BBO Discussion Forums: ChCh's chance - BBO Discussion Forums

lamford, on 2020-August-22, 14:00, said:

pescetom, on 2020-August-22, 15:11, said:

On-line bridge should not be considered for any serious events until a safe way to avoid cheating has been found.

It doesn't take more than for the two partners to have a separate communication channel between them.

pescetom, on 2020-August-22, 15:11, said:

Christ, I hope not.

pran, on 2020-August-23, 01:36, said:

Of course. But for a serious event it is possible to defeat many such channels, by placing players in a secure location, detecting and blocking wireless transmission, using audio-video surveillance, time-delayed broadcasting and so on. And even for non-serious events the overall incidence of all kinds of cheating and information misuse is probably lower than face to face. Also do not ignore the potential to detect collusive cheating, through both computer analysis (as discussed and demonstrated on bridgewinners last year) and peer scrutiny of electronic play and video.

pescetom, on 2020-August-23, 06:23, said:

We are straying a little from this thread which is primarily about breaks in tempo. However, it is worth straying as I don't think it is possible to both detect and prove online cheating, or for that matter live cheating with a determined collusive cheat prepared to settle for a small and undetectable advantage. For example, say that I have settled for communicating "a single piece of information with a collusive partner" in any form of bridge. I set out to do this, say, and decide that my primary aim will be that it is undetectable. How would I start? I think that it would be quite enough for an advantage of about 10% per board, or roughly 3 IMPs per board if I could give one binary piece of information to partner. I would start with telling partner whether I was one of 5-3-3-2, 4-4-3-2 or 4-3-3-3. The combined chance of this is 47.6%, close to 50%, perfect for a binary communication. How would I perform the communication? Well, on odd numbered boards I would take less than 5 seconds for the bid if I had the balanced hand, on even numbered boards I would take more than 5 seconds. We would both practice counting five seconds so that partner can tell which it is. I would change the cypher as well, so that on some days I would take slightly more than 5 seconds on boards 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 etc and slightly less on 2, 3, 6, 7 etc. I can throw in quite a few "red herrings" as well when it is not going to matter so that if a Turing cracked the code there would be a large number of exceptions. For example when I opened 1NT when partner would know that I had one of the three balanced hands, so I can vary randomly. And I can change the "single piece of information" on any day. And the cheats would just be "bidding and defending accurately" and would have no knowledge at all of the opposing hands. None of their actions would seem at all unusual, and they would certainly not need to bother with any relay system!

pran, on 2020-August-23, 01:36, said:

pescetom, on 2020-August-23, 06:23, said:

Optimist

Try instead to face the real world.

pran, on 2020-August-23, 07:40, said:

I’m afraid that in the real world we will see the change to online bridge for major events pretty soon. With some precautions, as pescetom wrote, the advantages are obvious. Cheating like there has been the last decades would be impossible. Another advantage is that you can have a bigger audience, which might bring in some money. And the costs would be much less than now. Players and officials traveling around the world isn’t particularly cheap and neither are the venues and the accommodations.
From what I read about the Alt Invitational tournament’s that are being played now, the top players rather enjoy it. Of course self-kibitzing, like Nowosadzki did, should be made impossible.

sanst, on 2020-August-23, 12:06, said:

Is there any way in the real world you can prevent a person from having more than one pc available and active at the same time?
(I can easily have more than three, each with a different IP address and different user identity.

The only practical way I can imagine to really prevent from such cheating is to only allow logons by players participating in the event and only one single logon by each such player.
In addition there must be some way of preventing any participant from using any communication device (like telephone or radio) for whatever purpose during the event.

sanst, on 2020-August-23, 12:06, said:

If the social element is eliminated, I think bridge will die out. If there is no travelling to tournaments to see old friends and make new ones, bridge will become just another video game/time-waster, and people will play only when they are bored and don’t have something fun to do with real people. Perhaps for world championships, which involve an ever-increasing number of ages and genders, and the NBOs pay all the costs, playing online could work. But it seems to me that there will be a choice between no audience and cheating. Unless the players could be in a supervised room; the events could then be combined with a normal tournament. Time differences would be a bitch though.

pran, on 2020-August-23, 12:42, said:

Is there any way in the real world you can prevent lamford from actuating his devilish scheme in face to face play?
Electronic play OTOH could easily hide such tempo variations.

