[mrdct]

olegru, on 2012-March-13, 08:49, said:

ALL THE EXAMPLES DELETED....

Can't some examples be posted sans usernames and with a pip or two changed? Perhaps it's because I rarely play with or against people I don't know, but I've never suspect an opponent of cheating on BBO and I'd be interested to see what sort of things go on.

[billw55]

I admit I am curious about the examples, but the reasons for removing them are good.

Most suspicious actions I have experienced are in bidding, for example balancing in a short suit and oh look, partner has six of them! Or psych fielding, etc.

(inquiry, I think you have an error in your all-caps edit in olegru's post. The third sentence sounds different than I think you intended.)

[inquiry]

mrdct, on 2012-March-13, 14:29, said:

Can't some examples be posted sans usernames and with a pip or two changed? Perhaps it's because I rarely play with or against people I don't know, but I've never suspect an opponent of cheating on BBO and I'd be interested to see what sort of things go on.

I personally don't see why anyone would bother posting examples of online cheating. However, SHOULD anyone want to post cheating examples, I personally have not problem with it. However, a few guidelines are necessary.

First, if you played the hand (that is the cheating occurred on line against you), you have to either... wait until the hand you are quoting disappears from myhands, or two, change it so much it can not be found by searching your name and myhands. Just changing 7H to 7S and reversing the major suits is not enough, because those are easily found anyway in myhands.

If you kibitzed a hand, or took a pair who played against you and then searched their hand record for evidence of cheating and wanted to post hands against other people, that is ok...as long as you don't do as the OP did here, and pinpoint who to look at (as in, I played a pair today, and boy oh boy, look what I found they did against other people.... )

In other words, don't make it a "piece of cake" for the curious to see who bid/played the hand. There should be no way to link the hand through you or any other player to the hands in the myhands database. The problem with the examples posted above that I removed (from the OP, and from the recent post) is that it was too easy to find the pair. In fact, olegru did just that kind of hunting based on info in the OP (which is why I said at the time I edited the OP that I probably should delete the entire thing).

If you want to see distorted (and mistaken) allegations of cheating there are some blogs I can direct you too. In these blogs, anti-cheating crusaders attempt to out two alleged bbo cheaters. All the anti-cheaters did is show their own ignorance of bridge. Not that there are tons of cheaters who could be exposed, it is just these guys barked up the wrong tree.

[Zelandakh]

inquiry, on 2012-March-13, 15:06, said:

In other words, don't make it a "piece of cake" for the curious to see who bid/played the hand. There should be no way to link the hand through you or any other player to the hands in the myhands database. The problem with the examples posted above that I removed (from the OP, and from the recent post) is that it was too easy to find the pair. In fact, olegru did just that kind of hunting based on info in the OP (which is why I said at the time I edited the OP that I probably should delete the entire thing).

I found the pair in question from the information in the OP after your edit within a few minutes. I was surprised you left it in that form.

[HighLow21]

billw55, on 2012-March-13, 14:59, said:

I admit I am curious about the examples, but the reasons for removing them are good.

Most suspicious actions I have experienced are in bidding, for example balancing in a short suit and oh look, partner has six of them! Or psych fielding, etc.

(inquiry, I think you have an error in your all-caps edit in olegru's post. The third sentence sounds different than I think you intended.)

He meant 'CANNOT,' not 'CAN.'

[HighLow21]

inquiry, on 2012-March-13, 15:06, said:

In other words, don't make it a "piece of cake" for the curious to see who bid/played the hand. There should be no way to link the hand through you or any other player to the hands in the myhands database. The problem with the examples posted above that I removed (from the OP, and from the recent post) is that it was too easy to find the pair. In fact, olegru did just that kind of hunting based on info in the OP (which is why I said at the time I edited the OP that I probably should delete the entire thing).

I see your points and cede them fully; I was not aware of the sensitivity about cheating accusations and the ability to find out who I'm referring to when I originally posted. I'm sure Olegru is in the same boat. That said, now that I understand the issue better, I fully agree with BBO's position and won't do it again. It's definitely best left on an innocent-until-proven-guilty basis, and the proving grounds must be with the BBO abuse team. Anything else is tantamount to asking for people--potentially many people--to have their reputations damaged by malicious or ill-informed accusations of cheating, which is far worse than the cheating problem itself.

That said, I can see the value in constructing example hands (possibly based on actual cheating examples, however modified for protection) to help curious people understand the things to look for.

[WellSpyder]

billw55, on 2012-March-13, 14:59, said:

I admit I am curious about the examples, but the reasons for removing them are good.

