March 2022 - 23

of a bridge player's career as a football game. In college
football, the penalty for " targeting " - aiming a blow at an
opposing player's head or neck area - is ejection. If the referee
calls such a foul, he doesn't go to the player and say,
" You're out of the game for targeting, but if you express
sincere remorse, promise not to do it again and coach a
youth football team, you can play the fourth quarter. " The
referee just enforces a rule that is justifiably in place to
prevent injuries.
Should penalties vary depending on the impact of the
offense? I think not. Cheating is cheating. Any offense,
however trivial it might be perceived, fractures the game
and irreparably harms honest players. The League's
policy seems to be that club-level online cheaters should
get six months off plus probation. But club players who are
cheated feel no less aggrieved in their world as those in a
major event.
Robb Gordon, the ACBL's National Recorder, presented
me with a hypothetical case of an elderly couple who
succumb to cheating in an online club game. He asked
whether making an example of such a pair - adding to
their humiliation - would be fitting. I replied that they
deserve sympathy but not leniency. Any case of cheating
has essentially the same effect. The players in the oldsters'
game were deprived of a level playing field. Their time,
effort and money were wasted. Ask them how they feel
about re-admitting someone who betrayed them. I would
be outraged and hesitant to play again. Enough such episodes,
and the game will expire.
Should confessions, which facilitate the disciplinary
process, merit leniency? I think not. If a contrite cheater
wants to bare his soul, that's up to him. But only the fact
that the cheating occurred matters. A confession may be a
maneuver to get a lighter penalty.
What of rehabilitation? Much has been made of the case
of a noted player expelled for cheating. He was " rehabilitated "
and became an advocate for Junior bridge. His
advocacy was admirable; letting him compete was wrong.
The ACBL must understand that cheating threatens
the viability of competitive bridge, or to destroy it altogether.
Perhaps the League needs a credentials committee,
similar to the one that the World Bridge Federation
uses, zealously guarding the integrity of its competitions
and empowered to refuse entries without explanation.
That might have avoided the episode at the recent Austin
NABC where we came perilously close to seeing the
Reisinger Trophy presented to a team that included an
admitted cheater.
I am convinced that as long as we recycle cheaters,
cheating will be ongoing and pervasive. Moreover, if
we can't avoid appeals to bodies that are ill-equipped to
judge, we may as well close up shop.
If you cheat, you're gone. Exceptions, though conceivable,
should be rare. Harsh? Certainly. But lacking the
strongest deterrent to cheat, we can expect to be cheated
some more.
Frank Stewart is a longtime Bridge Bulletin
columnist, newspaper columnist and book
author.
March 2022 | Bridge Bulletin |
23
March 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of March 2022
