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 methods of cheating include: conveying information to a partner by means of a pre-arranged illegal signal, viewing other players' cards in a board prior to their arrival at the table, or 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.
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, the visible contents of their own hand (and dummy's hand when exposed), and the opponents' demeanour. 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Partner's remarks, questions, mannerisms, hesitation and similar, Information from calls and plays which were legally withdrawn and/or substituted as a consequence of that side's infraction (the non-offending side may use this information), Overhearing remarks at other tables or seeing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.
Bridge ethics require that the players take extra steps neither to convey nor to act on any unauthorized information. However, as the stakes are often high the temptation to cheat may prove irresistible. For example, players might pre-arrange code words, hesitations, or the way they play or hold their cards as a ploy to share details of their hand.
In the 1960s and 70s a notable innovation to reduce unauthorised communication (inadvertent or deliberate) was the use of bidding boxes that contain cards with the various calls players are entitled to make. When making a call, a player displays the appropriate card from their box instead of announcing the call orally. This allows players to indicate their calls without imparting any vocal inflection.
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 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. 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.
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.
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 British bridge professional known for his honesty. He 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".
Accusation by Tobias Stone, 1958