[nige1]

On Bridgewinners, there are fascinating discussions about cheating. Bridge officials treat it as a hot potato, at all levels. 2 typical personal experiences:

A. In National event, in a competitive auction, I bid 4♠. LHO passed and RHO bid "Stop, 5♥". The auction concluded LHO "6♣", RHO "7♥". All pass. I called the tournament director. LHO angrily asked "Why are you calling the director? You're accusing me of cheating." I said "No". When the director arrived, LHO told him "My opponent called me a cheat". I said "No" but the director reprimanded me for accusing opponents of cheating and left without hearing or addressing my attempts to raise concerns about the auction.

B. At my 1st Brighton speedball. I called the director when attention was drawn to an opponent's infraction. LHO complained to the director "It's cheating to call the director in a speedball." RHO just kept repeating "Cheat". The director mildly castigated her. "You mustn't accuse him of cheating". LHO advised RHO "You're right, Partner, but if you keep that up, you'll put yourself as much in the wrong as he is". The director defended my director-call but left without resolving any issues. LHO continued her "Cheat" mantra, at increased volume, until the next board.


My experiences reinforce Max Bevin's maxim "whoever shouts loudest wins the ruling" But they also underline how hard it is for directors to deal with cheating cases

C. In a notorious ACBL case, a world-class player exchanged cards in opponent's hands after getting a bad result on a board. When the victims complained to him, he told them that they had not been damaged. The offender didn't report his infraction to the director but the victims did. Directors wouldn't give a ruling. Instead, they suggested that the victims complete a "Player Memo". The victims complied. A long time later the ACBL banned the offending player from play over the Christmas fortnight. It awarded his victims no redress. Many American professionals backed the offender and defended his actions.

Bobby Wolff (formerly WBF and ACBL president) writes that the ACBL concealed information on hundreds of American cheats including Internationals (e.g. B J Becker and Dorothy Hayden).

IMO, its ludicrous to expect an NBO to envistigate top-level cheating by its own members. It is understandable that NBOs condone cheats, especially as the suspects include board-members and internationals; the latter chosen by domestic sponsors and selectors. They might have to forfeit placings and titles -- including many world-championships. Even in ordinary rulings between national teams, Bridge Winner comments divide on patriotic lines.

The WBF has consistently procrastinated, prevaricated, and suppressed evidence (e.g. the Burgay Tapes). Most top American players believe that Europeans are cheats, especially the Italian Blue Team.

Recently, Nick Hammond and the CAT committee have accused more than 30 top players of on-line cheating The list includes World-champions and Tournament directors.

Naturally, officials are reluctant to take on the arduous and thankless task of cleaning out the Augean Stables. Especially as the accused are likely to sue them.

The probity of Bridge is suspect and its future precarious. Prospects are bleak unless there is a radical change of direction.

IMO reform must come from the top.

The WBF must urgently appoint a team and define a protocol to investigate and prosecute suspected top-level cheats in a co-ordinated, fair, open, timely, legally bullet-proof, and efficient way.

[FelicityR]

Us Brits are above that sort of thing. WHOOPS! I forgot Buenos Aires 1965. Perhaps we started it? Oh dear...

[hrothgar]

Just to be clear, your "new approach" amounts to

1. Appointing a committee
2. Wishful thinking

This is the sort of decisive change that bridge needs!

[hrothgar]

FWIW, here's one of my own posts on one of those threads


To start with, I want to sketch out what I think the big problems are with the situation as is.

1. There’s an enormous amount of cheating going on

2. The responses that are being used simply are not effective. They are too time intensive to deploy at scale. They are escalating into costly lawsuits. Many people (myself included) do not have confidence in the process, the methods, and – in some cases – the individuals who are driving these efforts.

3. Both the proceedings and the algorithms being used are hidden, which in turn contributes to the lack of confidence in the process.

Before I make my own recommendations, I’d like to frame the discussion by noting a couple critical points.

