Help
It is so easy to cheat online... It only takes 1 friendly kibbitzer and some messenger program running...
We all know its easy but without ratings there has never been an incentive on BBO to actually cheat... there was no benefit to it.
Since the implementation of tourneys, it seems to me there has been more whispering about so-and-so must have cheated to make that contract. I personally have witnessed contracts that were made by taking virtually impossible lines at least twice, and I am sure everyone else has witnessed one or two as well.
Do other people feel that cheating is becoming more prevalent since the implementation of tourneys or am I alone in this? If the perception isn't only mine, then what can we do to police people who continually make the "miracle" plays at the crucial times that win those tourneys/matches?
Or should we just accept that it's an online hazard, that we can't do much about it and simply note "Appears so and so is cheating" to ourselves and avoid those people?
We are all competitive people, because bridge requires a competitive nature to become good at it. This sort of thing is certainly not unheard of in the annals of the game. I would like to believe all of us are above this sort of thing, but I am beginning to wonder...
Rise (??) in cheating recently
#2
- Group: FD TEAM
- Posts: 2,735
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Nashville, TN
- Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)
Posted 2003-September-05, 13:34
I think there's been a spike recently in cheating on the service. I've had to report three pairs who I strongly suspected of this offense. To the credit of the admins, they did ban two of the three pairs involved. When you look at the recap and see two scores over 70 percent with one near 80...that draws some red flags. Also, TOO perfect of play from either declarer or the defense brings attention.
I will say though that for the most part there hasn't been many if any irregularities from failure to alert, or taking inappropriate advantage of a mistaken bid/irregularity. This is far too often the exception than the norm with online services. I can honestly attest to the absolute bitterness shown on ACBL.com's site when something out of the ordinary occurs. Our culture here serves to curb incidents of this nature.
I will say this though as a warning to those that desire to cheat: I and others have ways of knowing exactly if the prospect of cheating exists. Furthermore, I have absolutely no tolerance for cheating and will do everything in my power to stop it from proliferating here on BBO. Cheating brings the service, community, and the game into disrepute.
I will say though that for the most part there hasn't been many if any irregularities from failure to alert, or taking inappropriate advantage of a mistaken bid/irregularity. This is far too often the exception than the norm with online services. I can honestly attest to the absolute bitterness shown on ACBL.com's site when something out of the ordinary occurs. Our culture here serves to curb incidents of this nature.
I will say this though as a warning to those that desire to cheat: I and others have ways of knowing exactly if the prospect of cheating exists. Furthermore, I have absolutely no tolerance for cheating and will do everything in my power to stop it from proliferating here on BBO. Cheating brings the service, community, and the game into disrepute.
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,488
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2003-September-05, 13:51
I have no idea whether there is an increase in cheating on BBO. While I would certainly find this disappointing, ultimately it isn't something that I'm going to get bent out of shape about.
I don't play bridge to compete against external opponents.
Rather, bridge represents an opportunity to strive for excellence.
The fact that pair XYZ had a wire that enabled them to bring home a slam on a ridiculous line of play does not detract from the fact that I bid and defended the hand correctly.
I don't play bridge to compete against external opponents.
Rather, bridge represents an opportunity to strive for excellence.
The fact that pair XYZ had a wire that enabled them to bring home a slam on a ridiculous line of play does not detract from the fact that I bid and defended the hand correctly.
Alderaan delenda est
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,488
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2003-September-05, 14:07
I will say this though as a warning to those that desire to cheat:
I and others have ways of knowing exactly if the prospect of cheating exists.
Dwayne, this comment amounts to nothing more than nonsensical posturing.
(A) The possibility of cheating ALWAYS exists.
(
There are no absolutes in security. There are likelihood estimates, confidence intervals, and all kinds of cost/benefit analysis.
Its very sad when the statisticians fail to understand this.
I and others have ways of knowing exactly if the prospect of cheating exists.
Dwayne, this comment amounts to nothing more than nonsensical posturing.
(A) The possibility of cheating ALWAYS exists.
(
There are no absolutes in security. There are likelihood estimates, confidence intervals, and all kinds of cost/benefit analysis. Its very sad when the statisticians fail to understand this.
Alderaan delenda est
#5
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 14,566
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amelia Island, FL
- Interests:Bridge, what else?
