[mikeh]

lchiu7, on 2023-March-12, 16:19, said:

I was also watching Woolsey/Bramley in the 2022 Spingold.

https://www.youtube....k?feature=share

Woolsey is pretty good in the way he places his cards and so Bramley. But their opponents are pretty slack. Declarer often plays with the played tricks.

I guess in the top level rules are relaxed?

While the Laws may say that declarer has to follow the card placement rule, I can’t imagine anyone taking exception to a declarer playing with played tricks, so long as he isn’t able, by so doing, to see what cards were played to any given trick (in case he forgot). The only person who could be damaged is the declarer (the defenders know which tricks they took), although at the top level that ain’t happening often😀. There’s no possibility of illicit and relevant communication of information to dummy, after all.

Referring to Pesce’s use of the word ‘intimidation’, I have a hard time seeing how any opponent turning their tricks the wrong way can be intimidating. Annoying? Yes, if you allow it to be (if one wants to compete in serious bridge or even just to maximize one’s play at whatever level one prefers, it’s useful to train oneself to ignore irrelevancies). Frankly, I think calling the TD because an opp turns a card the wrong way, even if repeatedly, is causing oneself an unnecessary distraction.

At below the top level, it’s possible that the opp genuinely didn’t know who won the trick. However, that’s usually sorted out by whoever leads to the next one. A confused opp will be surprised when declarer plays first when the opp thought his side won the trick or his partner does when he thought declarer won. Or needs to be reminded it’s his turn. But the remaining possibility is to declarer’s benefit…the opp thinks he won and leads out of turn. That’s usually very good for declarer.

[lchiu7]

sfi, on 2023-March-12, 17:18, said:

This is a separate question altogether (and I know that neither you nor the OP were suggesting anything sinister in this case). M

Not at all. Just having never seen this behaviour before from players I have been reading about so much in The Bridge World and other mags, I just found it strange.

[pilowsky]

The behaviour of the most skilled practitioner in any field is imitated by all players that aspire to improve their game.
There's no heuristic value in claiming that the top players can play blindfold with one hand in a bucket of hot water if the impact of that claim is that improving players then insist that West has an unfair advantage because they are acting in a manner that is different to that set out in the rules.

This is a particular problem with Bridge. In Bridge there are so many ambiguous rules that situations that occur in almost every tournament still arise as questions in this forum.

Mike states "While the Laws may say that declarer has to follow the card placement rule, I can't imagine anyone taking exception to a declarer playing with played tricks..."
Or to put it another way, "yes, I know it says no stopping your honour, but there was no-one else there so what does it matter".

There are 'rules' that can be broken: cover an honour with an honour, the rule of 17, never lead away from an Ace.
But it's dispiriting to new players when there are rules that are written in the evanescent laws that have no impact on the game, no consequences when broken and are a constant source of uncertainty amongst the people meant to enforce them.

While it may be true that 'top players' remember every card played since dinosaurs roamed the earth, most players struggle to remember what they had for breakfast.
Unclear rules that cause frequent Director calls are intimidating and distracting to many non-top players that are still struggling to remember if East still has the top spade.

[lchiu7]

pilowsky, on 2023-March-12, 18:54, said:

The behaviour of the most skilled practitioner in any field is imitated by all players that aspire to improve their game.
There's no heuristic value in claiming that the top players can play blindfold with one hand in a bucket of hot water if the impact of that claim is that improving players then insist that West has an unfair advantage because they are acting in a manner that is different to the that set out in the rules.

This is a particular problem with Bridge. In Bridge there are so many ambiguous rules that situations that occur in almost every tournament still arise as questions in this forum.

Mike states "While the Laws may say that declarer has to follow the card placement rule, I can't imagine anyone taking exception to a declarer playing with played tricks..."
Or to put it another way, "yes, I know it says no stopping your honour, but there was no-one else there so what does it matter".

There are 'rules' that can be broken: cover an honour with an honour, the rule of 17, never lead away from an Ace.
But it's dispiriting to new players when there are rules that are written in the evanescent laws that have no impact on the game, no consequences when broken and are a constant source of uncertainty amongst the people meant to enforce them.

While it may be true that 'top players' remember every card players since dinosaurs roamed the earth, most players struggle to remember what they had for breakfast.
Unclear rules that cause frequent Director calls are intimidating and distracting to many non-top players that are still struggling to remember if East still has the top spade.