First and foremost, if I go and play in F2F bridge tournament today, at the end of these session, all sorts of information get published regarding how I happened to play that day. Everyone can go and see my overall results, what contract I bid to on all of the hands, how many tricks that I took, the score, … If Bridgemates are being used, there’s even more information that is made publicly available (for example, opening leads). This is part and parcel of the game. If we move to an electronic playing environment, we have more complete data, but here once again traditionally this has all been made publicly available for anyone to look at.

Second: One of the big things that we try to beat into player’s heads is that calling the director is not an accusation that the opponent’s are cheating or even that they committed an impropriety. Rather, this is part and parcel of the game. It’s how we make sure that the game is able to resolve issues as they occur.

So, with all this said and done, what am I advocating: At the most basic level, I am advocating a much more transparent version of what is happening today behind closed doors.

First: Build common infrastructure wrt to storing hand records and analyzing the results.

Next: Allow organizations that are running tournaments to pipe their hand records into the data base. Associated with this, make sure that players who enter into events do so understanding that all of their data will be made publicly available. Moreover, that there are suites of algorithms that evaluate players performance, that the results of this analysis will be made publicly available. Just like everyone can go and look at your sessions score two weeks back, people will have the option to look at your lead accuracy as function of time.

Finally, allow different players to collaborate on developing algorithms and visualizations for measuring different aspects of performance and allow these methods to improve over time.

Note: This is no different than what is happening today. What has changed is that I advocate that this should happen in the open using a transparent process. Player’s will be in the position to make an informed decision whether or not to enter events. Everyone will have access to hand records and the like. Everyone will be able to understand what algorithms are being used, debate their appropriateness, suggest improvements, and experiment with methods.

One big advantage of this scheme is that it avoids the possibility of lawsuits. No one is being accused of cheating. Rather, we are simply applying a standard set of algorithms and publishing the results.

Is this a perfect solution? Obviously not. But it’s a damn sight better than what’s going on today.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2020-September-29, 07:31, said:

On Bridgewinners, there are fascinating discussions about cheating. Bridge officials treat it as a hot potato, at all levels. <snip>
The WBF must urgently appoint a team and define a protocol to investigate and prosecute suspected top-level cheats in a co-ordinated, fair, open, timely, legally bullet-proof, and efficient way.

There are two separate points being made here. Yes, there is opposition to calling the director although there should not be. When someone bids or leads out of turn, it is accepted as essential, but when there is a BIT and someone feels the need to call the TD it does create ill-feeling.

I think that with the misuse of the stop card, there IS an insinuation if you call the TD and it costs nothing to wait until you see the dummy and the 5H bidder. If the 5H bid is heavy and the 7H bid is light, THEN you call the TD, and you do not lose any rights if you wait until then. Law 16B2 states (regarding unauthorised information which includes the misuse of the stop card):

When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result <snip> he may announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later <snip>.

So, in my view, you could not possibly "consider that there was damage" until you saw both hands, and calling the TD before dummy hits is unnecessarily provocative and officious.

In a speedball there is an "unwritten rule" that you don't call the TD unless there is no alternative, as it often causes a board to be lost.

Regarding cheating in British and International events, I think the governing bodies are handling this well. Allegations are sent to the secretary of each body, and there is both a EBU Disciplinary Panel and an EBU Online Investigation Group. The EBL and WBF have addressed the issue. For example, there is a "HIGH LEVEL PLAYERS COMMISSION EXPRESS LINE - UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR REPORT" on the WBF website.

I think that it is right that the names of miscreants are not reported unless they have pleaded guilty to (or been found guilty of) the charges against them, and they must be given the opportunity to defend themselves against the accusations. They will often appeal through the courts as well, and those courts will have a limited understanding of bridge, so that they might get off with a good lawyer. I think that bodies will have to look at their regulations closely so that they are entitled to exclude any player found to have been cheating and that membership of the body indicates an undertaking to accept the outcome of a disciplinary hearing.

