange, which brought the Director back — and the player was told in no uncertain terms to stop. The player who called the Director happened to be a friend of mine. I spoke with him soon after, and he was visibly upset about the whole situation. I can't speak for him but I know how these situations affects my game.

These are the silent, hidden victims of our failure to follow the Laws.

[pescetom]

I echo what jillybean just said about the sadness of this dilemma. I would not have called the Director in this case unless I thought at the end of play that they really did obtain an advantage and were on the wrong side of L16, and even then I know I am probably onto a hiding in bridge or social terms (I would however ask opponents if they agreed that there had been a BIT, and call the Director if they fail to agree).

The most wretched aspect as mentioned is that such situations invariably cause distress to the victim, whatever he does, particularly if he is inexperienced or timid. Thinking about it, the 1♦-(1♠)-2♦-2♠;3♣ disaster which cost us first place on Saturday was an unforced error by partner almost certainly induced by stress from the previous board, where (ironically) we scored a national top, but had an unpleasant run in with opponents.

On previous board both vulnerable I opened in second a weak 2♦ with 9 AQ9 Q98652 875, not everyone's cup of tea. We then bid to 5♦ over 4♠, a contract which to my surprise remained undoubled after two pregnant pauses. Partner laid down a delightful dummy of 542 T532 AK4 AK9 and once it became clear that LHO had started 6=1=2=4 it was easy to pick up the hearts leaving only a club still to lose. At this point in a normal situation I would have claimed, but the opponents were clearly of the level and mentality that would refuse a claim and say "play on"... which leads to an awkward Director call (surprisingly often Directors do not understand the related Law) at best. So I decided to play it out and I lost only the last trick. RHO beamed and said "One down", asserting they had won the last two tricks plus the spades lead. I explained patiently the last few tricks, but the opps started frantically turning up cards and getting their discards in a mess. I told them to stop and called the Director. Who luckily was calm and competent but we still had to reconstruct all thirteen tricks before the correct score was registered. Obviously partner and I both took a fair dose of adrenaline and frustration and predictably screwed up on the next round, losing enough partnership confidence to blow the tournament. There's just no easy solution to this, except perhaps to have a very thick skin and limited social ambitions.

[jillybean]

awm, on 2026-August-11, 05:35, said:

This is in part an ask for advice, and in part to relate why it's difficult to do anything about the sort of antics mentioned in her post.

Fair warning, this is a bit of a left-field idea.

Difficult, but not impossible. Return the game to the players.

I'm beginning to think the answer could be for players themselves to start their own games — once a week, once a month, whatever works and is sustainable.

If clubs are reluctant to enforce the Laws because it's not in their financial interest to upset players, and NBOs are more focused on keeping the social game running smoothly than addressing the "Rules-Indifferent" problem, then maybe the fix isn't to keep pushing uphill against that incentive structure. Players who actually want a rules-respecting game could simply create one — informal, self-organized, and free of the pressure to keep everyone happy and paying.

Let the NBOs and clubs continue supporting social bridge for those who want it that way. Those of us who want the Laws taken seriously could build something smaller and separate that actually reflects that.

And hold a annual Bridge Festival somewhere wonderful and affordable.

[pescetom]

I think a better idea is to focus on decent tablet based bidding and play, with partners in separate rooms (say a NE room and a SW room). This can eliminate 90% of nonsense ( or even more with tempo hiding at the expense of slower play) and still maintain a good part of the social aspect of f2f play. Immediate post mortem discussion amongst all those who just played the same board would be enjoyable and instructive too.

[awm]

Don’t we already have what Jillybean proposes — tournament bridge? We don’t generally see this kind of stuff in major events (and if we do there is no problem calling a director).

The issue (if any) is getting players to progress from clubs to tournaments where actual enforcement of the laws adds yet another barrier to entry.

[pescetom]

awm, on 2026-August-11, 14:48, said:

Don’t we already have what Jillybean proposes — tournament bridge? We don’t generally see this kind of stuff in major events (and if we do there is no problem calling a director).