Here is another anomaly.

LAW 41 - COMMENCEMENT OF PLAY
A. Face-down Opening Lead
After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in rotation, the defender on
presumed declarer’s left makes the opening lead face down(9)
. The face-down lead may be
withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity (see Laws 47E and 54); the
withdrawn card must be returned to the defender’s hand.

where footnote (9) says unless the regulatory body specifies the lead must be face up.

I was taught that you lead face down so that your lead is committed and now partner can ask about a bid in the auction without influencing your lead or taking clues from your lead. Of course in top flight competition with screens and bidding boxes it doesn't matter so much now since partner cannot see your lead until the screen is lifted.

[lchiu7]

sfi, on 2023-March-12, 17:01, said:

..

The more everyone at table knows what's going on, the easier it is to claim. I'd be very surprised if more than 20% of the hands get played out (just a guess, but in 28 hands against good opponents last week we had 26 claims), and you would be surprised at the lack of detail in the claim. There's often just a suggestion of drawing trumps, the defender throws their cards in when the squeeze works, or so on.

I can just see what would happen in my local club if I claimed a contract with 6 or so tricks to play, saying I have a marked squeeze against LHO! Certainly watcing the Venderbilt and Spingold the top players just show their hand, wave their fingers back and forth to show their line of play and everybodyjust puts their cards back in the tray. Not once have I seen somebody dispute the claim.

[sfi]

lchiu7, on 2023-March-12, 20:16, said:

I can just see what would happen in my local club if I claimed a contract with 6 or so tricks to play, saying I have a marked squeeze against LHO! Certainly watcing the Venderbilt and Spingold the top players just show their hand, wave their fingers back and forth to show their line of play and everybody just puts their cards back in the tray. Not once have I seen somebody dispute the claim.

Part of the reason you don't see people dispute the claim is the better a player is, the more likely they are to be able to tailor their claim (both the explanation and the timing) to match their opposition. Levin isn't going to claim the same way in the final of the Vanderbilt as he is against random opposition in a regional event or at his local club. Claiming like that against everyone doesn't speed things up - you try to only claim when it will be clear to the opponents.

[paulg]

mikeh, on 2023-March-12, 15:55, said:

Also, it's the sort of signal that one could easily make by actual mistake. At that level (where I occasionally play without much success) the focus is absolute…and it's not on how one turns the card, so I've placed it the wrong way on occasion, when concentrating hard on the next trick/rest of the hand such that my hand is turning the trick without my brain being engaged.

It is this focus that explains how some cheats prospered for so long at the highest levels: they were able to take advantage of a blind spot as no-one cared about how the cards were placed, even when they were considered highly suspect by many professionals.

Which is why it is a bad idea for players to continue to play with their quitted cards. There is only downside.

[mycroft]

The attitude of (many) highest-level players to (some of) the Laws is well known. Again, I'm not really aiming this at Mike, who isn't saying "it's okay", just "it doesn't affect anything." Less "not aiming" (but certainly not criticizing) at sfi, who seems to be saying "what's the harm", rather than "it's not right, but."

Given the last few years, I am very surprised that more people do not try to remove these "unconscious" violations of Law (which are there for a very good purpose, and not just "what was the result on this hand?") from their play. But the attitude of (many) highest-level players to c-ers is "we know who they are, and you and I know it's not you and I, right?" And to give them a lot of credit, they're usually right.

Frankly, if they can remember every trick on every hand - especially the last one - then what's the difference if the cards get switched over just playing with them? What makes 65C so much more "a violation needing redress" than 65B? But of course we know the answer - everybody can remember the entire play, and the one person who accidentally swapped cards will remember it differently. Doubly so if it wasn't entirely accidental. I mean, you'll probably get outvoted, and even the Director will realize that your line makes no sense, but what's the harm in trying? (Yes, it's something you'd better only do once in a blue moon, because as soon as you get a reputation for that sort of thing, suddenly you're no longer "you or I"...)

And yes, one of the "tells" of cheaters is that they pay more attention to "stuff nobody pays attention to" than most, and are much more careful about things like trick placement, etc. But that's yet another thing many people don't have the energy to spare looking for when playing "at that level". Hence the cameras and the kibitzers, I guess. But isn't this something that could just be made so much harder to do if all the on-the-level players stopped giving them cover?

