Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with the desire to have a clearly articulated policy in place for cases where a tournament has been “fouled” do to a cheating conviction. I also understand the appeal of simply adjusting all of the results up by one or some such. However, from my perspective, it is completely inappropriate to do so.

Bridge tournaments are highly random affairs. I agree that on average the most skillful teams will win, but there’s a lot of luck involved as well. Minor perturbations in the pairings and the schedule can ripple through the system.

I don’t think that you can play hypothetical “what if” games and credibly predict what the results would have been absent cheating. I thing that there are much more powerful arguments in favor of voiding the entire event rather than elevating other players.

I agree that this all sucks. I wish that it weren’t so. But having pairs cheat really spoils the entire proceedings.

This is part of the reason that I am so disappointed that players value pushing pasteboard rather than putting real security measures into place.
April 13, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FWIW, I think that the WBF handled this in precisely the right way.

I can only image how unpleasant it must have been for the American team to sit down and play a match knowing precisely how you were being cheated on board after board. (I’m not sure if I would have had the patience for this). With this said and done, what makes this cheating prosecution so impressive is the level of rigor that was applied.

The WBF has a specific, testable hypothesis in place BEFORE any data was captured. From a stats perspective, this is much more compelling than “after-the-fact” data mining.
April 7, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I've said before, my primary concern isn't the use of cards per see, but rather close physical proximity between members of the same team.

Based on discussions on this forum, people have been suspicious of Elinescu and Wladow for years. However, they weren't convicted of cheating until

1. People kept track of the coughing
2. The WBF was able to collect confirmatory video

Lets assume that W+E were a little smarter and used a low power electronic transmitter in their shoes. Same code, but they push down on their right heel to send a bit of information. Their left shoe delivers a slight shock to transmit the signal.

Had they been using such a system, I'm guessing that no one would have been able to bring charges.
April 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The $64,000 question involved deliberate collusion between the people running the show and the contestant. This is very different from trying to prevent a pair of contestants from cheating. The fact that you can't specify an adequate control for the first case doesn't mean that you can't improve security in the second.

FWIW, I currently work for the Information Security group at Akamai. I spend my days dealing with these types of issues. The following blog post provides a decent overview of the methodology that our group employs when approaching these sorts of problems.

https://blogs.akamai.com/2013/11/so-you-want-to-secure-something.html
April 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's a couple points that I think you are missing

1. Part of the reason to move to an electronic playing format is to improve record keeping. The best way to detect if something untoward is going on is via statistical inference, however, this works best if you have a lot of data to work with.

2. The reason that I advocate separating players on the same team by a significant amount of space is to increase the power requirements to send and receive data and make this easier to detect


April 4, 2014
Richard Willey edited this comment April 4, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can trivially build a pair of low power electronic transmitters/receivers that will fit into my shoes.

Protecting against such a system requires physical separation. You need to increase the distance between players significantly enough that you can listen for chatter.

Even with this, you're going to want a complete record of the bidding and card play so you can perform statistical analysis of the hands and look for folks who seem a bit too lucky.

April 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Couple additional points worth noting:

1. I am making recommendations for the top level of the game. WBF championships. The Vanderbilt. The Cavendish. Events where prestige and money create a strong incentive to cheat. No oneis suggesting that your local club or home game should be required to use computers.

2. A few years back, I compared the number of tables in play on an average day on BBO with ACBL Nationals. BBO had significantly more, and its only grown since then while the Nationals are shrinking. Folks are welcome to make claims about the “death of the game”. However, the area that is dying is the traditional F2F game.



April 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Elinescu-Wladow were stupid. You haven't found the smart cheats…

Please consider the fllowing:

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/elinescu-wladow-were-stupid-you-havent-found-the-smart-cheats/
April 3, 2014
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.
The most useful information is board results in comparable events. Lots and lots of board results.
April 3, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Question for the peanut gallery: Just how much interest is there in solving this problem?