Posted 2003-September-05, 15:30
I have no idea if cheating is on the increase or not. I do know one thing, more people are asking me if I think that xyz or abc is cheating (I made those names up, if anyone is playing with those as knicknames, I apologize, this is suppose to be a random example). I generally reply that I have no idea, but if they have evidence they should report it to bbo officials. And I remind them of the rules against making such claims... in general.
I myself reported one player to abuse@bridgebase.com based initially on reports to me when I was tourment director and then after I looked at hands from the event. I am happy to say that nothing happened to the player in question, so I assume an investigation proved the allegations wrong.
Once I myself was accused, mildly, of cheating. I was in 3NT that could not be beaten if my RHO doesn't get in to lead through me. So although I have all the clubs but the King, and could finessee my LHO, I played the ACE (I can afford to lose a club to LHO). The club king was singleton behind the ACE and my RHO became, shall we say, very irrate. Fortunately, calmer heads at the table managed to explain that my play was the right play and dropping the King stiff was not the result of peeking.
And I think this last example is a problem for the site if we begin hysterical rants about cheating on the increase. A lot of players here would not recongnize the standard play in certain situations and thus might assume others are cheating when they make the textbook play. Say cash AK when they are split and then lead to the Jack to try to maximize three winners when it luckily drops Qx behind the jack. IF we create an atmosphere where cheating is on everyone's mind, people will find cheaters all over the place even where they are not.
Let's not tolerate cheaters, but lets deal with them in the way mandaited by the rules of the site. Pull your evidence together and send it in. Don't talk about it to others.
Ben
I myself reported one player to abuse@bridgebase.com based initially on reports to me when I was tourment director and then after I looked at hands from the event. I am happy to say that nothing happened to the player in question, so I assume an investigation proved the allegations wrong.
Once I myself was accused, mildly, of cheating. I was in 3NT that could not be beaten if my RHO doesn't get in to lead through me. So although I have all the clubs but the King, and could finessee my LHO, I played the ACE (I can afford to lose a club to LHO). The club king was singleton behind the ACE and my RHO became, shall we say, very irrate. Fortunately, calmer heads at the table managed to explain that my play was the right play and dropping the King stiff was not the result of peeking.
And I think this last example is a problem for the site if we begin hysterical rants about cheating on the increase. A lot of players here would not recongnize the standard play in certain situations and thus might assume others are cheating when they make the textbook play. Say cash AK when they are split and then lead to the Jack to try to maximize three winners when it luckily drops Qx behind the jack. IF we create an atmosphere where cheating is on everyone's mind, people will find cheaters all over the place even where they are not.
Let's not tolerate cheaters, but lets deal with them in the way mandaited by the rules of the site. Pull your evidence together and send it in. Don't talk about it to others.
Ben
--Ben--
#6
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 330
- Joined: 2003-February-20
Posted 2003-September-05, 15:59
I fully realize that sometimes good players make good plays and get accused of cheating... I myself have had this happen to me 3 times at tourneys (club level and above)... and I have had people even today doubt my honesty by making a good play.
However, when someone makes a play that is 100% anti percentage yet is the ONLY play that works that is when i become suspicious. I have seen people take 12% lines when there is a 60% line available, and the 12% line is the only one that works.
Well, it is possible (even probable) that the person is./was an idiot for taking the 12% line and dumb-lucked into it.... but if I saw this person do the same thing again I would not sit with him a third time.
The point I'm making is there is a difference between an esoteric play that the masses may not recognize and plays that are flat out anti percentage, not supported anyway by the bidding or play to that point that I have seen some players make. If I see those players do the same continually I will assume they are cheating... There are some people (well, one) I have seen do this a couple times... won't play with that person from now on.
Either he's a total fool and is fixing me with bad plays all the time or he's cheating... either way, I am not interested in pursuing any more games.
However, when someone makes a play that is 100% anti percentage yet is the ONLY play that works that is when i become suspicious. I have seen people take 12% lines when there is a 60% line available, and the 12% line is the only one that works.
Well, it is possible (even probable) that the person is./was an idiot for taking the 12% line and dumb-lucked into it.... but if I saw this person do the same thing again I would not sit with him a third time.