And what is the chance that "playing with" the cards reviews a quitted trick? We should be checking for glims at the table now? Oh yes, "clearly" everyone at that level can call all the spots of all the cards they played, and hasn't quite forgotten if they played the 6 or the 4 last time. So it's not a problem the way it is for those players - you know, the ones that can't play bridge, but we didn't get our 70% boards against this time - when they start emulating their idols. And that *is* a problem.

Yes, this is something that happens throughout bridge, at the highest level and down. It is not something anybody should be defending, past "they shouldn't do it, no, but it's a pretty trivial thing." And I think that when the opponents do it to me, "easily intimidated" or no, I will ask them to do it right, and if they object, I am petty enough to use the Director to win that fight [*]. And in answer to the inevitable, "because I am a director, it distracts me from my concentration when people knowingly and deliberately violate Laws." How true that statement is compared to the previous I will leave to the judgement of the Gods.

[* Edit to add]

Spoiler

The other one that I always ask for correction on is violations of 41D. And yes, it does affect my memory of cards played (and I'm sure it does others as well). How much of the request is "correct" vs. "petty" I think depends on their reaction to being told "low" in that suit - if the 5 from KJ825 is played, then it actually doesn't matter to them; but mostly they spend significant effort digging out the 2. "So it's not important to follow the Laws when it might affect the defence, but it certainly is important to protect partner. Interesting."

But I am Secretary Bird, so I have a somewhat biased view of the world.

[jillybean]

sfi, on 2023-March-12, 17:18, said:

You keep calling it intimidating behaviour, but I really don't get why. What am I missing? If they manage to re-order the cards while playing with them and there's a dispute, their behaviour can only be good for your side. 65D and 66D are there to protect you.

I understand how this can be intimidating behaviour, and I know exactly the type of player pescetom is referring to.
Whether it's deliberate, arrogant behaviour or simply casual or nervous play, it can cause uneasiness, especially to newer players.

[lchiu7]

paulg, on 2023-March-13, 02:37, said:

It is this focus that explains how some cheats prospered for so long at the highest levels: they were able to take advantage of a blind spot as no-one cared about how the cards were placed, even when they were considered highly suspect by many professionals.

Which is why it is a bad idea for players to continue to play with their quitted cards. There is only downside.

Slightly OT but I caught a video on YT where there (ultimately proven) were allegations against a European pair who were using the way they positioned the board on the table after the tray had been removed, to indicate a lead preference.

One could argue that playing with quitted tricks could be a signalling mechanism, but having never played with a screen, I don't know if you can see your partner hands to receive a signal.

[sfi]

You seem to be replying to points that where the importance of following correct procedure was already acknowledged. I'll point out a couple of examples.

mycroft, on 2023-March-13, 09:28, said:

Frankly, if they can remember every trick on every hand - especially the last one - then what's the difference if the cards get switched over just playing with them? What makes 65C so much more "a violation needing redress" than 65B? But of course we know the answer - everybody can remember the entire play, and the one person who accidentally swapped cards will remember it differently. Doubly so if it wasn't entirely accidental. I mean, you'll probably get outvoted, and even the Director will realize that your line makes no sense, but what's the harm in trying? (Yes, it's something you'd better only do once in a blue moon, because as soon as you get a reputation for that sort of thing, suddenly you're no longer "you or I"...)

65C doesn't deal with card order - you wanted 65D. But I pointed out that keeping the order is important in my first reply. If you do mix up your cards, it's not even a matter of being outvoted - any contentious decision is likely to go against you because you no longer have evidence to back up your claim. Sure, you can point out it would have been an illogical line of play, but you're still at risk if the opponents don't agree that's what happened.

Quote

And what is the chance that "playing with" the cards reviews a quitted trick? We should be checking for glims at the table now? Oh yes, "clearly" everyone at that level can call all the spots of all the cards they played, and hasn't quite forgotten if they played the 6 or the 4 last time. So it's not a problem the way it is for those players - you know, the ones that can't play bridge, but we didn't get our 70% boards against this time - when they start emulating their idols. And that *is* a problem.

Mike addressed this point at the start of his most recent post. People forget cards. It's a problem if they are looking at their cards while playing with them, but just fiddling with the played cards isn't necessarily a gateway drug to the second step. They're separate situations, with different consequences to the hand in general. Hence players in the Vanderbilt will react to those situations differently.

