I now have a two-pass method for detecting bridge cheating. The first pass detects the probable cheating; the second clarifies how the cheating was used in specific boards.

I need to be specific about what I mean by the cheating I can now detect. It is when at least one pair player at a table has unauthorized knowledge of at least one other hand at that table prior to the final three passes in a particular contract bidding.

I only look for successful cheaters; match winners and placers.

My method is most effective when the cheating is most systematic. I estimate a two 36 boards match is a minimum to usefully measure. By about 150 total match boards, I would be willing to testify to, and defend, in any kind of formal USA centric official proceeding.

I’m currently practicing on three very well-known elite-player former team events. For two of them I am looking for cheating. For the other, I’m looking to confirm my suspicion there is no cheating.

I’m part way through each of the three. In order of my starting each, I’m about a quarter of the way through the first, and there is no systematic cheating so far. I’m about the same way through the second, and so far I only have several possible cheating suspicions.

Number three is mainly what I want to tell you about today.

Around board 20, I had a thought; since it was easy to lay out in my spreadsheet, I tried that thought out. I almost didn’t do it because it seemed too simple-minded.

I’m finished with a complete portion of that third competition now. Among the winner and the placers, there is one extremely probable cheating aggregate. By that, I mean there is more than one person involved in this probable cheating.

My latest pass one thought produces the following advantages for me:

1. It requires less match data.

2. It’s easier to record in my spreadsheet.

3. I think it is harder to fool this latest pass one method by “clever” cheating.

4. It seems to me to be more general purpose at detection than my prior method.

5. It’s simpler to explain to others.

Douglas

On Sunday, 26 September 2021 at 11:24:36 UTC+10, Douglas wrote:
> I now have a two-pass method for detecting bridge cheating. The first pass detects the probable cheating; the second clarifies how the cheating was used in specific boards.
>
> I need to be specific about what I mean by the cheating I can now detect. It is when at least one pair player at a table has unauthorized knowledge of at least one other hand at that table prior to the final three passes in a particular contract bidding.
>
> I only look for successful cheaters; match winners and placers.
>
> My method is most effective when the cheating is most systematic. I estimate a two 36 boards match is a minimum to usefully measure. By about 150 total match boards, I would be willing to testify to, and defend, in any kind of formal USA centric official proceeding.
>
> I’m currently practicing on three very well-known elite-player former team events. For two of them I am looking for cheating. For the other, I’m looking to confirm my suspicion there is no cheating.
>
> I’m part way through each of the three. In order of my starting each, I’m about a quarter of the way through the first, and there is no systematic cheating so far. I’m about the same way through the second, and so far I only have several possible cheating suspicions.
>
> Number three is mainly what I want to tell you about today.
>
> Around board 20, I had a thought; since it was easy to lay out in my spreadsheet, I tried that thought out. I almost didn’t do it because it seemed too simple-minded.
>
> I’m finished with a complete portion of that third competition now. Among the winner and the placers, there is one extremely probable cheating aggregate. By that, I mean there is more than one person involved in this probable cheating.
>
> My latest pass one thought produces the following advantages for me:
>
> 1. It requires less match data.
>
> 2. It’s easier to record in my spreadsheet.
>
> 3. I think it is harder to fool this latest pass one method by “clever” cheating.
>
> 4. It seems to me to be more general purpose at detection than my prior method.
>
> 5. It’s simpler to explain to others.
>
> Douglas

Douglas, can you email me, please.
awilsmore@gmail.com

Thanks...

AW