The Swiss Social Concept: Something for Las Vegas?
By Bill Thompson

In the last issue of Casino Lawyer, I explored the development of modern casinos in Switzerland. A part of the new policy authorizing casinos has come to be known as the "Swiss Social Concept." Casinos are required to have programs that deal with problem gambling and problem gamblers. In this article I will take a closer look at the programs which include a mandatory ban of gamers from all Swiss casino facilities. Yet, could such mandatory bans work as well in other jurisdictions? Could they work in North American casinos? Could they work in Las Vegas casinos? Could they be modified for Las Vegas casinos?

When voters approved modern Swiss casinos in a 1993 vote, they were not exactly giving approval to all gambling. In a way, they were rejecting the widespread prevalence of slot machines by requiring that all gambling (with the exception of the lottery) be inside the new casinos.

Moreover, as a part of the licensing process, the casino applicants had to show that they would have a specific program for controlling problem gambling and play by troubled gamblers. After the 19 casinos finally opened in 2002, they formed a national association which has standardized the programs now identified as the Swiss Social Concept.

The program operations are monitored by the national gambling commission. Casinos keep extensive records of Social Concept activity. Each casino has a Social Concept Committee which consists of administrators, supervisors, and front-line employees such as dealers. The committee has a trained psychologist or psychiatrist as an advisor, and all employees are given an extensive training course on the nature of problem gambling and signs of troubled gambling that they must report to management and ultimately the committee.

Players must show identification at casino doors where they are given information about troubled gambling. Each casino has a brochure listing problem signs such as the 20 items on the Gamblers Anonymous questionnaire.

Employees report signs of troubled gambling to management, and he signs are evaluated as either critical or serious. Three critical signs include: 1) player verbalization about suicide; 2) tantrums-yelling, cursing, or throwing objects; and 3) a player's failure to use a restroom when necessary.

If any player exhibits these behaviors, the result is an immediate report to the committee, and upon verification (the player is given notice and opportunity to respond), the player is banned from all 19 casinos for life (a mandatory procedure).

Less critical, but serious signs, include: changing appearances-a player may switch from a previously clean-looking individual to a dirty one; demonstrating a lack of sleep; acting nervous; looking about suspiciously; or changing bets in unusual ways.

In these situations, employees make a written report describing the action observed and give it to management. This process can also be initiated by a third party-such as another player, or by a family member. A report is generated through a period of player observations, which may take several weeks.

Then, if the behaviors persist, the matter is referred to the committee where the player may be subject to a mandatory ban for life. Alternatively, the player could be given restrictions limiting play to a few times a month.

The players may appeal committee action. After one full year, a player may request that the ban be lifted. The request must indicate that the problem has ended, that the player has a source of income, that all debts have been paid, and that his or her family situation is stable.

While the Swiss have very strict banking secrecy laws, they are set aside here. Players must reveal their bank accounts, or they may not return. Also, players must demonstrate they underwent a treatment program.

Players who are banned from casinos are referred to counselors for treatment. Several casinos even pay for initial visits to the counselors.

The Swiss Social Concept has been in place for less than five years. The definitive results of the effectiveness of the program for controlling the down side of gambling remain to be demonstrated. Nonetheless we should ask: Could a Swiss Concept program work in a place with many casinos, or in a place that does not require a process for identification at the entry door?

Let's cut to the chase: Could such a policy work in Las Vegas?

Las Vegas (and the surrounding metropolitan area of Clark County) has 162 casinos (with gaming revenues over $1 million a year), as well as perhaps a thousand or more other "restricted" gaming locations--bars, grocery stores, restaurants-with 15 or fewer slot machines.

One word can answer the question posed above: "No." A policy of mandatory exclusion could not be enforced, if it contemplated exclusion from all these facilities.

To be sure, individual casino companies have "played" with the idea of having bans enforced on their own properties. The Hilton-Caesars' operations (now part of Harrah's) announced a plan that included exclusions even against the will of the player two years ago.