The issue (if any) is getting players to progress from clubs to tournaments where actual enforcement of the laws adds yet another barrier to entry.

Well yes, we do have major events. The higher you go the better it gets, but only a minority have what it takes to go really high. And even in the middle there is some drudge: many international tournaments with more prizes than solert Directors, even our national over 65 pairs which proudly promised "no screens" (despite regulations which say they should be used whenever reasonably possible).

Another issue (without question, IMO) is whether the current format of major events is the best possible: in particular whether or not it makes unreasonable demands of time and travel/accomodation expense for those who work or have other interests, and whether or not it unduly privileges resistance to play over ability to play. Many sports have a panorama of different formats and recognize the value of all, from sprint to marathon. Bridge is the only one I can think of that recognizes only marathon. Of course there is the issue of statistical significance of results, but pairs tournaments regularly go beyond the minimum necessary to establish who is best with reasonable certaincy and team tournaments are often run irrationally. That other and much more successful mindsport has both sprint events and precise clocking, with no prolonged intellectual effort lasting more than a few hours. I find that more rational and in lines with the 21st century.

But I also question the implicit idea that club players do not have a right to play by the rules, or that it is impossible or even unrealistic to enable them to do so. At least over here, where a club is a non-profit organization with the explicit raison d'etre of playing competitive bridge as a sport. There is no reason not to enforce the rules nor to perpetuate the existence of a club if nobody is interested in playing by them.

[jillybean]

awm, on 2026-August-11, 14:48, said:

Don’t we already have what Jillybean proposes — tournament bridge? We don’t generally see this kind of stuff in major events (and if we do there is no problem calling a director).

The issue (if any) is getting players to progress from clubs to tournaments where actual enforcement of the laws adds yet another barrier to entry.

We have four 3-day tournaments a year. If you want to play more than that, you need to travel — and the cost and time involved are prohibitive for many players.

That leaves roughly 48 weeks a year with nowhere to play "tournament bridge"

[pescetom]

Even if you can travel to play, the level of legality you encounter is unpredictable, in my limited experience. Tenerife was fantastic, Biarritz a disgrace, Bordighera in the middle.

I frequently play in clubs other than my own and am amazed at the variety of levels of legality I encounter there, too. Some are a disgrace, others exemplary. It is simply not true that disrespect for the Laws is inevitable, although it is very widespread.

[mw64ahw]

I see many long breaks in tempo; it's often because the bidder has fallen asleep or not seen the previous bid hidden behind the bidding box.

[pescetom]

mw64ahw, on 2026-August-12, 02:36, said:

I see many long breaks in tempo; it's often because the bidder has fallen asleep or not seen the previous bid hidden behind the bidding box.

Even more often, it's because the bidder cannot decide what to do
Which is of course perfectly legal too, but partner can and often will take advantage of that information illegally, even when genuinely convinced that he has no idea what the hesitation implies in the first place.

"We think we know what our calls and plays mean but we don't really, we think we don't know what our pauses mean but we do really".
This is level 1 of soft cheating, and from the posts on that other site you might think that this and the next level up were the only levels too. If only that was true.

Level 2 is different and something of an exception, because people are both aware of violating the rules and prepared to admit to it. I call this "cosi fan tutte" and it covers minor infractions which "everyone" is prepared to admit (unless the consequences are messy) to rules which are considered unrealistic, the equivalent of speeding in a car or a deliberate foul in soccer. In bridge it includes the softer violations of proprieties, such as innocent remarks about one's hand, shrugs and smiles, putting pressure on Declarer by playing with your discards, u.s.w.

Level 3 is back into the realm of self deception again, but this time with a more blatant violation of the rules. "I know that is wrong, so I can't possibly have done it" it is the thought, "How dare you accuse me of this?" is the fiery retort. It's what happens when you are rash enough to point out a harder violation of proprieties, such as staring into partner's eyes when deciding what to lead, or making blatant suggestions with hands as Dummy. But there is still a fig leaf of doubt that the behaviour may be unconscious (i.e. successfully suppressed) or just an uncharacteristic drop below usual high standards.

