Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Nicolas Hammond
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have software that detects cheating.

For the 2011 Transnationals, based on Vugraph data, F/S were almost perfect in defense. No-one is that good. There is not enough boards to statistically prove that they were cheating; just that their defense rating for this tournament is better than the long term record of any major partnership in history. BUT…. not enough boards to statistically prove they were cheating (using the thresholds I use). Enough to stick a camera on them, but I don't think this was done in 2011. Everyone has good/bad tournaments. F/S were exceptional when on Vugraph for this tournament. Their data triggered the cheating detection software for this tournament.

For the 2011 data based on the WBF web site, F/S were very good. They were not good as declarers, but were exceptional on defense. If I take the top 180 pairs (chosen so that I have at least 100 boards on defense), then F/S are ranked just over 100 (in terms of amount of data). If I sort by a cheating metric I use, then F/S ranked #17 on defense, #126 as declarers. The discrepancy is enough to trigger the cheating detection software. However…. there are three pairs that played a similar or more number of boards that declared worse than F/S and defended better than F/S. None AFAIK have been convicted of cheating; all six of these players are still playing.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I know this was probably available in bridgescore+ and the ACBL decided to scrap it ;-). <jk>”

The ability to import ACBLscore game files was in ACBLscore+. ACBL have that code, so does my company. We can each use it as we see fit. ACBL did not want to make it public domain.

After the ACBLscore+ contract was over, I renamed the product Bridgescore+, and added the ability to import WBF, EBL, ACBL, BBO data from their web sites. This is not part of ACBLscore+, ACBL has not rights to this (new) code.

I gave a proposal to WBF about 18 months ago to license all this work, including all the anti-cheating work, but they have yet to decide on it. This would give you the database you want (assuming it was decided to open it up). The problem if you open it up is then it is (relatively?) easy to work out who has been cheating.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@David: See coaching advice at https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/re-nic-hammonds-detecting-cheating-at-bridge/?cj=842365#c842365

“Unlike most partnerships you actually do better against stronger players. This means you are probably concentrating less when playing against weaker players. This is a part of the game that you should work on. ”

This is the value of statistics in Bridge.
Sept. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Good” is usually subjective. I have objective data.

I take the data from the top tournaments on Vugraph. I take the data from the top 200 pairs based on the amount of data.

I have software that detects cheating.

One of the things I look for is the difference between declarer play and defensive play.

I compare these 200 pairs on defense/declarer ability difference.

The German Doktors rank #5 on this list. Piekarek/Smirnov rank #4, BZ rank #6. Buratti/Lanzarotti are #12.

Of the top ten pairs, they are in the bottom two in terms of defensive ability. So even with their cheating, they are still bad defensively (comparatively). But there is a huge difference between their declarer play and their defensive play. This is usually a strong signal that a pair is cheating.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The filming of the finals of the D'Orsi bowl was public. The videos are on line. The cameras were mounted on stands in the room. Pretty obvious that they were being filmed. You will see some players looking at the camera.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael Clark did some good videos. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xVj1EQ_vSI
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The German players have little choice. A German court has ruled on the matter. See https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/manipulations-vorwuerfe-gericht-beendet-husten-affaere-1.3750997

See https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/elinescu-and-wladow-win-their-case-against-the-wbf/ for Adam Wildavsky's post.

The WBF had several procedural issues with their hearing in Dallas on the German doctors. (See page 64 of my book for one of the procedural issues). Given the procedural issues, the ruling was likely to be overturned by the courts.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He's still on the couch. Law 46 b 5 would apply.
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Warren and Bill with Sharon personally ran the initial stages of the program.

I do not know how much money they gave to different programs.

They then gave the remainder to the SBL. SBL created some nice material but relied on local schools to do the teaching. I do not know if SBL were charged with seeding programs with money or not.

SBL would not have spent $600K.

I think W&B were going after the schools, not clubs. Someone should ask them.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The “And I Wanted To … ” series probably deserves its own category on BW.

I suspect it would quickly fill up all available disk space.
Aug. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Warren and Bill did put up money. They personally helped administer it in its early days. See https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/buffets-gates-world-view/ for some of the stories. I know first hand of programs that received money (not ACBL-affiliated) and also programs that requested funding and received nothing. As the Gates/Buffett program progressed, the money was transferred to the now defunct School Bridge League.

I don't know when Jeff requested money, but follow the link I provided for one positive story.

