Reisinger Fiasco

[mrdct]

Semi-final coverage limited to two 6-board stints per session for "security reasons". When will these nimrods running ACBL events get their act together?

[Gerben42]

The summum of incompetence. They say players were concerned with security. This is completely nonsense - just take the BBO table to be the table furthest from the door and no one is allowed to peek.

 

Kibitzers who come too close have to leave the venue immediately, players who get too close get a full board penalty 1st time, DQ 2nd time.

 

Clear rules = no security risk.

[Walddk]

I can (barely) understand that the players were concerned. What I can't understand, however, is why the organizers didn't foresee this by organizing a barometer format (all tables play the same boards at the same time).

 

You can do this easily by using 10 sets of boards (2 tables sharing a set), or if that is too big a risk, then offer them 20 sets. That approach would hardly make the ACBL budget collapse.

 

Regarding Dave Thompson's comment, I don't think he should hold his breath. For some reason (only known to themselves) ACBL organizers refuse to look elsewhere to see how this can be done to everyone's satisfaction. Let me mention Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Poland, England, Ireland, Estonia and Netherlands as examples.

 

There is no law against learning from others. On the contrary; it's often a splendid idea.

 

Roland

[mrdct]

The ACBL really are pathetic.

 

I don't buy the excuse of "players were concerned with security". Who is in charge of the these events, the directors/convenors or the players? Surely a movement and other protocols could've been organise to ensure security of hand data. In any case, with boards not being played simulataneously the great security risk is players wandering around between boards discussing hands that other pairs haven't played yet; which obviously has nothing to do with vugraph.

 

And you have to love the results service from Hawaii. They provide the results of all the meaningless side-events, but nothing from the main event!

[Gerben42]

Dave publishing the scores from something as important as the Reisinger would be a security risk. Gotta keep that secret.

[mrdct]

Completely hopeless.

 

For the last 2 rounds that they graciously chose to show us, both 3-board matches were the same 3-boards including an extremely boring 6♠ contract.

 

To add insult to injury, they wouldn't keep the room open at the end to tell us who made the final.

[hrothgar]

There are two different issues that need to be addressed here:

 

Issue 1: Does the Vugraph technology that we have available today present a real security risk?

 

From my perspective, the answer to this question is a clear and resounding yes. As I've commented a couple times in the past, it would be fairly easy to use a simple radio system to wire information about boards to players. A lot of money changes hands at these types of events. The pros sure as hell aren't playing for free. You have motive and opportunity. Bridge has seen a fair number of cheating scandals. Its naive to believe that someone isn't going to start taking advantage of this option. Personally, I think that someone probably has.

 

We might not like the fact that Vugraph has been canceled, but it strikes me as a reasonable precaution. BTW, given this decision, I wouldn't go and hold my breath hoping to see the Cavendish this year. The stakes are higher, and I expect that the security concerns are larger as well.

 

Issue 2: Can Vugraph be modified in such a way that it doesn't present a security threat?

 

Here once again, I think that the answer is yes. The easiest and most effective way to proceed would be to introduce a constant time delay into the Vugraph feed. Delay all the hands by a set amount to guarantee that everyone has finished playing a given hand before they are available on Vugraph.

 

BTW, it would be interesting to understand whether the same set of restriction was extended to the on site vugraph of whether it only impacted Internet coverage.

 

Issue 3: (And this is the controversial one)

 

I have long argued that an electronic playing environment would significantly improve event security, while simultaneously improving the quality of the Vugraph by an order of magnitude.. I won't bother retracing the arguments here, however, I would very much like to see organizations like the WBF and the ACBL recognize that their membership base want to be able to watch these events and take steps to serve the folks who actually pay the bills. (Admittedly, I don't pay anything to the ACBL, then again its been a long time since I believed that the organization had my best interests at heart)

 

I know lots of “top players” object to the idea of playing competitive bridge on a PC. However, from my perspective, the top players are completely fungible. Anyone can be replaced with someone almost as good. If the great “Red Team” is unwilling to compete using an electronic playing environment, the almost as great “Purple Team” will be more than happy to take their place. Furthermore, after a couple years without their sponsor I suspect that the Red team will suddenly discover that playing on a PC isn't nearly as bad as they originally thought.

[keylime]

I can't disagree with anyone here; this is really bad. Something to me seems to have happened that was discussed if I didn't know any better.

[Gerben42]

As I've commented a couple times in the past, it would be fairly easy to use a simple radio system to wire information about boards to players

 

This was already possible in the old on-site vugraph theatre used in championships for ages. The BBO Vugraph is no different.

 

We might not like the fact that Vugraph has been canceled, but it strikes me as a reasonable precaution. BTW, given this decision, I wouldn't go and hold my breath hoping to see the Cavendish this year. The stakes are higher, and I expect that the security concerns are larger as well.

