[bglover]

I honestly think you are missing the point...

Look, I have nothing against an appeals committee or a panel of volunteers or whatever to look at hands when there has been complaints lodged against someone and they appear legitimate. The only way to be fairly sure is to go thru many, many hands and see if there is a pattern and it is asking too much for BBO's small staff to do it.

OTOH, to limit it to just tourneys or clubs or whatever defeats the purpose of doing it at all. It is a system-wide issue, and if it occurs in the main lobby instead why does that make it any more acceptable?

OK, I personally have only "discussed" 1 person with BBO (and on an informal basis) where I was fairly sure I had been cheated. I openly admit I am as guilty as Ron or Richard or anyone else in not reporting incidents I suspected involved foul play. Frankly, I usually just get up and leave the table. I've been far more concerned with others accusing me of cheating (I've reported probably half a dozen of those now) than anything else because I don't cheat and I don't want that taint anywhere near me.

However, to reiterate something from a different thread, once I became involed in directing, the number of incidents of "possible" cheating I saw was at times astounding. Since this was covered elsewhere I will not do it again here. But, I think anyone who has directed large events here has seen some of it, even if it wasn't "provable." There is a perception at least that it's on the increase. If we allow it in the main room but not in tourneys or clubs that's nuts.

Ask for a group of volunteers, create several panels.. have someone adept at hand analysis do the first one or two hands and if that person smells a rat turn it over to one of the panles and let them investigate it. Don't leave it up "just" to the clubs or the tourney directors. It's a BBO issue, not a club issue or a tourney issue.

As long as people think they can "get away" with it they will try. At least this way, people will have a sense they might get caught and therefore might be worried enough to think twice about doing it. And, to repeat, set the standard high, but not so high that people can slip through a loophole.

[Dwingo]

Quote

As long as people think they can "get away" with it they will try

Let's say we catch these online cheaters and ban them here. What prevents them from coming back again with a new ID?

The time and effort required to nab these guys and ban them is going to be too much for the BBO police, and before you know, they will back again with another ID.

I appreciate that BBO is a free service for us and it cuts both ways. It doesn't hurt the cheaters in anyway. No money lost. No reputation lost. No real ID is known. You ban these guys and the next days these guys will be back again wearing new clothes.

Let BBO management concentrate on make this real good software more robust and hopefully one day this menace will be curbed technically ( am I dreaming?)


An environment where the cheaters lose something when they get caught is some sort of paid subscription services, and all those who are paranoid about cheating can play here, knowing that cheaters in this environment will be eventually caught and made to lose their subscription.

As for tournamaments, Blind Individuals may be an answer.

As for the free main Bridge club, no answer as yet.

[spwdo]

[QUOTE]The time and effort required to nab these guys and ban them is going to be too much for the BBO police, and before you know, they will back again with another ID.

I appreciate that BBO is a free service for us and it cuts both ways. It doesn't hurt the cheaters in anyway. No money lost. No reputation lost. No real ID is known. You ban these guys and the next days these guys will be back again wearing new clothes. quote from dwingo

only possible with a diffrent computer or/and diffrent ip adress if im not mistaken, just changing your nick wont help. I remember the one gotten blacklisted from my tourneys claiming that someone else logged in on his pc to bbo that was in fact blacklisted causing him to be not able to register, so a ban blocks all logins on a pc, correct me uday if im wrong.Secondly i find every effort to make online bridge more fair wurth while. the players delibartly letting the clock run out to get an a-(when they woud score wurse if played) and thefore trying to change his /tourney result with artificial scores falls in the same category in my opinion. these are the easy guys/girls to catch.
for an example, i had one yesterday asked me for an adjust immediatly after time run out(i was already on the table thx to new tool of tournament status), adjust was obvuis so i adjust.Next round they were in a contract 3♣-4 when it woud have finisched. same story only this time he didnt ask for an adjust and after i adjusted he said time ren out so A- is only decision u can take td(my blood started boiling at that time i think), this i call cheating also, i added some comments to his profile, explained him my view on the matter very claer and hope i got thru to at least this player that the clock is not to be used as an xtra scoring facility when u manipulate it "right", i ask from my tds to take very close follow up on late tables every round to the last tables in play only to make our tourneys as fair as we can .Every tourney hosted without an A- or A== is in fact a first step towards running good tourneys ioho(in "our" humble opinion)

marc

[doofik]

