[zasanya]

Suggested solution to end all cheating controversies
From Q finals onwards all major events will be played on computer screens.
The Players will sit in different rooms .
CC must be loaded.
Chat can be used to ask relevant information but the query will be seen only by the 2 players involved.
Each Player must play a card or make the bid within a stipulated time span say 15-20 seconds.

Er ....chances of cheating electronic devices?May be idea not so foolproof

[Free]

Imo your last suggestion is awful! 15-20 seconds is a long time, most of the actions don't require this much, and other situations require several minutes of thought. I'd rather say 5-10 seconds, and an obligated long pauze when dummy is exposed.

Nevertheless, it's a suggestion Richard has already made, and it's just not catchy.

It might be more interesting to just video tape and record them while playing, so you can analyse every gesture and find some kind of pattern (if there is one) or proof that there's no pattern of hand gestures, caughs, tapping with the shoe, putting cards horizontal or vertical, holding your card or put it on the table, fast vs slow movement of the tray, making lots of noise with the bidding box, sitting forward or layed back,...

This way people can be investigated by independant sources, and it can be proven with a high probability that there's (no) cheating involved.

[PassedOut]

The individual times taken for calls and plays could be concealed from the other players by having the electronic system display the calls and plays one second apart (for example) when all of the information is available to present to the next player. This would not be a complete solution, of course, but the times taken by every player for each call or play could be recorded electronically for later analysis, if needed.

[cherdanno]

I think it would already be helpful to use electronic playing cards, so that every play in a major tournament gets officially recorded, along with the timing.

[hrothgar]

cherdanno, on Oct 19 2009, 01:54 AM, said:

I think it would already be helpful to use electronic playing cards, so that every play in a major tournament gets officially recorded, along with the timing.

I consider this a very good intermediate step.

Comprehensive record keeping would provide some very powerful tools for data mining.

[andy_h]

Playing on computer screens in different rooms? Gimme a break, that won't seem like bridge anymore.

[ArtK78]

andy_h, on Oct 19 2009, 07:53 AM, said:

Playing on computer screens in different rooms? Gimme a break, that won't seem like bridge anymore.

I don't see how you can say that. This is precisely what online competition consists of now, except that participants are not monitored for infractions relating to outside communication (whether it be with partner, teammates or any other person who can provide improper assistance).

Once one is familiar with the interface, online bridge competition is no different than live bridge competition. In fact, I find that there is a period of adjustment required on those rare occasions that I participate in live bridge competition, since I play far more online now than face-to-face.

[awm]

One issue is that reading opponents' tempo and mannerisms is an important (and legal) part of face to face bridge. Some expert players excel in this, and their advantage would be taken away by a computer-mediated environment. Can you imagine anyone arguing that online poker is the same as face-to-face poker? It really isn't.

Perhaps this change is worthwhile to get rid of most forms of cheating. Certainly screens have some of the same effect (i.e. you can only really read screenmate, not the other opponent). But it really is a change, and effects some legitimate strategies too.

[jdonn]

andy_h, on Oct 19 2009, 07:53 AM, said:

Playing on computer screens in different rooms? Gimme a break, that won't seem like bridge anymore.

Just like talking on the phone doesn't seem like what it used to seem like, nor does checking the weather, nor does driving a car...

I have really come around on this over the past few years. Tradition should not hold back clear improvements in something. There is no reason inherent to the game that bridge must be played with cards instead of on a computer screen, it's simply what people are very used to so they resist changing it.

Adam is right it would eliminate reading the opponents. However I think that is only a part of the game because there is no way for it not to be, not because it 'should' be.

[gnasher]

I hate the idea. Interpreting opponents' manner and tempo is an essential part of the game which I'd be very reluctant to lose (even though I'm not very good at it).

Cherdano's suggestion of automatically recording which cards were played and when is a much better one. Combine that with a permanent video record of each player, and it would be very hard either to cheat undetectably or to make unfounded accusations.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Oct 19 2009, 06:13 PM, said:

Just like talking on the phone doesn't seem like what it used to seem like, nor does checking the weather, nor does driving a car...

I have really come around on this over the past few years. Tradition should not hold back clear improvements in something. There is no reason inherent to the game that bridge must be played with cards instead of on a computer screen, it's simply what people are very used to so they resist changing it.

Adam is right it would eliminate reading the opponents. However I think that is only a part of the game because there is no way for it not to be, not because it 'should' be.

The point is that bridge without that aspect of the game would be a *different* game. Personally I think it would be a worse game. You might think it would make a better game, but you can't reasonably argue that it's the same game.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Oct 19 2009, 12:22 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 19 2009, 06:13 PM, said:

Just like talking on the phone doesn't seem like what it used to seem like, nor does checking the weather, nor does driving a car...

I have really come around on this over the past few years. Tradition should not hold back clear improvements in something. There is no reason inherent to the game that bridge must be played with cards instead of on a computer screen, it's simply what people are very used to so they resist changing it.

Adam is right it would eliminate reading the opponents. However I think that is only a part of the game because there is no way for it not to be, not because it 'should' be.