 

I'm not buying that. All you need is some very simple rules in place.

 

* Kibitzers should be in the playing area before start of play. No late entries.

* Once you leave the playing area, no coming back.

* Whoever enters the corner of the room where the VG can be seen, is removed from the room.

* Players are screened to be bug-free

 

Quite elementary.

 

But don't get me wrong, there will be ways to cheat, I think it should be in the rules of the Cavendish that cheating there is a real crime and worse things will happen to you than being thrown out of the ACBL.

[hrothgar]

* Players are screened to be bug-free

Administrators need a lot of different skills to run a bridge tournament.

Electronic survellience and bug sniffing really shouldn't need to be one of them.

 

I think its much easier to design the electronic vugraph in such a way that you can't profitably relay information rather than going to the expense and bother trying to block every possible way that folks might relay information.

[helene_t]

But if you don't screen players for bugs, they can still use bugs to communcate with each other.

[pigpenz]

they should have made all participants log on to BBO and play the first Nationaly rated event on line......if they were worried about security all of the problems would have been taken care of ;)

 

Honestly, these are the worlds best players!!

they couldnt have them playing the same boards at the same time, let them do like the rest of us deal shuffle play. :)

[glen]

A "tape-delayed" approach might have been best. Have a vugraph operator record all the deals as they happened - then, a few hours later, at a pre-announced time, launch a vugraph with commentators, and treat the event as "live". One could even skip any lengthy pause between rounds thus we would have a very good show. Given ACBL results are not immediately available on the net, the drama of the occasion could still be kept.

[Gerben42]

Any delay more than a few minutes is completely weird. You'd be watching and suddenly the winner is announced.

[hrothgar]

Any delay more than a few minutes is completely weird. You'd be watching and suddenly the winner is announced.

Who cares?

 

If all you care about is the result, you don't need any Vugraph coverage to begin with.

 

Alternatively, if you're main interest is seeing the hands, along with exposition the end result probably isn't that significant.

 

I recognize that in practice people are interested in both aspects of the presentation. However, I'd like to think that there is some value to watching hands with good commentary even if this doesn't happen in real time. Lots of people seem to use televised poker as model of what bridge vugraph should be. Almost none of these events take place in real time. Most have been heavily edited to focus on the exciting parts.

[pigpenz]

even watching the Super Bowl on a five minute delay would be worthless :)

[Walddk]

Why is that USA is the only country in the world where security regarding bridge tournaments is such a big issue? In all other countries they seem less concerned and yet they cope quite well.

 

Now, some may claim that only in the USA do they play for big money prizes and that the risk of cheating therefore is a factor one can't ignore. Sure, the risk is there, but that applies to all competitions in all sports - whether money is involved or not.

 

Note that in this context we are talking about the Reisinger. Although I acknowledge that this is one of the world's prestigious events, there is not a single penny to be won!

 

It's all about masterpoints, seeding points, and glory. What's the big deal? Relax and play bridge for goodness sake. And don't forget to let the world watch. I know the intention is the opposite, but the organisers in the USA actually harm their cause by denying vugraph spectators on the internet.

 

In a few hours we will all be watching the finals in real time. Great, but why on earth did that not happen yesterday in the semi-finals? Because the format was wrong. How difficult can it be to organise the same format two days in a row?

 

Better luck next time!

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

Why is that USA is the only country in the world where security regarding bridge tournaments is such a big issue? In all other countries they seem less concerned and yet they cope quite well.

 

Now, some may claim that only in the USA do they play for big money prizes and that the risk of cheating therefore is a factor one can't ignore. Sure, the risk is there, but that applies to all competitions in all sports - whether money is involved or not.

 

Note that in this context we are talking about the Reisinger. Although I acknowledge that this is one of the world's prestigious events, there is not a single penny to be won!

I couldn't swear to this, but my impression is that major bridge matches within the US are substantially less likely to offer cash prizes than other parts of the world. You have the Cavendish and the Prize Money Bridge events, but these are all few and far between. With the exception of the Cavendish, the prizes that do get offered are pretty small. In contrast, I've seen a wide number of events in Europe and Asia that offer cash prizes of one form or another.

 

All of which is completely irrelevent....

 

Waldkk is claiming that there is not a single penny to be won at this year's Reisinger.

Anyone know how many of the pairs competing are being paid by well heeled sponsors?

Anyone know how much an elite pair like Meckwell charge for an event like the Reisinger?

Anyone care to estimate what the discount present value of the future cash flows associated with first or second place in an event like this might be worth?

 

I'd be willing to wager that its quite a bit larger than the proverbial penny...

