kleek

Hi Mike, Ben, et. al., As Mike is aware, this issue has concerned me to a considerable extent in local tournament and club circles. Without casting aspersions on those who, with partnership understanding, if not explicit agreement, routinely give such alerted explanations, while at the same time hold hands with many fewer HCP than described, I would like to make the following observations: 1. Correct me if I am wrong, anyone, but wasn't the purpose of a strong, artificial, and forcing opening bid, e.g., 1C (Precision), to convey a minimum number (typically 16 or 17) of HCP upon which to construct a more "precise" subsequent auction, i.e., being on a game force after a positive response, economical slam tries, etc.? In the absence of a known fit, can the 1C opener really "know" that his ordinary 12 HCP hand, with perhaps a 6-card suit, and a singleton and doubleton on the side, qualifies the hand to be the equivalent of a 1C opener for the purposes of a constructive and "precise" auction? This is highly doubtful, unless there are further (generally UNALERTED, and therefore unexplained) controls in the auction. Is there any systemic reason that these hands cannot be opened with, e.g., 1H or 1S and still be bid accurately to the limit of the hand, without abusing and overworking the 1C opening? I respectfully doubt (but am glad to be corrected) that the authors of the various 1C forcing systems intended such hands to be opened with 1C. 2. There is a fundamental distinction to be made between opening light with a natural call, e.g., 1S on 8 HCP, and opening an "artificial and forcing" bid about which nothing is known with a severe shortfall from the expected number of HCP. Even a 2D Flannery opener, although artificial, opened light, doesn't rise to quite the same level of unexplained agreement, because so much more is known about a Flannery hand, i.e., the alerted shape. 3. Although the problem, as originally stated, specifically mentioned a 1C, artificial and forcing, opening, let's not forget the 2C, and any other, forcing and artificial opening bids. Ad absurdam, does AKQxxxxxx and out represent a strong, forcing, and artificial opening bid, merely by the number of tricks which can presumably be taken if that suit is trump? Obviously not. There are other considerations as well. Minimum number of HCP, minimum number of quick tricks, tricks on defense, etc. Actually knew someone who opened 2C on x, x, AKQxxxxxxx, x....the director was only mildly amused. 4. Now, I am NOT saying that anybody who wants to play, or abuse, a system in such ways is going beyond what they may have a right to do, BUT, IF those are their parttnership understandings, which clearly go well beyond what the average person understands a 1C (Precision), or 2C (Standard), opening bid to be, then the ONUS shifts to that partnership clearly to state that their strong, forcing, and artificial opening bids may ROUTINELY contain as FEW as x number of HCP, such as 9 (or whatever it is), with compensating distributional features, and NOT say, in the case of 1C (Precision), 16 or 17 points which may include distribution. The clear intent of the latter, if not the main reason to play a forcing club system with such agreements in the first place, in my opinion, is unfairly to attempt to silence the opponents and/or make them severely misjudge the prospects for competitive bidding. 5. Further, if the partnership has controls in their system which helps them identify distributional and sub-minimum HCP hands, any of these follow-up bids should be very clearly alerted and explained. Such as, after having gotten a positive, "game-forcing" response, they can still identify such hands and stop the auction below game.

Thanks all. To McBruce's detailed reply, I agree with the some of the specific points made, disagree with others: 8. Agree that the EC never gets the names of the accused. Thought that was implied by my statement, but it doesn't hurt to state it in so many words. :huh: Of course, the committee should get only the relevant facts, and no extraneous comments that might prejudice a review. You may be going a bit too far here, though, in not even wanting to divulge which anonymous compass direction is the "subject" of the complaint. Please remember that, at the point a complaint is brought to the EC, there will (by way of requirement) already be quite a number of deals involved in the allegation, all of which will have to be analyzed, in order to arrive at some conclusion, and the "subject" in question could have been sitting at any compass direction on different deals. Do we really want the EC wasting its time simply identifying which compass direction might be the "subject" of the complaint? After all, there might be more than one unusual, or questionable, action on any particular deal, and the committee wouldn't want inadvertently to attribute the wrong "action" to the wrong "subject". 10. Again, all of the items you delineated, and many more, should properly be handled by a tournament director. The EC should only become involved with the most egregious examples of unethical behavior, not the ordinary violations of rules, laws, and conduct. Also, for your information, the "illegal" knowledge of hands other than one's own during the bidding and one's own and dummy's during the play is NOT the ONLY possible form of cheating (or highly unethical activity) which can occur, and therefore become the subject of an EC review. Lest I give anybody any bright ideas, I will leave it to you to figure out what they might be. The name of the committee should not be a problem in this process, one way or the other, but if there is a "better" name, that's fine. 11. I am not a programmer, and I wouldn't presume to argue what can and can't, or what should or shouldn't, be done with any software that might be used to help in this process. Since various BBO officials are going to be the end users of the EC's work product and will make the ultimate determination of how a complaint is disposed of (either directly or via controlled procedure), I don't quite understand why the need for separation of the software. The salient point is that the EC PROCEDURE should be separate and confidential, not the software. 12. I like the idea of having the EC composed of a rotating group of different people (from a compiled master list of those who qualify and offer to serve), who serve for a limited, and defined, period of time, before they are replaced by another random group selected from the list. I don't understand the point of why it would somehow be "better" for each member of the EC to do his own analysis, make his own finding, and make his own recommendation, without any contact with the other EC members who are reviewing the same complaint. Not only would this approach lead to a great amount of duplicated work, but also one of the main reasons to have a "committee" is so that different work can be delegated to different individuals, and so that the committee can benefit from the knowledge and insight of all of its members, each of whom may bring different aptitudes and strengths to the analysis being done. I am for a collaborative committee effort. Not just the sum of individual efforts, the majority opinion of which is put out under the "name" of a committee. Perhaps, as a more detailed outline of how all of this is actually going to work in practice is developed, many of these questions will be answered more fully. Thanks for the input.