My general point is that some infractions only harm the person doing it, and players can be lax about following those. You may not like it, but it's kind of a fact of life amongst the top players and in general no harm is done. People will call for cards improperly, lead face up or turn the played tricks incorrectly. Most of the time it doesn't matter, and when it does the director sorts it out. Assuming the director knows their job, the person who followed procedure correctly is protected.

Quote

The other one that I always ask for correction on is violations of 41D. And yes, it does affect my memory of cards played (and I'm sure it does others as well). How much of the request is "correct" vs. "petty" I think depends on their reaction to being told "low" in that suit - if the 5 from KJ825 is played, then it actually doesn't matter to them; but mostly they spend significant effort digging out the 2. "So it's not important to follow the Laws when it might affect the defence, but it certainly is important to protect partner. Interesting."

Objecting to this one is common - it's entirely normal that people use physical location of something as a memory aid. I used to ask for opponents to correct it, but lately I'm more interested in whether the declarer and dummy notice and what happens when they call for a small card. I will point it out and make sure they play the 2 if dummy plays the 5. If nothing else, sometimes it actually matters. Most of the time I won't point it out if the suit is KJ834 and they played the 4, but that's because I know my partner and I will see what happened and declarer may not - an entirely different reason than those I'm talking about above.

[sfi]

lchiu7, on 2023-March-13, 14:20, said:

One could argue that playing with quitted tricks could be a signalling mechanism, but having never played with a screen, I don't know if you can see your partner hands to receive a signal.

It could easily be used as a signalling mechanism - even with screens there are several ways to transmit information to partner. There are much more subtle ones than this, so I'm not convinced it's a significant consideration.

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2023-March-12, 17:18, said:

You keep calling it intimidating behaviour, but I really don't get why. What am I missing?

First of all maybe something you have and I am missing, a thick Australian skin?

What you may be missing: some objective analysis of what you have grown used to seeing, some psychology, some awareness of body language (not correlated with bridge ability and more a female skill).
Sitting around a table already creates a situation of confrontation: our trust in an interlocutor drops dramatically if there is a table in the middle.
And the worst position (defensive/competitive) is directly opposite, which is why you should pull your punches at the restaurant with a date and of course never discuss with partner at the bridge table.
Your opponents are in corner positions, which makes you a little more likely to give them some rope, in particular RHO who is poorly placed to stab or punch you.
Card games were around at least in the 14th century and intimidatory tactics will have emerged much at the same time.
It's basic body language that holding the body still and moving hands in any way is intimidating.
Particularly if you fix your stare, purse your lips, or raise or lower your head.
Even without raising or lowering your head, you can achieve the same effect of dilating facial width versus height by wearing a hat (Oh, did Weinstein who was a poker champion do that?).
It's inevitable that people will be tempted to play these games, hence the prohibitions of mannerisms in the Laws, because Gentlemen in a club rightly shun both the intimidatory behaviour itself and any advantage that might accrue.
If nobody enforces those prohibitions (as is often but by no means always the case) then the situation will get out of hand and players will come to consider it acceptable, a competitive necessity or even simply normal. I find that grotesque (watch board 5 of the video from the point of view of a spectator interested in understanding and joining our sport), but comprehensible.

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2023-March-13, 15:06, said:

It could easily be used as a signalling mechanism - even with screens there are several ways to transmit information to partner. There are much more subtle ones than this, so I'm not convinced it's a significant consideration.

I agree with you that it's not worth hanging up on one potential illegal signalling mechanism and the Laws do well to avoid the issue altogether - even the "classics" of card orientation, coughing and ancillary items placement are not mentioned. The premise to the 2017 Laws Commentary covers this nicely although arguably it should be a premise to the Laws themseleves.

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2023-March-13, 16:12, said:

First of all maybe something you have and I am missing, a thick Australian skin?

I don't think that's it. There are certainly things that I can see might intimidate people, but which I either ignore or am amused by. A super-obvious one is the claim where they don't show (or half show) their cards, but there are many other examples of various grades of, shall we say, quirks, all the way to the person who is bouncing their knee and hitting the table (I know at least three people who do this without even realising they're making the rest of the table seasick). I'm happy calling them out on these things when it's important and I get that newer players wouldn't be. But having the opponent idly playing with their cards while thinking just doesn't register anywhere on this scale for me. Both you and jillybean disagree though, so maybe there is something to what you say.