And the governing bodies should require a very high standard of proof, maybe of the order of 1 in 100,000. The Blackstone ratio indicates: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

Finally on the procedures and algorithms being hidden, I suggest you buy and read Nicolas Hammond's book!

[nige1]

lamford, on 2020-September-29, 09:00, said:

So, in my view, you could not possibly "consider that there was damage" until you saw both hands, and calling the TD before dummy hits is unnecessarily provocative and officious.

Gratuitously offensive. Lamford puts quotes round "consider that there was damage" as if it was something I wrote. Admttedly, I did think there might be damage. "Stop 5!H" is a clear infraction, however. I called attention to it. So I was legally obliged to call the director.

lamford, on 2020-September-29, 09:00, said:

In a speedball there is an "unwritten rule" that you don't call the TD unless there is no alternative, as it often causes a board to be lost.

It was my 1st speedball and I was unaware that so many bridge laws and regulations are suspended.

lamford, on 2020-September-29, 09:00, said:

Regarding cheating in British and International events, I think the governing bodies are handling this well. Allegations are sent to the secretary of each body, and there is both a EBU Disciplinary Panel and an EBU Online Investigation Group. The EBL and WBF have addressed the issue. For example, there is a "HIGH LEVEL PLAYERS COMMISSION EXPRESS LINE - UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR REPORT" on the WBF website.

The EBU dealt well with the recent on-line case against one of their members. FelicityR recalls the1965 Reese-Schapiro case. The BBL tried to be thorough and fair. That hasn't stopped widespread criticism. IMO, accusations of bias should be avoided where that is easy to accomplish.

lamford, on 2020-September-29, 09:00, said:

I think that it is right that the names of miscreants are not reported unless they have pleaded guilty to (or been found guilty of) the charges against them, and they must be given the opportunity to defend themselves against the accusations. They will often appeal through the courts as well, and those courts will have a limited understanding of bridge, so that they might get off with a good lawyer. I think that bodies will have to look at their regulations closely so that they are entitled to exclude any player found to have been cheating and that membership of the body indicates an undertaking to accept the outcome of a disciplinary hearing. And the governing bodies should require a very high standard of proof, maybe of the order of 1 in 100,000. The Blackstone ratio indicates: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer..

I agree with all that, although it might be hard to enforce agreements by players to forfeit their legal rights. Also, IMO, partners and team-mates of convicted cheats should forfeit relevant titles and placings and these should be awarded to their victims, in as simple and fair a way as possible.

lamford, on 2020-September-29, 09:00, said:

Finally on the procedures and algorithms being hidden, I suggest you buy and read Nicolas Hammond's book!

Current procedures are opaque. IMO justice should be seen to be done. I didn't mention algorithms. Hammond's book doesn't detail his algorithms. I'm unsure that it should.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2020-September-29, 07:31, said:

A. In National event, in a competitive auction, I bid 4♠. LHO passed and RHO bid "Stop, 5♥". The auction concluded LHO "6♣", RHO "7♥". All pass. I called the tournament director. LHO angrily asked "Why are you calling the director? You're accusing me of cheating." I said "No". When the director arrived, LHO told him "My opponent called me a cheat". I said "No" but the director reprimanded me for accusing opponents of cheating and left without hearing or addressing my attempts to raise concerns about the auction.

B. At my 1st Brighton speedball. I called the director when attention was drawn to an opponent's infraction. LHO complained to the director "It's cheating to call the director in a speedball." RHO just kept repeating "Cheat". The director mildly castigated her. "You mustn't accuse him of cheating". LHO advised RHO "You're right, Partner, but if you keep that up, you'll put yourself as much in the wrong as he is". The director defended my director-call but left without resolving any issues. LHO continued her "Cheat" mantra, at increased volume, until the next board.

A. I would have called the director back and asked him to listen to my side of the story. If he doesn't listen, and there is a DIC, and this ain't him, I ask to have the DIC come to the table. If [I]he[I] doesn't listen, I lodge a complaint with the Tournament Organizer.