I happened to see the examples before they were deleted. I am not in the least interested in who they referred to and did not try to find out, but I was interested to see whether I thought the accusations could be the result of lucky opponents and a somewhat paranoid attitude to when things happen against you.

Having read them, I would say that if all these examples happened in one session as described, then I for one have absolutely no doubt that there was indeed cheating going on. Every single one of the half dozen or so examples was pretty suspicious, but perhaps just might have been the result of complete cluelessness combined with good luck. All of them together happening through a combination of luck and cluelessness is just too incredible to believe, however. So I agree with olegru's comment that these were not "too subtle to be caught". I also sympathise with the view that if things as extreme as this happen then it is tough just to brush them aside and say it doesn't matter because you are only playing for practice, since what you are experiencing is so far removed from what normally happens at the table that the practice is unlikely to be very helpful.

[HighLow21]

WellSpyder, on 2012-March-14, 04:09, said:

I happened to see the examples before they were deleted. I am not in the least interested in who they referred to and did not try to find out, but I was interested to see whether I thought the accusations could be the result of lucky opponents and a somewhat paranoid attitude to when things happen against you.

Having read them, I would say that if all these examples happened in one session as described, then I for one have absolutely no doubt that there was indeed cheating going on. Every single one of the half dozen or so examples was pretty suspicious, but perhaps just might have been the result of complete cluelessness combined with good luck. All of them together happening through a combination of luck and cluelessness is just too incredible to believe, however. So I agree with olegru's comment that these were not "too subtle to be caught". I also sympathise with the view that if things as extreme as this happen then it is tough just to brush them aside and say it doesn't matter because you are only playing for practice, since what you are experiencing is so far removed from what normally happens at the table that the practice is unlikely to be very helpful.

Inquiry effectively corroborated your analysis (and that of others) in his original reply to this thread.

[JLOGIC]

Grunching, but yes people cheat, just report to abuse AT bridgebase DOT com, then don't worry about it anymore. They are pretty good about conducting investigations and being fair but erring on the side of caution like they should be. Def don't post about it on these forums, it's considered a no-no (lol @ me saying this, I know).

[JLOGIC]

And obv if you have good evidence that they are cheating, they will get caught and dealt with. If your evidence is deemed to suck, nothing will happen. I definitely believe you found some people who cheat, it happens if you play with randoms a lot.

FWIW BBO is pro-active in many ways in trying to find cheaters, esp in their tournaments.

[barmar]

And we've been racking our brains for some time trying to come up with effective ways to deal with them. But the anonymity that the Internet provides makes this very difficult.

[HighLow21]

barmar, on 2012-March-15, 09:10, said:

And we've been racking our brains for some time trying to come up with effective ways to deal with them. But the anonymity that the Internet provides makes this very difficult.

The anonymity the Internet provides leads to a LOT of problems that are hard to deal with. :-)

[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2012-March-14, 04:09, said:

So I agree with olegru's comment that these were not "too subtle to be caught".

I didn't see the examples, and I am sure you are right. My own comment was just general --that it is possible to cheat subtly, so there will always be some who are getting away with it.

[aguahombre]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-15, 12:38, said:

The anonymity the Internet provides leads to a LOT of problems that are hard to deal with. :-)

This dovetails a bit into the other, more contentious, thread. How do we know that the user earning masterpoints is the person with that ACBL number?

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-15, 13:39, said:

I didn't see the examples, and I am sure you are right. My own comment was just general --that it is possible to cheat subtly, so there will always be some who are getting away with it.

I fear this also applies to face-to-face games.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-15, 13:42, said:

This dovetails a bit into the other, more contentious, thread. How do we know that the user earning masterpoints is the person with that ACBL number?

Maybe they are but their expert spouse/civil partner/illicit lover is sitting beside them offering advice.

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2012-March-15, 13:50, said:

I fear this also applies to face-to-face games.

It's a lot harder to get away with it in face-to-face games.
.
There is taking advantage of UI from partner's demeanour, yes, but generally odd things you do will be noticed. (People will especially take note of the single-dummy solver in your lap ) Also strange results will travel by word-of-mouth, so people will be watching carefully.

Recently a pair in the EBU was told "We don't know what you are doing, but we know you are at it, so cut it out". Apparently they have done so.

[olegru]

Are there any dogs with ACBL masterpoints yet?

[aguahombre]

olegru, on 2012-March-15, 13:55, said:

Are there any dogs with ACBL masterpoints yet?

Absolutely. But If I named them, they might take offense.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-15, 13:42, said:

This dovetails a bit into the other, more contentious, thread. How do we know that the user earning masterpoints is the person with that ACBL number?

How would a f2f club know? Has any club director ever asked a patron for ID?