[hrothgar]

gwnn, on 2014-April-21, 02:14, said:

Communicating through sound is very likely the best way nowadays, since you can't see your partner and knocking/tapping your feet stand out much more than coughing.

If I wanted to cheat, I'd invest in some custom hardware

Suppose that I want to send a limited amount of information (say, a number between 0 and 4)

I'd rig a bluetooth transmitter in the heel of my shoe.
I'd transmit information by hitting a button or some such that is also concealed in my shoe.

I'd build the receiver into a hearing aid. If I thought this was too obvious, I'd put the receiver in my belt and have a place that I could run my thumb across and count bumps.

[the hog]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-21, 05:04, said:

If I wanted to cheat, I'd invest in some custom hardware

Suppose that I want to send a limited amount of information (say, a number between 0 and 4)

I'd rig a bluetooth transmitter in the heel of my shoe.
I'd transmit information by hitting a button or some such that is also concealed in my shoe.

I'd build the receiver into a hearing aid. If I thought this was too obvious, I'd put the receiver in my belt and have a place that I could run my thumb across and count bumps.

How do we know this is not being done already? Next we will need to scan players with a metal detector.

[gwnn]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-21, 05:04, said:

If I wanted to cheat, I'd invest in some custom hardware

Suppose that I want to send a limited amount of information (say, a number between 0 and 4)

I'd rig a bluetooth transmitter in the heel of my shoe.
I'd transmit information by hitting a button or some such that is also concealed in my shoe.

I'd build the receiver into a hearing aid. If I thought this was too obvious, I'd put the receiver in my belt and have a place that I could run my thumb across and count bumps.

Sure, you can have this spy stuff but I can't help but wonder whether you can really do all this without looking funny. Bear in mind that you have someone (potentially) examining you just a few meters away all the time. The hearing aid can be examined once people get suspicious and adjusting your belt all the time will also look funny. I'm not sure if any of this is less suspicious than some coughing here and there. Also maybe they would have a strange limp with that bluetooth transmitter in your shoe.

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2014-April-21, 05:43

[hrothgar]

gwnn, on 2014-April-21, 05:40, said:

Sure, you can have this spy stuff but I can't help but wonder whether you can really do all this without looking funny. Bear in mind that you have someone (potentially) examining you just a few meters away all the time. The hearing aid can be examined once people get suspicious and adjusting your belt all the time will also look funny. I'm not sure if any of this is less suspicious than some coughing here and there. Also maybe they would have a strange limp with that bluetooth transmitter in your shoe.

This was pretty much off the top of my head.
I'm quite sure that folks can come up with something better with a bit of effort.

With this said and done, I think that folks will have a hard time confiscating a hearing aid based on suspicion of cheating.
I'd simply refused to hand it over.

As for the "spy stuff" comment, folks have used MUCH more sophisticated systems for blackjack and the like.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-21, 05:04, said:

If I wanted to cheat, I'd invest in some custom hardware=

Just because there may be better ways, it doesn't make this way "stupid". It's easy, extremely cost-effective, and managed to work successfully for quite some time.

419 scams (i.e. "Nigerian Prince" spam emails) has always seemed to me like an incredibly stupid way to steal money. But it works.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2014-April-21, 08:34, said:

Just because there may be better ways, it doesn't make this way "stupid". It's easy, extremely cost-effective, and managed to work successfully for quite some time.

419 scams (i.e. "Nigerian Prince" spam emails) has always seemed to me like an incredibly stupid way to steal money. But it works.

And now, the participants are being forced out of the game in disgrace.

The Nigerian scam is stupid" by design.
The idiocy of the come-on is an effective filter.

[gwnn]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-21, 05:49, said:

This was pretty much off the top of my head.
I'm quite sure that folks can come up with something better with a bit of effort.

With this said and done, I think that folks will have a hard time confiscating a hearing aid based on suspicion of cheating.
I'd simply refused to hand it over.