The point I'm making is there is a difference between an esoteric play that the masses may not recognize and plays that are flat out anti percentage, not supported anyway by the bidding or play to that point that I have seen some players make. If I see those players do the same continually I will assume they are cheating... There are some people (well, one) I have seen do this a couple times... won't play with that person from now on.
Either he's a total fool and is fixing me with bad plays all the time or he's cheating... either way, I am not interested in pursuing any more games.
#7
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 14,566
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amelia Island, FL
- Interests:Bridge, what else?
Posted 2003-September-05, 16:29
Hi Steve,
Don't get me wrong, I am certain some people here cheat. Human nature wasn't left at the door when people entered the club. And yes, I know how to examine the evidence in hand records to find examples of grossly stupid cheating.
But one has to be very careful about allegations of cheating. Let's take your 12% versus 60% line example. There are three logical explainations why I player may legal make the 12% play.
First, the player maybe not so good, and didn't even think about the 60% play or see it. This happens, but these players are generally not accused of cheating. Why? If they are this bad, they are so far behind that the accusation itself is ludicrious on its face.
The next is that the player who made the play is in despirate need of a big swing. If the 60% play works, he is sure to lose whatever event he or she is in. He intentionally takes the antipercentage play in an effort to beat the field on the hand. This would generally happen late in the event, the person would be in fairly good position (or despirate position) where one fluky result would be the difference between winning and losing, but a normal result is not helpful. When evaluating this kind of play, you ahve to judge if the player is good enough to have made this evaulation, if the position in the event was indeed such that an antipercentage play makes sense.
Finally, there is the legitamate case where card reading based upon bidding, lack of bidding, opening lead, and carding might lead the declarer to consider that the 60% chance mathematically is not going to work, and that despirate measures are called for. This is the hardest one to judge. I know I was kibitizing a game with you where declarer took the 12% line instead of the more normal line. I saw no clue as to why this line was taken. For the life of me, the play made no sense. So in that one case, on that one hand, it at least looked funny. Also becasue I do not believe the declearer in question had the skills to make judgement 2 or 3 but was too good for the mistake of example 1. But one hand is simply not enough to prove anything, who knows, may just have been this players lucky day.
Ben
PS, I guess since this is online we can add declarer distraction to the mix... maybe the baby started crying, the dog had an accident on the edge of the couch, or the stew boiled over, Int he haste to get back to the game after a delay to handle the problem, declarer played without thought. I know after something liek that, I frequently make a bad bid, by not relealizing it was my partner who opened or the like.
Don't get me wrong, I am certain some people here cheat. Human nature wasn't left at the door when people entered the club. And yes, I know how to examine the evidence in hand records to find examples of grossly stupid cheating.
But one has to be very careful about allegations of cheating. Let's take your 12% versus 60% line example. There are three logical explainations why I player may legal make the 12% play.
First, the player maybe not so good, and didn't even think about the 60% play or see it. This happens, but these players are generally not accused of cheating. Why? If they are this bad, they are so far behind that the accusation itself is ludicrious on its face.
The next is that the player who made the play is in despirate need of a big swing. If the 60% play works, he is sure to lose whatever event he or she is in. He intentionally takes the antipercentage play in an effort to beat the field on the hand. This would generally happen late in the event, the person would be in fairly good position (or despirate position) where one fluky result would be the difference between winning and losing, but a normal result is not helpful. When evaluating this kind of play, you ahve to judge if the player is good enough to have made this evaulation, if the position in the event was indeed such that an antipercentage play makes sense.
Finally, there is the legitamate case where card reading based upon bidding, lack of bidding, opening lead, and carding might lead the declarer to consider that the 60% chance mathematically is not going to work, and that despirate measures are called for. This is the hardest one to judge. I know I was kibitizing a game with you where declarer took the 12% line instead of the more normal line. I saw no clue as to why this line was taken. For the life of me, the play made no sense. So in that one case, on that one hand, it at least looked funny. Also becasue I do not believe the declearer in question had the skills to make judgement 2 or 3 but was too good for the mistake of example 1. But one hand is simply not enough to prove anything, who knows, may just have been this players lucky day.
Ben
PS, I guess since this is online we can add declarer distraction to the mix... maybe the baby started crying, the dog had an accident on the edge of the couch, or the stew boiled over, Int he haste to get back to the game after a delay to handle the problem, declarer played without thought. I know after something liek that, I frequently make a bad bid, by not relealizing it was my partner who opened or the like.
