Subject: Cheating at (bridge, chess, and magic)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:46:28 -0700
From: bwalker@logicon.com (Bruce Walker)
To: fkusumot@ix.netcom.com

     Nate Clarke has opened up a hornet's nest, and only one or two people,
     in passing, have identified a realistic solution.  The solution is
     perhaps a painful one -- you will have to play over a computer net,
     and let the computer enforce the rules.

     In chess, there is very little that can be called cheating, since
     chess is a game of perfect information with no chance elements.  The
     rule book is likewise short.

     Bridge is equally a simple game, but the rule book is much longer.
     The reason has to do with irregularities (bidding out of turn, not
     following suit, etc.) and accusations of cheating, if not actual
     cheating, are rife.  The reason is that bridge is a game of partial
     information, and access to that information (whether through
     accidental or cheating means) yields a big advantage.  There is almost
     total solution: play over a computer net.  This solves two problems.
     First, you never make the mechanical errors, since the computer won't
     let you bid out of turn or fail to follow suit when you could.
     Second, most of the means of cheating, in terms of hidden signals,
     don't work over a computer screen.  (See www.okbridge.com)

     Magic has only a few elements of partial information, but it does have
     fabulously complex rules.  Some of the posts have advised that you
     shouldn't play if you don't know the rules.  I think that would
     eleminate everyone except Tom ("I am the rules") Wylie.  In
     particular, I would have gotten Nate's sliver example wrong, simply
     because I am a scrub and don't know the rules that well.  However,
     playing over the net solves it, since the program does know the rules.
     It won't forget your life total; it won't let you draw an extra card.

     Bruce Walker