As for the "spy stuff" comment, folks have used MUCH more sophisticated systems for blackjack and the like.

Well, that would also be spy stuff in my book. Plus, the rewards in blackjack are much higher if you find a smart way to cheat. The chances of getting caught are also a priori lower but that is counterbalanced by much more elaborate measures by the casinos so I'm not sure. In bridge you probably need to win several large tournaments to win what you could get in a good night of illegally enhanced blackjack run, and you could be impossible to distinguish from people who are just playing a decent game of blackjack but just have a lucky night. In all those months/years that you are trying to cheat in bridge with your 007 technology you need to escape their suspicion even though you will have spent most of your time sitting next to your opponents. The field of serious prize-winning bridge players is much narrower than that of serious prize-winning blackjack players so the suspicion you may arouse in one bridge tournament will follow you in the next, while for blackjack you can just switch between casinos judiciously. There's also the question of how you could discreetly get these custom-made cheating systems (you want to keep the number of people in your conspiracy on the low side for many reasons) and how much they would cost. Now I'm not an expert on blackjack or electronics (as you probably can tell from my post) but I am guessing that neither are most bridge players. So for them, devising a non-electronic method is just a simpler, more tractable option.

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-21, 05:49, said:

This was pretty much off the top of my head. I'm quite sure that folks can come up with something better with a bit of effort. With this said and done, I think that folks will have a hard time confiscating a hearing aid based on suspicion of cheating. I'd simply refused to hand it over. As for the "spy stuff" comment, folks have used MUCH more sophisticated systems for blackjack and the like.

Hrothgar's suspicions are probably right about the present and will be right about the future, unless authorities take some action. A long time ago, I was told that an American pair were caught with radios strapped to their calves, activated by muscle contraction, and administering a small shock, causing a muscle twitch.

[Trinidad]

Obviously a device that interferes with a pacemaker would be a great idea!

Rik

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-21, 13:09, said:

Obviously a device that interferes with a pacemaker would be a great idea!

Rik

Would have been in this case.

[Bad_Wolf]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-20, 15:04, said:

I disagree that a self administering organization has any obligations with respect to "natural justice".
They can do whatever they damn well please, so long as it doesn't break the "real" laws.

If members don't like this, they're welcome to take a hike.
If too may members leave, the organization will fail.

Potentially, all this (ludicrous) discussion of "natural justice" is this playing out in the market place of ideas.
However, if this is case it seems more of a nonsensical distraction than anything else.

Personally, I'm quite happy with the ways things were adjudicated.
In a perfect world, things could probably have been improved upon slightly.

With this said and done, from what I can tell the WBF's overall performance in this case was head and shoulders above any of the other cases that have come up. I think that its telling that folks are complaining issues involving the schedule and whether or not it is intrinsically unfair that Americans were involved in the proceeding rather than any serious discussion regarding the charges.

In New Zealand one of the "real laws" IS that organisation's actions are consistent with natural justice.

[the hog]

Bad_Wolf, on 2014-April-21, 14:43, said:

In New Zealand one of the "real laws" IS that organisation's actions are consistent with natural justice.

A civilised country.

[hrothgar]

Bad_Wolf, on 2014-April-21, 14:43, said:

In New Zealand one of the "real laws" IS that organisation's actions are consistent with natural justice.

I'm sure this helps the sheep sleep safe at night.

Now, why should the rest of the world care?

[nige1]

Bad_Wolf, on 2014-April-21, 14:43, said:

In New Zealand one of the "real laws" IS that organisation's actions are consistent with natural justice.

the hog, on 2014-April-21, 17:55, said:

A civilised country.

hrothgar, on 2014-April-21, 18:27, said:

I'm sure this helps the sheep sleep safe at night. Now, why should the rest of the world care?

I care. Most us would care, if we were accused of cheating.

[the hog]

I also care. Sorry Richard, but I think you are wrong on this point.

