The parallels to contesting are pretty striking. I particularly like how
they "crowd sourced" the analysis of the videos and split the problem
into those who could see the cheating pattern and then those who could
analyze the hands at the same level as the players. The posting of
logs is the contesting equivalent of the videos.
The other parallel I see is that the cheaters he described in bridge are
very, very good players. Just like the contesters that win contests by
cheating are very, very good operators. I think in both cases the
sponsoring organizations are loathe to call out cheating without a
"smoking gun."
I used to play a lot of bridge and even competed, albeit not terribly
effectively, in national bridge tournaments. I can attest that the best
players are incredibly good. Just like in contesting.
73,
Tom - N1MM
On 3/8/2016 8:32 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
Hi,
a great longread in the New Yorker about cheating in bridge. I won't
spoil the author's ufb work with some thoroughly crafted cliffhangers.
So many things sound familiar and give a fascinating insight into
cheating and bridge and psychology. Besides that one may think about
"big data" approach to power cheating in our contests, but I don't
think of it being realistic soon.
So simply enjoy
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/07/the-cheating-problem-in-professional-bridge
Best 73, Chris DL8MBS
P.S.: The number of sources quoted may be similar to that necessary to
fill a regular daily editon of a newspaper...
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|