To see a successful outcome: http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=86708
Aug. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hope people appreciate the difference between a good tournament and a great tournament. It is stuff like this. Hopefully Kevin got paid for making this number of board sets; it's typically a tournament expense, almost certainly it is not part of his ACBL salary.

Kudos to the tournament organizer/chair for understanding that these things improve the player experience.
Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Kevin: Bridgescore+ automatically creates this movement for 9 team RR brackets.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For those that know of Little Britain, some of the “computer says no” skits are at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_Ty_72Qds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lu1xyYx3Eo
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Pure extrapolation. I am searching for a good reason why they were so bad statistically compared to their previous statistics at other tournaments.
Aug. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@OP: “It will be very interesting to see what comes from this.”

There were _at least_ two top pairs that are identified in the book as cheating pairs (but not mentioned by name apart from in the MD5 hashes) that played in the recent Spingold. I provided details to ACBL on the pair(s) and which parts of the game they are cheating in. This would make video inspection easier. These pairs were “targeted”. I'm struggling for the right word to use; “targeted” is not quite the right word, but there was some additional things that were done for these pair(s). ACBL may have had their own list and own additional pairs to target; I don't know about any additional pairs. Obviously the idea would be that the pair(s) would be unaware of any additional activity, but it seems that at least one of the pairs was aware. People talk. I don't think any of the other players in the room (and I was one for the round of 64) were aware of anything different; and that's the way it should be. To catch some of the cheaters, will take some additional actions. No, I was not part of any covert activity.

Bridgescore+ has processed the Spingold 2019 data.

One of the pairs that was “targeted”, had a statistical aberration. They played nowhere near their normal historical level. Was it because they were aware of possible additional activity? Or just a bad tournament? I can look at their results from all previous tournaments and compare. Statistically they ranked n-1 out of the top n pairs (not giving out ‘n’ as don't want to give out too much information), but n is at least > 10. This is not their normal performance or reputation.

If the knowledge that you can be detected stops players cheating, this is a worthwhile benefit to the honest players.

There's some more statistics on the Spingold that I will post later.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard R: “Nicolas, while you’re at it…Do I have a shot with Elizabeth Hurley? ;-)”

The computer says no
Aug. 14
Nicolas Hammond edited this comment Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard F. Certainly possible. Also third hand play at trick one is rarely analyzed properly. ACBL don't record the opening lead so all I can go on is data that this pair does better when Anne is on lead. The reasons why they do better are unknown. But my money is on Anne being the better opening leader.
.
Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You cannot, legally in the US, test or prevent (some forms of) illicit technology being used for communication.

Here's an excerpt from my book (p139-p140):


In July 2016 at the Washington NABC, I organized a private meeting on security in Bridge. ACBL kindly provided a room. I invited some non-Bridge players I knew from my previous work in computer security. The people I invited used to work for some of the US Government (USG) Three Letter Agencies (TLAs) and were familiar with all aspects of security from hardware, software, encryption and data transmission, but were not Bridge players. Representatives from USBF, EBL, WBF were invited and attended.

I walked the group of security experts around the playing site, and showed them the rooms where the Spingold was being played, where hands were being duplicated and various tournament director (TD) functions. I explained what you need to do to cheat in Bridge - pass information to a player. In computer security, we measure things in time. They estimated that most of the current procedures in place to protect cheating in Bridge were in the five to ten minute category. In other words, a knowledgeable agent, with the right tools, could defeat the current security measures in place, undetected, in five to ten minutes. That was my estimate as well. Some of the ways they suggested around the current system were quite ingenious, a couple were impractical, but most would work undetected. The meeting focused on the counter-measures and remediation that could be put in place to prevent or detect the attacks we discussed. To the best of my knowledge, none have been implemented by ACBL. Most tasks are still in the five to ten minutes category.

The meeting was held early in the morning. To show the capabilities of the people in the room, by lunch time one of my invited participants had created an app that could secretly and haptically transfer information. I played in the afternoon game with a pickup partner and though there was a little temptation to see this work in the real world, by having someone outside the room signal information to me in the room, we did not. Had we done so, it would not have been detected.

As a result of this meeting, the World Bridge Federation (WBF) quietly changed some of the upcoming rules on electronic devices for the 2016 World Championship in Wroclaw and those changes remain in place.
Aug. 14
.

Bottom Home Top