Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Cornelia Yoder
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So what are all you knowledgeable people waiting for? Get the videos and figure it out, just like you have done for F/S.


It doesn't have to be public, the people “in the know” can do it privately. When you have the cheating system sorted out, then go to the appropriate authorities.

I don't suggest posting anything, but I do think enough people could do this privately to not violate any rules or risk improper public allegations.

Sept. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Usually in a minor, No in hearts.
Sept. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>>>>“…if you can play the BB on tablets, then you don't need to leave home to play in them …. Can YOU IMAGINE all those WBF board members giving up on the per diem and stipends and 5 star hotels and the worldwide travel?”<<<<<


Can you imagine the number of really excellent players who would be able to compete if they didn't have to pay for 5 star hotels and worldwide travel?

Even a regional in the US costs well over $1000 to attend, and that's if you play with your spouse.

Not everyone can spend that on a card game no matter how good a player they are.

Maybe seriously competitive bridge is a game for the ultra rich, but wouldn't it be nice if it didn't have to be.
Sept. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think you can make blanket rules about punishing cheaters. There are far too many levels of severity, and far too many reasons for doing it. For example ….


Case 1. Sociopaths cheat because they don't have ethics, not because they are violating theirs. They cheat because that's how they deal with the world, and they don't truly understand why everyone else doesn't do the same.


Case 2: Some cultures consider cleverness, trickery, and cheating as a higher value than honesty or integrity. They cheat because that is the norm of their society and it is expected.


Case 3: Some people cheat because they got an unexpected opportunity and don't stop to consider the possible consequences. They are the ones who overhear a contract result and take advantage when they play that same board.



Lifetime bans are appropriate for Case 1 cheaters. They will never ever ever be able to play honestly.


Punishment, then education and rehabilitation is possible for Case 2 cheaters. Some may be able to overcome their cultural values and learn to behave with integrity.


Mild punishment or even warning should be enough for Case 3 cheaters.


Sept. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
>>>No one wants an electronic environment, most of the people I spoke to said they would give up bridge before they decided on an electronic environment.

Of course you didn't speak to all the people (like me) who have completely quit going to tournaments and play only electronically now.

That certainly sounds exactly like what they said when bidding boxes were introduced, but I think most people decided to continue playing anyway. Then they said the same thing about the BridgeMates scoring device, but they continued to play anyway. It would be the same for tablets.

“Resistance to change” is a very well-known psychological phenomenon. People resist change but they accommodate it easily when it happens.


>>>…why the Deranged moron drove 400 miles back from SC at midnight…

>>>…Billy Miller wait 10 minutes to get a director because a card fell out of a board and he was scared to put it back.

>>>Chairing an appeal committee, where 2 players with less than 200 Master points each were accused of passing over a hesitation.


And these are reasons why we should NOT move to an electronic system that prevents all irregularities, covers all but the longest hesitations, and doesn't require you to know how many masterpoints your opponents actually have?
Sept. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nat, you are right on! Cheating is much more common than it used to be, and as a now-retired professor, I can sympathize with you on that.

Prevention is clearly the way to go, and electronic play seems the most obvious solution.

While someone might find a way to cheat at bridge despite not being in the same room with partner, with all keystrokes and mouse clicks recorded, with impartial witnesses in the room, and with electronic shields or jamming devices nearby, at least it would be orders of magnitude harder.
Sept. 4, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm looking forward to the day when ALL such matches are played electronically. Not only would it discourage cheating, but go a long way to preventing it. That way, no one would have any reason to feel singled out.
Sept. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I guess I didn't realize that BW required everyone to read things that make them puke sick.
Sept. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It doesn't really matter, John. The issues are pretty clear.

1. Prevention is better than punishment, even given that you could always catch and punish.

2. If we can do away with the whole issue of body language, reading it (for imo UI) or being deceptive with it or communicating UI to partner with it, bridge will be more fair.

Cheers for Alvin's plan to look into an electronic means for both!
Sept. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
HOORAY!! Thanks, Alvin!!

Is it too soon to start a discussion on what the implementation considerations are?

Not necessarily answers, but a list of concerns to be addressed in any implementation might be in order. I can't imagine a better place than here on BW to get such a list started.

Sept. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, perhaps you could find a few examples of the Rules of Bridge, like in Hoyle or other books that define the rules of games, where “reading the opponents” is listed as part of the game of Bridge.

It's included in the Laws of Duplicate only in negative, meaning that since you can't stop people from doing it, we need to protect them from being deceived, which as you point out (and I agree) should be allowed as well. Far better if no one could obtain such UI and then no need to worry about deception with it would be needed either.

