Elinescu-Wladow were stupid. You haven't found the smart cheats...

[mike777]

I agree with the comments expressed in this thread except for the fact that indeed there are workable solutions.

 

I strongly disagree agree that all solutions will destroy the game.

 

Given there are workable solutions, we should test them out.

[mike777]

ACBL Score was written in Fortran and it took them forever to find a 90 year old programmer sharp enough to come up with a Windows version. And it still sucks.

 

How much more tech savvy is the WBF? [end rant]

 

I would never spend moola and vacation time to go to a tournament, sit in a room with a bunch of strangers and play a video game.

 

The resources of the WBF appear to be rather limited.

I also would not go into a room to play a video game but then I am old.

 

This in fact seems to be quite common among young people. I often see people absorbed by the video and text on a machine in a room full of people and this is when they have spent some money or are vacation. Wearable devices are starting to come out and who knows how far out a chip in the brain is.

[Cyberyeti]

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.

 

If you saw this one simply presented to you it would look similar:

 

W underleads ♥AKxxx against 4♠ E wins J

Gives W a club ruff

♥ to Q

club ruff

 

Wired ?

 

Nope, E led Q♥ out of turn, at the time, declarer could ask for the lead of any suit, asked for a club, W said he had none, Q♥ back in the E hand and was obvious from there.

[mfa1010]

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.

 

Evidence? Uhh, scary :unsure:

 

My expert partner once found a magic lead of a small from AKxx against a suit contract. With QTx in dummy declarer misguessed to my jack. Later in the same segment, inspired as I had become, I found the lead of small from Qx in trumps. It was the only setting lead, since partner had the ace and could chop the head off declarer's king in a side suit on the way back before declarer could take discards.

 

Judged from your post, it seems I should be lucky not yet to have been erradicated. But maybe it is just a matter of time before my luck runs out:

 

One of my not so expert bridge students playing with me once found the lead of the ♦J from AKJxxxx against a 2♣(!) contract ... which happen to run to declarer's ♦Qx. Phew ... otherwise I would probably still be in jail by now. :rolleyes:

[aguahombre]

One of my not so expert bridge students playing with me once found the lead of the ♦J from AKJxxxx against a 2♣(!) contract ... which happen to run to declarer's ♦Qx. Phew ... otherwise I would probably still be in jail by now. :rolleyes:

Your expert partner chose an insignificant (2C) contract to make that lead as a "loss leader" so you could later defend yourselves by saying, "Look what happened on Board x!"

 

Obviously I am joking, but the point is this: Actual play on a specific hand might be corroborating evidence when there are allegations; but, you really need to correlate a code with a holding (repeatedly) in order to prove cheating. Using or not using illegal communication on particular hands is not really relevant. The illegal communication is what must be proved and censured -- in and of itself illegal communication is the cheating.

[FM75]

Economics:

One of the key principals in punishment is the the punishment needs to exceed the cost of enforcement - or be sufficiently costly to the perpetrator to serve as a deterrent. So fines at parking meters are large, because one can't efficiently catch every non-payer. Prison is costly to the perpetrator - compared to the alternative of being free.

 

Cheating at anything for money tends to be a losing strategy in the long run.

 

Logistics:

It is probably fair to say that the typical venue described does not have the infrastructure to 1) power up all of the hardware - how many sockets do you see in a ballroom, 2) Wireless bandwidth and ports are likely insufficient as well - and many venues actually have the whole package farmed out to a provider that charges by the hour for each user. 3) The heat load of a ballroom full of laptops likely would overwhelm the HVAC? 4) These rooms don't have faraday shields - so they won't stop electronic communication between rooms, 4) provisioning all of the laptops, making sure they can't do anything but play bridge - awkward. Heck! people on BBO can't even agree to stop playing on the old windows client.

 

Social:

This has already been mentioned.

[Fluffy]

I am sure all arguments against going electronical at high level where already presented when screens came to use. The only difference is that we are in another century now and have better solutions than screens.

 

I lose focus playing online, but that's because I end up looking webpages when I am bored. With the stress of an important tournament it wouldn't happen.