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2023-March-13, 16:38, said:

I agree with you that it's not worth hanging up on one potential illegal signalling mechanism and the Laws do well to avoid the issue altogether - even the "classics" of card orientation, coughing and ancillary items placement are not mentioned. The premise to the 2017 Laws Commentary covers this nicely although arguably it should be a premise to the Laws themseleves.

I agree that the Laws shouldn't handle cheating. It would be a nightmare for directors if they were the main line of defence against systemic cheating of the sort we've seen recently. One thing we (and I mean every jurisdiction I've come across) needs is much better ways of addressing cases of cheating when they are brought to light. It's way too time consuming at the moment and processes have been shown to be poor enough that they don't stand up in courts.

[mikeh]

sfi, on 2023-March-13, 17:01, said:

I agree that the Laws shouldn't handle cheating. It would be a nightmare for directors if they were the main line of defence against systemic cheating of the sort we've seen recently. One thing we (and I mean every jurisdiction I've come across) needs is much better ways of addressing cases of cheating when they are brought to light. It's way too time consuming at the moment and processes have been shown to be poor enough that they don't stand up in courts.

If you are referring to the Fantunes CAS outcome, I know a lot about it. I read the actual decision (something I suspect many of the critics of the decision did not do…why ruin righteous indignation by learning the facts?) and had several private emails with people involved in the hearing, on the anti-Fantunes side

The process worked very well, both in catching them and sanctioning them. However, the bridge authorities used lawyers who, in my opinion (shared by those with whom I communicated) monumentally screwed up. It would take too long to explain here, although I wrote some long posts about it on BW at the time.

I’ve also worked, pro bono, for the ACBL on low-level cheating cases. Yes, the process is slow. But it should be! The punishments can be severe. Take a husband and wife accused of collusive cheating…they may well be in their 70’s or older, given acbl demographics. Bar them for five years and they may be, in effect, barred for life, plus since their names are published, many of their friends now see them as cheats. Now, in the cases I was involved in, the culprits usually pleaded guilty and got much less than five years. But my point is that, to people for whom bridge is a big part of their life, to have that taken away from them and to have their friends see them as cheats is serious and the prosecution needs to be meticulous. Which, unfortunately, means slow.

[mycroft]

sfi, on 2023-March-13, 15:01, said:

You seem to be replying to points that where the importance of following correct procedure was already acknowledged. I'll point out a couple of examples.

Maybe. But the point is: did you say "They shouldn't do it, but it's not a big deal because...", or did you imply that this is just one of those Laws that don't really have to be followed if you're good enough?

Quote

Nobody in that final would need to rely on how the cards are placed to have an accurate count of the tricks. It’s just part of counting the hand.

Quote

65C doesn't deal with card order - you wanted 65D.

You know, I thought so, too, until I read it again this morning:

Quote

Each player arranges their own cards in an orderly overlapping row in the sequence played, so as to permit review of the play after its completion, if necessary to determine the number of tricks won by each side or the order in which the cards were played.

Quote

But I pointed out that keeping the order is important in my first reply.[*] If you do mix up your cards, it's not even a matter of being outvoted - any contentious decision is likely to go against you because you no longer have evidence to back up your claim. Sure, you can point out it would have been an illogical line of play, but you're still at risk if the opponents don't agree that's what happened.

But that isn't the issue, is it? 65D does in fact deal with "pack up the cards, shuffle, then claim making 2", but not "he was playing with his cards during the hand - as he always does - but didn't change the order - as he always claims - but somehow his memory of the card play is different, and his cards match his memory." But that would never happen, of course.

Or maybe even "yeah, he was playing with his cards, but couldn't possibly have changed the order. I would have noticed." - and now?

Quote

Mike addressed this point at the start of his most recent post. People forget cards. It's a problem if they are looking at their cards while playing with them, but just fiddling with the played cards isn't necessarily a gateway drug to the second step. They're separate situations, with different consequences to the hand in general. Hence players in the Vanderbilt will react to those situations differently.

You know what glims are, yes? You know how that definitely was a thing in the past, if only at money tables (Drax, Moonraker)? I can't see why anyone would set up something like that, and present a habit of playing with their cards[**], just so that once a month, when they absolutely needed it, they could check which card they played. But I am an honest soul.

I absolutely agree that one isn't a gateway to the other. But this being a "normal thing done at this level" sure gives cover for the one or two who would, doesn't it?

