[sfi]

MrAce, on 2014-April-03, 21:27, said:

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]

mikeh, on 2014-April-03, 20:41, said:

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

[gnasher]

MrAce, on 2014-April-03, 21:27, said:

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

Fluffy said:

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]

billw55, on 2014-April-03, 09:12, said:

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]

MrAce, on 2014-April-03, 09:29, said:

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]

cherdano, on 2014-April-03, 17:46, said:

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]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-03, 10:16, said:

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]

rhm, on 2014-April-04, 01:49, said:

.

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

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.

[rhm]

MrAce, on 2014-April-04, 02:30, said:

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

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]

rhm, on 2014-April-04, 02:44, said:

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.

rhm, on 2014-April-04, 02:44, said:

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

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2014-April-03, 15:24, said:

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]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-April-03, 15:59, said:

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]

MrAce, on 2014-April-04, 03:35, said:

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.

Quote

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

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 )

Rainer Herrmann

[Trinidad]

MrAce, on 2014-April-04, 02:30, said:

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. 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]

fromageGB, on 2014-April-03, 15:01, said:

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.