[blackshoe]

the hog, on 2014-April-20, 05:47, said:

Blackshoe,I suggest you shut your trap. Both these instances were reported and acted upon. In one case the perpetrator was sacked from his position as a correspondent on Australian Bridge. So you know absolutely nothing about what you were posting.

In essence, what I said was "if you think you have evidence of cheating, report it, don't bitch about it on the internet". I will stand by that, your "shut your trap" not withstanding.

[the hog]

Blackshoe, I am not sure if you are literate, but perhaps you need help understanding. Both these cases were reported.

[billw55]

gwnn, on 2014-April-21, 10:43, said:

... Plus, the rewards in blackjack are much higher if you find a smart way to cheat. The chances of getting caught are also a priori lower but that is counterbalanced by much more elaborate measures by the casinos so I'm not sure. In bridge you probably need to win several large tournaments to win what you could get in a good night of illegally enhanced blackjack run, and you could be impossible to distinguish from people who are just playing a decent game of blackjack but just have a lucky night. In all those months/years that you are trying to cheat in bridge with your 007 technology you need to escape their suspicion even though you will have spent most of your time sitting next to your opponents. The field of serious prize-winning bridge players is much narrower than that of serious prize-winning blackjack players so the suspicion you may arouse in one bridge tournament will follow you in the next, while for blackjack you can just switch between casinos judiciously. There's also the question of how you could discreetly get these custom-made cheating systems (you want to keep the number of people in your conspiracy on the low side for many reasons) and how much they would cost. Now I'm not an expert on blackjack or electronics (as you probably can tell from my post) but I am guessing that neither are most bridge players. So for them, devising a non-electronic method is just a simpler, more tractable option.

In this respect, I find the difference between bridge organizations and casinos interesting. Casinos do not seem terrified of lawsuits when dealing with cheaters. They don't tiptoe around wringing their hands over people's reputations either, or hold hearings, etc. If they think you are cheating, they toss you out and put you on a watch list, end of story. I would bet that watchlist is shared with other casinos as well. Do casinos get sued over this often? Do they lose such suits? I don't know but I am guessing not.

[inquiry]

billw55, on 2014-April-25, 06:04, said:

In this respect, I find the difference between bridge organizations and casinos interesting. Casinos do not seem terrified of lawsuits when dealing with cheaters. They don't tiptoe around wringing their hands over people's reputations either, or hold hearings, etc. If they think you are cheating, they toss you out and put you on a watch list, end of story. I would bet that watchlist is shared with other casinos as well. Do casinos get sued over this often? Do they lose such suits? I don't know but I am guessing not.

Do you ever see the names of the "cheats" posted in the paper and a hearing with peers reviewing the evidence at casino? The only example I can remember is a recent case where a poker tournament champ is asked to pay back money, and that one looks like it is headed to court. A casino can toss anyone it wants out of its places of business, as can pretty much any business. I don't think the ACBL can act in this way by tossing people they think are cheating, nor would I want them too. The investigation to determine cheating absolutely involves so many people it will never be kept secret for long. So for better or worse, the difference between how a casino can ban a person and how bridge has to do it will remain.

BTW, if unaffiliated casinos really do share blacklist and someone could prove that they did share this information, there is probably a lawsuit there where the success or failure of the lawsuit will depend upon rather or not the casino could prove the person was actually cheating in court.

[Zelandakh]

inquiry, on 2014-April-25, 07:27, said:

BTW, if unaffiliated casinos really do share blacklist and someone could prove that they did share this information, there is probably a lawsuit there where the success or failure of the lawsuit will depend upon rather or not the casino could prove the person was actually cheating in court.

It can easily be proven. A well-known example was when the MIT card counting teams (including Andy Bloch, now a respected poker pro) went to Monaco shortly after being added to the new face-recognition software program installed in many major casinos and therefore getting banned there even though it was their first time in the country and they were completely unknown.