Preempting the WBF and the ACBL

[hrothgar]

During the Tenerife scandal, I started claiming that major bridge competitions would inevitably transition to an online playing environment. From my perspective, the combination of

 

1. Improvements to physical security (blocking covert channels)

2. Perfect record keeping (statistical analysis)

3. Enhancements to Vugraph

 

seemed too compelling to ignore.

 

It’s now 10 years later and the world of bridge is being rocked by a much larger and more significant cheating scandal. Coincidentally, a number of folks whose opinion actually matters are beginning to float the proposal about an Electronic Playing Environment. This all leads me to believe that its time to take a more serious look at requirements for an Electronic Playing Environment.

 

What worries me most about this type of proposal is the (relatively) poor track record that both the ACBL and the WBF have rolling out new tech. Arguably the best way to proceed is for BBO to present said groups with a turn-key solution.

 

The ACBL and the WBF would benefit from having a high quality solution. BBO would benefit because this would allow them to get around the WBF agreements with MyGame.

[billw55]

Certainly, implementing via BBO is a reasonable solution because quite a bit of the necessary architecture already exists. There would be some hardware expenses: NBOs would have to provide tablets or terminals or similar (obviously contestants could not use their own, if the main purpose is to prevent cheating).

 

The real question is whether this will happen at all. One question worth considering: would it work? Or would the gain be only temporary until clever cheaters find new ways to ply their trade? How long would that take? Might "e-bridge" even open up new ways to cheat that did not previously exist?

 

 

 

[hrothgar]

Certainly, implementing via BBO is a reasonable solution because quite a bit of the necessary architecture already exists. There would be some hardware expenses: NBOs would have to provide tablets or terminals or similar (obviously contestants could not use their own, if the main purpose is to prevent cheating).

 

The real question is whether this will happen at all. One question worth considering: would it work? Or would the gain be only temporary until clever cheaters find new ways to ply their trade? How long would that take? Might "e-bridge" even open up new ways to cheat that did not previously exist?

 

A few years back, the WBF decided to move a major event from (Turkey?, Bali?) based on fears surrounding terrorism.

 

During this discussion, the gave some visibility into the costs associated with screens and the like.

The relative cost to switching over to tablets ain't that much.

[fred]

BBO is actually working on something that you might call a hybrid approach. It solves a lot of problems while keeping “table presence” as a part of the game.

 

No more details for now, but there is a good chance that we will be in a position to do a demo at the Denver NABC.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[billw55]

BBO is actually working on something that you might call a hybrid approach. It solves a lot of problems while keeping "table presence" as a part of the game.

 

No more details for now, but there is a good chance that we will be in a position to do a demo at the Denver NABC.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

This sounds promising.

 

I imagine something like a video conference, where you can see and hear opponents but not partner. But who knows.

 

As for expenses, more space might also be needed, as the four players would have to be far apart.

[nige1]

BBO is actually working on something that you might call a hybrid approach. It solves a lot of problems while keeping "table presence" as a part of the game.

No more details for now, but there is a good chance that we will be in a position to do a demo at the Denver NABC.

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I suggested "Virtual screens" as a hybrid approach similar to the current excellent BBO experience:

• You sit at a computer, sharing a sound-proof room with your "screen-mate".
• The software could still prevent mechanical errors, like illegal calls (insufficient bids and bids out of turn) and illegal plays (revokes and plays out of turn). Allowing these adds no value to the game.
• Something like "Full Disclosure" could still reduce the amount of alerting and interrogation.
• LHO's and Partner's actions (bids and plays) could be displayed at the same time as RHO's, to reduce UI.
• Each player's actions could be timed, to help maintain schedules.

[Vampyr]

I suggested "Virtual screens" as a hybrid approach similar to the current excellent BBO experience:

• You sit at a computer, sharing a sound-proof room with your "screen-mate".
• The software could still prevent mechanical errors, like illegal calls (insufficient bids and bids out of turn) and illegal plays (revokes and plays out of turn). Allowing these adds no value to the game.
• Something like "Full Disclosure" could still reduce the amount of alerting and interrogation.
• LHO's and Partner's actions (bids and plays) could be displayed at the same time as RHO's, to reduce UI.
• Each player's actions could be timed, to help maintain schedules.

