Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A cheating scandal in the world of professional bridge

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: A cheating scandal in the world of professional bridge

#61

Post by jib »

hexwab wrote: post #32

So here's an idea for a game. Let's call it "inductive bridge". 1) Rules of play are as for standard contract bridge. 2) You may use whatever conventions you like. There is no obligation to tell anybody what they are. 3) Have fun figuring out the opposing partnership's conventions! Yes, it'd be a whole different ball game. But would it be worse ? Discuss. (Full disclosure: I played bridge competitively at university.…

I think it would be a worse game. :)

I used to play an ok amount of bridge.

I enjoyed trying unusual systems, but playing against them were less fun. Sure you can play some advanced relay system, but even with open information about the system needing to figure out exactly how your relay system is built takes away the focus from the core of the game that is enjoyable: Finding the right bid, and then meeting it in play.

Re: A cheating scandal in the world of professional bridge

#63

Post by blue1 »

myggan wrote: post #54
Cpoll wrote: post #3

An interesting subject is what can be done to stop cheating? It seems that separators are insufficient. Each player must be in a completely enclosed room, preferably a Faraday cage, lead box? Furthermore, all moves must be submitted digitally, with a time limit, and the actual move will only be displayed at the end of that limit. Even then, we'll probably hear about a bug in the software used.

However, that will render an incredibly boring game

While I also prefer face-to-face playing, online playing (which is still fun) is actually not very different from the secure solution described by Cpoll

Re: A cheating scandal in the world of professional bridge

#64

Post by blue1 »

hexwab wrote: post #32

So here's an idea for a game. Let's call it "inductive bridge". 1) Rules of play are as for standard contract bridge. 2) You may use whatever conventions you like. There is no obligation to tell anybody what they are. 3) Have fun figuring out the opposing partnership's conventions! Yes, it'd be a whole different ball game. But would it be worse ? Discuss. (Full disclosure: I played bridge competitively at university.…

It would probably be a nightmare. Just try playing with an abundance of "psychic bids", and the game becomes more or less random guessing

Re: A cheating scandal in the world of professional bridge

#65

Post by taneq »

na85 wrote: post #23
eru wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just shows that bridge can not really be played cut-throat competitively with humans face-to-face. (Social play is fine and fun.) Adding intermediation (either other humans or computers) removes most of the problems.

>Adding intermediation (either other humans or computers) removes most of the problems. Perhaps, but that just reinforces the notion that the game is fundamentally broken. If a card game works better on computers, then it's not really much of a card game, is it?

Solitaire works much better on computer than when played with cards, especially if you win the game and get the bouncy cards animation.

Re: A cheating scandal in the world of professional bridge

#66

Post by Zigurd »

na85 wrote: post #23
eru wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just shows that bridge can not really be played cut-throat competitively with humans face-to-face. (Social play is fine and fun.) Adding intermediation (either other humans or computers) removes most of the problems.

>Adding intermediation (either other humans or computers) removes most of the problems. Perhaps, but that just reinforces the notion that the game is fundamentally broken. If a card game works better on computers, then it's not really much of a card game, is it?

There are a lot of games and sports where computer mediation made, for example, what had been flawed human judgement more objective, or that made tedious housekeeping/accounting processes less burdensome, etc. And generally those sports and games are improved thereby. It is also the case that that computer mediation doesn't have to be applied to every level of play. It's not hard to imagine professional bridge being played so that teammates are isolated and "noise" like variable delay is inserted where hidden channels of communication could be used.

Re: A cheating scandal in the world of professional bridge

#67

Post by dec0dedab0de »

eric_h wrote: post #28
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

counting cards is legal in Atlantic City, but if they suspect you of it they'll shuffle every hand or not let you change the size of your bet.

I may be picking a nit, but counting cards is legal in all casinos in the US. You are not breaking a law by counting cards, but the the casino has the right to stop providing you its service if you are, or if they even think you are (right up there with "No shirt, no shoes, no service"). Perhaps you mean that casinos in Atlantic City actually will not kick you out if they suspect you're counting cards, or they're bou…

Yes, you are correct. What I meant is that the casinos are forbidden from asking you to stop playing or to leave the casino based on counting cards. It's really in the casino's best interest though, because there are more people who think they can count cards than there are people who can do it effectively.

Re: A cheating scandal in the world of professional bridge

#68

Post by paulclinger »

k_sze wrote: post #29

I have never played bridge so my opinion is of a complete outsider's. You can also see me as the devil's advocate. What if we just accepted "cheating" to be part of the game? Such that every team is allowed to devise their own way to communicate in subtle manners (barring the use of electronic devices). And so part of the game would be to figure out the opposing team's code. There is really no way to prevent communic…

The problem with this suggestion is that your opponents need to have exactly the same information about your bid as your partner does. In fact, at any point during bidding (when it's your turn to bid) you can ask the partner of the person who made a bid to explain the meaning of the bid and they need to answer to the best of their knowledge (or you can consult their bidding card).

Using any "subtle" ways to communicate provides additional information to your partner that is not available to your opponents, and that's why it's cheating. If this is allowed, then the main effort would go into devising ways to clandestinely pass that information and since knowing your partner's hand gives your huge advantage, it would significantly change the game.

Re: A cheating scandal in the world of professional bridge

#69

Post by paulddraper »

sanswork wrote: post #39
JMStewy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true for hold'em, but in stud variants you need to keep track of the cards held or folded by other players.

But that's a very different skill from counting cards.

It's the same idea: predict future draws based on used cards.

Re: A cheating scandal in the world of professional bridge

#70

Post by sanswork »

paulddraper wrote: post #69
sanswork wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's a very different skill from counting cards.

It's the same idea: predict future draws based on used cards.

In one you have you remember the attributes of the cards in the other you just have to maintain a running total. They are very different skills.
Post reply on HN