Now, we do have a way to stop people from doing it, by electronic play, and I sincerely hope that such methods as electronic play can be implemented asap.
Sept. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure you do, John, if you're good at it, because it gives you an advantage that is (a) not part of the game, and (b) illegal to counter. Could you still do as well if you didn't have such information?

There are those of us who think it's on the edge of …. well, you know …. and should be eliminated right along with all the other ways to obtain UI.
Sept. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think you should also mention the other three players who stood up and renounced their contaminated victories! They also provided huge support in an important way!
Sept. 2, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course they do, and that's why it should be eliminated. They are allowed to use such information, but I am not allowed to be deceptive with it. The sooner it's gone, the better for bridge.
Sept. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting, because every time I've talked about using computers for tournaments with players of flight A (I don't have much contact with the world class bunch), the argument is always that they don't want to lose the ability to “read the table”, “read the opponents”, watch hesitations, etc.

I, for one, would like all of that to be gone permanently, so only the game of bridge itself matters.

Sept. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“This speaks loudly in favor of prevention.”

Right on!



“Might electronic play be a future? I think so.”

Absolutely! When it finally comes, I might actually come back to tournaments.




“Even if, admittedly, some very lovable game aspects will be lost.”

What loveable aspects? Being able to read body language better than someone else? So-called table presence? Being able to berate your partner after a bad play? Are any of those (loveable or otherwise) REALLY part of the game of bridge? I long for the day when I can play real bridge without worrying that how I squint my eyes tells the opponents UI.




“A piece I wrote a year ago: Bridge in the Future http://www.allevybridge.com/index.htm/indexfuture.html&rdquo;

Excellent article, Alvin, except that I think separating the players into different rooms should be part of this, at least at the higher levels of play.



Prevention is better than Punishment!
Sept. 1, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“….: that means, if your teammate cheats, you are banned for life as well….”

You're kidding, right? I'm going to pick up a partnership for a team match, they get caught blatantly cheating, and I'm banned for life? I don't think so ….
Aug. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John, issues such as the lawsuits, and the difficulty (and long time frames) of proving cheating are why I think Prevention is the right answer, not catching them.

Electronic playing devices that separate partners into different rooms, with suitable controls on things like no wireless access and automated recording of mouse/keystrokes on each device, should cut this problem down to almost nothing.

Far better that it's impossible to cheat, than to catch cheaters and hang them.
Aug. 31, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
About 100 years ago, when I was in my 20's, I used to play a parlor game with friends wherein I would leave the room and a co-conspirator would have everyone choose an object in the room. Then I would return and my co-conspirator would name different objects in the room and I would say Yes or No whether that was the chosen one.

I never missed, and no one ever figured out how we did it. The reason they never figured it out was that we had seven different ways of communicating the correct object when it was named.

We used “is it this lamp?”, “is it this chair?”, “is it that flowerpot?”, “is it this cup?” and so on, with the correct object being the one that followed after the one she said “…that..”. We used the object after a black one was named. We used the object she turned her head toward. We had so many signals that we rarely used each one more than once in a session.

We could let people blindfold one of us, we could let them give the order of objects to be named, all kinds of twists, and we still had a way to communicate. Sooooo many people tried to figure out our code, but no one ever did, because there was not just one code.


Ever since I read about bridge people cheating by placing pencils down, holding their cards with 2 or 3 or 4 fingers, coughing, or bumping the table, I've always thought that the only way to successfully cheat at bridge would be to have at least seven different signals and use each one infrequently and only when it was needed. No one would figure the code out.

Imagine trying to recognize players who signal the number of hearts they have by how they hold their cards, the opening lead they want by how they lay their pencil down, the number of clubs by fumbling the tray, and the strength of their hand by a cough, but only once in a while, when that particular piece of information was the critical one. With enough signals, they'd never be caught.


I'm convinced that you cannot catch all the cheaters, and even if you could, they could operate for years before you finally got enough evidence to stop them.

LC's committee? Well, that could work for a while, as long as you had enough above-reproach people willing to spend the inordinate amount of time required to assess a suspect pair, and willing to risk controversy and even lawsuits.


Nope. I'm convinced that the only solution is Prevention. And the only viable, reliable, verifiable means of prevention that I've seen is electronic. Tablets are cheap enough now to be purchased by NBOs for major events, and probably soon enough will be for all significant events. People managed to get used to bidding boxes – they'll get used to using tablets as well.

We don't need to identify and catch cheaters, we need to prevent them in the first place!
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ron,
I don't think the legal system is supposed to rely on facial nuances, nuances of expression, or any other such totally unscientific, poorly understood, and known to be unreliable indicators.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9282425/Body-language-not-evidence-sways-jurors

In fact, websites purporting to teach you how to control your body language, facial expressions, and otherwise fake your feelings and intentions abound. And it's very well known that sociopaths' non-verbals are completely and inherently undependable.
April 10, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top