 

You probably couldn't arrange four soundproofed rooms for every match; I assume that this approach would be used starting from, say, the round of eight. So you would not be able to talk to your screenmate at all -- everything would have to be done in writing. This could become tiresome and time-consuming.

 

I assume that you would be able to see the alerts and explanations (those that were electronically generated, anyway) given to your partner. If they are different, which interpretation should a pair believe? Should they decide in advance? It seems to me that this could complicate MI issues.

 

Could work, I suppose, but it seems like a lot of bother. And could eventually lead to more perfect kinds of cheating.

[nige1]

You probably couldn't arrange four soundproofed rooms for every match; I assume that this approach would be used starting from, say, the round of eight. So you would not be able to talk to your screenmate at all -- everything would have to be done in writing. This could become tiresome and time-consuming.

I assume that you would be able to see the alerts and explanations (those that were electronically generated, anyway) given to your partner. If they are different, which interpretation should a pair believe? Should they decide in advance? It seems to me that this could complicate MI issues.

Could work, I suppose, but it seems like a lot of bother. And could eventually lead to more perfect kinds of cheating.

IMO, such a setup would make cheating harder; but the detailed answers to Vampyr's questions would depend on what compromises were reached between BBO and the regulating authorities.

[Vampyr]

IMO, the proposed setup would make cheating harder; but the detailed answers to Vampyr's questions would depend on the compromises reached between BBO and the regulating authorities.

 

I forgot to mention that you could somehow be in league with a kibitzer.

[hrothgar]

I forgot to mention that you could somehow be in league with a kibitzer.

 

Time delay (I know Fred doesn't like the idea. I think that the benefits outweigh the costs)

[hrothgar]

 

I assume that you would be able to see the alerts and explanations (those that were electronically generated, anyway) given to your partner. If they are different, which interpretation should a pair believe? Should they decide in advance? It seems to me that this could complicate MI issues.

 

 

Playing behind screens each player is responsible for providing alerts for their screen mate so the whole thing is a wash.

 

With this said and done, I hope that many if not most alerts can be made from an electronic version of the convention card which provides a definitive record of the partnership's agreement.

[Fluffy]

I wonder why this is on the Water Cooler, but whatever.

 

I am greatly in favour of something like this. Some testing would perhaps allow to overcome some UI issues, specially on third hand play during a hand.

 

Some more things still not adressed:

 

-You don't need to get caddies, board dealers (machines and operators), vugraph operators, etc. Costs would be reduced on the long run.

-If some country is excluded for a silly reason like happened in Bali, they can play telematically.

-Deals are only dealt after players are on the playing area, knowing deals beforehand would require time travel.

-Dummy can review previous deals, this reduces the ammount of wrong claims accepted.

-Players could have access of a fulldisclosure database where they can see similar hands with similar auction and what opponents held back then.

-There is a problem when having to handle missclicks/undos, review of last trick and claims, since current laws do not address them on a proper way for an electronical enviroment. Enforcing Drag and drop might solve missclicks to some extent.

[Vampyr]

Playing behind screens each player is responsible for providing alerts for their screen mate so the whole thing is a wash.

 

No, it's not. With screens you get one explanation, right or wrong. Getting two different ones presents more of a problem.

 

EDIT: although playing electronically, just one person could give a "main", typed explanation. Then you could show each player, at the appropriate time, any explanations and alerts, or non-alerts, given by partner, and MI would be dealt with in the normal way.

 

But actually I doubt much typing would be done, nor would players be able/willing to set up these full-disclosure pop ups for every auction. So probably in the end, explanations would be given mainly the way it is currently done with screens.

 

I just wonder if taking the enjoyment out of top-level bridge is good for tha game.

[hrothgar]

No, it's not. With screens you get one explanation, right or wrong. Getting two different ones presents more of a problem.

 

With screens, each member of the partnership is responsible for alerting their screen mate.

I've seen any number of appeals come up resulting from different information being passed on different sides of the screen.

 

I seem to recall a case from a couple weeks back involving a forcing pass...

[Vampyr]

-Players could have access of a fulldisclosure database where they can see similar hands with similar auction and what opponents held back then.

 

This is illegal and I hope it stays that way.

[hrothgar]

This is illegal and I hope it stays that way.

