[hrothgar]

The Elinescu-Wladow incident in Bali clearly suggests the need to adopt much more rigorous anti-cheating technology in high level bridge events. I would go so far as to argue that event organizers should abandon venerable pasteboard in favor of an electronic playing environment. Concurrent with this, event organizers should physically segregate players. All of the North’s can play in one room, all of the South’s in another, …

I recognize that most people favor the more traditional game and the use of cards. Balanced against this I would point out three simple facts

1. Elinescu and Wladow got caught because they were stupid. They combined a highly visible out of band signal with a simplistic encoding.

2. Electronic transmitters are extremely simple to make. Card counters have been building hardware assists into items of clothing for decades. It is naïve to believe that toe “tapping” is coughing necessary to transfer information in this day and age.

3. There’s an awful lot of money to be had, both by hiring oneself out to sponsors, winning the Cavendish, or winning cash prizes.

Given all the accusations of cheating that we see bandied about, why do individual believe that these types of hardware assists aren’t in common use?

From my perspective, transition would accomplish facilitate a number of worthy goals

1. Naïve forms of cheating such as the ones used by Elinescu-Wladow would be eliminated. More sophisticated forms of cheating (say, using an electronic transmitter of some form) would require a more powerful transmitter and be easiers to sweep/detect.

2. Authorities would have a comprehensive database or every bid that gets made and card that gets play. Catching a smart pair of cheats is going to require careful statistical analysis of the data. (You’ll want to be able to detect situations in which pairs consistently take a position that turns out to be correct). However, this type of analysis requires a lot of data.

3.It becomes exceedingly cheap to provide comprehensive Vugraph and high quality World Championship Record Books.

Once again, I understand that people like the traditional game, they like playing with cards, they like watching the opposing pair to see whether they hitch, etc.

However, the cost of doing this all is that a smart pair of thieves can rob you blind and the WBF, the ACBL, the Cavendish, etc have no effective controls to stop this from happen.

Moreover, knowing human nature, I’d guess that this is already happening.

[Trinidad]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-03, 08:39, said:

Moreover, knowing human nature, I’d guess that this is already happening.

I think we have a different view of human nature...

My view of human nature is that cheating does happen, but not in those numbers that make it necessary to move to an electronic environment.

And, BTW, I think that this difference in view can be seen everywhere. Some think that crime needs to be eradicated... because it is crime. Some view that crime cannot be eradicated anyway, but we need to make sure that crime doesn't interfere with the economy, everybody else's happiness, ..., etc., and neither should crime fighting.

Neither of these views are necessarily wrong or right. But I think these views apply to the bridge world, as much as to the regular world. One view: Cheating should be eradicated. The other view: Don't let a few cheaters, or the attempts to catch those few cheaters, ruin everybody else's game.

Rik

[WellSpyder]

A serious question, I think. But one thing that suggests this may not be as serious an issue as you assume is the number of comments that have been put forward indicating that this pair have been under suspicion by fellow players for several years. I don't see any suggestion that either the signal or the code in use were detected earlier, so these suspicions were not a result of the things you describe as stupid, but presumably the result of a number of unusual, but unexpectedly successful, actions. I wonder whether those who made such comments about this pair could say how many other pairs they are aware of in the current international bridge scene who were/are subject to the same suspicions? (obviously without naming names!)

[billw55]

Indeed, the handful of confirmed cheating incidents is proof beyond doubt that there is a larger population of undetected cheaters.

But per Trinidad, I'm not sure we can strongly counteract this without overly damaging the enjoyment of the game.

[WellSpyder]

The other reason why I don't worry about this too much is that even though I play at a reasonably serious level, I just don't believe the gains from cheating are generally enough to offset the costs. So, for example, for a recent league match we were offered the opportunity to use pre-dealt boards, even though the traditional approach is for boards to be dealt at the table. Using pre-dealt boards offers the home team increased opportunities for cheating, but on the other hand players like the opportunity to have hand records they can study afterwards. In this sort of situation, my belief is that people are playing the game to enjoy themselves. I just can't envisage people wanting to devote a whole evening to playing a game that they have already rendered pointless by fixing the deals or looking at the hands, or whatever. So accepting the offer to pre-deal the boards is a no-brainer in my mind.