Quote

My general point is that some infractions only harm the person doing it, and players can be lax about following those. You may not like it, but it's kind of a fact of life amongst the top players and in general no harm is done. People will call for cards improperly, lead face up or turn the played tricks incorrectly. Most of the time it doesn't matter, and when it does the director sorts it out. Assuming the director knows their job, the person who followed procedure correctly is protected.

My general point is that these kinds of "lax plays" (and the ones that are more "I know how to play bridge better than the Lawmakers, so I'm not gonna follow that Law" even more) get propagated down to the wannabe-experts (who emulate the experts, because 'wannabe'), and from there down to the A players (who just see "the best" do it), and from there to the B and C players (who think "if the A players do it, it must be okay"), and somewhere in that chain it starts to become a problem.

Oh, and the fact that these "lax players" both generate cover for cheaters, or might just generate suspicion on themselves - and while they know they're honest and pure, all it takes is a string of good luck and someone producing a video of "look what I can see, doing what he's doing".

I used to be an acceptable card manipulator back in the day. Not a *good* one, I wouldn't fool anyone looking carefully, but I could show a few tricks. I gave that up completely the day I chose to play bridge seriously, because even if I would never do it, it's not a suspicion I would want anybody to have to have. As I said, I'm surprised that these "lax players" haven't cleaned up these habits, for the same reason.

You are right, I don't like it. You are right, it almost always doesn't matter. You are right, competent directing will ensure that if it is a problem, it won't damage the non-offenders. But of course, I've also seen the opinions of expert-wannabes (usually) about the existence of competent directing - especially when it comes to "those people" who they all (when it comes out, after years of it) knew were fishy all this time. Were I an expert, especially were I someone who made a living from playing bridge, I would avoid picking up these habits, and post-Brogeland, I would work hard at breaking them if I had picked them up. I'm just surprised that more haven't.

[*]You did, and I trimmed it from my quote in this line. I am not suggesting that you would think that wasn't okay. But can you absolutely guarantee that the order never changes on that "playing with"? Everyone? Even by accident?
[**]If you follow that link, even though it's the title of the post, the actual reference is about 70% of the way down. But the rest is interesting as well.

[sfi]

There are others who have been able to drag it through the courts for quite a while or were given repeated punishments for cheating without much effectiveness. And we have had examples in Oz as well over the years. I'm sure you don't need me to point out other specific examples.

I didn't object to the process being slow - time consuming is very different. The effort people have gone through to prosecute one case is simply not scalable. You just have to look at Nic Hammond's recent claim that pair #1014 on his list of cheaters is a clear and obvious case (I'm not saying they are - I don't have access to the records required to work out who the pair is, nor do I care that much). Despite his claims, we all know it would take much more than 5 minutes to build a solid case against them, and I doubt very much it is being done for many of the 1,013 pairs higher on his list.

[sfi]

mycroft, on 2023-March-13, 17:44, said:

Maybe. But the point is: did you say "They shouldn't do it, but it's not a big deal because...", or did you imply that this is just one of those Laws that don't really have to be followed if you're good enough?

Neither is really a good characterisation. There are some laws that if you break them you can only hurt yourself. I care much less if an opponent doesn't follow those because if there is an issue then I won't be at a disadvantage. The only reason quality of player comes into play is because the better players (generally) recognise those situations and are able to protect themselves.

Going back to the initial scenario - that the players don't point their quitted cards in the correct orientation. I don't care if an opponent does that because I'm not relying on how they place their card to know how many tricks we've won. For players in the Vanderbilt final, neither are they. If there's a disagreement at the end of the hand, someone is going to say "you lost three hearts, a diamond and a club ruff for down one" and that will probably be the end of the discussion. If they still don't agree, the cards are there - in order - and we can all go through them with the director. If they have now gone a step further and shuffled their cards, they've lost evidence and that's their problem - I'm not going to be damaged no matter who they are or how many titles they've won.

I don't buy the argument that this behaviour filters down. If it causes problems for the wannabe expert or whoever, they see the consequences and get to make a decision about how to modify their behaviour. They're adults who can take responsibility for their own behaviour.

I get that people can manipulate cards and I'm not trusting Paul Wilson if he ever got within meters of me. There's a nice video where he cheats the Hendon Mob at poker. Afterwards the opponents mention it's not a major worry, and that's similar to my approach at the table.

P.S. Fair point on 65C.