Level 4 is similar as far as the culprit is concerned but the violation is now so evident and clean cut that it is simply a case of guilty or not guilty: bidding a slam that you overheard at the next table is an example. The culprit cannot possibly think he did not do it, but he might well convince himself of that before the tournament is over.

Level 5 is when there is planned collusion, which is arguably even worse than some calling to each other from different rooms at home online (which might be more or less spontaneous and never explicitly discussed or planned). But it doesn't have to be as egregious as "touching left ear is clubs, right ear is diamonds, chin is spades and scratching top of head is hearts".
Orienting cards during play to signal remaining honour holding is considered normal and instinctive by some lower level club players who learned this in other card games played at home or in bars.
Even explicit agreement about tempo variations can be included here. A husband to his wife, a beginner, overheard: "You did well not to play the Queen, Dear, but next time please take ample time before playing low, otherwise I might conclude that Declarer has it".

[jillybean]

Getting back to your previous comment —

I think tablets and separate rooms for N/E and S/W would satisfy the purists, and would be the most secure setting for top-level events, where we see the most nefarious cheating: foot tapping, coughing, sniffing, card orientation, pencil placement, finger signaling, tray placement.

The cost of real estate and rental in North America would make tablets in separate rooms prohibitive for tournaments and clubs, and would detract from a big part of the game — the social aspect, and to some extent, table feel.

There's obviously a need for club bridge as it exists — people are still willingly playing and enjoying the experience. But that comfort with the status quo is exactly why nothing will change, unless there's a tipping point of players who decide not to play under these conditions.

The argument that new players will be scared away is a red herring, created by those who are happy with the status quo.

[mycroft]

There's a saying that is frequently used by the more "act like the experts" players over on that other site, and I've heard since I started playing; "as long as you don't expect *bridge*, you can enjoy a nice game at the club". Sometimes they mean the skill of the bidding or play, but many times they mean the "extras" - whether done deliberately or "pattern matching".

As I frequently say, the only answer to this is "education" - and to many who have trouble with second-round responses to transfers, despite having had people trying to teach them for a decade or so, you can guess how easy it will be to learn something that will *hurt* their game. If it's not going to work, and you're going to beat them anyway (or "we read your partner's OBM better than you do, so don't worry about it" - remember, you *are* entitled to use the information), then what, me worry? (© A.E. Neuman).

But what if we think this pair *can* learn? Or are likely to play in tournaments, where their next NOS might be of the "how dare they think they can do this - against *me*?" sort, never mind the inevitable ruling on something that "no-one at the club thinks is a problem"? Well, I can tell you that the *last* person they can learn from are the pair that *wants them to do worse*. The next worst person is "the new blow-in that could beat us without this nonsense, but feel they need to absolutely crush us by Rules Lawyering". I'm a well-respected director, and am actually quite well known for being fair even when it's my table, but *still* it's hard for them to believe their opponent. And definitely if I'm somewhere they *don't* know what I do on my weekends off, it's "shut up mycroft" before I cause a scene.

If it's really an issue, talk to the director about it, away from the table. Point out that you've seen a pattern with a particular pair, as an example, [this hand], and see what kind of reaction you get. Make it clear that you're not wanting a ruling(*), but... If it feels like your interest is warranted, and it looks like the director is having "that little talk" with the players, then keep at it. If it feels like it's a "we don't worry about little things like that at this" club, well, then you've got your answer, and you can decide if playing that game is worth it for you, because you won't be able to change anything - not positively, anyway.

For those who have been reading me for ever, I am again reminded of the city where the A game is really strong (even aggressive) about ethics - that has a very ethical, very strong, 6 table A game and no B players; and the neighbour city where the ethics are - questionable - that gets 20-25 and is one of the few units in the ACBL that is *growing*. I am reminded of "that appeal", where a pair of 2000 MP players, who were NYC's 0-2500 GNT qualifiers (so, not experts, but definitely *serious*), didn't get even after the *appeal* what the problem was with tanking a "fake" suit and fast-bidding the "real" suit when partner raised - and partner "getting it". I am reminded of my stories about "those kinds of clubs" - where there definitely are Rules you have to follow, but they're not the Laws of the game, and they're not written down.