Reading posts in this thread made me realize something. Oh my God, I'm a novice and as such I am expected to make common errors at the table. They happen but not as often as any expert would like. So now, what do I do? Do I change my skill level? - not a good option, I don't qualify for a beginner even. Do I stop thinking and play on autopilot? - not a good option, my grey cells won't let me. Do I allow to become a subject of whispers in the BBO community that doofik cheats? - hell of an option.

So please pundits, tell me what to do?

[Abadaba]

who could ever imagine a cheating doofik? impossible

[etherwiz]

I think people are missing the Point here.

Any Private club can exclude s person from their rans.

Any TD can exclude a Name from thier tournaments.

If the misbehavoir is bad enough to bother people OUTSIDE of your Clubs/Tounraments then a note should be sent to @ABUSE (and probably something THAT BAD would be noticed and sent by much more then one person - even one TD.

This is BBO's Site (Fred, UDay, Rain) and they should determine if someone misbehaves bad enough to be eliminated. By the way, once a person has been blacklisted just changing tne name will not get them back on, in fact just changing the IP address would not get them back on. There are a few things that might - but I am not going to anounce them here !

I am sure that any club could set up a panel of experts to judge otheres, that would be up to who ever "owns" that club. A Director could also do this - but such judgements could not be enforced (mandatory) for all Directors.

I am also sure that the Staff of BO will pay more then close attention to any recomendations by a club owner or a TD.

I am also sure that they would require little more then information from such a person to ban someone. The discussion here is moot.

What BBP does is what BBO does and I am sure that Fred (UDay, Rain) would not accept an process of appeal they did not set up themselves. It is after all - their place.

If it was as simple as just a commity of Yellows, I am sure it would be done by now. But the fact is each Yellow has his/her own area of responsibility which takes time, plus they do like to simply play themselvs.

_*_Dave

[inquiry]

doofik and abadaba... good to see you posting here.

Doofik, I think you misunderstand or read a lot more in the post in this thread than actually exist. No one, to the best of my knowledge is talking about lack of mistakes or too few mistakes being made by anyone. The examples we are talking about are not mistake but out right fantasy stuff. You don't have to worry about the times you win or do well and have anyone think you cheat.

Aba... your club is a fine addition to BBO, and it is a darn shame you have to deal with allegataions of cheating (real or imagined) in your club. Your method of "investigating" substantiated claims has lots of similiarities to my concept, although you are much more extensive than I imagined. Then after banning a cheat, from your post, I gather you have to deal with a variety of hard feelings and attempts to undermine you and your club by the person you sanction. This is a very untasteful situation.

But now I think your proposed additional sanction is a problem. Kick someone out of your club, fine. Drag their name through the mud and tell everyone about their evil ways is a big mistake. No doubt, as you know it is a violation of BBO overall policies to discuss openly that a specific person cheats. IF you believe they did, turn them wiht the evidence into uday. Second, what greater punishment can there be than to be banned from Abalucy? After capital punishment like that, what is left? Finally, going public brings in the possibility of slander charges and issues of how "solid is the proof". Abalucy and BBO are private clubs they can ascept and reject (at least I think so), who they want. But bannng or suspending someone is a whole different kettle of fish than sending emails to all your club members or annoucning somehow publically in the BBO that a specific player "cheats." That is simply not a wise approach, imho.

