If you have a question that you think should go here, send me an email or private message.
I was put to the test by a National Bridge Organization (NBO). I would like them to license the software. They wanted to know if the software works.
I gave them the name of one pair. The pair was selected based on the statistical analysis of their results. The NBO arranged for discreet surveillance at the table.
Bridgescore+ was able to process the published data on this pair from this event before I had seen the video. Based on the data from Bridgescore+, I then was able to predict at least two specific boards where something “unusual” would happen. As predicted, something “unusual” happened on both of those boards when they were watched on video. It was the first test of the predictive capabilities of Bridgescore+ cheating detection software, and it passed with flying colors. What happens next is up to the NBO. I know that the software can identify the pairs that are cheating/unethical. The fact that the software was able to identify specific boards was a bonus. For this pair, and what they are doing, I was expecting to need a much larger data set.
From the book (Chapter 48) ...
There will be a lot of skepticism that it is possible to detect cheating using statistics. This is new, no one believed it could be done. However, it is possible to start with a clean database, import the data from original source, process the data and generate the results. The results will be the same. The known cheating pairs are identified. Other pairs, as yet unconvicted, are also identified
If you are interested in modern Bridge, you can see an analysis of ACBL players at different masterpoint levels and their abilities. You can see tables of different ACBL pairs and the likelihood that their results are through "luck".
If you want to improve your game, you can see the opening lead styles of the top players. What does Bob Hamman not do? It's in the book.