 

Also I have a bad experience from Lille 2012, I went down in 6♦ because I forgot a card I had on my own hand, I hardly look at my own cards while playing in real life. A silly mistake I am working on, but something that wouldn't had happened with electronic cards on a screen.

[Fluffy]

I think there's only one more top player who "everyone" thinks is cheating.

 

There are some 'degrees' on cheating, I heard a story about some drunken players from a succesful bridge country talking about a hand where a player had failed the defence because they didn't know if the lead was singleton or doubleton and made the wrong move. They were debating for some minutes about what play gives the best chances when wrong untill the best player in the room, ranked among the top 20 in the world got tired and shout: HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY NOT KNOW IF PARTNER'S LEAD S A SINGLETON OR NOT??????

[Fluffy]

One more thing, the electronic things doesn't care about what IMO is the easiest way to cheating: buy hand records.

[cherdano]

I think it's very hard to cheat systematically at the top level without making other top players suspicious.

 

Players try to get into each other's head. If they play against someone repeatedly, they try to figure out their style, get a sense of their weaknesses. If they got s.th. right that teammates got wrong at the other table, they try to figure out why. Even if it's just a 50/50 guess that they "guessed" correctly. That means following along their thought process.

Your thought process immediately becomes completely different when you cheat - it's the same problem you are trying to figure out, but you are given different information.

 

To cheat without making other's suspicious you'd have to be very careful - pick your spots and only act on the extra information if the decision is close with the legal information.

 

If this has convinced you, I'd hope that you also think that bridge organizations should be more proactive about monitoring players who are rumoured to be cheating.

[the hog]

While Richard's points are certainly valid, I do find myself agreeing with MFA. We have trialled electronic playing in some clubs in Australia. I miss the cards. Playing in an isolated area where you cannot see the opponents is just simply not fun for me.

[MrAce]

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

 

Write it to me and i will post them as MrAce. This way people may even think that i improved my grammar and speech skills as well http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif

[Hanoi5]

Maybe for the next Olympic Games we can have Usain Bolt running on a treadmill in Jamaica while his opponents will also run on treadmills in their own country. Of course there'll be an IOC member checking everything in each country but that way nobody would move.

 

Suppose some player in NYC finds himself in a blackout. Well, he loses the match. Another player loses his internet connection. Bye, bye. Better still, as the player was losing the match someone will say he 'produced' the condition, thus blaming him/her for cheating. The possibilities are endless.

 

I think f2f bridge and online/electronic bridge are two different things. Table feel is a important part of the game I would say. Among other things.

[mikeh]

IMO, the game should never be played in a manner that eliminates revokes, mis-suiting the hand, bidding out of turn, missing a call in the auction. You say this never happens at high-level bridge? I say you're wrong....it doesn't happen very often but it is part of the human condition that we make mechanical errors or momentarily lose focus. Bridge is a human activity and playing online is artificial. Of course, it is artificial in the sense of lacking face to face human interaction as well.

 

However, in the unlikely event that bridge survives, it will likely be played, in 30+ years, by people whose social interaction has been largely digital anyway :D

[MrAce]

I think there's only one more top player who "everyone" thinks is cheating.

 

How can there be only one player everyone thinks he is cheating, but not his pd ?

[sfi]

How can there be only one player everyone thinks he is cheating, but not his pd ?

 

His partner is not a top player?

 

(Answering in the abstract only. I have no idea who is being talked about.)

[FM75]

You posted my question even before I sent it to you!

[MrAce]

IMO, the game should never be played in a manner that eliminates revokes, mis-suiting the hand, bidding out of turn, missing a call in the auction. You say this never happens at high-level bridge? I say you're wrong....it doesn't happen very often but it is part of the human condition that we make mechanical errors or momentarily lose focus. Bridge is a human activity and playing online is artificial. Of course, it is artificial in the sense of lacking face to face human interaction as well.

 

It is very easy to program that allows you to revoke and bid out of turn and the cards are dealt to you not sorted out.