Ben

[keylime]

Imagine what's about to happen when ACBL sanctioned events come into being on BBO. With the numerous changes the Board of Directors have made to attempt to protect the ACBL's legal position, even an accusation of cheating now brings both the NBO AND BBO into play. Read the minutes from the last few NABC's - almost all of them have had language relating to clearer definitions of legality. In retrospect, the ACBL HAD to go about this course from being threatened and in some cases, being sued for infractions at the table (remember Blubaugh?). Furthermore, they are now getting into codefied form the ability to get restraining items into effect, with law enforcement officers if needed (said so in the minutes nearly verbatim). All over the pursuit of a higher ranking slot at an event - all for status or self-ego promotion.

A big part of the solution is encouraging players to summon directors immediately at the sight of an irregularity. I've said it often and I will say it again: just because you have achieve Life Master status does not mean you have gained enough acumen to understand your rights and responsibilities under the given conditions. I sincerely wished that the ACBL would mandate all Life Masters within six months of them gaining that grade to take the club director's course, and pass. Not only would the players know what is expected of them, but once again, be able to help those still learning the ins and outs about the game to do the right thing more often. Hesistations, lead directing questions, and resistance to ideas that are not considered "standard" are three of the biggest headaches in the game right now.

Case in point: Pard and I are at the Houston Nationals playing a two-session MPs event. Board 16 comes along, and pard and I get into a lengthy slam auction that stopped at six due to missing two controls and worrying mirrored fit (as it were, we did make it for a 10 with 12 top). LHO asks pard what 3♦ meant and was explained as the agreement we intended it to be. He then proceeds 20 ways to sundown to try to get pard to answer this question differently. I called the TD to the table, and told her (who the TD in question is one of the better ones we have) that I wanted a non-diamond lead tabled because UI had been transmitted. Well we got one, made the hand (a diamond king in LHO's was stiff through dummy's AQx). LHO went ballistic for getting a bad board, got his Zero Tolerance AND C&E hearing - and got worked over by the powers to be. All over a bid that was simply a control bid in passing since we broke our sequence to find the right strain.

Some have offered the fact that just because they draw a segment of people means that by implication that they are able to police themselves. This is a mixed bag of results: some cases they got it right, some cases they missed the bus so completely that it was near insane. Part of being able to offer a desired segment of the populace an environment that is desired is having a set guideline in place in terms of system regulation, handling irregularities, etc. Many private clubs have stumbled at the beginning of their existence to have the bylaws in place to handle matters of this importance. Frankly in some cases the intent was there, but the mechanisms and insight was grossly lacking - at least adjustments were made.

Like I said before, we must police ourselves. Use the infrastructure given to us, and not be blah-blah about it either. It's OUR service, OURS, and we have an implicit responsibility to do what we can to have the quality of service raised to its optimum. The yellows are not enough - it's long overdue that we the members take a more active role in this.

Last thought: Good luck to all that are heading to Cartagena and Reno.

[doofik]

Thank you Aba and Ben

I guess what I tried to convey is the following:

I don't know squat about percentage plays, right and wrong lines of play. I'm just a simple woman from a village who likes to plan strategy in bridge. I've had some great mentors and, hopefully, I'm not bringing shame to them. All that being said, my level of play, IMHO, is lousy. However, like any blind chicken who happens upon a seed, every so often I have a brilliant moment. I've heard whispers from some players that they abandon a weird but winning line of play because they don't want to be questioned. Are we now dealing with paranoia? Wouldn't it be better to ban blatant cases and forego suspicions as bridge is a game of random guesses (at least in my case)?

In the Philadelphia area, where I live, there are a number of brilliant players with a few absolute magicians. Imagine if one of them showed up under an assumed name and proceeded with his magic. Or a World Class were to show up under a common alias and just played. Now what?

And yes Ben, I also feel that Abalucy is a tremendous addition to BBO. Your allegation of publicizing names of players suspected of cheating and consequently banned is wrong. The publicity comes from said players sending letters to their friends and partners explaining their position. At least this is what I've seen thus far.

