[kuhchung]

dwar0123, on 2012-September-14, 13:41, said:

So we should never cure anything?

This is becoming a tautology.

Or do you mean to suggest that banning cell phones is worse then cheating? Cause I am totally not following you on that one.

Sorry, see my edit.

[jeffford76]

barmar, on 2012-September-14, 11:30, said:

So we should get rid of screens?

Assuming this was addressed to me, no. Screens are used to mitigate unauthorized information. They seem to do it well.

This doesn't seem particularly relevant to a discussion about how to deal with intentional cheating. I think there are many people who inadvertently use UI who wouldn't dream of stacking a deck or looking at hand records or getting information from a confederate or any of the other things that require *actively* cheating.

[jeffford76]

billw55, on 2012-September-14, 12:53, said:

It sounds like you are saying if we can't do everything, we should not bother doing anything.

In general to evaluate the effectiveness of a security measure you have to decide how effective it is and how annoying it is. The more annoying it is, the more effective it had better be, and if it's not particularly effective, then it better not be annoying.

The argument against the cell phone ban has always been that it is not effective and that it is annoying, and therefore shouldn't exist.

In particular, by "not effective", I mean that for a player who is willing to actively cheat, there are many ways to communicate illicit information, and removing their cell phone doesn't particularly increase the difficulty of them doing so. It is also not effective because it does not have effective enforcement. Do you really think with the current rules that someone who wants to cheat with a cell phone won't bring their phone into the room anyway?

I won't get into the argument about whether it is or isn't annoying to not be allowed to carry a cell phone. Many people think that the ban is annoying, and you're not going to convince them that it's not, although certainly in the past people have tried.

It's not as catchy as your statement, but I would say that if we can't do enough to make a noticeable difference, and the things we do annoy people, then we shouldn't bother doing anything.

[CSGibson]

I think another way of saying what Jeff is suggesting that banning cell phones only makes sense if it prevents or reduces cheating and/or its effectiveness. If it only changes the method, so that cheaters still cheat just as effectively, but in a different fashion, then the only real effects of the cell phone ban are related to keeping cell phones from ringing in the playing area and to inconvenience bridge players in their social and business obligations that require a cell phone to be at peak efficacy.

For what its worth, I think that having no cell phones in the playing area does reduce the efficacy of cheating in that lookers/conferers/bathroom talkers are more likely to be caught cheating than those using electronic communication, increasing the risk/reward ratio. But that is an entirely uninformed opinion.

[jeffford76]

CSGibson, on 2012-September-14, 14:39, said:

For what its worth, I think that having no cell phones in the playing area does reduce the efficacy of cheating in that lookers/conferers/bathroom talkers are more likely to be caught cheating than those using electronic communication, increasing the risk/reward ratio.

I wish that this were the argument being made by the ACBL. I don't agree with it (as equally uninformed as you, no doubt), but it indicates comprehension of how security tradeoffs should be made.

[mikestar13]

As a computer programmer I can tell you this: even if it is, in point of fact, difficult (never impossible) to hack the score-sheet application, it's not so hard to hack Windows; something that the various governing bodies in Bridge would do well to keep in mind.

[billw55]

I am wondering, when did recording a chess game with pencil and paper become so difficult, that use of a computer and program are now necessary? How hard is it really to enter a game into the program from a written record, after the game (or event) is over? Sheesh.

[semeai]

billw55, on 2012-September-17, 06:32, said:

I am wondering, when did recording a chess game with pencil and paper become so difficult, that use of a computer and program are now necessary? How hard is it really to enter a game into the program from a written record, after the game (or event) is over? Sheesh.

For some at least, recording a game breaks concentration, and hence makes the player a bit weaker.

Compare three methods:

1) Having a friend record the game for you.

2) Recording by tapping/clicking out the moves on a screen.

3) Recording on paper by converting to algebraic notation.

Converting to algebraic notation in (3) requires more thought than just visually making the move on a screen in (2) and thus likely requires more of a break in concentration. For some I imagine the difference in strength is substantial.

[TimG]

I think it would be nice to be able to record my bridge results on my iPod (or similar device).

During a team game, it would be nice if my teammates could also record their results on a similar device so that we could easily share results (and score extra quickly). After the round is complete, of course.

That would seem to be a security risk.

One further thing, I don't understand why bridgemates are not used in team events. I imagine it would speed up reporting of results.