 

About the socializing part, why would you need to share a table with grumpy, paranoid and rude people most of the time anyway ? You are seeing only one opponent, your screen mate. But if you really want to torture yourself, you can use breaks between the sessions to socialize and discuss the hands with other people, which you can not do at the table anyway http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif

 

 

 

[gnasher]

How can there be only one player everyone thinks he is cheating, but not his pd ?

 

One more thing, the electronic things doesn't care about what IMO is the easiest way to cheating: buy hand records.

[wank]

with regards to the situation gnasher is talking about there's been a lot of pondering about how it might be done by this player. one popular theory is hacking into the ebl/wbf/organising committee or even bbo to get the hands in advance. does anyone seriously think the wbf is likely to be very computer savvy compared to some of the computer geniuses who play bridge at a high level?

 

this would answer mrace's question as to why noone is pointing the finger at the player's partner.

[rhm]

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

I have my doubts and I see no proof for this claim, not even indications supporting this claim.

For me these are conspiracy theories.

 

Rainer Herrmann .

[rhm]

I agree with Hroathgar.

 

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.

And of course we can organize the Olympics the same way.

We do not need to gather every four years in such dodgy places like Sochi, where the terrorist threat is high and the games under the control and glory of a dictator like Putin.

Think about how much money, effort and CO2 emissions can be saved that way.

Instead everyone runs his marathon in his hometown under the supervision of an IOC official. We get simultaneous television coverage from all sort of places in the world at the same time.

The gold medal goes to the one with the best time score.

 

Serves all people with an antisocial mind well.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mfa1010]

I think it's very hard to cheat systematically at the top level without making other top players suspicious.

 

Players try to get into each other's head. If they play against someone repeatedly, they try to figure out their style, get a sense of their weaknesses. If they got s.th. right that teammates got wrong at the other table, they try to figure out why. Even if it's just a 50/50 guess that they "guessed" correctly. That means following along their thought process.

Your thought process immediately becomes completely different when you cheat - it's the same problem you are trying to figure out, but you are given different information.

 

To cheat without making other's suspicious you'd have to be very careful - pick your spots and only act on the extra information if the decision is close with the legal information.

 

If this has convinced you, I'd hope that you also think that bridge organizations should be more proactive about monitoring players who are rumoured to be cheating.

 

If we are only discussing cheating the doctors' way, with transmitting abnorm information like shortages, then yes. It would be hard to use it without making suspicious bids or plays.

 

But what if a partnership is just helping its decisions once in a while? When pard goes in the tank, I will often be rooting for something. "Bid", "pass", "play spade" etc. If only I could communicate this with some gesture, perhaps having many to choose from so it won't look suspicious.

 

All I would need is probably a binary message like "high" or "low" (good hand/bad hand or lavinthal in the play), and then maybe a way to emphasize my message. Bingo, partner suddenly guesses a whole lot better, and we won't really be doing something that looks different from good judgement or lucky guessing - unless we take it to extremes.

 

A player I talked to from country X once told me that in country X some players would hold their hand high with good cards and low with bad cards.

 

---

 

As to when a bridge organization should act on rumours, that's an extremely delicate question.

[rhm]

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.

True, but Bridge is not yet a game with rich pickings, even though some try hard to change that and exceptions like Cavendish notwithstanding.

Not everybody is solely motivated by money incentives. Believe me, even a Bermuda Bowl win does not make you rich in Germany. It does not even get much press coverage.

All cheaters I am aware of, seem to have done it for their somewhat deranged ego, but not for material gain.

Tell me what money Wladow Elinescu made out of the game?

 

I am pretty sure it was close to zero.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

.

 

Serves all people with an antisocial mind well.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Yup...I admit i will be missing to socialize with people like yourself who are not grumpy and always polite, just like the huge majority of bridge players http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif

 

The part about remotely played championships i wrote is far from reality in the near future and it has some serious issues itself to overcome with. But seriously, how do you socialize in a BB or spingold or vandy event ? You see 1 opponent each time, who is your screen mate. Rest of your socializing is done either before the sessions or during the breaks between sessions, at breakfast, lunch or dinner. For the part Hroathgar suggested you can still do all of these.