[jallerton]

The term "cheating" includes any deliberate violation of a Law or rule. Yes, having pre-arranged signals using what ought to be UI is one form of cheating, but there are plenty of other ways to cheat. Like it or not, people find ways to cheat at most games and sports. If you believe that the last incident of cheating at the bridge table was 50 years ago, then I'm sorry, but I think you are being naive. Of course, it is unwise to accuse anybody of cheating without hard evidence to back up your accusation, but that's no different to being very careful before making any other potentially slanderous comment.

By the way, I suggest you edit your post to include the word "alleged" before the word "Reese".

[barmar]

jallerton, on 2012-July-04, 13:48, said:

By the way, I suggest you edit your post to include the word "alleged" before the word "Reese".

If Truscott didn't feel the need for this qualifier in his book, I don't think I do. Truscott's evidence and the WBF ruling are enough to convince me.

And this is hardly the most recent cheating incident I'm aware of, it's just one of the most well known so useful as an example. Sometime in the 2000's I was playing in a regional KO at an NABC, and one of my teammates noticed a pattern to how the opponents were facing their cards when defending, which they appeared to be using as illicit signals (it's been a while, I don't remember the specifics); we reported them to the director, and some monitoring ensued that I think supported our accusation.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-July-03, 09:02, said:

I generally have a hard time calling something "cheating" if the player is likely to be ignorant of their obligations, as I presume most weak players are regarding UI issues.

It is not the UI obligations to which I refer: I think even weak players know that lying to the TD is not following their obligations.

barmar, on 2012-July-05, 14:37, said:

If Truscott didn't feel the need for this qualifier in his book, I don't think I do. Truscott's evidence and the WBF ruling are enough to convince me.

One might just as well argue that Reese's evidence and the BBL enquiry are enough to convince the other way. If we want to rehash this old matter, feel free to start a new thread, but for odd comments and to avoid too much thread drift can we please assume for these forums that the matter is not proven either way.

[olegru]

Let see.
EW had no agreement about meaning of 2NT after multy.
East alerted and explained according their agreement (no agreement). He stupidly tried to be helpful and added something else (it might be both minors). It provided to West UI that 3 ♣ might not be Stayman.
I don’t think pass is LA for West. 3 ♥, probably, is, but I see no difference it made. It is too much for me to decide EW could get in a different contract and number of tricks is the same if West will get clubs right.

By the way, I hate explanation given by South on his 2h bid. It should be “pass or correct,” not “relay”. NS made whatever possible to confuse opponents and after it did not work “NS became VERY unhappy” and tried to get it from director.