 

This already exists

 

http://www.microtopia.ca/bridge/

 

Good luck with your lawsuit. I think that you'll find that different jurisdictions have VERY different interpretations of privacy regulations. Even in the EU which has by far the most restrictive privacy regulations, these sorts of laws are far from settled.

 

In the case of bridge hands, I think that one can make a convincing claim that bridge hands are the equivalent of sports statistics rather than Personally Identifiable Information.

[Vampyr]

In the case of bridge hands, I think that one can make a convincing claim that bridge hands are the equivalent of sports statistics rather than Personally Identifiable Information.

 

Obviously the illegal part is the ability to view this extra information during the auction. Are you stupid or playing dumb?

[hrothgar]

Obviously the illegal part is the ability to view this extra information during the auction. Are you stupid or playing dumb?

 

Sorry. I have this thing called a "job". And as part of it, I spend a lot of time dealing with EU privacy laws.

Privacy implications of this sort of database was the first thing that came to mind.

[Vampyr]

Sorry. I have this thing called a "job". And as part of it, I spend a lot of time dealing with EU privacy laws.

Privacy implications of this sort of database was the first thing that came to mind.

 

OK, well for future if something is quoted and then referred to as "this", the quoted thing is what is being referred to, rather than some component part of it which isn't even mentioned.

[Trinidad]

Obviously the illegal part is the ability to view this extra information during the auction. Are you stupid or playing dumb?

What law makes it illegal to ask for the meaning of the opponent's auction?

 

You are allowed to ask about style, but many people have difficulties explaining style. An example: Our preempts can be very weak, but they will be based on a high ODR and will have a relatively good suit. At equal vulnerability in first seat, we will open ♠7♥853♦74♣JT87643 with 3♣, but we will pass with ♠7♥Q53♦K4♣KT87643.

 

I know people who explain their opening style as having "opening values".

 

If a database can do all the formal explaining (like BBO-FD), why wouldn't it be allowed to do the style explanations in the form of example hands?

 

Rik

[awm]

This seems much better if "screenmates" are in the same room, rather than isolating each player. Some reasons for this:

 

1. Makes it possible to notice some forms of cheating in person. For example, if someone is using their cell phone to communicate. Even if some hidden electronic device, it's possible that a person in the same room would notice something "off."

2. Easier to ask questions about the meaning of auctions; in principle this could be typed but some people are slow typists and you often get better description verbally. Methods like FD are simply a disaster waiting to happen, creating complex MI cases that simply cannot exist in normal bridge (as in the software gives a wrong explanation and neither member of the "offending side" even knows what explanation was given to correct it).

3. Retains at least some possibility for legal "table feel" from opponents.

[Vampyr]

2. Easier to ask questions about the meaning of auctions; in principle this could be typed but some people are slow typists and you often get better description verbally. Methods like FD are simply a disaster waiting to happen, creating complex MI cases that simply cannot exist in normal bridge (as in the software gives a wrong explanation and neither member of the "offending side" even knows what explanation was given to correct it).

 

And who would do the programming for, well, every pair that might make it to the late rounds of international competition? And if a pair changed its methods? And anyway the calls early enough in the bidding for something like Full Disclosire to be useful would probably be listed on the convention card and need little extra explanation.

[hrothgar]

OK, well for future if something is quoted and then referred to as "this", the quoted thing is what is being referred to, rather than some component part of it which isn't even mentioned.

 

Just because you are ignorant of the the fact that your words have more than one interpetation doesn't mean that the rest of are.

[Fluffy]

I also think 2 players per room is a lot better, perhaps with voice recording to have a base of how bids have been explained.

 

Regarding the database. IMO partnership experience is a part of partnership agreements. And partnership agreements are to be fully disclosed, so partnership experience is to be disclosed as well.

[Trinidad]

Regarding the database. IMO partnership experience is a part of partnership agreements. And partnership agreements are to be fully disclosed, so partnership experience is to be disclosed as well.

This. I do not understand why Vampyr would consider it illegal.

 

(I do see a practical problem: How are you going to present the data in the database to the player? Scroll through hands? Present the average number of hcps + a standard deviation? Average, standard deviation, minimum and maximum number of cards in the suit shown and the other suits? It will be a difficult job to interpret this at the table or to reduce the data in such a way that every player will be (equally) happy with it.)

 

Rik