--Ben--
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-March-07
- Gender:Male
- Location:Laos
- Interests:Wagner and Bridge
Posted 2003-September-05, 18:01
I must admit I have a totally different view. If someone is so pathetic that they want to cheat on bbo, then let them. Hey, it makes it better to practice my defence. In ftf bridge this is a different story, particularly when State or National representation is involved.
I think you are going a bit overboard here Dawyne, and I can guarantee that if I wanted to cheat there is NO WAY that you would be able to find out.
I think you are going a bit overboard here Dawyne, and I can guarantee that if I wanted to cheat there is NO WAY that you would be able to find out.
"The King of Hearts a broadsword bears, the Queen of Hearts a rose." W. H. Auden.
#9
- Group: FD TEAM
- Posts: 2,735
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Nashville, TN
- Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)
Posted 2003-September-06, 20:57
Folks, if you honestly expect me to place a condition or attempt to retract my comments obviously you do not know me very well. I am as serious as the day is long that I have no tolerance for cheating. I never have and I never will.
To state that I'm overboard frankly is an insult to my intelligence. There are many many ways to determine whether inappropriate actions are occurring. It doesn't take rocket science either folks - simple logic and deduction serves to determine most cases. I am most pleased that the admins have been active in enforcing not the rules but the dominant culture of our community.
Lastly, it's painfully easy with a little computer knowledge to determine the network flow per user. Windows remember folks does not like client software at all -- with each piece of software there are certain protocols (formal term is an API - application programming interface) that must be used to make the client work. No matter how fancy you make it, they still must use API's and the basic grouping of DLL's to make it function. I will spare a length dissertation on the topic, but rest assured, computers are not as safe as we think they are. That's why firewalls and secure connections are a necessity. Without a firewall, it is extremely easy, really ridiculous if one thinks about it, to look inside a person's computer. How do you think Windows updates your machine? Think about that one...
How does one combat it? I recommend a few things. First make sure you have file and print sharing turned OFF on Windows 9x computers. Secondly, invest a few bucks and get a firewall, even if you are running dial-up -- it is an investment that will save you grief. If you're on broadband, DEFINITELY get a firewall. Lastly, if you run a home network like some of do, make sure your ports are secured. You don't want a stray UDP port open.
I sincerely hope that this is an isolated incident in our community. We can only wait and see if more aberrent behavior develops. We as usual must strive to be active participants to deter such events from occurring.
To state that I'm overboard frankly is an insult to my intelligence. There are many many ways to determine whether inappropriate actions are occurring. It doesn't take rocket science either folks - simple logic and deduction serves to determine most cases. I am most pleased that the admins have been active in enforcing not the rules but the dominant culture of our community.
Lastly, it's painfully easy with a little computer knowledge to determine the network flow per user. Windows remember folks does not like client software at all -- with each piece of software there are certain protocols (formal term is an API - application programming interface) that must be used to make the client work. No matter how fancy you make it, they still must use API's and the basic grouping of DLL's to make it function. I will spare a length dissertation on the topic, but rest assured, computers are not as safe as we think they are. That's why firewalls and secure connections are a necessity. Without a firewall, it is extremely easy, really ridiculous if one thinks about it, to look inside a person's computer. How do you think Windows updates your machine? Think about that one...
How does one combat it? I recommend a few things. First make sure you have file and print sharing turned OFF on Windows 9x computers. Secondly, invest a few bucks and get a firewall, even if you are running dial-up -- it is an investment that will save you grief. If you're on broadband, DEFINITELY get a firewall. Lastly, if you run a home network like some of do, make sure your ports are secured. You don't want a stray UDP port open.
I sincerely hope that this is an isolated incident in our community. We can only wait and see if more aberrent behavior develops. We as usual must strive to be active participants to deter such events from occurring.
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,082
- Joined: 2003-April-26
- Gender:Male
- Location:Scottish Borders
Posted 2003-September-07, 08:44
On the security front ...
If you wish to check that your network setup is secure, I recommend going to http://www.grc.com and running the excellent and free Shields Up!
If you need a great free firewall, then http://www.zonelabs.com is recommended. For anti-virus, http://www.grisoft.com is free and also recommended.