With best regards, goofy doofy

[Abadaba]

Dear Doofy,

This stupid poster tried to respond and deleted my entire post - heehee. Technology!!!!

You misunderstood Ben who was responding to my previous post. It was I who employed the suggestion that perhaps instead of shielding those proven to cheat those they have tried to impress - perhaps those incidents should be recorded and accessible - the perhaps that would keep them from attacking those who had discovered what was going on.

Ben, oh so correctly, was responding that is directly BBO's responsibility. Sorry Ben and Doofy - just post a response don't edit what you said Aba!

Abadaba

[doofik]

Dear Aba and Ben:

Now I feel like Gilda Radner with "oh nevermind" lol.

Proving worthy of being goofy doofy,

goofy doofy

[Yzerman]

xxxxx

[Yzerman]

I thought purpose of this thread is to discuss the following;

1 - Is there an increase in unethical play on BBO?

2 - IF, there is increase in unethical play on BBO, how to prepare a solution?

Thus far, their seems to be 2 distinct positions to take on this issue. There is the hard-line position of "YES, THERE DEFINETLY IS MORE CHEATING AND LETS GET EM" approach, and the there is the more liberal approach of "THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CHEATERS, BUT DIVERTING RESOURCES TO THIS PROBLEM IS WASTE OF TIME".

This is very serious problem, and I believe there is some anomosity as well as hidden agendas as I read the posts in this thread. BBO has stated its general approach on this topic, and I think what some fail to realize is that perhaps BBO is bound by external factors on this issue. BBO may be bound by legal issues and/or other similar constraints (this is simply speculation on my behalf). While they realize that this may be a problem, the fact is they have currently made a decision how to approach this problem.

I think there ultimately lies a solution, some where between the 2 extremes, to this problem that will result in satisfying the masses, but I have yet to see anyone stand up and volunteer to promote a constructive debate on negotiating a solution. I think the BBO community leaders (whoever that may be) can come together and propose and/or suggest some solution, all we have so far are people volunteering to sit on committee and lead a witchhunt.

I hope I have not incited too many people, but what I hope for is the day I can log into BBO and not have people waiting to send me to MyHands to review a deal of someone cheating. So leave all with the following suggestion;

* Somebody, stand up and volunteer to draft a proposal and send to BBO (fred/uday) on a mechanism to promote a more ethical environment on BBO. Someone could even voluntee this thread as a forum (knowledge base) to draft that proposal to share ideas with others that have a stake in the matter.

I guarantee that BBO, Fred/Uday, WILL respond to a proposal that is written in email and/or document. They might not agree with initial proposal, but I guarantee that you will get their attention and perhaps this may commence the negotiation of a solution.

Regards,
Michael A Lucy

[luke warm]

what mike says about legal and/or other considerations bbo might have, which most of us can't be expected to be privy to much less understand, is undoubtably true... which is why i suggested that the tourney level (eg., private clubs) might be the place to start

i agree with doofi that making public the names of those banned for unethical play is a mistake... the most obvious reason is that there will always be some doubt, no matter how small, unless they're actually caught in the act... and that doubt itself, with the risk of anyone being branded unethical, in error, seems enough reason not to do that... someone said they think i underestimate the problem.. it isn't that, it's that there's a real possibility of doing irreperable harm to someone who just might not deserve it

people who run tourneys have a lot of authority... they can allow or disallow anyone to play... so i think that something along the lines of my earlier suggestion would work (or could work), but i can't for the life of me see how it can work server wide

i think bbo's position should be to take the abuse claims as they receive them, and not actively police every player... first of all, it would be almost impossible to do that... secondly, it's far better to delegate such things to those who are in a better position (ie, tourney hosts) to do so... now not all clubs or tournaments will think it's worth the effort... i think that's fine, we all have a choice where and with whom we play... if abc tourney chooses one course and xyz another, i'm free to play in whichever environment i feel most comforable

if i had a weekly tourney, i'd try to have a rotating committee of very good, trusted, *ethical* players... some complaints will be able to be dismissed at the time, or immediately after the tourney... others might take longer.. for those, i think the committee should meet and discuss not only one particular board but other relevant factors, such as the finish of a pair this night, their other finishes, even other hands that have been logged...

