[Zelandakh]

wank, on 2012-March-09, 07:41, said:

it's possible to see someone else's hand history? how so?

BBO Hand Records - enter the user name and a selected period. For example, putting in "wank" and "1 month" gives results of +1.04 IMPs per board and 57.22% MP average. This monthly average is often a better guide to a random player's ability than their self-rating.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2012-March-09, 07:48, said:

As an aside to inquiry: if you have concluded that a player or pair is in fact cheating, I would not object to posting the hands publicly with usernames.

That's not how this game is run. Real world bridge leagues wouldn't condone such behavior, and neither should we.

[aguahombre]

billw55, on 2012-March-09, 07:48, said:

As an aside to inquiry: if you have concluded that a player or pair is in fact cheating, I would not object to posting the hands publicly with usernames.

barmar, on 2012-March-09, 10:47, said:

That's not how this game is run. Real world bridge leagues wouldn't condone such behavior, and neither should we.

That is the appropriate position for real world bridge leagues and for responsible on-line sites.

But, we all have a little gossip monger in us

[rduran1216]

Zelandakh, on 2012-March-09, 07:49, said:

BBO Hand Records - enter the user name and a selected period. For example, putting in "wank" and "1 month" gives results of +1.04 IMPs per board and 57.22% MP average. This monthly average is often a better guide to a random player's ability than their self-rating.

BBO players self ratings are about as reliable as Muhammad Ali's balance. That is true.

[inquiry]

billw55, on 2012-March-09, 07:48, said:

As an aside to inquiry: if you have concluded that a player or pair is in fact cheating, I would not object to posting the hands publicly with usernames.

This is not open for discussion, as the policy I am quoting was in place before I became associated with the bbo or this forum, and it is not changing, for a variety of very good reasons. In the beginning, I felt like you did, shame the bastards. But I agreed to follow and enforce the bbo policies. I have come around to understand the bbo policies are the best. One reason is that there are a number of people who feel like you do, and they post online (but not in our forum and not via lobby chats in the bbo itself --- which are sure ways to get your password scrambled). Sometimes, they "out" cheaters, sometimes they display their own bridge ignorance calling perfectly normal stuff as cheating. One example is a partnership I know well uses 2c-2h as "instant double negative" and 2C-2nt to show a positive hand with hearts. In accusing this pair as cheating in an online blog, one person using such an auction as absolute proof of cheating, because the notrump slam only makes from the side with the heart suit so "they manufactured" the auction to play it from that side.

There are some 30 or so "proof" hands in that fellows blog, almost all of them are no evidence of cheating, and some of the statements in the blog are so wrong (one of the events the pair was accused of cheating in they scored 35% for the entire event, for instance) but the claim on a hand from the poor event was they always win. Users who were convinced by the "evidence" of cheating piled on and said that the culprit was averaging +0.90 imps per hand played and that benito was "only" averaging +.76 and michael seamon only +0.67 so this guy had to be much better than them or a cheater (no mention that the stars were only playing in jec matches against other stars, while the accused was facing very poor opponents).

it would become a zoo here if we allowed such post here, and that ignores possible slander lawsuits. So anything that can be linked to a player will be deleted and the poster could get into trouble with bbo if it continues.

[billw55]

Whoa there guys, maybe I was misunderstood. I was not talking about posting of accusations by any user. I was talking about posting of confirmed cases by site admins. I certainly support the policy against random accusations.

For confirmed cases though, I do believe in public record. And that includes cases in live events as well. Yes, the standard of proof must be high, but once it is met I have no pity.

[barmar]

This isn't a court, there's no jury making a judgement "beyond reasonable doubt". There are investigations, and they come to a conclusion and take some action. But I don't think it rises to the standard of proof that would warrant public humiliation.

[ggwhiz]

I've been accused of cheating and do play out of the same ip address with my wife. I contacted BBO and proved that we didn't on the hand in question and can easily include any number of really stinky scores to back up the fact that we play fair.

It really got my back up and if it happened through a forum post I would consider it a nightmare. My guess is that 80% of the accusations have no basis and regardless, 100% do not belong here.

[aguahombre]

ggwhiz, on 2012-March-09, 15:17, said:

I've been accused of cheating and do play out of the same ip address with my wife. I contacted BBO and proved that we didn't on the hand in question and can easily include any number of really stinky scores to back up the fact that we play fair.

It really got my back up and if it happened through a forum post I would consider it a nightmare. My guess is that 80% of the accusations have no basis and regardless, 100% do not belong here.

