On 7 May 2008 15:01:54 GMT, Matthew Johnson <mjj29@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>(sorry for the long post!)
>
>Being a poor student club we can't afford a duplimate machine but is nice
to
>have some of the benefits, like handouts and double dummy analysis etc.
It can
>also be nice to generate specific hands for certain events.
>
>To solve this, I invented a scheme for producing duplicated boards
without a
>duplimate machine. It also doesn't allow the people involved in the
process
>to know what the hands are so it can be done by the players themselves.
>
>A more complete description was presented at the 2008 International
Workshop on
>Security Protocols and the paper is available for download[0]. The
software
>used to run it is also available[1] along with a how-to do***ent for
people
>doing the duplication[2].
>
>I'm posting to rec.games.bridge to see what the wider bridge community
thinks
>about the system and what types of game it might be suitable for use in.
>
>A quick description of the system is as follows. The computer generates
random
>hands, or loads them from sims files, or whatever, and does DD analysis.
There
>are many programs which will do this some of which are free. It's
obviously
>easy to then print hand records. The duplicating program then generates
two
>pseudo-random permutations which individually reveal nothing about the
desired
>hand, but when applied in order, starting from a sorted deck of cards,
but when
>applied in order produce the desired hand.
>
>These permutations are given to two separate players (possibly on
different
>teams) who each do half of the process. The first player stacks up the
piles
>after their deal and pass them to the other player. The second player
puts the
>resulting hands in the boards.
>
>Permutations look like:
>
> 3121 2131 4431 4431 4242 ...
>
>and give the order to deal the cards into four piles.
>
>We've used it so far for our club nights, pretty successfully. It doesn't
take
>much longer than dealing the boards by hand (particularly if you shuffle
>properly, which many people don't) and most of the time gives the correct
>result, although occasionally people screw up, usually resulting in a
single
>card transposed between hands. It also takes a similar length of time to
>running a set of boards through a duplimate machine.
>
>Given that the alternative is to have no computer-dealt hands or
analysis,
>having all but a few correct is still a big win for us. It's particularly
nice
>to be able to have some more interesting hands generated for our
Christmas and
>Easter parties.
>
>We have wondered about suggesting this for league matches and such, where
hand
>records would be nice, but have been unsure of what oppo would think. Our
>players are happy to accept the security analysis we've done, but it
might look
>a bit suspect when suddenly presented with this to opponents. In reality
it
>should be treated the same as duplicated boards produced by a duplimate
>machine.
>
>So, does this sound interesting to anyone? Would you complain if your
opponents
>tried to use it for a match? The software is free to download (it's open
>source) and written in Java, so it should work on any system (although
I've
>only really used and designed it for Linux).
>
>Matt
>
>0. http://www.matthew.ath.cx/publications/2008-JohnsonOwen-duplimate.pdf
>1. http://www.matthew.ath.cx/projects/pescetti/
>2. http://www.matthew.ath.cx/projects/pescetti/dealing-howto.pdf
Very interesting. I like hand records and would not object to using
this for team matches where they are never available.
Have you thought of "systemizing" it so it could be used easy for the
m***** to use at tournaments (I am thinking of ACBLland.) That is,
set it up as a simple procedure that can be easily followed. It does
not seem like it would be much harder than the system used now when
hand records are handed out and a table is expected to make up two or
three boards.
One problem is that it requires two p***** and two people - one for
each pass. Obviously it cannot be done in one pass by one person, but
what if for simplicity, one person just did both p*****. Would this be
too much of a security problem?
In a team game, I guess each table could do the first pass with half
of the boards and trade with the other table for the second pass --
and then start playing.
Are the piles labeled 1,2,3,4 or N,E,S,W? I assume the four piles
would be put back into the board after the first pass for easy
trans****t to the person doing the second pass?
|