Regards
Paul
If you wish to check that your network setup is secure, I recommend going to http://www.grc.com and running the excellent and free Shields Up!
If you need a great free firewall, then http://www.zonelabs.com is recommended. For anti-virus, http://www.grisoft.com is free and also recommended.
Regards
Paul
#11
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 330
- Joined: 2003-February-20
Posted 2003-September-07, 08:54
FWIW I use all those products... I have never had an infection in all the years I've used Zone alarm and AVG (grisofts antivirus program).
I have used Norton and McAfee antivirus programs in the past and have found that AVG catches more than either of them AND IT IS FREE.
Matter of fact, caught an email bug this morning.
I have used Norton and McAfee antivirus programs in the past and have found that AVG catches more than either of them AND IT IS FREE.
Matter of fact, caught an email bug this morning.
#12
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,488
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2003-September-07, 09:50
Dwayne
Thank you very much for the illuminating discussion about protocols and APIs. It helps enormously to understand how your ideas are grounded. However, this discussion is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Do you honestly believe that the "bridge police will set up Spyware on my PC and deploy monitoring systems around the Internet to make sure that I'm not cheating on BBO. This suggestion is ludicrous at multiple levels.
To the extent that it is possible to detect cheating, the most promising technique would be detailed statistical analysis of hand records. It is certainly possible to compare the line of play that a given player decided to take, compare this to the optimal line of play, and draw conclusions about whether there is any evidence that the player in question was using a wire.
The problem with this approach is one of proportionality. My experience with online bridge over the past decade strongly suggests that efforts to root out cheating quickly degenerates into extremism, with self appointed vigilantes attempting to root out the cheating problem. Quite honestly, I find the cure far more distasteful than the disease.
Comments of the type that Dwayne has been making which combine chest thumping posturing with badly confused rambling about technology strongly reinforce this belief.
Thank you very much for the illuminating discussion about protocols and APIs. It helps enormously to understand how your ideas are grounded. However, this discussion is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Do you honestly believe that the "bridge police will set up Spyware on my PC and deploy monitoring systems around the Internet to make sure that I'm not cheating on BBO. This suggestion is ludicrous at multiple levels.
To the extent that it is possible to detect cheating, the most promising technique would be detailed statistical analysis of hand records. It is certainly possible to compare the line of play that a given player decided to take, compare this to the optimal line of play, and draw conclusions about whether there is any evidence that the player in question was using a wire.
The problem with this approach is one of proportionality. My experience with online bridge over the past decade strongly suggests that efforts to root out cheating quickly degenerates into extremism, with self appointed vigilantes attempting to root out the cheating problem. Quite honestly, I find the cure far more distasteful than the disease.
Comments of the type that Dwayne has been making which combine chest thumping posturing with badly confused rambling about technology strongly reinforce this belief.
Alderaan delenda est
#13
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2003-September-07, 09:54
About the cheating: I hate cheaters. But you can't do very much against them! Everything you try is allways penalizing some fair people, or making the product less friendly.
If you don't allow kibitzers, that's a shame but it works a bit (unless the players are sitting in the same room for example). If you don't, there's ALLWAYS a way to cheat: kibitzers with client software or micro, people who just put 2 computers next to eachother so they see for themselves,...
And if we all start accusing people who play a bit weird, then you have a lot of beginners who don't understand 'good (expert) play' who will be complaining, or some pros who can complaint about beginnersluck. Either way, you accuse people who might try their best and have luck some times, and less luck other times. Ofcourse, if someone wins a tourney with 80% it's probably by cheating (maximum I ever got out of 28 gifts was 74.70% - happened once).
The only other option here, is spyware which searches for running background programs such as MSN or ICQ or whatever. But then again, who is someone chatting with? And if they try this, people will use other programs to communicate: chatboxes or whatever they can find (or home made programs). Btw, everybody HATES spyware so the program becomes less attractive.
And banning someone because of 1 or 2 gifts I think is ridiculous. My opinion about banning cheaters is that you need enough proof, and give them at least 1 warning! So if a lot of people are complaining, send a warning and ban them for 2 weeks. If they still get complaints about the player, ban them permanently (or 2 months).
