Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jim Perkins
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 215 216 217 218
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
By mathematically derivable, I simply mean that for example, holding ajtxx opposite xxx there is an answer to the question double finesse here or single finesse in an alternate suit. Etc. I mean the math can tell us what is best play (usually), the math can tell us the frequency of deviation of a particular player from best play, the math can tell us how often deviation favors the deviant and how often it harms him, and the math can tell us whether that result and it’s variance from expectation is random noise or likely (or even more strongly) something else. And human experts can adjudicate innovation from less honorable causes and examine other close cases.

Nobody needs to pour over hands 40 hours a week. Josh Dunn volunteered to confirm or refute suspicions without pay. I sent him a few players to look at. Including me after a string of unlikely (which in my case means good) results. Never heard back so I assume all were found to be clean. Good, glad to know.

Nic has made the same offer as to refuting, at least. A bit more cautious on the convicting side although he certainly seems certain as to some of his data.

I have no skin in this game and if I overbid, I overbid. I don’t think I did. To me it remains clear. Looking at results, we can ferret out cheating. And machines can do the bulk of the scanning and screening, leaving human intervention to later stages of the inquiry.
an hour ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ask Nic. I asked him to publish but so far he hasn’t. I believe it’s there. Because I believe it’s impossible to cheat in bridge without leaving a discernible trail. Good bridge players are consistently but not uncannily good. Cheating bridge players leave a different kind of footprint. And nobody anywhere on any topic ever cheats just once. (Maybe that’s an overbid when it comes to marital infidelity, I wouldn’t know.)
I object to the omission of nearly.

And nothing anywhere said automated.
2 hours ago
Jim Perkins edited this comment 2 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Directors can assign a result, For any of a number of reasons.
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How exactly does one know in advance that a select hand is crucial?
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Why there is so much hubbub in this thread”?

To ban all kibitzers even if just in real time when there is almost certainly a clear trail of crumbs from the actual cheats . . . And presumably before any serious effort is made to publish the data raising suspicions on the actual or accused cheats . . . Seems . . . I dunno, but upside down maybe.

I asked Nic to stop teasing us and just show us the hands he thought worth looking at. So far, he is reluctant.
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can put a player on a blocked list.

Or with a bit more effort remove or have them removed from an approved list.

Ask Ellis or Chris . . . Don’t get me started.
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Presumably we don’t care about people that cheat and still lose. So why file here?

It’s bad bidding even if (especially if?) they know each others’ hands.
3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bharat: if your point is that strong you could accurately quote the proposition that you are challenging.

Second I have no problem with blocking kibs, or delaying them or whatever.

I just think that if the true will were there, we wouldn’t even be discussing this.

My question is, who doesn’t want a nearly clean game (or even 100% clean with some risk of false positives) and why?
4 hours ago
Jim Perkins edited this comment 3 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bharat: I am saying, as I said upthread that automation can tell us who to look at. From there, hopefully a not overwhelming number of cases can be adjudicated by humans with typical methods.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Somehow the analogy overlooks the nature of cheating. How many of the people that can't walk past the cookie jar can manage to walk past it every time except once?

Look, there is an app, suit play that provides a cold, objective answer to the question, what is the optimal way to play this combination?

Now . . . sure there are ways to play a suit and ways to play a hand.

But step one, someone deviates from the suit play line more than some level of tolerance, even 70% but no reason it can't be just 10%.

Step two, (still automated) deviations result in some deviation from said someone's average score of more than some level of tolerance, maybe 1 IMP, maybe 2%, whatever. One presumes we simply assign deviations that result in subnormal results to be the result of bad play. So we are only looking at deviations that produce happy results.

Step three, we call in bridge . . . not even experts, just reasonable players to examine a limited set of hands where deviations from standard lines led to unexpectedly good results.

Step four, the perpetrator is confronted or the evidence is published, I don't care which.

Solves the “one hand” problem. We pretty much already know that those that cheat are not able to cheat just once. I think. So we know who to look at and what to look for. It does not need to be 100% automated to work.
6 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is this a discussion of how truly worthless and meaningless $100 really is after all?
7 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And the other way also, by the way . . . Let us not think that analog prophylactics mean we need not analyze the data that exists.

And follow it wherever it leads.
21 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tell me how effective the suggested measures are.

Using some data driven argument. Instead of “dangling hand records.”
23 hours ago
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And taking away their hand records will stop them? Those with half a clue.
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well can't we at least get rid of the multitudes of unskilled offenders? Or do you deny that there are mountains of those?
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One hand, two hands proves nothing. 100% nothing. And those that think that one hand proves something really cannot be said to know very much at all about either statistics or bridge or both.

However, those that are prone to cheating cannot hide forever. And are discoverable even now. Even a small variation from perfect play exposes bad play or cheating or both.

I see you made this point on page 2. There are people (not me) that are expert in statistical degrees of confidence.
July 4
Jim Perkins edited this comment July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My point is that it is currently, based on currently available data to have 100% clean bridge with close to 100% certainty of zero false positives.

Self-kibitzing or not.

It is not hard at all to spot cheating at bridge. The answers are fairly mathematically derivable from available information. Players that go against the percentages are either . . . not good . . . or cheats or both. And it's not hard to separate them into piles.

Online has given us mountains of data that was not available before.
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the risk of getting political again, when money becomes that crucial something is radically wrong with the way our society is structured.
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I said to partner this morning when discussing this thread, “It would be like buying a book of crossword puzzles, all already filled in.”

And I will add this, I am not the sort that would be tempted to cheat by the prospect of $$$ either. In fact, one problem I have in business is that it is much (MUCH) less satisfying for me to provide services to people if there is $$ involved.
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yours is not the only event. There are lots and lots and lots and lots of hands.

Plus, it doesn't take that many to form a hypothesis that might be easily proven . . . or for that matter and more to the point, disproven.
July 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 215 216 217 218
.

Bottom Home Top