The point is that bridge without that aspect of the game would be a *different* game. Personally I think it would be a worse game. You might think it would make a better game, but you can't reasonably argue that it's the same game.

To me it's not a case of worse or better. As for it being a different game, I sort of agree but also sort of disagree.

I don't think reading your opponents is (at it's core) an aspect of "bridge", other than that it has been written into the laws by people. It is an aspect of "cards" because there is no reasonable way to avoid it. As such it is accepted as a part of bridge because the link between "bridge" and "cards" has always been necessary (even taken for granted). But that no longer needs to be the case.

I mean by similar logic as being given, playing behind screens is not "bridge" because you can get much less of a read on one opponent. But I've never heard anyone complain about that.

[JoAnneM]

Are you really ready to give up the human side of the game, the social side? Seems like whenever I read an article where one well known player is talking about another champion player they are reminiscing about that player's table presence, things that happened at the table, how much they enjoyed playing against them, or with them, at the table.

Sure, playing on a computer is okay, but actually playing at the table, to me, is just exciting.

There must be a better solution to catch cheaters.

[hrothgar]

JoAnneM, on Oct 19 2009, 09:00 PM, said:

Are you really ready to give up the human side of the game, the social side? Seems like whenever I read an article where one well known player is talking about another champion player they are reminiscing about that player's table presence, things that happened at the table, how much they enjoyed playing against them, or with them, at the table.

Sure, playing on a computer is okay, but actually playing at the table, to me, is just exciting.

There must be a better solution to catch cheaters.

Nearly all the discussions that I see about the "Human Side of the Game" focus on

Zero tolerance penalties
Hygiene
Arguments about dress code
Coffee spills, lack of convention cards, etc
Endless ocnverations about "Why aren't there more young people playing"

Yes, I am well aware that people like to complain about what displeases them and are not appreciative enough for what they like. However, if I'm competiting at a bridge tournament, I do my socializing before/after the event. Any socializing at the actual table is just there to kill time.

One important thing to note: The benefits from this type of system are most prevalent at the top levels of the game.

1. I suspect that there is a positive correlation between the significance of an event and monetary remuneration. In turn, this increases the incentive to cheat.

2. I know that more people are interested in watching the Bermuda Bowl than the Monday Night Duplicate at "The Bridge Spot".

I suspect that any such system would appear in high level play and then, potentially, filter down to club levels.

[Hanoi5]

Quote

Sure, playing on a computer is okay, but actually playing at the table, to me, is just exciting.

The fact that computers are used for certain tournaments wouldn't mean that F2F bridge will be over. The only tourments which should be played this way should be trials, world competitions, the most important stuff. I don't think you can tell mr and mrs Wallace to go to different rooms and sit at computers which they might not know how to handle. But a world master (or an aspiring player) could do it just because it's the rule.

You could even add some sort of set up where you see your opponents but not your partner.

[fred]

On Sunday the Polish Bridge Union ran a 239-table tournament on BBO in which all the players were phyiscally located in various bridge clubs throughout Poland. As far I as I can tell, this tournament was a big success and it seems likely that it will represent the first of many such e-tournaments in Poland (and possibly outside of Poland).

I personally think that Richard's ideas have a lot of merit and it would very likely be good for me and for BBO if the wind started to blow in this direction. However, I think this is most unlikely to happen any time soon because:

1) I feel certain that a substantial majority of existing players feel the same way about this as the people who have expressed negative views in this thread (a position that I think is entirely reasonable by the way).

2) Things tend to change slowly and dramatic/controversial changes are very rare in the world of tournament bridge.

I think that the best chance of seeing major tournaments being willing to try this in the foreseeable future would be for some technology company to offer to provide serious sponsorship for such tournaments under the condition that these events were conducted electronically. Money talks.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

fred, on Oct 19 2009, 02:00 PM, said:

2) Things tend to change slowly and dramatic/controversial changes are very rare in the world of tournament bridge.

That is very true, both in bridge and in general. I'm not holding my breath.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Oct 19 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

I mean by similar logic as being given, playing behind screens is not "bridge" because you can get much less of a read on one opponent. But I've never heard anyone complain about that.

That's a good point, but I think that screens are a reasonable compromise, because they reduce UI more than they reduce the AI from the opponents. Putting everyone in different rooms with computer-generated delays would just reduce all the I to zero.

Socially, too, screens are OK: you can socialise with your screenmate, sympathise when his partner does something stupid, and look surprised at your partner's offbeat actions without his seeing. That usually makes up for not being able to see the other two players. Again, the separate-rooms solution removes all of that.

[jdonn]

Look as surprised as you want at partner's actions in the privacy of your own room. In fact this might be an improvement, you can berate partner during play to your heart's content.

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Oct 19 2009, 03:45 PM, said:

Look as surprised as you want at partner's actions in the privacy of your own room. In fact this might be an improvement, you can berate partner during play to your heart's content.

yeah works great altho the police sirens are loud when I scream out "y.. f...... id..." but it does make for great relief of anguish