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

[rhm]

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.

I made my previous post somewhat to show the absurdness of the suggestion, not to offend you.

I am well aware that similar concerns were raised when screens were new. A lot like me have afterwards experienced the advantages of playing behind screens.

Nobody wants to go back, but the objections against screens are still valid. Tournament Bridge has changed beyond recognition, but believe me not only to the better.

The ethics of the game have undoubtedly improved.

I would not claim the same for the social aspects.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

It is about time that there is a world championship played online, and it is about time that one or two important championships are played the way Richard suggests. It doesn't need to be like that all the way, having options is always good. I think the cavendish was played without screens not long ago (not sure if it is now)

 

WBF should had made a set of rules for online matches with some anti-cheating meassures, I don't udnerstand why they are failing to do it for so long.

[MrAce]

I would not claim the same for the social aspects.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Explain me please, what do you exactly mean by social aspects ? What was it before screens and which part of it is reduced by screens, or which part will be reduced by not seeing the real torso and/or the face of your opponents ? What kind of social conversations do people have during the play with each other that they can not do during the breaks or prior or post sessions or lunch or breakfast or dinner ? And if there is any, is it more important than the ethics ?

 

People talk about distraction and not being able to focus if they don't play at the table, which I do not understand. What distracts me the most will be trying to observe the way they play their card and the way they put it on the table, the way they push the tray, the way they cough, sneeze, breath, yawn ... which hand they use to hold the cards, how do they sort them, the way they put the pencil or score sheet, the way they position their fingers....trying to hide my hand from the screen mate...and try to focus on my bidding and the play or defense at the same time.

 

 

Of course i will not do any of these and just try to focus on my game, like most people do, and this is probably why people like German doctors were not caught even with the most moronic cheat method, all this time. And those alike will not be caught for the same reasons, at least until their cheat comes to a level that will annoy big boys.

 

I made my previous post somewhat to show the absurdness of the suggestion, not to offend you.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

I was not offended. I may disagree with you or with your attitude from time to time, but i respect you a lot for your straight forward attitude for the things you believe and of course for your bridge talent and knowledge, regardless of you see me as an intermediate, a beginner or whatever rank i have in your mind, which i don't really lose my sleep over it anyway http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

[lamford]

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

Can you PM me who you think this is?

[Cascade]

There are many social aspects when at the table with our without screens. Such as brief discussions related to the moment, humour, and general mutual enjoyment of playing cards together.

[lamford]

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.

At an EBU congress someone on lead after an auction of 1S-Pass-2S-Pass-4S with ♠Q42 ♥ AKxx ♦xxx ♣ xxx led a low spade, and this was the only lead to beat it. Declarer needed to ruff a heart in dummy, but partner had ♠JT and the low spade lead gained a crucial tempo. I tracked down the player and she admitted that she had intended to lead the ace of hearts but missed.

[rhm]

Explain me please, what do you exactly mean by social aspects ? What was it before screens and which part of it is reduced by screens, or which part will be reduced by not seeing the real torso and/or the face of your opponents ? What kind of social conversations do people have during the play with each other that they can not do during the breaks or prior or post sessions or lunch or breakfast or dinner ? And if there is any, is it more important than the ethics ?

Of course the term "social aspects" is deliberately vague.

I said that "nobody wants to go back" to the times before screens were in place at high level tournament Bridge; I consider ethics important.

Nevertheless putting walls between people, even temporarily, has an impact on social communication.

I once played in a club in Warsaw and they had screens in place for their weekly club plays.

I found the experience strange, even though I am used to screens. The Bridge level though was high.

 

Why do people play Bridge?.

For competitive reasons? Of course.

Then why are people attracted to the game for decades, even though they have very little chance to win anything?

In the old days, when rubber Bridge played for money was common, there were those players, who almost always lost.

Why, if not for the social aspects of the game.

Read old books from Mollo or S.J Simon and it is hard to see how these stories and characters could survive screens.

 

The popularity of the game has declined and the average age of those, who participate, has increased.

 

There are many reasons, but one reason might well be, that people are not as attracted by Bridge, because they do not derive the same pleasure anymore out of the game.

