Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Allan Graves
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard
I I did not say that no one cheats. I said one way to catch and expell them is for a panel of the worlds absolute best players examine a large data base of illogical bids and plays that were all successful
And deem them cheats . I know that there are many such players who would serve the game with
skill and honour in such a role . People cheat because they are extremely confused about what makes them happy . Winning is not a source of happiness as its superficiality rapidly dissolves.However our bridge culture celebrates winning so obviously there is motive .
People will cheat at bridge , it cannot be tolerated . A multi faceted approach such as I proposed (supported by many others by the way ) would be effective.
Oct. 13, 2016
Allan Graves edited this comment Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We are talking about a large database of illogical bids and plays that succeeded . One lucky or illogical play that was successful is not the issue . Bridge logic does not belong in quotes . It is the essence of the game . If a weak to moderate player on lead holds XX. KJ9XX XX QXXX
vs 1D (P) 1S (P)
1NT. all pass
and leads a club you would think it odd and probably move on
If a successful expert partnership
Made this lead AND partner had club values and not heart values you would file it with a recorder
If there were multiple incidences of this type of success with no incidences of unusual leads failing
To hit values combined with the many incidences of making the routine heart lead then they are probably cheating
Imagine if you will keeping a straight face while you reverse engineered your pseudo logic in front of the names that have been mentioned for dozens of these leads . Of course they are cheating and they are expelled . It is not only the lead but the consistent success of the lead . Inagine if you will where a pair consistently passed heavy when partner was minimum and consistently raised light when partner was max . This is pseudo logic and cannot be adequately explained. Bridge at the highest levels is a game of logic . Much of the logic is still self secret until it is revealed by the Helgemos of the game . That is why it is critical in one development as a bridge player to study the best and most creative players and subscribe to magazines such as bridge world for the master solvers clubs .
The panel of Helgemo's is a neccessary part of the protection umbrella . Cheaters will know that regardless of how sophisticated their method their bids and plays will eventually be revealed for what they are . They can pick their slots but the stress of deciding what spots to pick will be very stressful and probably undermine their play . Regardless eventually they will slip . With the constant vigilance of technology and statistics we can cover the bases. What is absolutely critical
Is that along with the panel that we have a way of recording the bidding and play while still playing cards and enjoying each other's company .
After all, that is why we started playing in the first place and it is still the same endlessly enchanting quintessentially human recreation that it had always been .


Sent from my iPhone
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you want to be happy think of other people . If you want to be unhappy think of yourselves.
By definition , the players on this committee would consider first their role as a protected of the game the ongoing inspiration their love of the game . Second they would consider the rights of the accused the ongoing inspiration being their basic humaness . Third they would try and do the very best job they could because they know that is a basic ground of happiness and contentment .
You are probably correct about current government models but this is not about that . It is about Protecting the game of bridge for the benefit of all . This panel would not even be remotely wildly imperfect . It would aware , grounded and precise .
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This edit is to reset the context as the thread is not clear
I am describing the qualities of the proposed panel
members in response to Richard who worries that panel members would act in“ self interest” and attempt to convict suspected cheaters in order to eliminate them as competition. My own experiences is that such a panel , properly chosen would put the interests of the game and their own integrity first.

Their best interests are the love of the game . Many people live their lives committed to the benefit of others while staying true to their own basic goodness . That is a good working definition definition of integrity.
Oct. 13, 2016
Allan Graves edited this comment Oct. 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John . Brilliant plays are logical . I said a large database of illogical plays that were consistently successful. Where in anything I said would suggest that comment has merit . You are not being fair in any way .
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you have been following this thread , your comment is completely uncalled for .
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John . You keep using the word “we” as if you speak for some silent majority. Playing tournament bridge is not a right , it is a privilege . The participants have signed off on abiding by the decions of the ethical committee . A panel of the worlds absolute best agreeing that consistently successful bids and plays were illogical by a pair that otherwise played logically with the expected probability of success . That is the evidence that information had been transmitted .
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As to the majority required presumably the number would be one that felt comfortable . The logic or lack thereof would usually be obvious to all so I would usually expect close to unanimous agreement assuming the panel were if the very highest caliber . That is of course an absolute requirement . It is a players committee of the worlds absolute best .No exceptions .
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes exactly. My solution is only part of the overall approach but an important one . It is very difficult for cheaters to tread the “ tolerance ” tight rope without falling off . That is to say , knowing something and not using it . Moreover constantly having to factor that into ones analysis would lead to errors and mediocre play .Having said that the other methods of prevention , protection and detection are all necessary parts of the solution .
Oct. 13, 2016
Allan Graves edited this comment Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The proof is the consistent lack of logic supporting successful actions by a world class pair who normallly demonstrate consistently good logic . We are not talking about lucky plays by poor players . We are talking about the worlds best tournaments . Sorry I thought that was clear . Players of unimpeachable integrity would by definition put their love of the game before any self interest . I should have made that clear . The fact that nine players are involved in this decision would eliminate any possibility of error . As I said all other attempts to catch cheats and attempts to determine how they are doing it would continue . But the burden of proof is the lack of logic and the permission to abide by that is given at the outset . No non cheating pair would object to those conditions .
