Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Cornelia Yoder
1 2 3 4 ... 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 ... 55 56 57 58
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Then perhaps they shouldn't walk around with a pitchfork and a rope in their hands :)
Nov. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think that having thoroughly shown the bid spacing to be real means that none of the other ideas are.

There are lots of ways to cheat and cheaters employ more than one. FS used board placement for the opening lead, coughing to show weakness during the auction, and body movements to show other info during the play.

They got nailed on the board placement because it was the first one to be really pinned down clearly, but I don't think anyone believes the other stuff wasn't also being used.

Likewise with BZ, the bid spacing has now been pinned down clearly, and they are nailed. But the other stuff like finger signals and scratching signals were also being used. Right now it's not necessary to pin them down, because the bid spacing got there first, but those are still cheating methods that were in use.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Hank: Estimates are that about 1 in 25 people are sociopathic. And finding two of them that have deliberately chosen to work together still leaves the pair at 1 in 25.

As for stronger evidence, why don't you try some searches on “sociopaths and polygraphs” and read a bit about it.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe sociopaths can pass polygraph tests because when they lie, they don't feel the emotions that the polygraph detects.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Something that none of you guys seem to realize, on both sides of this debate, is that the Polish BB team WON. You can never take that away from them, never ever. THEY WON. And the world knows it.

You can take their name out of the record book. You can make them mail a piece of metal back to someone. You can say whatever you wish.

But no one can ever change the fact: they WON the BB.

They will always know that and they can always be proud of that, regardless of what any of you say here, regardless of what the WBF decides in its infinite wisdom or lack thereof.

They WON at the game of bridge, the victory was theirs over all the other teams that they played against.
Nov. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is the most positive and encouraging thing I have seen yet! It addresses just about all the issues and states actions that have been or will shortly be taken to tackle cheating, past and future.

It places the WBF in exactly the right position – setting standards, implementing useful technical help, outlining relationships between it and other organizations, and assigning responsibilities where they belong in a clear and reasonable way.

Of all the results of this whole cheating scandal, this is the most solid and long-term solution yet stated anywhere.

Congratulations to the WBF for stepping up and making major progress for the future.
Nov. 6, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Personally, I'm much worried that the reactionaries around will keep stalling on the obvious solution, and keep trying to prevent the use of electronics which would cut down on about 99.5% of the possible ways to cheat.
Nov. 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For taking screenshots, I have not found anything that can beat this:

http://getgreenshot.org/

Free, easy to install, easy to use, auto save in whatever format you want.
Nov. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Stephanie, I don't argue about that, only that I am not willing to waste my time finding something that has been found already but kept secret.
Nov. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Continuing to try and insult me is not going to accomplish anything. When you have openly shared EVERYTHING you already know, then people might be willing to look for more. But wasting time discovering something that you already knew is a stupid waste of EVERYONE's time, not just mine. Until you are open with your knowledge, I'm out.
Nov. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nicolas, if you think it matters to me whether I was “first” to notice something, you are being totally silly.

I noticed it, I reported it to two people, Kit is the one who followed up on it, and posted it, mentioning me. I don't care in the least when or who else may have noticed it nor do I care who was “first”.

As for you, you gripe about transparency, want everyone else's data, but admit that the “in crowd” is keeping everything secret. Some people might call that hypocritical.

And since you make it very clear that the rest of us are way behind the times, and the “in crowd” has already figured out everything that I might find anyway, I see no possible reason to continue wasting my time in looking for something that your “in crowd” already knows and isn't willing to share.

Have a good time, I hope you catch all “n” cheaters.
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In this case, I agree wholeheartedly with Boye and his approach. The “public transparency” was necessary once to get the ball moving, but now I think handling the problems through appropriate channels should be tried again.

As for “consistency”, there is absolutely nothing about consistency that makes it mandatory. I dread trying to force consistency where it isn't needed - that alone can kill innovation, progress, and creativity.
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
wrong place
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Til lags åt alle kan ingen gjera” I believe we would say, “No one can please everyone”.
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Robert, that is some excellent advice and insight into this problem, thank you for posting it.

I can think of a way to test a null hypothesis. We have something like 14 videos from the EBTC alone. Suppose we make a list of the gestures in question, and simply count the number of times each occurs in each of the videos.

Then assume the video with the lowest counts is the one case where they decided not to cheat (perhaps against friends, or because the opponents knew, or etc) and use that as a baseline for the null hypothesis.

Defining the gestures to count and the situational factors (bidding, on defense, etc) would need to be done with care, but I'll bet that there will be one video which has significantly lower counts than all the rest.

This might also give a lot of insight into which gestures are the meaningful signaling ones. Gestures which occur with the same count in every video are probably not signals. Ones which occur frequently in 13 out of 14 but never in the 14th will be the signals.
Nov. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting. I'd say the opposite, “I don't need your attitude, I can figure out where every honor is very easily. I just need your count.”

Do you suppose that I am just as capable? Perhaps B wants attitude and Z wants count. Hand signals would be a great way to circumvent the rule that all signals have to be the same in both directions.
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OR, we could just simply do away with gender-based events entirely, and let people compete as people instead of as male or female.
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting. You want to clean up the game and promote a positive image by concealing tax fraud?
Oct. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nicolas, I strongly resent your implication that because I was the one who first called attention to the unusual five finger gesture, that I somehow cannot be objective.

You are managing to insult everyone that is trying to work on this problem. May I humbly suggest that you learn how to study the data that you have so brilliantly collected and leave the rest of us alone?
Oct. 30, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Now that's a good thought, Carl! Why don't you take a look at the finger signals and compare them to the control points. Also watch the other signals such as scratching (face, chest, groin) and knuckle rapping. Maybe you can make the tie-in!
Oct. 30, 2015
1 2 3 4 ... 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 ... 55 56 57 58
.

Bottom Home Top