[Booze]

I dont know if I have been wrong in any of they players we have barred ?

Last week I saw on 3 different occasions, users asking for their P hotmail or ICQ in lobby chat b4 tourneys.

I have earlier asked users to come to a chat room, to explain their bids or play, if I suspected some. If they have some kind of logical explanation I accept it.


Bo

[irdoz]

What started out as a discussion of cheating accusations has now turned into a discussion of actual cheating, how sad cheats are and what people would like to do to them.

The problem with too much focus on actual cheating is that it may make accusations more likely. If you foster an environment of suspicion then it tends to foster i) more cheating ("everyone's doing it") and ii) more accusation. I think it's better to provide ethical leadership and reinforce that the vast bulk of bridge players do not illegally communicate or deleiberately play slowly in tournaments etc. etc. and that most bridge players do not do these things - ie state it in the positive rather than whine about the small proportion who behave in a reprhensible manner.

In my experience the vast bulk of bridge players do not and would never cheat. That is not to say sadly that cheating is not way to frequent online - but it is a lot less frequent than you would imagine from these discussions. I have directed online for close to three years and have received as a director many complaints implying something irregular in relation to potential illegal communication. For about 95% of these complaints there was a perfectly rational explanation for the bidding or play. In other words most accusations are based on ignorance.

Even in regards to what looks like deliberate slow play there is often an explanation such as technology or actually needing to think. But the assumption is always the worst one. In a recent event here my partner had to recount the hand on the second last trick (leading to Q10 with the AJ missing - recounting HCP locates the A based on the bidding) - there was 3 on the clock - but when she paused for 15 seconds the opps called the director and made an accusation about deliberate stalling.

The amount of work involved in "proving" cheating is large. I have collected and monitored hands at the site I mostly play on and referred them to the management. For some pairs the patterns are relatively obvious. But where the behaviour is infrequent or intermittent, or the players are of average skill level, then it may be impossible to prove.

I don't think there are easy answers that don't involve an immense amount of effort - there certainly isn't a technological fix.

[bglover]

Actually, the type of cheating in tourneys I was referring to is often very obvious but impossible to prove.

It usually involves people rejecting valid claims and then letting the clock run out. That was why I switched to unclocked events after BBO improved the movement. The number of episodes dropped to zero not surprisingly.

However, it didn't improve in any way the amount of aggressively abusive behavior that I saw in tourneys. As I've stated before and in other threads as well, once tourneys were implemented, there was a palpable change in behavior. Even Uday has acknowledged that before.

I lump active bad ethics in with all other forms of cheating. I don't make distinctions-- bad behavior is cheating if it is meant to gain an unfair advantage. I saw way too much of this during my directing time.

Now, with TopFlight, I have none of it. Three director calls in 15 tourneys and no cheating accusations. Note that we specifically decided to not implemet any awards for our tourneys so that these types of accusations would not arise. None have as of this writing.

Sure, I have a lot more non-directing work to do (answering questions, doing commentary, maintaining the club stuff) but the trade off is well worth it.

[mr1303]

There are a few of my friends from university who play on here. Yes I have their hotmail addresses etc, and yes I occasionally discuss bridge hands whilst I'm playing.

1) I never do this when playing a tournament.
2) Our discussion does not consist of "The King is singleton and offside" or anything similar

Is this "cheating"? I disagree. I don't see anything wrong with discussing bidding conventions, or attempting to improve the play of my partner. The main bridge club isn't ruthless competitive bridge.

[inquiry]

mr1303, on Feb 3 2004, 02:24 PM, said:

There are a few of my friends from university who play on here. Yes I have their hotmail addresses etc, and yes I occasionally discuss bridge hands whilst I'm playing.

1) I never do this when playing a tournament.
2) Our discussion does not consist of "The King is singleton and offside" or anything similar

Is this "cheating"? I disagree. I don't see anything wrong with discussing bidding conventions, or attempting to improve the play of my partner. The main bridge club isn't ruthless competitive bridge.

I suspect you will get a few comment here.

Of course, discussing during tournment play is a clear no-no, some will say discussing even in the main room is too.