 

The professional game is much better established here in the US than other parts of a world. (There's a good reason why top foreign player tend to emigrate to the North American). Its possible that this has given rise to a greater concern about security.

 

Then again, some place needs to be first...

[Walddk]

Waldkk is claiming that there is not a single penny to be won at this year's Reisinger. 

Anyone know how many of the pairs competing are being paid by well heeled sponsors?

Anyone know how much an elite pair like Meckwell charge for an event like the Reisinger?

Anyone care to estimate what the discount present value of the future cash flows associated with  first or second place in an event like this might be worth?

 

I'd be willing to wager that its quite a bit larger than the proverbial penny...

No matter how much the big guns are paid by their sponsors, it is no business of the ACBL. They don't interefere, and that's how it should be. It is ACBL's concern, however, to organise a tournament without denying anyone from watching.

 

They seem capable of organising an acceptable format (hence allowing specs throughout) when we reach the finals. It makes absolutely no sense to me that the same is impossible the day before.

 

Roland

[mrdct]

1:  Does the Vugraph technology that we have available today present a real security risk? 

 

From my perspective, the answer to this question is a clear and resounding yes.  As I've commented a couple times in the past, it would be fairly easy to use a simple radio system to wire information about boards to players.

Nonsense. The security risks to which you refer are either identical to those associated with having kibitzers or can be easily mitigated by any and all of:

 

- deal enough boards so everyone plays the same hands at more-or-less the same time.

 

- don't allow people to enter the playing area during a session.

 

- don't allow mobile phones and other electronic devices in the playing area.

 

If someone is going to cheat using a means such as a concealed radio ear-piece, vugraph isn't the problem. Security is more about avoiding inadvertant comments about about hands in between rounds and from adjacent tables, which I'm sure must have been an issue at the Reisinger Semi-Final due to the decision to only prepare four sets of boards.

[hrothgar]

1:  Does the Vugraph technology that we have available today present a real security risk? 

 

From my perspective, the answer to this question is a clear and resounding yes.  As I've commented a couple times in the past, it would be fairly easy to use a simple radio system to wire information about boards to players.

Nonsense. The security risks to which you refer are either identical to those associated with having kibitzers or can be easily mitigated by any and all of:

 

...

 

- don't allow mobile phones and other electronic devices in the playing area.

You've done a quite convincing job demonstrating the error in your argument:

 

You have some ability to physically proctor the playing environment. Its pretty easy to determine if a kibitzer is entering information on their Blackberry and beaming it into the ether... You have zero ability to proctor people watching the Vugraph on the Internet. These folks can do whatever they damn well please with this data, including relaying it in real time to folks playing the match.

 

As I've commented before, it would be pretty easy to build a simple receiver into the heel of a shoe or a belt buckle. If it were me, I'd use a cell phone signal as a carrier for a simple data protocol. Good luck distinquishing that one cell phone signal from all the other electro-magnetic garbage in your average hotel. (I'm not saying that the WBF or the ACBL couldn't start sweeping players for bugs, but I've never been particularly impressed with their grasp on techology)

 

This type of system would give you a real edge and its a hell of a lot less conspicuous than sticking your head under a screen to fix cards or loading a deck during a team match.

 

People cheat. Its a fact of life. And we're making it damn easy for them to do so.

[pclayton]

Bridge cheating is a curious thing.

 

Why would a top professional player even risk such a thing? It has happened, and it will happen again. But most if not all would not even consider it, any more than a professional golfer would bump his lie in the rough when no one was looking. I think most bridge players have very high standards for their own conduct. So take the .5% of scalliwags.

 

Locks only keep the honest people out.

 

The Open and Closed room concept is sound, and it should work fine if its enforced. At Chicago, it really wasnt. Its also easier to enforce in a KO match, when you are playing 16 boards at a time. I don't know how the movement in the Reisinger works, but maybe its not practical, since the boards are played 3 at a time and then the players switch.

[hrothgar]

Bridge cheating is a curious thing.

 

Why would a top professional player even risk such a thing?

No clue... Do you think that Buratti and Lanzarotti would be willing to comment? Maybe we could get a ouija board and summon up Shoeless Joe Jackson... There have been a hell of a lot of point shaving scandals over the years... I'm sure some of the individuals involved had good reason for fixing games. Rumor has it that in some case, they were trying to make more money.

 

If we want to cast our net a bit further and look corporate scandles (Enron, Tyco, Boesky, and the like) there are any number of examples of respectable professionals involved in outright criminal behavior. ***** happens. Its ridiculous to beleive that bridge players are some immune to these types of temptations.

 

Maybe I'm overly sensitive to the possibility of cheating. Then again, Moses Ma and Steve Sion were both regulars at the MIT bridge club. This was before my time, but the stories are pretty well known arround here. In a simialr fashion, the MIT blackjack club was in high gear when I was playing in Boston. I know the time and effort that folks are willing to spend to get an edge.

