The legal proceedings of the cheating scandals are are well underway. Behind the scenes changes are also being made to (hopefully) improve the system of dealing with cheating accusations in the future. One big question is what burden of proof is needed for guilt? The English Bridge Union have just decided to change their burden from beyond all reasonable doubt to comfortably satisfied which will be used by the WBF (Swiss Law).

What do you think?
Read below for our interpretation of the standards and don't forget that you can leave comments at the bottom of the page!

[yop_poll id="2"]

Our interpretation of these standards is:
preponderance of the evidence: More likely than not (more than 50% likely)
Clear and convincing: Substantially more likely
Beyond a reasonable doubt (a moral certainty): The evidence is so strong that a reasonable person would conclude guilt and in the case of bridge there would believe there is no other reasonable explanation.

The bridge equivalent:
Preponderance of the evidence: You are declarer and missing 8 hearts. One opponent preempted with 3H. The hearts will break 7-1.
Clear and convincing: Your opponent's make an opening lead of a 4th highest card. You are missing the A+Q of the suit. The defender on lead has the queen and their partner has the ace.
Beyond a reasonable doubt: Your opponents went to small slam and used Keycard or blackwood on the way. You hold one Ace so they must have the 3 remaining aces.