 

I was not offended. I may disagree with you or with your attitude from time to time, but i respect you a lot for your straight forward attitude for the things you believe and of course for your bridge talent and knowledge, regardless of you see me as an intermediate, a beginner or whatever rank i have in your mind, which i don't really lose my sleep over it anyway http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

Why do you get this impression?

Yes I am outspoken.

But I have not implied or wanted to imply that you are a moderate player or that I am a better Bridge player than you.

I have long stopped playing Bridge at the international level, and in spite of my bad ethics I never won anything of substance at this level.

(All the fault of my partners of course and of team mates, who did not cheat effectively enough :rolleyes:)

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Trinidad]

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.

That simply does not paint a correct picture of playing with screens.

 

The screen is there so that while you are playing bridge, you do not see your partner, and cannot communicate by gestures, faces, tempo etc.. This makes playing with screens very relaxed: You do not need to worry about what you are doing. You are allowed to scratch your head without the fear for someone paranoid thinking: "What would that mean?".

 

The relaxed atmosphere leads in practice to much more social communication through the screen than you would expect. It varies from "Does anybody else want something to drink?" to jokes and even gossip (and yes, the occasional fights between partners. ;) ). When I play with screens, there will be laughter coming from a table somewhere in the room several times a session. I wouldn't want to miss that. (And yes, laughter also happens in the Bermuda Bowl.)

 

Remember that a screen is just a piece of plywood. It is not the Berlin Wall. It is perfectly possible (and allowed) to socialize across the screen... just not when you have cards in your hand. And this socializing does happen... a lot.

 

Rik

[MrAce]

I don't think any of these things, which are totally subjective joys by the way, are priority when it comes to main events of nationals, WBF main events, BB.

 

You have club games, house games, sectionals, regionals, festivales for that. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif People can do the chit-chat part on those events, and they are more than welcomed to do so during all other times available (pre session, post session, breaks, lunch, dinner, breakfast, at the bar )

 

Let us just play the ***** game as it is supposed to be, cheatfree, when it comes to play the game and sacrifice a little from our chit chat during the play

 

Is it too much to ask for in the main events of rare championships ?

[whereagles]

How many coughs does it take to show a (specifically) singleton (specifically) Q of (specifically) spades?

 

If they can convey this information in a discreet way they must be geniuses.

 

The scheme revolved around moving cards left and right while sorting them. Authorities never got to know exactly how it worked, but it seemed to show pattern plus top cards.

 

Further evidence was

1. Strange top contracts reached

2. Always making the killing lead when defending

3. Mediocre dummy play when declaring

 

While playing in the national team trials, screens were called for by opponents (this was like 30 years ago, screens weren't so common). Afterwards they got totally crushed at the table (they were of intermediate level at best). We've never heard anything about them eversince (fortunately), but they did get some prize-money before being caught.

[whereagles]

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:

 

ahaha don't worry; that wouldn't have been enough. See my post above.

[billw55]

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 .

Perhaps "proof positive" is an overbid. But I do think the basic idea is correct. If you catch one cheater, maybe you can hope that he is the only one. But after you catch three or four, I think that to believe there are no more is naive.

 

Also I dispute the idea that only events with financial incentive will motivate cheaters. A smallish minority of people are so compulsive/competitive/amoral that they will lie/cheat just because they can. Look at BBO, there are cheaters there, with nothing whatsoever at stake (although anonymity does strongly encourage this).

[Cyberyeti]

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

 

Depends how he's cheating. We did have a case quite a few years ago in the UK where a player got a 10 year ban but his partner was exonerated, but that was something that couldn't happen at top level as it involved a pre-prepared deck.

[MrAce]

(All the fault of my partners of course and of team mates, who did not cheat effectively enough :rolleyes:)

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif

 

Good one Rainer !

 

 

 

[Trinidad]

I don't think any of these things, which are totally subjective joys by the way, are priority when it comes to main events of nationals, WBF main events, BB.

They may not be top priority (for you) but for some people they are important, also for those who play in the BB.

 

The social aspect is important in practically any sport. Also when played at the highest level. This is not surprising since the social aspect is the root of all sports. They are games you play with/against other people and that is why they came to be. Without the social aspect there would be very few sports.