after they make a determination, i think they should go to the people involved and give them a chance to explain whatever actions warranted the investigation... this can be done with decorum, i think... if the explanation suffices, that's that... if not, then they can email uday with their suspicions, deliberations, findings... and bbo can do whatever they deem necessary

at no time should a tourney host or committee publicize any name of anyone under investigation, nor should the name be published even if bbo takes action... that's my opinion, and it has the merit of being unactionable (from a "slander" viewpoint)

this kind of approach would take a lot of effort, and i can understand any club or tourney not wanting to make it... but i don't see an alternative, given the desire to minimize unethical behavior

[irdoz]

Here's 4 instances of suspicious things that have happened to me in online bridge


1. The bidding goes

1c-dbl-all pass

The advancers hand was xxxxx Jxxxx xxx void

The doubler has 22 hcp and 6 clubs

Neither opponent are novices


2. The bidding goes

1d-1h-1s-pass
4nt-pass-5s-pass
6s

The opener and 4nt bidder had 11 hcp, a flat hand and Hxx in spades. Responder who made a free bid of 1s had 19 hcp and 6 good spades... The 4nt bidder is no novice


3. The hand has been bid - I am declarer.

Just before the opening lead on the table chat appears

KQ109 K104 9 J10854 - it is a typed record of one of the opps hand - they suddenly have an 'emergency' and have to go.


4. The hand has been bid - my partner is declarer

Suddenly on the table chat appears the typing 'I have a club single'

This pair don't even leave embarrassed..they just say 'message was meant for someone else' (the stiff club was the vital info to set the contract).

I reported all of these events (none were on BBO).

Can I conclude anything from these events? Just that it seems something highly irregular was occurring, but in and of themselves they 'prove' nothing. My point in presenting them is that not all highly suspicious events may require hundreds of person hours to investigate. For these a well publicised reporting procedure is important. In my experience a proportion of cheating done online is indeed obvious and done by 'dumb' and 'dumber'... other cheating is more sophisticated or occasional or irregular and often almost impossible to make a confident conclusion about even after reviewing hundreds of hands. However if you don't deal with the obvious ones that many with the ability to recognize become aware of then it can contribute to a perception about a lack of effective procedures or lack of interest in the issue.

[bglover]

The legal issues are "minimal" unless BBO takes some very silly approaches such as publicly exposing the cheaters.

This is a private site. We are all here at BBO's leisure. BBO can, in theory, throw off anyone they so please for virtually any reason they please. They can also choose NOT TO throw off someone who perhaps should be thrown off. Why? Because we are all LICENSEES of the site. We are here at BBO's granting and BBO can withdraw that grant of a license however they want.

Sure, BBO could throw me off the site because they don't like the color of my eyes... legally there would be nothing I could do because it's their right to do so as long as they didn't go around and falsely call me a murderer at the same time.

No one expects they will do anything extreme like that of course. But, this goes to my post regarding setting the bar too high. They are under no obligation to let "anyone" stay who they don't want here. They, technically, don't need much reason at all to ban anyone they see fit to let go. Thus, they can set whatever standard they like. Really they don't even need any standard. Lawsuits are a non issue unless they act unreasonably. Surely they won't do that.

Now, taking off my legal hat, as businessmen/women they have an obligation to their customers to provide an environment that promotes fair and ethical play or risk losing their customers. If BBO gets a reputation as a cheaters' paradise they will suffer. They, therefore have in my opinion, tremendous incentive right there to police this as best they can.

