Clever Hans

[gwnn]

3.-7. Probably true. But 'simple' doesn't imply 'easy to crack'.

Why not?

 

Also this point doesn't apply at all for number 4. I said bad/good methods, not simple/complicated.

 

Anyway, I did not say that all 8 of them are likely or particularly convincing (although some of them I find quite decent), just that it is easy to find rationalizations and any counterargument you bring can only decrease their probability, not nullify it.

[gwnn]

I think there's plenty incentive to cheat at bridge and I'm not enough of a conspiracy theorist to doubt that P-S are guilty when they've already confessed.

I did not say anything about a conspiracy (for example, one of them had a child kidnapped and was forced to falsely confess), but about an honest but mistaken belief they had about themselves. Certainly you must agree that it is a logical possibility that they were just both in a cognitive dissonance and concluded that they themselves must be the cheaters, not the lynch mob the wrongful accusers. If anything, this is a more likely scenario than yours since we (the public) have no convincing video about them cheating and all we have now is their confession. False confessions are well documented while these spontaneous mathematical codes between unwitting participants is just completely hypothetical and strains credulity (your case requires analogy to horses and pigeons, for one). I think neither of these logical possibilities is particularly likely but I am not sure why you are concentrating on your pet hypothesis instead of the rather mundane one of a false confession.

[nullve]

Why not?

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/undetectable-method-of-cheating/

 

Seems simple enough.

 

Also this point doesn't apply at all for number 4. I said bad/good methods, not simple/complicated.

Yes, sorry. But then my point is that even the worst cheaters among WC or near WC pairs would be able to come up with something vastly better.

 

it is easy to find rationalizations and any counterargument you bring can only decrease their probability, not nullify it.

Agree.

[gwnn]

Yes LOL it is simple, except for learning the 16-digit code by heart and applying it and doing the maths. Most bridge players were complaining that Slawinsky leads were too hard for them to try! Lol. And this goes against my arguments about a necessarily short discussion period and a relatively low footprint (you don't eant to write down the code anywhere for example) and conservation of energy. Simple lol. They would need several hours of cheating practice and even then you'd run the risk of messing it up on the second week of the tournament at 11PM.

[gwnn]

Yes, sorry. But then my point is that even the worst cheaters among WC or near WC pairs would be able to come up with something vastly better.

Ok good luck. Like I said, my argument 2 is working with a lot of people.

[nullve]

I did not say anything about a conspiracy

No, you didn't. I just didn't want to come off as someone incapable of having normal beliefs. :)

 

Certainly you must agree that it is a logical possibility that they were just both in a cognitive dissonance and concluded that they themselves must be the cheaters, not the lynch mob the wrongful accusers.

Yes.

If anything, this is a more likely scenario than yours since we (the public) have no convincing video about them cheating and all we have now is their confession.

Good point. I agree.

[nullve]

Yes LOL it is simple, except for learning the 16-digit code by heart and applying it and doing the maths. Most bridge players were complaining that Slawinsky leads were too hard for them to try! Lol.

Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that committing 16 (or 100) digits to memory (using e.g. the method of loci) and calculate e.g. 1+2 or 3+3 modulo 4 is somehow beyond the the ability of some near-WC players.

 

And this goes against my arguments about a necessarily short discussion period and a relatively low footprint (you don't eant to write down the code anywhere for example) and conservation of energy. Simple lol.

I don't understand why the discussion period needs to be short or why they would have to write down anything (if they're using the method of loci, say). And you can't lol me into believing that the method is too energy-draining, either.

 

They would need several hours of cheating practice

Is that obvious? So what?

 

and even then you'd run the risk of messing it up on the second week of the tournament at 11PM.

As with any legal agreement.

[gwnn]

I think we are going around in circles by now and it all just boils down to our subjective sense of the plausibility of the various scenarios. I'm not one to fight for the last word but I also don't want to dramatically say "this is the last time I read or write here!" because honestly I do think these hypotheses are interesting and thinking about them is a worthwhile endeavor, although not quite in the sense of exonerating them but just as an intellectual exercise. I will, however, try to only post if I have something new to post.

 

I am mainly writing this preamble about going in circles because I feel like I have answered your questions already in posts prior.

Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that committing 16 (or 100) digits to memory (using e.g. the method of loci) and calculate e.g. 1+2 or 3+3 modulo 4 is somehow beyond the the ability of some near-WC players.

Like I said, even world class players have a difficulty understanding Slawinsky leads and odd/even carding, even though those are clearly documented and you can explain them in about 15 seconds to an average 5 year-old (you can explain odd-even in a 2x1 matrix and Slawinsky in a 2x2 matrix, both of them only containing 1's and 0's). This is written in the quoted portion of text already so I take it you don't believe me. I heard from Justin Lall that "nobody understands Slawinsky" and Fred said in one of the deals of the week about his Bermuda Bowl run how he had trouble understanding or parsing odd/even carding. It is telling that you find hard to believe that grown men have difficulty with basic algebra but you find it easy to believe that they will behave just as a horse or a pigeon.

 

I don't understand why the discussion period needs to be short or why they would have to write down anything (if they're using the method of loci, say). And you can't lol me into believing that the method is too energy-draining, either.

This is also something I explained above. Average cheaters have a conscience as well and it will feel weird for them to have a daily training schedule that looks like

12:00-13:00 Gym

13:00-15:00 bidding agreements

15:00-17:00 defensive training

17:00-18:00 declarer play

18:00-19:00 training of secret, evil method in a dark, secluded area

 

It just feels nefarious to them and I think normal people, even with a slightly slanted moral compass, will want to feel like they are primarily bridge players, not bridge players who exercise their cheating method daily. They have to decide on what they want to spend most of their energy: training and applying bridge skills or training and applying cheating methods. I think most people will choose 99+% of their energy on counting out suits and planning squeezes instead of counting taps on the table and planning the next illicit message.

As with any legal agreement.

Indeed. So, unless they have a very simple, idiot-proof cheating system, they are introducing an extra layer of risk of disasters: Not only can they have a big disagreement about bidding, but also a disagreement about their illicit signals. In fact, by wasting too much time/resources on their cheating, they will increase the chances of bidding disasters while introducing an extra layer of uncertainty that is related to retaining the secret code and doing all the cute little maths.

[nullve]

Thx gwnn, I've enjoyed discussing with you.

[nullve]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_signaling_game

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12038/1/LewisLabSynth.pdf

[nige1]

May I make the modest proposal that any action that is, for an outside observer, indistinguishable from cheating shall be considered cheating?

I upvoted Cherdano but I'd better clarify my view. Authorities should concentrate on behaviour and ignore intent. The laws of a game should not pivot on mind-reading and assessing self-serving statements. Many alleged cheats are successful professional Poker players, sensitive to tells (perhaps subliminally as nullve suggests), but whose opponents can't read their tells.

 

I agree with nullve's main point. It's hard to be sure that "cheating" is deliberate. A frequent and familiar example: most players seem to use unauthorised information. That doesn't mean they're deliberate cheats. They would be horrified to be so-accused.

• A few may believe that law-makers purposely encourage "coffee-house" tactics. Many bridge-laws seem designed to reward law-breakers.
• Some players are just careless.
• For others it's an unconscious process: they're not self-aware.
• Many players are ignorant of the law and many directors don't understand the law. e.g. Players say they "always make the call they would have made without UI" -- echoing the heretical advice in the ACBL club-directors' handbook.
• Most are incapable of the mental gymnastics required to determine which logical alternatives are least likely to be successful.
• Almost all are expert at rationalisation.

[gwnn]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_signaling_game

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12038/1/LewisLabSynth.pdf

Is there any chance that you might explain these and how they are relevant to the cheating scandal, or do we have to read the whole literature and guess?

[barmar]

I upvoted Cherdano but I'd better clarify my view. Authorities should concentrate on behaviour and ignore intent.

The problem with this is that some perfectly innocent behaviors may appear similar to cheating.

 

So we have to choose between false positives and false negatives. And the current policy seems to follow Blackstone's formulation

All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.

[1eyedjack]

The problem with this is that some perfectly innocent behaviors may appear similar to cheating.

 

So we have to choose between false positives and false negatives. And the current policy seems to follow Blackstone's formulation

 

That is certainly not the approach adopted by the inhabitants of BridgeWinners.