Now, if instead you are the pair who don't care about fixing the problem, you just don't want to be damaged when it happens against you, my suggestions are, of course, different. But they still have a "last resort" of "find another place to play, or start your own game and show how an ethical game is actually more fun than the 'casual' one" (or "start your own game, and show how badly the opponents are fishing *each other*, too").

(*) If you *do* want a ruling, call the director at the table at the time, no matter how it feels. It really is slimy from all directions when they come up to me 2 rounds later to just point out a thing, and expect me to rule based only on their say-so. Bind up your courage and face the opponents at the table. (not applicable to "oh I've finally realized why this hand felt hinky to me." You might not get a ruling anyway, but you're in time, you can ask.)

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2026-August-12, 22:26, said:

"we don't worry about little things like that at this club"

Exactly, social-sanctioned.

So, I've moved on to a better game. Less convenient, only once a week but a decent game.
It would be useful to have a list of social and not so social clubs.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2026-August-12, 18:16, said:

Getting back to your previous comment —

I think tablets and separate rooms for N/E and S/W would satisfy the purists, and would be the most secure setting for top-level events, where we see the most nefarious cheating: foot tapping, coughing, sniffing, card orientation, pencil placement, finger signaling, tray placement.

The cost of real estate and rental in North America would make tablets in separate rooms prohibitive for tournaments and clubs, and would detract from a big part of the game — the social aspect, and to some extent, table feel.

I'm not sure I understand the prohibitive cost argument: are you saying that most NA clubs have a single open space that cannot be divided in two? Over here most clubs are in apartments or villas and have the opposite problem of multiple rooms. The total space needed to sit people with tablets in NE/SW groups would be a lot *less* than traditional f2f with tables.
Nor do I see that it would detract from the social aspect, unless you get a kick out of socialising with your partner rather than opponents. I suspect it would be great fun.
It certainly would kill table feel, but that is precisely the objective

[jillybean]

Here, clubs typically run their games in rented community spaces — one room. I guess it would be possible to have N/E and S/W at different ends of the room.
Regarding the social aspect, would we move and sit with a new, single opponent each round? How would that even work?

Not all information gained from table feel is UI — isn't this a valid part of the game?

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-August-14, 07:57, said:

Here, clubs typically run their games in rented community spaces — one room. I guess it would be possible to have N/E and S/W at different ends of the room.

That's typical in UK too, Church halls and the like. Opposite ends of the room with a minimal barrier would still be possible I think, all it takes is partners not being able to see or talk to each other.

jillybean, on 2026-August-14, 07:57, said:

Regarding the social aspect, would we move and sit with a new, single opponent each round? How would that even work?

I haven't discussed it with anyone, you tell me
But my first thought is a spacious and relaxed environment divided informally North on the left and East on the right (or whatever), with players free to sit where they want on a variety of sofas / armchairs / cushions.
You wouldn't move at all (even in a Howell or arrow switch), except to the bar.
It would be deprecated to talk during play or to peek at another player's tablet. Explanations strictly textual via tablet.
At the end of each board you could talk freely about it with others in your same seat or with your table mate and without your respective partners hearing
Betweem rounds you could video chat with partner if desired.

jillybean, on 2026-August-14, 07:57, said:

Not all information gained from table feel is UI — isn't this a valid part of the game?

It's something we can easily give up to improve the game, IMO. Extraneous information generated by an opponent is AI to you. But if it is no longer available to the other opponent, then you do not need it either. Yes you lose the dubious merit of perhaps "reading" your opponent better than his companion and without employing your own body language and tempo to get a read. OTOH that "valid" skill in reading your opponent works at least as well in reading your partner, which is a problem we will all be happy to see disappear.