Obviously the perceived gains can be higher at international level, but I still believe most people will not want to devote a substantial part of their lives to living a lie...

[helene_t]

There are lots of arguments pro and con switching to an electronic environment. It could save some money not having to travel to a single venue but just to the nearest WBF approved playing room.

Cheating is a minor issue IMHO. BTW, I am not sure if weeding out elegal electronic communication devices will be much easier using seperate playing rooms.

[MrAce]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-03, 09:02, said:

I think we have a different view of human nature...

My view of human nature is that cheating does happen, but not in those numbers that make it necessary to move to an electronic environment.

And, BTW, I think that this difference in view can be seen everywhere. Some think that crime needs to be eradicated... because it is crime. Some view that crime cannot be eradicated anyway, but we need to make sure that crime doesn't interfere with the economy, everybody else's happiness, ..., etc., and neither should crime fighting.

Neither of these views are necessarily wrong or right. But I think these views apply to the bridge world, as much as to the regular world. One view: Cheating should be eradicated. The other view: Don't let a few cheaters, or the attempts to catch those few cheaters, ruin everybody else's game.

Rik

I agree with Hrothgar.

Not only because of the cheat factor but also for a lot of other reasons.

Just because when the game was found there was literally no other way to play it except than holding rectangular cards in your hand some of which shows numbers and some pictures, putting them on the table face up so every one can see what you played, does not mean it has to be played this way forever. It is economical to use a network of computers, basically a monitor and a keyboard, instead of consuming a lot of papers, transporting tables, boards, coded playing cards, dealing machines, duplication process, screens etc etc.

It may even make international matches easier. Or you may even create a league just like soccer where every city team plays vs each other twice, long matches. Instead of entire team flying to other city or vice versa, every team sends 1 observer and opponent team plays in their club in front of computers with your observer making sure everything is lawful.

Terrorism for example became an issue in last world champ. There are countries where people are not comfortable to go to. With this method you will not even need a country to hold the championship, and transport tables, screens, boards, teams, hotel reservations, flights..oh my i can go on listing. All WBF needs to do is to send observers to each participant country while they play their matches in their country, or even in their own city.

People can satisfy their nostalgia in club games, sectionals, regionals, festivale events etc. Imo at least the main events of nationals or WBF events can easily be arranged electronically.

I can only speak for myself of course but playing bridge gives me the same pleasure whether i play it with cards or on my computer. It was never the source of my joy to actually hold some rectangular cards in my hand. It was the strategy, knowledge, problem solving, reading opponents and reading pd via legal signals and/or auction etc etc.

[barmar]

While there may be benefits to switching to electronic formats for tournaments, I'm on the side of the people who say that cheating scandals like this should not be the deciding factor. I believe that the vast majority of top players are honest, and most cheaters will be discovered. One or two cheating incidents a decade in major competitions should not force us to overhaul the way we play the game.

[mcphee]

They were finally caught, they are gone, everyone is happy. But we can not over look the social aspect of the game, like all sports events. Primarily we are there to enjoy different people and ways of testing our judgement and abilities.

[MrAce]

Hrothgar did you steal this topic from BW or did they steal from you ?

http://bridgewinners...e-smart-cheats/

[hrothgar]

MrAce, on 2014-April-03, 10:02, said:

Hroathgar did you steal this topic from BW or did they steal from you ?

http://bridgewinners...e-smart-cheats/

I posted both

[barmar]

MrAce, on 2014-April-03, 10:02, said:

Hroathgar did you steal this topic from BW or did they steal from you ?

It's not plagiarism when you copy from yourself. Hrothgar is Richard Willey.