[gnasher]

TimG, on 2012-September-17, 10:05, said:

I think it would be nice to be able to record my bridge results on my iPod (or similar device).

During a team game, it would be nice if my teammates could also record their results on a similar device so that we could easily share results (and score extra quickly). After the round is complete, of course.

Isn't that called a Bridgemate?

[gwnn]

TimG, on 2012-September-17, 10:05, said:

One further thing, I don't understand why bridgemates are not used in team events. I imagine it would speed up reporting of results.

Because they are?

[TimG]

gwnn, on 2012-September-17, 11:09, said:

Because they are?

I haven't seen bridgemates used in a team event in ACBL, but I have not played at an NABC in a few years. Sorry to be ACBL-centric.

[TimG]

gnasher, on 2012-September-17, 10:35, said:

Isn't that called a Bridgemate?

I didn't know it was possible for me to collect results from a bridgemate. Is there an app for that?

[gnasher]

TimG, on 2012-September-17, 11:17, said:

I didn't know it was possible for me to collect results from a bridgemate. Is there an app for that?

No, I meant that you and your teammates could use Bridgemates to record your results, then the organisers of the event could provide you with the results from both tables and the IMP and VP scores. This could be in the form of a printout, or the information could be displayed on a Bridgemate. I believe that all of this is possible with existing technology.

[kuhchung]

TimG, on 2012-September-17, 11:15, said:

I haven't seen bridgemates used in a team event in ACBL, but I have not played at an NABC in a few years. Sorry to be ACBL-centric.

Our local club uses bridgemates (or bridgepads? whatever) to record team games, I think. You get assigned a bridgemate and you carry it with you for the entire event.

[Cyberyeti]

billw55, on 2012-September-14, 07:26, said:

Yep, lots of ways to cheat.

In fact, I was once accused of cheating in a chess tournament. As often happened, I was there with several friends, and we would chat away from the table during games. One opponent lodged a complaint. Director gave no penalty but asked that we stop in this particular case.

I also had something very similar to this at a tournament in the 1980s.

I was however involved in one genuine chess cheating scandal as a minor player. In 1985, a (male) former British junior correspondence chess champion, and student at the same Cambridge college as me decided he'd enter the British ladies correspondence championship in the name of a friend of his and duly won it, with me and several others as part of the analysis team. I've looked for a decent internet account of this and the two I've found are not that accurate, so I won't link them, but I think he was in the ladies international team before anybody worked out what was going on.

He got a 2 year ban and (for British viewers) a short comedy piece on Saint and Greavesie.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-September-17, 12:04, said:

No, I meant that you and your teammates could use Bridgemates to record your results, then the organisers of the event could provide you with the results from both tables and the IMP and VP scores. This could be in the form of a printout, or the information could be displayed on a Bridgemate. I believe that all of this is possible with existing technology.

In addition, travelers with hand records are generally available on the internet very shortly after the event.

[TimG]

Vampyr, on 2012-September-18, 18:58, said:

In addition, travelers with hand records are generally available on the internet very shortly after the event.

Not where I play.

[Quantumcat]

TimG, on 2012-September-18, 19:32, said:

Not where I play.

As well as the results being posted on the net, here in Aus in between rounds a caddy comes round and gives everyone a small printout with official scores and any useful information (datums, pair rankings against datums, VPs, teammate performance, overall team ranking, next opponent number) that you check against your personal scoresheet to make sure the official scores are correct and any issues can be raised right away rather than at the end of the event.

Is this the sort of thing you are talking about? Nowadays there isn't any need to score up with your teammates and confirm the result with the losing team and hand in a score - the score up you do with your teammates after a round is just for an approximate score and/or to promote team spirit and/or to assuage curiosity about whether they defended right on such and such a board or bid the slam on some other board.

[gordontd]

Quantumcat, on 2012-September-18, 20:59, said:

Nowadays there isn't any need to score up with your teammates and confirm the result with the losing team and hand in a score - the score up you do with your teammates after a round is just for an approximate score and/or to promote team spirit and/or to assuage curiosity about whether they defended right on such and such a board or bid the slam on some other board.

I used to play in a team whose other pair included one of the most irritating players I've ever encountered. When people asked why I was in his team, I pointed out that it meant I never had to play against him. Had we used Bridgemates then, I wouldn't even have had to score up with him.