Having crawled thru the attic to run router wire so my better half's computer could be on the other side of the house, I know where you are coming from.

[Statto]

Naming and shaming leads to this kind of hysteria: http://news.bbc.co.u...ales/901723.stm

[blackshoe]

There's not much that gets me really angry, but accusations of cheating are right up there.

[aguahombre]

I assume you mean public accusations.

[Free]

billw55, on 2012-March-09, 12:59, said:

Whoa there guys, maybe I was misunderstood. I was not talking about posting of accusations by any user. I was talking about posting of confirmed cases by site admins. I certainly support the policy against random accusations.

For confirmed cases though, I do believe in public record. And that includes cases in live events as well. Yes, the standard of proof must be high, but once it is met I have no pity.

What's the point? If their nickname is published as a cheater they'll just make another. It's not like you know their real names, and even if you know their real name, nothing will prevent them from using another name for their new nickname... As long as you don't have to prove your identity before getting a user, then there's just no use in publishing their names. They might appreciate their second chance though.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-10, 01:00, said:

There's not much that gets me really angry, but accusations of cheating are right up there.

Quite. Bridge is a game, and you can't murder, rape or steal in a game. The worst thing you can do is cheat.

However, there are people who have other ideas, and there is no way BBO can weed out all the cheats -- it would be very easy to cheat without drawing attention to yourself. For example, if you were running a single-dummy solver, you would not succeed with anti-percentage plays; all of your plays would be correct. Or if you are on the phone with partner, only use your knowledge of his cards for close decisions.

So there will always be cheats, and there is no point in getting exercised about it.

[Scarabin]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-10, 01:23, said:

Quite. Bridge is a game, and you can't murder, rape or steal in a game. The worst thing you can do is cheat.

However, there are people who have other ideas, and there is no way BBO can weed out all the cheats -- it would be very easy to cheat without drawing attention to yourself. For example, if you were running a single-dummy solver, you would not succeed with anti-percentage plays; all of your plays would be correct. Or if you are on the phone with partner, only use your knowledge of his cards for close decisions.

So there will always be cheats, and there is no point in getting exercised about it.

This brings up a nice point and one I have not seen answered. Is using artificial aids (e.g. notepad, card combination tables, single dummy solver, bidding notes) cheating?

[hrothgar]

Scarabin, on 2012-March-10, 03:13, said:

This brings up a nice point and one I have not seen answered. Is using artificial aids (e.g. notepad, card combination tables, single dummy solver, bidding notes) cheating?

I'd have to answer "It depends"

Consider the following two examples

1. You are competing in the ACBL championship to identify the best collegiate team in North America

2. You and your partner are learning a new system. You and a couple friends open up a table so you can practice. Everyone knows that you're using crib sheets.

The first example is clearly cheating. I don't think that the second example is, even though you arguably are impacting the MP scores of anyone else who plays the board.

Somewhere in between these two cases lies a rather fuzzy dividing line...
I'm not sure precisely where this lies.

I will note that many (most?) sponsoring authorities ban the use of memory aides...

[Vampyr]

Scarabin, on 2012-March-10, 03:13, said:

This brings up a nice point and one I have not seen answered. Is using artificial aids (e.g. notepad, card combination tables, single dummy solver, bidding notes) cheating?

It is, as per Law40C3(a). But the regulating authority can make an exception, and I think that perhaps online bridge sites should do so, at least to the extent of convention cards -- especially since there are so many pick-up partnerships, who may have had little or no discussion but do have a convention card available.

Aids to play seem clearly wrong, but any prohibition cannot be enforced, so I think that for online bridge the regulation should be that "anything goes".

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-10, 05:49, said:

Aids to play seem clearly wrong, but any prohibition cannot be enforced, so I think that for online bridge the regulation should be that "anything goes".

The prohibition on improper communication can't be enforced either, but we still prohibit it. I don't think this is any different.

[ggwhiz]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-10, 05:49, said:

but any prohibition cannot be enforced,

A few years ago whne the Canadian Juniour Trials were first held online volunteer monitors were recruited for all the players. I'm not sure if that is still done for such events.

[barmar]

ggwhiz, on 2012-March-10, 10:29, said:

A few years ago whne the Canadian Juniour Trials were first held online volunteer monitors were recruited for all the players. I'm not sure if that is still done for such events.

We do that when the qualifying rounds of the ACBL Collegiate Championship are done online.