Don't get me wrong, cheaters should be banned, but not too fast! I like playing some strategy games online, and there are also cheaters (allways). Westwood was the best against that: using dirty language: period ban (1 day to 1 week), cheating: 2 warnings and reset score and period ban and later permanent ban. The only problem with this system was that they waited TOO long before banning permanently (but their program costs money...).
If you don't allow kibitzers, that's a shame but it works a bit (unless the players are sitting in the same room for example). If you don't, there's ALLWAYS a way to cheat: kibitzers with client software or micro, people who just put 2 computers next to eachother so they see for themselves,...
And if we all start accusing people who play a bit weird, then you have a lot of beginners who don't understand 'good (expert) play' who will be complaining, or some pros who can complaint about beginnersluck. Either way, you accuse people who might try their best and have luck some times, and less luck other times. Ofcourse, if someone wins a tourney with 80% it's probably by cheating (maximum I ever got out of 28 gifts was 74.70% - happened once).
The only other option here, is spyware which searches for running background programs such as MSN or ICQ or whatever. But then again, who is someone chatting with? And if they try this, people will use other programs to communicate: chatboxes or whatever they can find (or home made programs). Btw, everybody HATES spyware so the program becomes less attractive.
And banning someone because of 1 or 2 gifts I think is ridiculous. My opinion about banning cheaters is that you need enough proof, and give them at least 1 warning! So if a lot of people are complaining, send a warning and ban them for 2 weeks. If they still get complaints about the player, ban them permanently (or 2 months).
Don't get me wrong, cheaters should be banned, but not too fast! I like playing some strategy games online, and there are also cheaters (allways). Westwood was the best against that: using dirty language: period ban (1 day to 1 week), cheating: 2 warnings and reset score and period ban and later permanent ban. The only problem with this system was that they waited TOO long before banning permanently (but their program costs money...).
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#14
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 14,566
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amelia Island, FL
- Interests:Bridge, what else?
Posted 2003-September-07, 10:16
Quote
Ofcourse, if someone wins a tourney with 80% it's probably by cheating (maximum I ever got out of 28 gifts was 74.70% - happened once).
In an online tournment of 4 or 8 boards, it is entirely possible to get an 80% not only by not cheating, but by doing nothing more than sitting in your chair and accepting unbelievable gifts. I think one has to be careful with claims of cheating based upon 75% or 80% score in VERY SHORT online tournments. The shorter the number of boards, the higher the winning score.
Ben
--Ben--
#15
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2003-September-07, 10:41
Ofcourse... :
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#16
- Group: FD TEAM
- Posts: 2,735
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Nashville, TN
- Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)
Posted 2003-September-07, 12:13
It doesn't surprise me who the orators are. The more things change the more they stay the same. I think I'm going to enjoy some quality time with Samantha, and enjoy the day that I have been blessed with. Instead of exercising comment, I'm going to exercise some wisdom.
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
#17
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 330
- Joined: 2003-February-20
Posted 2003-September-07, 12:21
I am sure Dwayne (Darrin!) looked at the hands before he was sure there was a hint of cheating.
Look, it's easy to cheat... there's no way to prevent it but there's always a way to stop it. If someone only makes these miracle plays at crucial times and they are entirely out of the blue, then there is reason to be suspicious. To say there isn't at least some suspicion in that case (and only that kind of case) is certainly not out of line here.
There are probably more than a couple of people who have done this in tourneys on a regular basis. No matter what Hrothgar or The Hog feel about it, I can respectfully say that I think they are wrong... I don't want to play bridge (or any other game) with the deck stacked against me.
I have never been sure that I have been cheated... but I suspect I have, and I will keep an eye on those whom I suspect have acted badly.... and if I continue to see bad actions I will report them and the reasons why I am suspicious.
Look, it's easy to cheat... there's no way to prevent it but there's always a way to stop it. If someone only makes these miracle plays at crucial times and they are entirely out of the blue, then there is reason to be suspicious. To say there isn't at least some suspicion in that case (and only that kind of case) is certainly not out of line here.
There are probably more than a couple of people who have done this in tourneys on a regular basis. No matter what Hrothgar or The Hog feel about it, I can respectfully say that I think they are wrong... I don't want to play bridge (or any other game) with the deck stacked against me.
I have never been sure that I have been cheated... but I suspect I have, and I will keep an eye on those whom I suspect have acted badly.... and if I continue to see bad actions I will report them and the reasons why I am suspicious.