B. Again I would call the director back. Continued accusations of cheating would result in more director calls, including for the DIC. If no director handles the problem, again lodge a complaint. I don't give a hoot about "unwritten rules" when they conflict with the written rules of the game. I would be tempted to insist on a C&E hearing for three of the four players at the table (it seems from your post, Nigel, that your partner wisely kept his mouth shut. )

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2020-September-29, 11:23, said:

I would be tempted to insist on a C&E hearing for three of the four players at the table (it seems from your post, Nigel, that your partner wisely kept his mouth shut. )

William Shakespeare's Falstaff, in Henry IV part I, said:

The better part of valour is discretion

Interesting that Blackshoe seems to have a worse opinion of my director-calls than Lamford If such director-calls necessitate a C&E hearing then partner's silence was well advised

[johnu]

blackshoe, on 2020-September-29, 11:23, said:

I don't give a hoot about "unwritten rules" when they conflict with the written rules of the game. I would be tempted to insist on a C&E hearing for three of the four players at the table (it seems from your post, Nigel, that your partner wisely kept his mouth shut. )

I don't see where nige1 has done anything wrong. As far as unwritten rules go, if they really were important, somebody would have written them down.

[pilowsky]

The first question to ask is Why do people cheat?
I believe that there are several reasons. Most of these reasons relate to the incredibly small stakes involved.
Bridge, for all the importance that people attach to it, and all the energy that people put into it, and all the money that people spend on it, is basically just a card game. When the game is over, win or lose, top or bottom, you don't have to go into that small room with traumatised relatives and explain why their 11-year-old son died in excruciating pain and there was nothing that could be done to save him.

No, in Bridge it's just a game of cards that you play after you've done that to calm yourself.

People often behave in peculiar ways for all sorts of reasons.
A person might cheat simply because their opponent was annoying them. The 'annoyance' might be perceived. Online I have seen people annoyed by slowness that could easily be explained by internet speeds or disconnects.
IRL for some bizarre reason people feel comfortable saying things to people that you would never imagine saying in normal social discourse to someone that you don't know or have never met.

Some people are not particularly successful in anything else in life but find success at one thing early in life. They develop this single skill - whatever it is Bridge, Chess, Tennis you name it to the exclusion of everything else in their lives.
One of the things that they sometimes lack is social skills, including empathy. Some of these people cannot stand the idea that they might be beaten by someone else even by luck; the rub of the green. It so offends them that they will take any measure to correct what they perceive as an injustice.
What is happening is that although the stakes seem small to you and me - probably more me than you, these people have invested so much time and money that their entire sense of self-worth is now at stake. There is nothing else. They can't turn around and do something else.
Bridge has failed these people.

So, I see it a bit differently. Some people play bridge for recreation. Some people play bridge competitively and some people have bridge as a livelihood.

Casinos - BBO is a Casino - make their money from people that pay them to use their platform. When they talk about cheating they mean people that play in a way that systematically takes money away from their platform.

We can't expect BBO to do anything about cheating. The same goes for Private Bridge Clubs and Professional players. They may or may not condone or like cheating, but there is no incentive to do anything about it.

The problem with criminalising behaviour in Bridge is that we have a game structure that has that behaviour embedded within it. Or at least, the perception of it. What I mean is even a flicker of an emotion or a momentary pause can lead to allegations that are unfounded, yet may be true.

A tournament Director is not a mind reader.

As long as Bridge exists so will cheating. We all know this, it's the same in every sport.

I do not condone cheating. Not for any high moral reason, but just because it's pointless. It spoils my fun. It distracts from the harmony and purity of the game.

The question really ought to be: what are we trying to achieve in the long run?

[pilowsky]

FelicityR, on 2020-September-29, 08:27, said:

Us Brits are above that sort of thing. WHOOPS! I forgot Buenos Aires 1965. Perhaps we started it? Oh dear...