I have access to some very sophisticated machine learning software at my current place of work. (http://www.redlambda.com/products/metagrid-platform/neural-foam/) better yet, I know their CTO. He's a fantasy football buff (He has the number one rated fantasy football team in the world according to CBSSports.com)

I'm quite sure that between us we can come up with a very accurate set of seeding estimates. Here's the rub:

Lets assume that I am able to come up with a seeding model, along with some kind of objective accuracy model. Is their any chance that this would be of practical use? If this would actually be used, I'd be happy to invest some effort… If its going to be ignored because Horn Lake likes the status quo, I'll pass…


April 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am often quite critical of the way that cheating charges have been levied and cheating investigations conducted. Its nice to see a case where the side making the claim seems to have done things correctly.

From my perspective, what I found most impressive is the fact that the USA team was able to present a testable hypothesis and that the WBF was then able to validate this during a future session.
April 2, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Interesting reading to say the least.

Professionally speaking, I like the way in which the WBF built their case.

They started by specifying a testable hypothesis: W+E are cheating using the following code.

They followed this by collecting data to verify this specific hypothesis.

The combination of specifying the code in advance and then collecting data consistent with this is very powerful.

In an ideal world, there are a couple additional points that I would have liked to have seen addressed:

• Were there any occurrences during which W+E were monitored that were not consistent with the “code”. I’m most certainly not alleging that there was selective presentation of data. However, addressing this in advance is good form
• A summary of the hands in question

o W+E were monitored over “foo” hands
o X hands were consistent with the code
o Foo – X hands were inconsistent with the code





March 28, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If misinformation has been provided, the offending side is obligated to point this out at the first opportunity.

In this case, LHO should have noted that the alert was mistaken after the bidding had finished and before the opening lead was made.

It’s worth mentioning that the precise same procedure should apply regardless of whether the misinformation involved a conventional sequence or a natural sequence.
March 26, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BBO used to have the notion of a private club as a supported feature. This never got used much and I believe it was discontinued. You might be able to convince Uday to bring it back.
March 22, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would strongly prefer if all extraneous discussion of religion, politics, etc. were banned on these boards. Things can get heated enough without allowing politic disagreements to spill over into a bridge forum.

FWIW, I don't have any problem with

1. Discussions about bridge federations like the WBF, the EBU, or the ACBL

2. Discussions about bridge incidents like Shanghai which resulted in incidental discussions about US politics and the Chinese government

3. “Political” ads like Keystone XL (my presumption is that the choice of ads isn't a conscious choice of the folks who run the site)

However, general discussion regarding politics and the like have the potential to go pear shaped very quickly.
March 15, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partner doubled, I have a void, and RHO couldn't find an immediate club raise. I know that its dangerous to trust the opponents, but sounds like partner has a NT oriented hand that is too strong to double. I wish I had a club to lead, but even so I'm doubling…
March 12, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my experience, pairs eliminate strong options from their multi 2 opening so they can pass 2 with suitable hands. In turn, this significantly increases the difficulty of devising a defense.
March 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 = 4+ Diamonds and 4+ in either major
2 = 4+ Hearts and (4+ Spades or 5+ Clubs)
2 = 6+ Spades or (4+ Spades and 5+ Clubs)

http://www.chrisryall.net/bridge/weak.two/frelling.htm
March 10, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Personally, I'd like to see explicit linkage between the inherent variance of event formats and masterpoint awards.

Decreasing the number of boards shortens the amount of time required to hold an event, however, it also significantly increases the variance in the results. Its much easier for a weak team to upset a stronger one in an 8 board match than a 16 board match.

We have enough board results to be able to estimate the inherent variance in board results. Its easy enough to run a Monte Carlo simulation to determine the accuracy of given formats. Given that masterpoints supposedly measure performance, it seems right and proper to tie the size of the award to our certainty that the best team won.

Feb. 28, 2014
.

Bottom Home Top