Instead of doing this, find tables in the main room like mine, where we allow partenrsip to straighten out their bidding in the open. I certainly don't mind one partner bidding 4NT to say "use 03" responses, or the guy biddign 5C over 4NT to say "1-4 partner". However, I know that my feeling on this issue are not shared, and I suspect your action will ve viewed as "cheating" by many and they willl correctly note, it violates the rule of the site.

Ben

[luke warm]

mr1303, on Feb 3 2004, 09:24 PM, said:

There are a few of my friends from university who play on here. Yes I have their hotmail addresses etc, and yes I occasionally discuss bridge hands whilst I'm playing.

1) I never do this when playing a tournament.
2) Our discussion does not consist of "The King is singleton and offside" or anything similar

Is this "cheating"? I disagree. I don't see anything wrong with discussing bidding conventions, or attempting to improve the play of my partner. The main bridge club isn't ruthless competitive bridge.

i think any discussion, tournament setting or pick up game, while the hand is being played is flat wrong... if one MUST talk about the play, so so between deals... after the session would be much better

[mr1303]

I think people are mis understanding my comment here. I would like to clarify my position.

I do not tell my partner anything that can unfairly assist him in his play of the hand. All I do is tell him things like

"That shows 16+ HCP" (if he reverses) or something similar. Or "I'm only guaranteeing 2 diamonds by that 1D opening"

Firstly, most of the time I play online with friends of mine, who I am quite happy for them to discuss in a similar fasion.

Secondly, my regular playing partners are not advanced players, and I wish to help them learn this great game of ours.

Thirdly I don't take any pleasure in setting opponents by 1100 over a bidding misunderstanding. I'd like to think that other people feel the same way about this.

If after reading this, people still feel that I am cheating, then I will stop doing this. However I do not feel I am hurting anyone by my actions, and at least I can say I am honest about it, and do not do it to gain an unfair advantage

[Free]

Imo its not actually cheating, but you can avoid every comment about it by just commenting in the BBO program after the game is played. This way, your opps will also know what went wrong, and won't suspect you of cheating when you say something on regular bases. If something goes wrong and you don't say a thing, opps might start accusing you of chatting behind their backs, which isn't nice...

[inquiry]

There are shades of cheating... I was playing in a tournment yesterday, limited to regular partnerships made up of "experts" (I snuck in), and one fellow bids 4NT (blackwood), and the other responds 5C and says in public chat (1 or 4).

Now, I have seen this happen during tournments and have somoeone fly off the handle that this is "cheating". I certainly don't mind if they do this, for like you, I understand that online is somewhat different from f2f. But if people think saying this in public is cheating, imagine their feeling if they think you are discussing the meaning of the bidding "in secret". Again, if you want to chat about the meaning of your bids (a great way to learn btw), try to play at tables where this is encouraged in the open. I know when I play in the main room, my usual parnters and I don't mind this type of discussion. Of course don't abuse it.. using cue-bid as michaels when you have a michaels hand (and say "michaels") and then turn around and use it as strong forcing takeout when you have that kind of hand (and say "strong"). But we all know this is not what you meant you were doing.

Ben

[Gweny]

I host online tournaments for 3 years now.

In this time I suspect certain people of cheating but only 3 times, prior to coming to BBO do I find positive proof... in form of misdirect ims...

Do cheating exist. Certainly. Is it rampant? I think no in BBO.

I do not agree time events increase instances of cheat for BIDDING, but it do introduce other form of cheating - delay of game to avoid bad results. Personally I find this even more disgusting than relaying info to partner prior to, or during bidding or play. And I do block people who I see doing this if and only if I certain it is not connection problem.

I mourn you leaving ranks of yellow Booze. You fine person and very fine, caring, helpful yellow. I do not remember 1 time you do not take time to help me when I ask. <even slightly silly questions> It is definately our loss. I hope you reconsider at some future date. Do not let cheaters steal you from us please.

I do agree we need do vigilant PRIVATE investigation and at same time spank people who cry Cheat! any time opp make difficult contract.

