[FrancesHinden]

Yes. I've seen a pair denied redress when they had a (slightly bizarre) auction, got a bad board, then called the TD and claimed that the opponents must have overheard the discussion from the next table to know what the wnning action was.

So that would be the discussion you heard and didn't call the TD about earlier, then?

[qwery_hi]

Imposing penalties for discussing a board after it is played and enforcing them would be a step in solving this issue.

[nige1]

The current state of Bridge Law may encourage "Soft" cheating. For instance.

• Bridge Law is overly sophisticated and subjective. Some laws are understood by few directors and hardly any players. This makes it easy for players to rationalise law-breaking through "frustration" or "misinterpretation" or "carelessness".
  
• Equity is the basis of Bridge Law. The laws seem to interpret "Equity" to mean attempting to restore the status quo (before the infraction occurred). Thus, even if his infraction is detected, the law-breaker will often be no worse off. This is a huge incentive for law-breakers because many infractions are hard to detect, rarely reported, and hardly ever attract adverse rulings.
  
• Many players seem unable to perform the mental contortions required not to profit from Unauthorised Information.

Possible solutions:

• Make Bridge rules as simple, clear, and objective as possible while retaining the nature of the game. A criterion to be met by every rule should be: "The average player should be able to understand it and to comply with it".
  
• Introduce deterrents into everyday Bridge rules. Thus, if an infraction is hard to detect, infrequently reported, and rarely attracts an averse ruling, then increase the penalty or redefine it as a legal action. Do not rely on procedural and disciplinary penalties. In practice, these are rarely and inconsistently applied. They also occasion much player resentment.
  
• A simple way of combating unauthorised information might be to penalise the giving of it rather than the using of it; but this would entail, for example, making Bridge a "timed game".

Players are naturally reluctant to endure the hassle of calling a director but many laws actively discourage the reporting of infractions. For example

• Unless a pair have a recorded history of deviations, in most countries, you will receive no redress for a blatantly fielded psych, so if you suspect one there is little to be gained by calling the director. (Obviously this just makes matters worse for the next victim).
  
• If you suspect opponents of misinforming you or of using unauthorised information, then you must take care to ensure that your subsequent actions conform to the director's idea of what is "normal". Otherwise there may be no gain from calling the director, who may add insult to injury by denying you redress and also castigating your actions as egregious/wild/gambling.

[MFA]

@ nigel1

On the other side, not having adequate standards of ethics will soon get people to talk. This is much worse to most players than recieving some formal penalty.