Britain is a perfect country. It sent all it's bad people to Australia. A few escaped and went to America.

[sanst]

pilowsky, on 2020-September-29, 15:06, said:

The first question to ask is Why do people cheat?

In an interview Michal Nowosadzki, caught self-kibitzeing on BBO, said, that he first did it just to see how that worked and after that found it addictive. I think it works like that for most cheats, not just at bridge but in general, it starts as a trial, “is it really that easy?”, then do it “just once more” and are hooked. It’s like a drug because it gives a thrill. It’s necessary that you have a ‘flexible’ conscience, but that’s about it. A former colleague of mine - we had already discovered that he wasn’t to be trusted - became a con man by just trying how easy it was to get a Mercedes for free from a dealer. He started a career in fraude, including getting a job at top management of the largest telecom provider in the country, but was sentenced many times. But nothing could stop him, notwithstanding many years prison and promises to his wife and kids.

[pilowsky]

sanst, on 2020-September-30, 03:25, said:

In an interview Michal Nowosadzki, caught self-kibitzeing on BBO, said, that he first did it just to see how that worked and after that found it addictive. I think it works like that for most cheats, not just at bridge but in general, it starts as a trial, "is it really that easy?", then do it "just once more" and are hooked. It's like a drug because it gives a thrill. It's necessary that you have a 'flexible' conscience, but that's about it. A former colleague of mine - we had already discovered that he wasn't to be trusted - became a con man by just trying how easy it was to get a Mercedes for free from a dealer. He started a career in fraude, including getting a job at top management of the largest telecom provider in the country, but was sentenced many times. But nothing could stop him, notwithstanding many years prison and promises to his wife and kids.

I agree. I think that this is also the basis of the "suckers and losers" paradigm.
When some people see how easy it is to win without effort or skill they lose interest in acquiring competency and knowledge.
Such people actually believe that hiring someone else to do something for them is exactly the same thing as doing it themselves.
Naturally, they quickly become addicted.


This addiction like any other addiction is a serious problem. A person can be addicted to anything: alcohol, gambling, cigarettes, television, opiates even Bridge. Surprisingly, opiates are one of the least addictive and least harmful.

Addictions, where there is nothing to see or take away, are very difficult to manage. Sometimes the addiction is actually part of normal development - eg love! Dopamine is a great molecule but too much at the wrong time and place can be a really bad thing. Too little isn't so good either.


Even addictions where there is something to see can be ferociously difficult to handle. Obesity for example. It's much easier to give up cigarettes than food. After all, you won't die if you stop smoking.

[pran]

sanst, on 2020-September-30, 03:25, said:

In an interview Michal Nowosadzki, caught self-kibitzeing on BBO, said, that he first did it just to see how that worked and after that found it addictive. I think it works like that for most cheats, not just at bridge but in general, it starts as a trial, “is it really that easy?”, then do it “just once more” and are hooked. It’s like a drug because it gives a thrill. It’s necessary that you have a ‘flexible’ conscience, but that’s about it. A former colleague of mine - we had already discovered that he wasn’t to be trusted - became a con man by just trying how easy it was to get a Mercedes for free from a dealer. He started a career in fraude, including getting a job at top management of the largest telecom provider in the country, but was sentenced many times. But nothing could stop him, notwithstanding many years prison and promises to his wife and kids.

I have always detested online bridge competitions (except social events with no real value in any form worth cheating).
My main reason is the knowledge on how difficult, not to say impossible, it is to prevent cheating by using various forms for unauthorized communication while playing online.

(Maybe I should point out that IT security has been one of my professional responsibilities for more than 40 years now?)

[nige1]

pran, on 2020-September-30, 07:46, said:

I have always detested online bridge competitions (except social events with no real value in any form worth cheating).
My main reason is the knowledge on how difficult, not to say impossible, it is to prevent cheating by using various forms for unauthorized communication while playing online.
(Maybe I should point out that IT security has been one of my professional responsibilities for more than 40 years now?)