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The evidence is the overwhelming lack of logic that is always successful. It would work and yes we do want it to.
Otherwise we are held hostage , knowing they are cheating, but unable to determine how.
You are worried about a scenario where someone is found guilty who is innocent. That would be impossible with a large sample. of illogical bids and plays.
Oct. 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A “ Supreme Court ” of ,say, nine blue chip world experts of unimpeachable integrity , that had the final word on whether there is cheating is the solution . After reviewing a large collection of hands that were illogical they would be able to say “ we don't know how you are cheating but we know you are cheating ” . Participants would sign off on agreeing to this oversight before play began . All rational protections against cheating would of course stay in place and continue to evolve . The argument for or against electronic bridge would continue . However the ultimate hammer of “ your bridge is illogical and you are no longer welcome in tournament bridge ” would be an effective solution and a powerful deterrent .
Oct. 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No problem Cameron . Just a question of semantics on second thought .For the record as to the main question I am against a selection committee and for team trials .
Oct. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You did not understand my proposal because I did not edit it well . I am not in favor of selectors .( in fact nowhere did I use the term selector ) I I am in favor of an international teams committe that understands the fiduciary duty of managing the international expense money . In spite of a lot of good effort by a lot of good CBF people we have a poor record internationally given that we have had from time it time a number of talented players who have been sucessful in tough acbl tournaments . We should be studying in particular those other small countries like the Netherlands who have been very successful . It begins as I have stated by separating the conflicted CBF mission statement into two streams . Grassroots and international teams . Combining the two has not worked well. Is not working well now and never will work well . I repeat I am in favor of a process that at this time is based on providing an avenue where our best and committed players can compete against each other in a long , vigorous and concentrated event. It should be reviewed every few years . The grassroots is for celebrating bridge the, Canadian way and with an appreciation for the friendly rivalry of provincial competition that we engage in in all sorts of sports and activities . Please go to Canada games 2017 Winnipeg to see what u think Canadian mind sports . Bridge and chess at least should be , at least periphally , part of . I'm out .. For now lol
Oct. 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They used it in 1968, 1972, 1974 for the Olypiad pair trials and 1976 . You simply applied for the 1978 Olypiad ( the first Rosenbloom . Canada had X spots and filled them by application I played in all of them beginning in 1972. so I had first hand knowledge Winning the BC team trials i n1972 and 1976 and the 1974 BC Pair trials ( Canada had X spots for pairs in those days and did it provincially in a stroke of genius probably inpired by Murray ) They were great fun and attracted wide and strong participation.( The first CNTC was 1980 ) They would be even better seperated from the international trials. Canada enjoys its friendly provincial rivalries . A well organized provincial progrm.in all 3 flights would bring the provinces bridge players together . You could use also incentivize local sectionals and regionals by allowing individual players to get seeding points . A provincial team could then add up their seeding points and perhaps get a bye thourgh a stage . All teams however would be welcome to enter . . The last CNTC had total participation of 239 players out of some 20 000 ACBl players. . The CBF has good people working hard but clearly it is not relevant to the average bridge player.
Go to this link to see my dream which is to have mindsports associaed witht the Canada summer games.
http://www.2017canadagames.ca/en/content/winnipeg-2017
We have to start somewhere. The game is dying . The clock has already struck 12
Sept. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr French you misrepresent my position unfairly. I said nothing about a selection committee but rather “Almost all applications would be accepted I would think” The point there which I thought was obvious was that flight C players for eg would be inappropriate. and routed to the provincial playdowns. I still think that not very many teams would apply but regardless all would be involved in whatever the process was. .
The key to my proposal is the seperation of the National competition grounded in a local base , empahisinzing local teams and partnerships to provide a fun and meaningful avenue for good bridge on all three flights. This obviously has to be separate from the International trials which is wide open geographically and a long hard expensive undertaking for serious participants. The CBF simply does not have the resources to fund that process. I should have said details to be worked out. One thing though the current CNTC format where a short round robin partly based on beating bad teams soundly is not a good method. Some of those teams are there because they want to participate in a Canadian championship. That is why it is important and will be successful to have a well thought out National championsip based on ten provincial champions.
I am sure your favourite team is delighted to have such a committed fan. I gaurantee you ,however, that none of them would agree with your statement and would be relieved to be removed from that pedestal.
Sept. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr Gowdy , We already have half a dozen right fielders. Any chance you could play out in left feild ?
Sept. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They no langer play that I am told.
Sept. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great hand . 1S promising 3 a very poor treatment IMO . You tell them how to go plus In a tight partscore battle with very little in return over the long run . Best to play You might have 3 or 4 min . Playing this way you have a 2.5 spade bid .
Sept. 30, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are you referring to my suggestion to separate the national grassroots component of the CBF mission statement from the International team selection process ?
Sept. 30, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top