 

Furthermore, while Blackstone's formulation applied in criminal trials, civil cases were only ever decided more on a 50-50 basis.

[barmar]

That is certainly not the approach adopted by the inhabitants of BridgeWinners.

 

Furthermore, while Blackstone's formulation applied in criminal trials, civil cases were only ever decided more on a 50-50 basis.

True, it's the "beyond a reasonable doubt" versus "preponderance of evidence" standard.

 

The impression I've always gotten is that cheating is considered analogous to a felony in the bridge community, so we expect adjudication to be more like a criminal trial.

[mikestar13]

True, it's the "beyond a reasonable doubt" versus "preponderance of evidence" standard.

 

The impression I've always gotten is that cheating is considered analogous to a felony in the bridge community, so we expect adjudication to be more like a criminal trial.

 

Perhaps better than either standard for this purpose is the "clear and convincing evidence" standard used in the US (and probably elsewhere) in certain civil matters where jail time is of course not possible but the consequences beyond money damages may be severe--this standard applies in some states to professional licensing, which is a good analogy. When I and others call cheating a bridge felony (or worse) we are expressing cheating's moral significance in a bridge context, not suggesting which legal rule should apply.

[nullve]

Is there any chance that you might explain these and how they are relevant to the cheating scandal, or do we have to read the whole literature and guess?

An 'nxn' Lewis signalling game, to use terminology consistent with the linked paper, is a Lewis signalling game where there are n world states and n signals. So whether they cheated or not, it might look as if

 

* B-Z were playing a 3x3 Lewis signalling game with hand strengths in context as world states and bidding gaps as signals

* F-N were playing a 2x2 Lewis signalling game with led suit holdings as world states and led card orientations as signals

* F-S were playing a 4x4 Lewis signalling game with lead preferences as world states and board placements as signals

* W-E were playing a 4x4 Lewis signalling game with lead preferences as world states and numbers of coughs as signals.

 

From the paper's abstract: "In this paper we use experimental approach to show how linguistic conventions can emerge in society without explicit agreement."

[gwnn]

The subjects in the paper you cited were instructed about a sender whose signals they were supposed to figure out and they were promised rewards if they did so accurately.

 

The subjects at the bridge table were instructed about a "sender" whose possible signals they were supposed to ignore* and they were promised punishment if they were going to receive and interpret the signals.

 

Do you see a difference between the two scenarios?

 

*-in fact, not just ignore but to act in the opposite manner.

[nullve]

The subjects in the paper you cited were instructed about a sender whose signals they were supposed to figure out and they were promised rewards if they did so accurately.

Not quite:

 

The subjects engaged in the experiment were, obviously, language users. As a result they were likely predisposed towards certain assumptions about communication and information transfer. In describing the experiment to subjects, we primarily chose language that conveyed information about the game without explicitly describing the situation as one of information transfer or communication. For instance, players were informed that they would be divided into `role 1 participants' and `role 2 participants' in the experiment rather than `senders' and `receivers'. There was one exception to this rule, which was that the sender's choice was described as a `signal' to his or her partner.

 

The subjects at the bridge table were instructed about a "sender" whose possible signals they were supposed to ignore* and they were promised punishment if they were going to receive and interpret the signals.

Thinking of the alledged codes in terms of Lewis signalling games is probably useless unless the pairs would have been able to play such games unwittingly while focusing on proper bridge. But "task-irrelevant perceptual learning" (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764800/) seems to be fairly well documented, and I don't see why it couldn't apply here, so maybe that's the extra idea needed to explain how a pair can inadvertently evolve an illegal signalling system. (I'm speculating wildly, of course, but perhaps a little less than when I wrote

 

If operant conditioning is going on on both sides of the screen, it might explain both how tells and Clever Hans-like effects emerge over thousands of boards.

upthread.)

 

Csaba, I saw your post in the "Introductions and the like" forum today, so I don't expect a reply from you anytime soon. Good luck!

 

¹ which I knew absolutely nothing about until yesterday

[Fluffy]

After playing for several years with my first partner: my grand father. I realiced he gave lavinthal signals on attitude positions when he played the card slowly. I probably used them for a long time before I was expert enough to realice what was actually going on.