If this thread is doing nothing else, it is showing there are people here who are concerned enough to volunteer in helping in this situation. I repeat, if you just police clubs and tourneys you aren't solving the problem at the systme level. It would be in BBO's lesser interests to approach the problem that way in my opinion.

OK Bridge used to have a relatively blind eye to this kind of thing. They suffered a hit to their reputation until they hired a professional director to head up and investigate these kinds of allegations. They claim they catch and ban 2 people per month on average now for cheating. Now, this is not meant to imply cheating no longer takes place there. But, the "perception" of OKB improved almost immediately once its customers viewed they were "serious" about the issue. I do not think they limit their investigations to just tourneys. I know I wouldn't because I'd worry about how my customers perceive how I am running things.

If BBO were your site wouldn't you?

[Antoine Fourrière]

Since BBO is available worldwide, it runs the risk to be convicted in ANY country. To ban you because of the color of your eyes would lead to an automatic conviction - civilly and criminally - in France. There is a bit more leeway when it comes to cheating, of course, but a conviction of BBO by a more or less creative court of law always remains possible. Maybe that conviction would be executed on paper only, although it wouldn't help Fred play overseas, but BBO has probably better things to do than to put itself at the receiving end of conflicting Internet-related legal standards. (How about a first suit in which one court forces BBO to expose the cheaters, and a suit in a second country which charges BBO of invasion of privacy?)

[hrothgar]

Here is my take on matters:

Telecommunications regulation includes a concept known as Common Carier status.

I believe that this concept is directly applicable to an organization such as Bridge Base Online.

Most of the communications carriers in the US gave-up common carrier status.

Many of them now conceed that this was a significant mistake. Violating Common Carrier status has exposed the carriers to lawsuits from third party organizations such as the Recording Industry of America over file sharing.

Quoting http://china.si.umich.edu/spp/courses/744/...on2/lyford.html

"A common carrier is a quasi-public provider of services to the public at large. Of course, there are objections to the term quasi-public; but even though these are generally private shareholder companies, the high level of government involvement in their operations and management, through regulation, does give them a public cast. Generally, they are involved in the sale of infrastructure services in transportation and communications. The legal principle of common carriage is used to insure that "no customer seeking service upon reasonable demand, willing and able to pay the established price, however set, would be denied lawful use of the service or would otherwise be discriminated against." ( Eli Noam, The Impending Doom of Common Carriage, p. 4.) Common carriers gain limited liability in exchange for this lower level of control over their customers. Significantly, a carrier does not have to claim to be a common carrier for it to be treated as such under the law; a designation of common carriage depends upon a carrier's actual business practices, not its charter. Most important to this determination is whether or not the carrier presents itself to the public as indifferently able to serve all clients."

[bglover]

Antoine, you are missing my point. BBO's license agreement is what provides them the right to do as they please. I repeat, the legal exposure is minimal so long as they act "reasonably" under the terms of that document. The rest of that was merely meant to show just how much leeway licensors generally have in controlling licensees. It was meant to illustrate in a simple (and somewhat humurous fashion) that BBO has the right to do as they please so long as its "reasonable."

[inquiry]

irdoz, on Mar 19 2004, 05:29 AM, said:

Here's 4 instances of suspicious things that have happened to me in online bridge

1) The 1♣ all pass is highly suspecious. Easy to check, look and see if other one level doubles were takeout or penatly.

2) The magic force to slam on bear nothing versus unannounced huge hand is fairly common. So common in fact, I ssupect a lot of these are bad bidders rather than anything dishonest, but such bids suggest another look for other such magic hands.

3) and 4)... ok typing in their entire hand or annoucning a singeleton is just plain stupid and no explainations. Kibiitzers etc, can see you ahve a singleton or what your hand is. I beleive what happened here, is they thougth they were typing in one window (for private chat with partner) and typed in wrong one and went public. I would rate this has EXTEMELY suspecious and would suggest a closer look at the hand record of the pair in question if anyone wanted to make somekind of effert to have a cutback in cheating.

ben