[mfa1010]

MrAce, on 2014-April-03, 09:29, said:

I can only speak for myself of course but playing bridge gives me the same pleasure whether i play it with cards or on my computer. It was never the source of my joy to actually hold some rectangular cards in my hand. It was the strategy, knowledge, problem solving, reading opponents and reading pd via legal signals and/or auction etc etc.

It doesn't even remotely for me. I miss the social factor. I miss the table presence. When I play online it is one long, hard struggle to keep my focus. When I play in real life, the game just sucks me in completely, and that flow is what makes the game so magical for me.

[MrAce]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-03, 10:04, said:

I posted both

barmar, on 2014-April-03, 10:06, said:

It's not plagiarism when you copy from yourself. Hrothgar is Richard Willey.

So you stole from yourself ?

Sorry for some reason i thought the author of the post in other site was BW.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2014-April-03, 09:50, said:

While there may be benefits to switching to electronic formats for tournaments, I'm on the side of the people who say that cheating scandals like this should not be the deciding factor. I believe that the vast majority of top players are honest, and most cheaters will be discovered. One or two cheating incidents a decade in major competitions should not force us to overhaul the way we play the game.

<snark> I am sure that the casinos will be thrilled to discover that they can dispense with all those costly investments in security and surveillance systems and, instead, trust people. Moreover, I guess BBO can get rid of all its anti cheating precautions since Barry has now proclaimed that bridge players are an honest lot</snark>

Personally, I believe that cheating will be common in any game with an opportunity for significant financial gain.
The fact that grossly inadequate systems to detect cheaters fail to yield much in the way of tangible results offers little comfort.

As I have pointed out in the past, implementing a covert electronic communication channel is trivial and the authorities don't have appropriate systems to detect these sorts of things.

Cosmos seems to be in the news once more, so it seems right to close with a quote from Sagan

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"

-- Carl Sagan, Astronomer

[Antrax]

Yeah, but what evidence are you presenting to justify this new red scare?

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-03, 10:16, said:

<snark> I am sure that the casinos will be thrilled to discover that they can dispense with all those costly investments in security and surveillance systems. Moreover, I guess BBO can dispense with all its anti cheating precautions since Barry has now proclaimed that bridge players are an honest lot</snark>

Apples and oranges. The difference is in volume. Casinos are dealing with thousands of people playing for high stakes. Even if only 1% are cheating, that's a significant number.

Similarly, there are thousands of people on BBO at any time; it's not clear why these folks cheat when there's no stakes, but they ruin the enjoyment of the game for others. One factor, I think, is that many people take online bridge less seriously than f2f bridge, and the lack of social contact makes them more likely to cheat in this venue.

Quote

Personally, I believe that cheating will be common in any game with an opportunity for significant financial gain.
The fact that grossly inadequate systems to detect cheaters fail to yield much in the way of tangible results offers little comfort.

There are only a few hundred players who get far in high-level bridge competitions, which is the only level where there's "significant financial gain". That's why I think this is not as serious a problem as the one that casinos have to deal with. If cheating is at the same 1% rate that I guessed above, you can count them on your fingers. And it's harder for them to get away with it, because strange results will be noticed. If they don't do it often enough that anyone notices a strange pattern, it probably won't be enough to affect the results significantly. This isn't like the old trick of programming a banking computer to round off some transactions, and sending the excess fractions to the perpetrator's account: they made out well due to high transaction volume, but bridge pros can't play millions of hands of high-level bridge so that the noise would add up.

[blackshoe]

billw55, on 2014-April-03, 09:12, said:

Indeed, the handful of confirmed cheating incidents is proof beyond doubt that there is a larger population of undetected cheaters.

Is it really? Ah, well, I guess I never did understand statistical inference.

[uday]

I so wish I had an alias so i could toss in my 2 cents w/o it seeming like an official bbo opinion

[whereagles]

wanna hear a fun story?

Opps play 3♥. Play:

1. West leads small spade from AKxx, to partner's singleton Q.
2. Back to West's diamond ace.
3. ♠AK, East discarding two diamonds.
4. Diamond ruff.

1 down

Perpetrators (two croupiers) got erradicated a few months later. This was evidence.