[Booze]

even as non Yellow I get a lot of reports on possible cheating every day, some are very wrong , but mostly I agree with reporters, that its not normal bridge, some times very stupid but correct bridge tho, but when I get reports from separate users of any possible cheaters I think it might be correct to do some investigations!!

But how and when and by whom ?? I dont want to do it anymore , its too common and too much unpleasant work ? BBO has lost some "good" TD:s and players by this, so I think it is a problem , not for anyone playing just with friends or at some private hardly restricted tourney.

Bo

[uday]

Any solution that needs investigating is flawed - who has the time to wade through hundreds of hands (most wading produces nothing)?

Is the real problem that customers don't want to play against weird bidding and play (because it might be cheating?)

Maybe we can introduce a rating scheme after all. RHO makes a funny bid/play, you flag him as a weirdo. This will build up a weirdo index for each player over time. TDs/hosts get to exclude by weirdo index. Server cooperates by making the weirdo index stick with a player even if he switches usernames. The weirdo index is weighted based on your own weirdo index - that is, a weirdo's opinion of someone is less important than a normal persons opinion.

This could also work similarly for a Rudeness Index. Someone bails or curses or lectures, you flag him as a rude person. TDs/Hosts get to prevent access to people with high rudeness indices.

We wouldnt need to display the index to anyone, just use it when barring from tourneys and tables.

Last things is, how should one assign a rudeness? Right click on player name? Send a message to bborobot (who is always logged in)?

Anwyay. I'm at least half serious.....

[bglover]

Well, this goes back to several long-ago suggestions of creating a database of bad actors in tourneys.

I was a proponent of such a thing when I was directing and I still am. Whether you make it public or private it still would work the same way... People are reported into the database for one of several possible reasons (say, frequently disconnects during tourneys, frequently runs out of time on hands, abuses partner/opps which is the most serious one as the others may be due to connection issues) and assign a # to each part of the database. What I mean is, bad abusers maybe get 2 bites at the apple (1 warning then no more) while people who frequently disconnect in a reasonable time period may get 3 bites.

Now, to diffuse any criticism of this last one, let me make clear i KNOW some people have bad connections. There were 3 people I banned from my own tourneys cuz they always had connection issues. This may not seem fair, but in my mind it was perfectly fair. In clocked events, someone who always has a connection issue just creates a problem.

[Gerardo]

I'm all for it, but think people has to be able to see their own entries, and contest them.
I'd even put due dates on them, so that index can heal over time. Reincidence being a factor there.
And would have a rudeness index, and a separate tourney one.
Preferably writable only by yellows, would have too much spurious entries otherwise.
And not answering an inquirying yellow would earn an (additional) entry. If I hear only one party, and seems plausible, I'd be inclined to believe if the other party remains silent.

Maybe you can have some typical offenses tabulated, but as a guide, there may be aggravants, like reincidence, or atenuants, like other party's behaviour.

[inquiry]

I am, and always have been, against public flogging of the guilty. Favoring the abuse@bridgebase.com appoach. When the idea of an index where bad characters could be reported, and shared between TD, I was against that. This idea, as fine tuned by Gerardo however has some appeal.

1) I like the self-heeling nature...but not too quickly

2) I like the concept that no one but yellows can see someone's own level (but of course you can see your own), sort of like the warning level system on this bbo

3) I like the idea of some kind of control of who can modify these levels...yellows (who can also see them) makes perfectly good sense to me.

So despite my unwillingness to get behind the earlier database shared between TD's (some of which may have funny axe to grind), the concept that yellows can take on this additional responsibiity (and the headaches associated with it) appeals to me as maybe a workable solution. This assumes that the yellows want to take yet another thankless job on.

Ben

[Yzerman]

Hi all,

Its been a LONG time since I have participated, but I am interested in this discussion and perhaps I can add a few items of interest myself.

Currently I have hosted over 60 AbaLucy tournnaments, and directed over 100 in total I am able to lend some of my personal observations into online bridge.