[fred]

My thoughts:

 

Various organizations that run major bridge tournaments (including ACBL and WBF) have asked me about the concept of including a programmed delay in vugraph broadcasts. This would not be too difficult for us to achieve, but it is something I have strongly resisted and will continue to resist.

 

The reason is that, as regular online vugraph watchers know from some of the sensational matches we have witnessed, these broadcasts can be extremely exciting and dramatic. I believe that including a delay would pretty much kill this.

 

I have good reason to believe that ACBL and USBF (and probably others) will soon start using electronic surveillance devices on a regular basis regardless of whether or not vugraph is being broadcast.

 

Even though there is no prize money at stake in a tournament like the Reisinger, there is still a lot of money at stake. The top professional players earn upwards of $20,000 to play in the Reisinger and most will receive some kind of bonus if their team is successful. That's pretty good for what is at most 3 days of work - I suspect it is considerably more than the average yearly salary in all but a handful of countries in the world.

 

While I believe that most of the leading players are honest and would never consider cheating, money can be a powerful motivating force (for some purely due to greed and for others out of concern for their livelyhoods and their families).

 

Cheating is a real danger and the ACBL should definitely be concerned about it.

 

Yes, it would have been better for us if the ACBL had duplicated 40 sets of boards for the purposes of making the Reisinger semi-finals more secure. However, once they did not do that, I think they should be applauded (or at least not ridiculed) for cancelling the vugraph show. I believe they made the right decision.

 

The ACBL gets an awful lot of criticism when they do not do everything perfectly, but they rarely get the praise they deserve for some of the things that they do extremely well.

 

There are something like 4000 bridge players here is Hawaii playing in dozens of events every day. I have no idea how many TDs, people working behind the scenes, sets of boards, bidding boxes, tables, etc. it takes to make all of this run smoothly, but it sounds like a real logistic challenge to me.

 

It does run smoothly - very smoothly. I find this impressive.

 

Furthermore, if the ACBL decides that it wants to allocate its resources toward making the 4000 people who have each paid 1000s of dollars to play in this tournament as satisfied as possible with the experience, I can understand that.

 

It is not unreasonable that this (as opposed to satisfying the online vugraph audience) should be the ACBL's highest priority in Hawaii.

 

Perhaps the ACBL did not have enough sets of boards on hand to duplicate 40 sets for the Reisinger semi-final. Perhaps they did not foresee the security risk of having vugraph without duplicated boards.

 

Believe me, the ACBL does recognize the value of online vugraph in terms of promoting bridge and in terms of serving its members who are not able to attend their big tournaments. There has been a clear trend in recent years toward more and more online vugraph of ACBL tournaments. I, for one, am grateful for this.

 

In this particular case, I suspect that the TDs responsible for organizing the Reisinger itself either did not know that there was going to be vugraph of the semi-finals or did not consider the security implications of using non-duplicated boards. I am not sure about this, but I believe that in recent years the ACBL has broadcast only the finals of the Reisinger (where duplicated boards are always used).

 

It is a good thing that the ACBL chose to broadcast the semis as this year and, while it is unfortunate that the security situation forced them to cancel this broadcast, I am hopeful that they will learn from this experience and find a way to make it work next year.

 

Publicly calling the ACBL a bunch of pathetic idiots is not going to help as far as this is concerned. If I was one of the people responsible for ACBL online vugraph policy and I read some of the posts in this thread, it would certainly not encourage me to throw additional resources at online vugraph in the future. My natural reaction would be "screw you".

 

The ACBL is far from perfect, but I know the people who manage this organization and I can assure you that their hearts are in the right places. They genuinely care about serving their members and about trying to ensure that bridge has a bright future.

 

But just like the rest of us, they sometimes make mistakes. I personally believe that if we want to see the ACBL improve, we would be much better off adopting a constructive and sympathetic attitude toward such mistakes. Publicly insulting them will only make things worse.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

Thanks Fred, your comment sets this in the right perspective I think.

 

The below is obviously a stupid question, but I still don't get it:

 

How would duplicate boards help solve the problems described by Richard? There would still be people on the internet watching the full deals while they were played. Now I give one of my friends who plays in the semi-final GSM receivers in both his shoes and we agree of the following simple protocol: a sting in his left foot means "finese left".

 

Without internet vugraph the signal will have to come from the players themselves or from someone else in the room. This would pose more challenges for the cheater:

- They would have to agree on cheating with someone else (teammate, partner, kibber).

- The trick may backfire since players will loose focus if they have to concentrate on relaying information at the same time.

- Transmitters are more clumpsy than receivers.

- Transmitters are (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know much about electronics) possible to detect.