[hrothgar]

I wonder whether we can have a more serious discussion about electronic playing environments?

I have been arguing since the Tenerife scandal that top level bridge needs to switch to an electronic playing environment. I believe that the combination of

1. Physical separation of players and

2. Perfect record keeping

is an incredibly powerful combination in preventing cheating. Historically, there has been a lot of push back against this idea from players who believe that it is important to protect the social aspect of the game, preserve table feel and the like.

I suspect that the sheer number of majority events that have been tainted by the two most recent disclosures, I hope that folks eyes are now open regarding the intrinsic costs associated with preserve the Face-to-Face playing environment.

Equally significant, I want to point out that video feeds are USELESS in detecting pairs that are using electronic devices to pass signals.

We now have near definitive proof that top level players have been cheating in and repeatedly winning championship level events. However, I am more convinced than ever that we are only catching the "stupid" cheats who are using blatant visual or audio based signals.

If people care about the integrity of the game, we need to switch to an electronic playing environment.

[Zelandakh]

How about the mixed environment I described in the other thread? One where screen mates are sitting together but separated physically from their partners? This seems like a small step but one that would vastly reduce the possibilities available for cheating.

[billw55]

How will "physical separation of players" prevent communication by electronic devices?

OK, perfect record keeping may help against any method of cheating. The question is, are we really ready to punish cheaters from results alone - without any ideas about how they are doing it? It could be a tough sell. In the current cases, the codes are confirmed by video, which is very different.

[hrothgar]

 billw55, on 2015-September-14, 08:56, said:

How will "physical separation of players" prevent communication by electronic devices?

the inverse square law is a glorious thing...

[billw55]

 hrothgar, on 2015-September-14, 09:05, said:

the inverse square law is a glorious thing...

I wonder how far is far enough. Perhaps they will need separate hotels for nationals now? Although, you and I are in separate cities. I'm pretty sure you are beyond the range of my cell phone, but we can still communicate virtually instantaneously without difficulty. Relays, amplifiers, I don't know all the techie terminology. But I do know that cheaters are persistent and will always find new ways.

Of course that doesn't mean that we should not stop what cheating we can.

[awm]

Given the (low) quality of statistical analysis in vogue on the other forums site, I think it is wildly optimistic to assume statistical analysis will help to catch anyone. In fact it's far more likely to confirm the analysts bias, and to "catch" innocent pairs using slightly non-standard methods or styles.

Having a face-to-face observer is hugely helpful (how did these "whispers" start) but I do think Zel's approach is a good solution there.

[Fluffy]

Most important: Change doesn't need to be radical, you don't need to run every major tournament on electronical from now on, you can start with one a year and it will gradually become mainstream.

Only thing required is a big sponsor for a big tournament and things would start rolling.

Also fred said BBO was working on somthing related to this although not exatly what we were expecting. I have big hopes in his job.

 Zelandakh, on 2015-September-14, 08:49, said:

How about the mixed environment I described in the other thread? One where screen mates are sitting together but separated physically from their partners? This seems like a small step but one that would vastly reduce the possibilities available for cheating.

I've described something similar many times, and I think this is the right approach.


Also there is an in between alternative were all people play with cards, but there is a block in the middle of the table that doesn't let you see your partner (but you can see opponents). All info from partner's bid & plays comes to you electronically while info from opps comes the usual way.

[Fluffy]

 awm, on 2015-September-14, 09:15, said:

Given the (low) quality of statistical analysis in vogue on the other forums site, I think it is wildly optimistic to assume statistical analysis will help to catch anyone. In fact it's far more likely to confirm the analysts bias, and to "catch" innocent pairs using slightly non-standard methods or styles.

Having a face-to-face observer is hugely helpful (how did these "whispers" start) but I do think Zel's approach is a good solution there.

High quality opponents that losed to you will spend time looking at the vugraph archives if they exist. This is enough to make a difference.

[Zelandakh]

 Fluffy, on 2015-September-14, 09:16, said:

Also there is an in between alternative were all people play with cards, but there is a block in the middle of the table that doesn't let you see your partner (but you can see opponents). All info from partner's bid & plays comes to you electronically while info from opps comes the usual way.

Blocking vision is not enough as the doctors proved. You could also use cards in the 2 + 2 method if you wanted by using an OCR reader and cards printed with bar codes.