• 2 common forms of f2f cheating are use of UI and inadequate disclosure. Both are fairly easy to mitigate, on-line.
• Self-kibitzing was an on-line problem, but can be eliminated by delayed kibitzing of records and viewgraphs.
• Illegal partnership communication (e.g. coughing, concealed radio-communication) is by far the worst remaining problem. Admittedly, this is easier to prevent, f2f.
• Nick Hammond has written an interesting book on detecting self-kibitzing and collaborative cheating. His algorithms have recently helped to detect 30+ alleged on-line cheats. His programs need masses of accurate data. On-line this is easily accessible.

[nige1]

pilowsky, on 2020-September-29, 15:06, said:

The first question to ask is Why do people cheat? I believe that there are several reasons. Most of these reasons relate to the incredibly small stakes involved ...

Many professionals make a living from teaching, writing, and sponsored playing. Dozens of world-championships have been won by alleged cheats. Arguably, however, honour and glory are on a par with filthy lucre as an incentive to cheating.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2020-September-29, 12:40, said:

Interesting that Blackshoe seems to have a worse opinion of my director-calls than Lamford If such director-calls necessitate a C&E hearing then partner's silence was well advised

johnu, on 2020-September-29, 13:42, said:

I don't see where nige1 has done anything wrong.

I didn't say that Nigel did anything wrong. His opponents did, one of them repeatedly, in a manner that is at best deprecated by the laws and regulations governing our game. I would expect a C&E hearing to fully exonerate him, and that is why, in his shoes, I would call for one. I would expect a C&E hearing to censure both opponents, and to apply whatever punishment is appropriate to the offenses.

[johnu]

blackshoe, on 2020-September-30, 13:30, said:

I didn't say that Nigel did anything wrong. His opponents did, one of them repeatedly, in a manner that is at best deprecated by the laws and regulations governing our game. I would expect a C&E hearing to fully exonerate him, and that is why, in his shoes, I would call for one. I would expect a C&E hearing to censure both opponents, and to apply whatever punishment is appropriate to the offenses.

You did say

blackshoe, on 2020-September-29, 11:23, said:

I don't give a hoot about "unwritten rules" when they conflict with the written rules of the game. I would be tempted to insist on a C&E hearing for three of the four players at the table (it seems from your post, Nigel, that your partner wisely kept his mouth shut. )

Let's see. There are the 2 opponents so that is 2 out of the 4 players at the table. You cleared the unspecified partner. That leaves nige1 who is the 4th and only other player at the table unless there was an unknown substitute who was not mentioned. You were tempted to insist on a C&E hearing for 3 of the 4 players. Who is the 3rd player besides the 2 opponents?

[blackshoe]

johnu, on 2020-October-01, 15:22, said:

Let's see. There are the 2 opponents so that is 2 out of the 4 players at the table. You cleared the unspecified partner. That leaves nige1 who is the 4th and only other player at the table unless there was an unknown substitute who was not mentioned. You were tempted to insist on a C&E hearing for 3 of the 4 players. Who is the 3rd player besides the 2 opponents?

I already answered that. Also, when I made my first comment, I was putting myself in Nigel's place. I guess I should have said "If I were Nigel I would insist on a C&E hearing for myself and both opponents."

[johnu]

blackshoe, on 2020-October-02, 09:40, said:

I already answered that. Also, when I made my first comment, I was putting myself in Nigel's place. I guess I should have said "If I were Nigel I would insist on a C&E hearing for myself and both opponents."

I can see the future conversation.

Q. I heard you were the subject of a C&E hearing.
A. It's not what you think, I called for a hearing on myself and was found not guilty.
Q. Called it on yourself?!? So, not guilty doesn't mean innocent.
A. Well....maybe I need to rethink my previous request for a C&E hearing.

or maybe

Q. I heard you were found guilt of a C&E violation.
A. It's not what you think. I called the violation on myself and things went completely off the rails. I am really innocent.
Q. Sure, makes perfect sense to me