If you are reading rather than ranting you will have noticed that for serious competitive play one can easily control what devices the player has access to (essentially just the tablet locked into play).

Vampyr, on 2020-August-23, 13:09, said:

The players will certainly be in supervised rooms, the question is whether they travel or not. What might be sad is if they only socialise directly with companions (and officials) rather than opponents.

It will be certainly be more compelling for spectators: time lapse transmission will help the commentators hit the target and make the video less tedious/embarassing (even a world champion loses appeal during a tank).

sanst, on 2020-August-23, 12:06, said:

Optimist. "The difficult we do immediately. The impossible takes a little longer."

pescetom, on 2020-August-23, 13:25, said:

Only if he is continuously supervised.
(Right now I have a second computer available next to me and there is no way anybody can tell if I am also using that one simultaneously with this one.)

lamford, on 2020-August-20, 16:14, said:

I think it is absurd to use the average length of time after a skip bid for players as a whole as an indication of the average length of time for a particular player, especially when you are going to rule against a player who is ostensibly following the regulations. I regularly pause in skip bid situations. Online in an ideal world directors would have access to the timing in similar situations for this particular player.

jeffford76, on 2020-August-24, 16:37, said:

I was not advocating using the average length of time for players as a whole. The BBO record for each table, available to the TD which I have been a few times, contains the times taken for ALL calls, and one can look at the auction 1NT-Pass-3NT-?, and establish how long each player took individually. So that if CC's average after this specific sequence was 1.8 seconds and he took 5 seconds on this occasion, then that would be a potential breach of 73D1 and convey UI. One would need to avoid mixing apples and oranges, and the time taken after 1H-(Dble)-4H might well be different, but here varying your tempo by taking ten seconds instead of the normal five seconds also gives UI.

lamford, on 2020-August-25, 05:48, said:

For what it is worth:
I would never consider a delay of 5 seconds after a skip bid BIT and I am really surprised if any competent TD would ever do.
Whether the player in question usually thinks for 0,5 or 5 seconds before calling is in my honest opinion completely irrelevant.

Is "tempo" a constant? Does it vary from player to player? From auction to auction for the same player? Is there some absolute number or range which defines "normal" tempo?

What constitutes a break in tempo in a particular auction depends, it seems to me, on the auction and on the player's usual tempo in similar auctions. Regulations regarding minimum tempo, for example ten seconds after a skip bid, simply confuse the issue.

If a player's tempo after a skip bid is five seconds, he may:

1. be trying (and failing) to comply with a requirement to wait approximately ten seconds.
2. be bidding at his normal tempo for this situation (and probably ignoring a skip bid regulation).
3. be bidding significantly faster than his normal tempo for this situation.
4. be bidding significantly slower than his normal tempo for this situation.

It is incumbent on the director to determine which of these four possibilities is actually the case before deciding whether he will rule that a break in tempo has occurred. Failure to do so is an error. Yes, it can be hard. Hell, it can be impossible. Doesn't change the director's responsibility.

blackshoe, on 2020-August-25, 10:21, said:

Had a case on Thursday with the EBU - alleged hesitation with no reason to do so. Went to table history. 2 seconds for the player to play low on the previous trick, 18 seconds for the player to play low on the disputed trick. The player came back to me saying he had gone to the toilet. I regarded that as not being particularly careful since he could have left a message before the call of nature - or even on his return.

One thing I learned playing certain MMOs: if I'm going to be afk for some reason, I'll type "afk - bio" or the like in chat before I leave the computer.