However, there have been no reports on how the plan has been instituted, or whether indeed bans have been imposed since the merger of Harrah's and the Hilton-Caesars group. Harrah's itself-the largest casino conglomerate in the world-has been a pioneer in recognizing the need for a responsible gambling program.

Harrah's was the first casino organization to post warning signs, distribute literature about problem gambling, and inform players of where to get help (now a requirement for all Nevada casinos), and Harrah's has instituted voluntary bans.

Several casino venues (not Nevada) in the United States require that casinos have a voluntary ban system. The Swiss notion of compulsory bans jurisdiction-wide has thus far been beyond the mindset of American casino operators and their regulators.

The plain truth is that individual casinos could not enforce a policy for mandatory bans beyond their own doors. Even at specific casinos, bans would be difficult to enforce. The experience of voluntary bans shows the difficulty of effective implementation. It is too easy for banned players to enter the casinos.

American casinos thrive only with open door policies that permit tens of thousands of patrons every day to enter. Identity checks at doors would require major interferences with customers. Moreover, the multiple casinos and other gambling spots in Las Vegas would preclude opportunities to seriously cut off gambling opportunities from any troubled gambler who seriously attempted to find a friendly table or slot machine.

So can anything be done along the lines of what is being done in Switzerland? Here the answer is also clear: Yes.

By offering the following suggestions as points of discussion for policy makers concerned that casinos keep the face of integrity on their operations, casinos could in turn avoid situations that may lead to future litigation.

Las Vegas might institute a "List of Unwelcome Patrons." This may be an official list kept by public authorities. Casinos would nominate the patrons on the list but other interested parties including appropriate family members, bankruptcy courts, and other judicial authorities could nominate problem gamblers as well.

The program would require casinos to have officials and committees such as those in Swiss casinos. They would monitor players and observe behaviors, including those indicated factors examined in the Swiss casinos. At critical times observations would lead to recommendations that persons be put on the "List." The Swiss critical factors (tantrums, talk of suicide, forgetting to go to the bathroom,) would certainly earn one a place on the list.

The decision to put a person on the List would be made by a government committee. However, before the decision would be made, the patron involved would have a clear opportunity to make a presentation indicating why they might not be put on the List.

The program would also involve due process considerations, and the decision to place a person on the list would occur only after good evidence suggested that the person's behavior at gambling activities could result in considerable harm to the person, or to others dependent upon him or her. Furthermore, a person would remain on the List for a set minimum time-perhaps one year. After that time, they could be removed from the list upon application. The committee would consider factors such as those outlined in Switzerland when decisions to remove the person would be made.

The List would be computerized and delivered to every gambling venue in the state. The person would be photographed and their fingerprints would be taken-albeit they would give fingerprints voluntarily.

Those persons placed upon the List would not be banned from any casino. However, they would not be "welcome" at the casino. Accordingly, all casinos would agree to remove the person from any promotion list, and they would be removed from all player's clubs. No advertisements would be sent to them at any address.

They would receive no promotions or deals-specials related to gambling. They would be permitted to participate in deals for shows and dinners as long as the activities were unrelated to gambling (in other states where casinos are not as essential as part of the community social fabric, meal and show promotions could also be restricted from such persons).

These players would have no credit at the casinos. Use of credit card machines would be restricted. They could not cash checks at the casino. These persons would be notified that they could not win prizes that would require identification-that is slot machine jackpots of over $1,200. They would not be allowed to make cash transactions of over $10,000 as these would require identification for the I.R.S. Any such prizes would be held by the casino and given to a state fund to support the program and other programs for treatment of problem gamblers.

The players on the List would be given a certified letter explaining these policies. They could be asked to leave casino premises at any time by casino authorities without any legal recourse.

American casino gaming operates under rules quite different than those in Europe. Nonetheless, American casinos should show the same concern for troubled gamblers that is shown by the Swiss Social Concept. The above ideas are offered as ideas for discussion and consideration.