 

I will readily admit that I am pretty confident that there are more cheats out there that haven't been caught yet. And we should certainly try to catch these guys, but not at any cost. Giving up the social interaction is simply too high a price to pay.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I do have entirely different ideas on how to battle cheaters.

 

I think cheating in bridge is equivalent to taking PEDs in physical sports. I think the two should be fought in a similar way (and let's stop fighting PEDs in bridge, with the exception of perhaps a few). I am obviously biased, but I would use a scientific approach, which is what WADA tries to do in physical sports:

 

Perform a statistical analysis of the results. Throw in lots of factors (distributions around the table of shape and HCP, "dexterity"*, bidding systems used, level, age, gender of the players, you name it). Once your calibration set is large enough you can tell what the expected score is for a Precision NS playing a 2/1 EW with a skill difference of X on a board with a given distribution of the HCPs and shape. When people consistently show up as statistical outliers to the model, it may be time to monitor them, or check whether there is a natural explanation.

 

Obviously, this means that the WBF needs to setup an expertise center for cheating and its detection, just like WADA is an expertise center on PEDs and their analysis.

 

Rik

 

* A term I like to use to characterize whether kings are over or under aces and queens are under or over kings (whether the hand is rotating to the left or right).

[hrothgar]

I do have entirely different ideas on how to battle cheaters.

 

I think cheating in bridge is equivalent to taking PEDs in physical sports. I think the two should be fought in a similar way (and let's stop fighting PEDs in bridge, with the exception of perhaps a few). I am obviously biased, but I would use a scientific approach, which is what WADA tries to do in physical sports:

 

Perform a statistical analysis of the results. Throw in lots of factors (distributions around the table of shape and HCP, "dexterity"*, bidding systems used, level, age, gender of the players, you name it). Once your calibration set is large enough you can tell what the expected score is for a Precision NS playing a 2/1 EW with a skill difference of X on a board with a given distribution of the HCPs and shape. When people consistently show up as statistical outliers to the model, it may be time to monitor them, or check whether there is a natural explanation.

 

Obviously, this means that the WBF needs to setup an expertise center for cheating and its detection, just like WADA is an expertise center on PEDs and their analysis.

 

Rik

 

* A term I like to use to characterize whether kings are over or under aces and queens are under or over kings (whether the hand is rotating to the left or right).

 

I don't disagree, however, the only way to perform this type of analysis is to keep comprehensive records and the best and cheapest way to keep comprehensive records is to switch over to an electronic playing environment.

[MrAce]

I dunno why you keep talking as if the way Hrothgar or i suggested totally bans all sort of social aspects of the game. Which is not true

 

And you keep conveniently skipping the negative effects of f2f bridge also and conveniently showing as if everyone in the bridge world, especially during the play of the session, are all in such a spirited good and positive mood. Most of the time they don't even talk. Sometimes they laugh sometimes they fight. Sometimes they just jab each other with remarks or looks, sometimes they act like gentleman and a good sport. But not always act same and not always positive.

 

And yes people who plays in BB or main events of big tournaments may also enjoy the same thing you are talking about, but that does not make it priority. A lot of people also enjoyed smoking during the game. They thought if smoking was banned they would/could never play the game. Some claimed they can never focus if they do not smoke. Oh yes they did get over it. Just like those who also claimed they would never play the game with screens, oh yes they also ate their own words. And those who did not eat their own words was told "don't let the door hit you in the ass"

 

This game can not and should not be kept in this primitive form and shape with funny excuses.... It is just a matter of time.. Whether my generation will see this or not is beyond my guess

[nige1]

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.

Agree with Hrothgar that players should play on computers in important events.

• Virtual screens could allow limited social interaction and table-feel. You could share a cubicle with one opponent. Your partner and the other opponent could be in a different room. This might be better than Hrothgar's suggestion of putting all the Norths in one room, all the Wests in another etc.. It would also eliminate the problem of one South getting clues by watching other Souths.
  