[hrothgar]

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

[Fluffy]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-September-14, 09:23, said:

Blocking vision is not enough as the doctors proved. You could also use cards in the 2 + 2 method if you wanted by using an OCR reader and cards printed with bar codes.

I agree with you, but it is a step forward, and there is a bunch of people who want to hold cards in their hands to play bridge for some reason. I would rather jump to separated rooms for screenmates rather, wich also allows for telematic play under supervision.

[awm]

 Fluffy, on 2015-September-14, 09:19, said:

High quality opponents that losed to you will spend time looking at the vugraph archives if they exist. This is enough to make a difference.

They will almost surely find whatever they expect to find. The massive numbers of hands presented as "evidence" which are simply not suspicious confirms this. It is always easy to find a few leads that struck gold or a judgment that worked which a majority of experts would not have made, or a defense that seems impossibly good to an observer ignorant of carding agreements.

The cases so far really rest on video evidence. It is theoretically possible to catch someone statistically, but in practice allowing this as formal "proof" will be disaster for the bridge community.

[billw55]

 awm, on 2015-September-14, 09:51, said:

They will almost surely find whatever they expect to find. The massive numbers of hands presented as "evidence" which are simply not suspicious confirms this. It is always easy to find a few leads that struck gold or a judgment that worked which a majority of experts would not have made, or a defense that seems impossibly good to an observer ignorant of carding agreements.

The cases so far really rest on video evidence. It is theoretically possible to catch someone statistically, but in practice allowing this as formal "proof" will be disaster for the bridge community.

I think a simple experiment would be interesting. Collect a couple hundred deals from top level competition, but otherwise randomly. Different players, different events, etc. Then give the set to the analysts and tell them that north south is Fisher-Schwartz on all deals. Then see what they "find", if anything. It might clear up some of the ideas out there about bias or the lack thereof.

[nige1]

Data analysed by amateurs can generate "damn lies"
but experts like helene_t might reach significant and credible statistical conclusions

Obviously code-busting is more convincing if it predicts future observations, rather than just accords with past observations, most of which were used to crack the code..

[helene_t]

I think I will hire Nigel as my PR agent

Just wondering about the inverse square law. Suppose the bermuda bowl was held on two remote islands, both a few hundred kms from the nearest GSM mast. Then the cheaters would have to bring their own satelite modems to be able to communicate with each other. Maybe, alternatively, one could jam GSM signals from the playing rooms.

But maybe it would be more practical just to ask the players to take their shoes off for inspection. It is bit more tricky if someone puts a transmitter in his tooth filling and operate it with the tongue.

[1eyedjack]

 helene_t, on 2015-September-14, 13:22, said:

But maybe it would be more practical just to ask the players to take their shoes off for inspection.

Reminds me of my wife's instructions as we were passing through US Customs on our vacation. "Do *NOT* make any jokes. Do *NOT* make any jokes. Do ...."

[Fluffy]

A sponsor is needed to develop the electronic enviroment. Zimmerman might want to clean his name after last scandal maybe he is the best candidate.

[johnu]

The solution was invented in the 1960's for the TV show Get Smart. It was called the Cone of Silence. These days, a Faraday cage would handle the electronic signals. We could also borrow a steel cage from WWE wrestling. To prepare for global warming and the rising sea levels, players could play with their feet in buckets of water. That would take care of those foot transmitters.

[mgoetze]

 awm, on 2015-September-14, 09:51, said:

The cases so far really rest on video evidence. It is theoretically possible to catch someone statistically, but in practice allowing this as formal "proof" will be disaster for the bridge community.

Perhaps. The alternative hypothesis is, of course, that NOT allowing such proof will be a disaster for the bridge community (because cheaters will just get smart). Maybe the fully electronic playing environment will come. I do think the majority of pros will be willing to submit to it. What I'm less sure about is whether the sponsors will be willing to pay people to play in such an environment.

Of course, ad hoc statistical analysis a la Woolsey is dangerous. That's why the Bridge federations right now should be contracting smart people like Greg Lawler to develop a suite of statistical tests to be used solely for future cases, not for past cases.

[mgoetze]

Then again,

Quote

I completely disagree as I think electronic bridge will kill the game as we know it - and destroy many of the great elements which make bridge so much better than any computer game.

The guy who wrote the above quote? Some Norwegian pro called Brogeland.