A SATISFYING LOSS

People usually hate to lose in scrabble tournaments. However, I have recently had a very satisfying loss in Canberra. The reason is simply because I have developed over the years a sharp sense of being able to quickly figure out who cheat, their method of cheating, and how to deal with most cheats.

One interesting observation is that cheats will never take a hint and when approached in a friendly manner, they would pretend to be offended by such insinuation. However, they would continue to cheat regardless.

I met simplistic cheats, whose elementary method is to contravene Australian rules by exposing tiles inside the bag and lowering it below table level. I managed to resolve this nagging problem by taking a stern straightforward stand, rather than hint or watch helplessly in order not to “rock the boat”. I achieved my goal on the second day of the tournament and managed to get a couple of seasoned chronic cheats to follow the rules. It wasn’t easy and I once had to shout at a nosy player that my discussion with my opponent was “none of her business”. It amazes me that those who vehemently deny the fact that Scrabble cheating does exist are usually the cheats themselves.

One harder problem remains. It is the sneaky devil who slips unwanted tiles back into the bag. There is nothing in ASPA rules that may help solve this problem. If you catch the culprit in the act, you have no means of proving your claim. This problem has been sorted out in WESPA rules, where a hand approaching the bag has to be shown to be empty. When I started playing scrabble, I thought the rule was offensive, not to mention the fact that I have a natural antipathy towards anything American. However, I could see the wisdom behind the strange rule, after many years of facing so many cheats.

During that Canberra tournament, I lost twice to a certain cheat, who was not from ACT or NSW. Her cheating technique was to draw tiles from the bag one by one and examine them while stacking them in a raw on the table. Towards the end of the process, one unwanted tile would quickly be “palmed” and returned to the bag. When it happened, I could only mumble a hint to the effect that I have detected the offence. The culprit must have had carefully weighed the ramifications of being detected and was ready to respond if an accusation were levelled at her. My consolation is that I know that I would certainly have won if the field was level. As such, it was a satisfying loss.

It is becoming clear to me that the reason ASPA rules are not in line with WESPA rules is because some players do have vested interest in not adopting some superior WESPA rules. There are two WESPA rules that would end all forms of scrabble cheating in Australia. As to bag position during drawing tiles, ASPA rules made reference to “shoulder height”. That was later changed to a more dubious “above table level”, the assumption being that all tables are born of equal height! Here are the two relevant WESPA rules:

3.9.1 Bag Position

When drawing from the bag, a player must:

(a) hold the bag so that the rim of the bag is at or above eye level;

(b) avert his or her eyes from the bag; and

(c) keep the bag in full view of the opponent.

3.9.2 Drawing Protocols

(a) While doing so may be helpful to avoid overdrawing, players need not

draw tiles individually.

(b) A player must not put a hand into the tile bag if that hand contains tiles.

All drawn tiles must be placed on the rack or the table before further tiles

are drawn.

(c) It is mandatory to show an empty hand both before and after drawing replacement tiles (see Rule 3.7.1 (Procedure for Shuffling or Counting Tiles)).

(d) Replacement tiles must be drawn with reasonable speed.