• Cheat detection. Cheating would be harder if partners were isolated from each other.. If the rules about random dealing were changed, then, occasionally, the computer could introduce and automatically monitor special cheat-diagnostic deals, where, for example a peculiar illogical lead is the only way to set the likely contract. A high success rate on such deals would ring warning bells.
• Mechanical errors could be reduced e.g. illegal bids and plays. This would make the laws on mistaken bids and plays more consistent. It would also eliminate a random element that has little to do with Bridge skills.
• Unauthorized information from hesitations, alerts, questions, answers, coughs and and so on would be eliminated. Partnership communication would be restricted to calls and plays.
• Disclosure would be much improved If software like BBO Full Disclosure were the basic disclosure mechanism. Both opponents would get identical and more complete explanations, without the delay and palaver of scribbling on pieces of paper. They could still use follow-up questions, if necessary.

[Trinidad]

I don't disagree, however, the only way to perform this type of analysis is to keep comprehensive records and the best and cheapest way to keep comprehensive records is to switch over to an electronic playing environment.

If you were right about that, then that would mean that we don't have these data. (Since we haven't been playing in electronic playing environments.) Well, we do have those data and tons of them.

 

You need:

• 
   
  
• Hand record
  
• Score (contract, number of tricks, opening lead and declarer)
  
• Some player data (bidding system, age, gender, skill level). This is the hardest part, but an electronic playing environment won't help here.
  

Since when do we need an electronic playing environment to gather these data? They are on websites all over the www. For Meckwell, for E-W, for my partner and me, and even for my 73 year old mother and her partner. (We could ask the NSA. They may have compiled them already. ;))

 

Before you know it, we may be able to figure out whether Aunt Millie signals her club holding to Uncle Bob by the way she holds her cupcakes (.. you know there have been rumors ..), without any need for an electronic playing environment.

 

... And then... why would you gather all these data when you are playing in an antisocial ehm electronic playing environment? Didn't that solve all problems with cheating?

 

Rik

Edited April 4, 2014 by Trinidad

[barmar]

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'm kind of split on this argument. In general, I don't think these are necessary to the game, they're simply unavoidable when playing the traditional way. Bidding boxes already make some insufficient bids impossible (you can't bid lower than your previous bids, unless you're one of those people who pull out individual bidding cards instead of the stack), and no one considers this to ruin the game.

 

On the other hand, we played against the Fleischer team in the first round of the Jacoby Swiss last weekend. We lost the round by 17 IMPs, but it would have been a blitz if Zia hadn't missorted his hand, which resulted in Zia-Garner getting too high and I was able to double them.

[Trinidad]

And you keep conveniently skipping the negative effects of f2f bridge also and conveniently showing as if everyone in the bridge world, especially during the play of the session, are all in such a spirited good and positive mood. Most of the time they don't even talk. Sometimes they laugh sometimes they fight. Sometimes they just jab each other with remarks or looks, sometimes they act like gentleman and a good sport. But not always act same and not always positiv[/size]e.

Of course, there are people fighting at the bridge table. I even mentioned this in my post #58. So, I am not skipping any negative social effects of f2f bridge.

 

But do you think that I would play face to face bridge if my overall social experience would be negative?

 

I readily admit that I have some weird traits of character, but that weird I am not. So, you can safely conclude that my overall social experience in face to face bridge is positive. (I will add that, in fact, it is very positive.)

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

They may not be top priority (for you) but for some people they are important, also for those who play in the BB.

 

The social aspect is important in practically any sport. Also when played at the highest level. This is not surprising since the social aspect is the root of all sports. They are games you play with/against other people and that is why they came to be. Without the social aspect there would be very few sports.

 

I wouldn't play bridge if it meant sitting alone playing online; for me much of the point is seeing people and socialising, going out for meals, having a few drinks afterwards (and often a few more) while going over the hands, etc. Also being at the table with everyone who is actually involved in the hands is important to me, even when screens are in use.

 

This evening we played a 32-board match, and I can't imagine putting in the time and effort required if it had been impossible to talk and joke around the table, eat sandwiches at half-time, go over a few interesting hands with teammates over a drink, and the like.

 

Of course some of these things can still be done even if you played separated from your partner and others at your table, but for me and for many others even the cards are important.

[MrAce]

Now this deserved a reply but I don't want the topic to be locked.

[nige1]

Now this deserved a reply but I don't want the topic to be locked.

Good :) You don't win friends and influence people by personal attacks on them :)