1) Some bridge players suffer GREATLY from what I call the "bridge ego". This is the self perceived experts and world class players of universe. These people, as per my observations, fail to respect and/or recognize ANY opponent as worthy of defeating them or earning a good result. I have MANY examples of GOOD players (some 'stars') that create ridiculous action (preempting 3 level with Jxxxx and similar type bridge behavior) and get caught with hand in cookie jar. When a lesser opponent exposes this ridiculous action the self perceived EXPERT will call the director and complain that a lesser player is incapable of exposing this and hence, MUST BE CHEATING. This is 100% UNCALLED FOR.

2) When BBO 1st held open pair tournaments, I would occasionally play. I have a unique ability to remember names and results, and I would notice that there were a few pairs, and a few people, that were ALWAYS in the top few places. Personally, I would take an interest, perhaps there was a budding superstar in the bridge world. On a rare occasion, I might even play against these people. One pair in particular struck me as the type to create ACTION (you know, raising partners 2 level overcall on Kx with trump stack in enemy suit). I have played enough bridge to KNOW that IF you play bridge, and your Modus Operandi is to create action, you will have good days and bad days but is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE to have success every time you play. So from observation, experience, and my subsequent conclusion I made it a point NOT to play in any event that this particular pair played in, because of suspicion, but I kept my feelings and my thoughts to myself, this was simply my decision to play in only games in which i felt comfortable and I perceived as fair.

3) Cheating, and cheating accusations, will ALWAYS occur in the on-line bridge world. For every control you can create to minimize or reduce unethical behavior, there is always another way to play unethically. However, as was quoted to me by a very respected person, it is FAR WORSE to accuse 1 innocent person of unethical play than is to catch ALL the unethical players. Having said that, I think it is EVERY BBO players responsibility to maintain this approach. If you have a problem, I think is best to discuss in private and disclose any suspicions in private.

Citing the above as my personal observations and feelings towards unethical behavior (and accusations) was the PRIMARY reason why I embarked upon the creation of a private club. The private club was originally intended as a venue for mutually RESPECTED players such that they could COMFORTABLY participate in a game of bridge, a game we all dearly enjoy. BBO has done a GREAT job creating a resource to control tournaments in an attempt to create a comfortable environment to compete, each player now has the option of CHOOSING his venue to compete in.

In response to Bglovers initial post, for anybody that would EVER consider making a public accusation, I would ask that person how THEY would feel if somebody were the recipient of an unsubstantiated accusation. There is MUCH more at stake than a silly game of bridge, there are the feelings of the other human being involved. So if I could lend anything at all to the game of bridge, the online community, or the BBO community at all I would suggest that BEFORE anybody were to make any accusation they would think twice and put yourself in the other persons shoes for 1 moment before saying or doing anything.

Regards,
Michael A Lucy

[JRG]

I don't normally make posts that just say, "I agree with you" or "That was well said". Instead, if I feel strongly enough, I send the poster a personal message.

However, I have to make an exception.

I think Michael Lucy's post was truly excellent.

I wish I had Michael's memory!!! (But I don't). However I remember a number of situations that had me thinking someone (singular or pair) were cheating. I like to keep these thoughts to myself, because often, a few hands later, the same player (or pair) will do something similar and get a rotten result. Even worse, later in the same hand they would do something really silly.

On the other hand, there have been situations where similar things happened (funny lead and interesting discarding by partner -- both being deceptive and potentially very costly), without any corresponding bad results. I don't want to give more details as I don't want anyone finding the hands (in My Hands DB). However, even in these situations, I could still be wrong. Maybe the players are understating their levels and were truly just making life difficult for me.

[Trpltrbl]

Gerardo, on Feb 5 2004, 01:34 PM, said:

I'm all for it, but think people has to be able to see their own entries, and contest them.

I agree with that, otherwise you run into people just doing this to other people because they don't like them or for whatever reason.

Mike

[Gerardo]

Well, that's why I'd put a(n human) filter (I said yellows because they (we) already receive the complains which should be put there).
Oh, bogus complains should be an offense in itself, and is not unusual both parties are at fault somehow.
However, being the assessing of behavior subjective, there should be a way to contest entries (BUT, this should be done with a reason. Contesting just because it is there should be STRONGLY discouraged)

[uday]

I don't think contesting would be needed; the cure might become more cumbersome than the disease. You'd think the noise would sort of cancel out.