#18
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2003-September-07, 14:48
Quote
Look, it's easy to cheat... there's no way to prevent it but there's always a way to stop it.
There my friend, you are wrong. Cheaters are like virusses: you can stop one, but new ones keep coming, and you're allways one step behind...
I actually don't care what they do with cheaters, as long as nobody suspects me (because I don't cheat). And if I ever get banned for some reason, then I'll go back to zone.com or pogo or something else and play against other people instead.
The big tourneys and championchips are not played online, that's what I know.
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#19
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,153
- Joined: 2003-February-28
Posted 2003-September-07, 15:50
1) I agree with The_Hog about cheating - even with my limited bridge skills, I could cheat in such a way as to ensute that no one would detect it. It would be easy - just don't get too greedy, and limit yourself to situations where there is no clear line of play (which finesse do I take, etc.
2) All you need is a telephone to circumvent system-based surveillance.
3) Cheating in online bridge doesn't bother me (well, not too much). I play bridge for fun. This is especially true of online bridge. When there are masterpoints involved, it is always ftf. 2over1 made the observation that the hypothetical rise in cheating corresponds to the introduction of tournaments on BBO - if this is true it is no surprise! I certainly have no objection to BBO tournaments (though I haven't chosen to participate in any), but I think this is an excellent argument against either a) ratings; or any sort of sanctioned tournaments which give masterpoints. Anything which "ups the ante" and makes people think bridge is more than a game will lead to a (largely unstoppable) rise in cheating.
Peter
2) All you need is a telephone to circumvent system-based surveillance.
3) Cheating in online bridge doesn't bother me (well, not too much). I play bridge for fun. This is especially true of online bridge. When there are masterpoints involved, it is always ftf. 2over1 made the observation that the hypothetical rise in cheating corresponds to the introduction of tournaments on BBO - if this is true it is no surprise! I certainly have no objection to BBO tournaments (though I haven't chosen to participate in any), but I think this is an excellent argument against either a) ratings; or
any sort of sanctioned tournaments which give masterpoints. Anything which "ups the ante" and makes people think bridge is more than a game will lead to a (largely unstoppable) rise in cheating.Peter
#20
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 769
- Joined: 2003-February-14
- Location:Bulgaria, Varna
- Interests:Bridge - new bidding systems, psyches; Computers - education, service, program; Computer games great fan :-)
Posted 2003-September-09, 20:59
Hi friends!
It is no chance even great pairs like Garotzo-Beladona, Reese-Shapiro (sorry if not right names) was catched while cheating at table... If you ever play pro bridge, you will know why friends :'(
What to say about online bridge? While easy to cheat and no prises, like now, will be little interest... One must have some masochism in his nature ( I like same definition given by Fred in double dummy problems ) to do that ;D.
Steve, I understand you and agree fun for cheater is not fun for you >
. But dont you feel better, because somebody need to cheat to beat you 
? I will be proud in same case, esp if he is good player 
.
Peter, cheater, like any other criminal, cant be no greedy! Thats why most of them, soon or later go into jail ;D.
Dwayne, I thnik is not so hard to analyse for possible cheats at tournaments. I suggest it need only for first 10% winers. Analyse by program boards, compare results for deviations and do statistics for players. Several months will be enough to catch recidivists, I think.
Richard, I agree.
Ben, I agree.
Misho
It is no chance even great pairs like Garotzo-Beladona, Reese-Shapiro (sorry if not right names) was catched while cheating at table... If you ever play pro bridge, you will know why friends :'(
What to say about online bridge? While easy to cheat and no prises, like now, will be little interest... One must have some masochism in his nature ( I like same definition given by Fred in double dummy problems ) to do that ;D.
Steve, I understand you and agree fun for cheater is not fun for you >
. But dont you feel better, because somebody need to cheat to beat you ? I will be proud in same case, esp if he is good player .Peter, cheater, like any other criminal, cant be no greedy! Thats why most of them, soon or later go into jail ;D.
Dwayne, I thnik is not so hard to analyse for possible cheats at tournaments. I suggest it need only for first 10% winers. Analyse by program boards, compare results for deviations and do statistics for players. Several months will be enough to catch recidivists, I think.
Richard, I agree.
Ben, I agree.
Misho
MishoVnBg