In the overall interest of moving the important discussion taking place in this thread in a somewhat more productive direction, it might be helpful to summarize the preceding 11 pages. With all due respect to the many and varied minority views, a consensus appears to have developed, which encompasses the following main points: 1. Cheating (and other unethical activity) is a fact of life in the online bridge world. 2. Cheating by a relatively small minority of players diminishes the pleasure and accomplishment derived from playing online bridge by the vast, non-cheating majority. 3. Cheating will never be eliminated entirely. 4. There are particular electronic and telecommunication forms of cheating which are either technically impossible, or simply not feasible with available resources, to try to stop. 5. To the extent that they are feasible, reasonable efforts, beyond what is currently being done, should be undertaken to try to thwart cheating. 6. To this end, the formation of an independent Ethics Committee constitutes a feasible and reasonable effort. 7. The mere existence of an Ethics Committee may do as much, or more, to thwart cheating than would the filing, hearing, and disposition of any particular complaint. 8. In any Ethics Committee process, the protection of all of the rights of the individual(s) against whom a complaint is brought (particularly their anonymity) is of paramount importance. 9. There should be a threshold (minimum) number of complaints against any particular individual(s) that must first be reached, before any complaint is ever delivered to the Ethics Committee for review. 10. The Ethics Committee should never be asked, or undertake, to review any problem that should properly have been disposed of by a tournament director or other internal tournament appeal process. 11. BBO software can be developed to facilitate the procedures involved in bringing a complaint to the Ethics Committee, as well as in making a finding and reporting it to the appropriate entities. 12. Neither the Ethics Committee, nor any of the members who sit on it at any given time, has either the ability to bring a complaint, or the authority to make the final disposition of it. Its sole role is to analyze the evidence, come to a finding, and make a recommendation. What is ultimately done with its findings and recommendations is strictly beyond the purview of the Ethics Committee. 13. The highest confidentiality and integrity must be demanded from those who serve on the Ethics Committee and from those who make use of its findings. 14. Persons who repeatedly seek, via this process, to bring complaints that are found to be without merit will find that this activity redounds to thier detriment. I sincerely hope that this summary has been helpful to all of the members who wish to contribute to this discussion in a helpful and productive way, and that further discussion and commentary in this thread (or perhaps, in a new one) might concentrate on suggestions and ideas for the best way to organize, structure, and operate an effective Ethics Committee. Thank you.

Wayne/Cascade: I'm sorry that you don't understand the meaning of the word irony (a figure of speech in which the literal meaning of a locution is the opposite of that intended...employed playfully) or appreciate the dry wit of Oscar Wilde. Lest some reader of my post get the wrong impression or take offense, I will immediately remove the Wilde quotation from the area below my closing signature. I ALWAYS play fairly, whatever cards I'm dealt, and would never suggest that anyone else should do otherwise, despite what you implied by your comment. What I find more interesting is that, after your having apparently read my post, the only thing you could find to make a comment about was the (intended as) humorous quotation below my name. This seems to be the fairly typical reaction of the yellows and administrators of BBO to any reasonable discussion of this subject, i.e., if possible, ignore it. Ignore it, say as little as possible, do as little as possible, and try to hush up anybody who speaks out on the issue with your explicit and implied "warnings". Isn't this the real, unstated policy at BBO?

Thank you all for your various statements regarding online cheating. Everybody is entitled to their own views on the subject, and this variety of views is what makes the Bridge Base Forum so valuable to the online bridge community. I recently struck up a casual partnership here at BBO with a 13-year-old novice who is very intent on learning to play bridge. The last time I got to play with this person, there was only time to play a few hands, so we opened a table in the Main Bridge Club. Before relating the particulars of what happened, I would like to say first that it was obvious to me that our opponents were not novices or beginners. In fact, it appeared to me that they had considerable experience playing bridge, which made what I am about to describe seem all the more bizarre to me. The first hand that got my suspicion aroused was when one of the opponents opened a weak 2S on basically King sixth and out, and his partner (playing IMP's please keep in mind!) competed to 3S with a singleton spot spade and a number of, as it turned out, well-positioned cards. We took the push to the 4-level, got doubled, and got a very bad result. It struck me as very odd, to say the least, that someone would attempt to "push" us up a level with a rather non-descript hand containing only a singleton spade and a not overwhelming number of HCP. After reviewing the lie of all of the cards, I realized that this rather absurdly and dangerously bid 3S contract (missing AQJ10xx in spades) was cold on any defense. Among other well-positioned cards, the outstanding spades were split 3-3, with the AQJ onside, holding their spade losers to two. Hmmm...the opponent's bid seems to have been unusually lucky and safe, doesn't it? But they were just warming up. A couple of hands later, my RHO this time overcalled a weak 2S, and my partner and I overbid to the 5-level for another bad result, which we fairly earned and deserved. What I found to be somewhat odd about this hand, after reviewing the position of the cards, was that the person who overcalled 2S held Q109, xxx, xxx, xxxx AND that his partner, over a 3H call by me, NEVER did anything but PASS for the entire auction, holding Kxxxx, Ax, xx, Axxx! Would any of you pass a 2S overcall by partner holding this hand? Well, they weren't in too much trouble in 2S, were they? Odd, to say the least. The final insult came when my partner and I bid unopposed to 6NT, and my LHO, out of the clear blue sky, doubled us. As it turned out, there was no way to make 6NT on any lead, and once again we had earned our bad result, but the double had piqued my interest. The person who doubled 6NT held xx, Qxxxx, x, Qxxxx. Now, with the opponents freely bidding unopposed to 6NT, does this look like a penalty double of 6NT to any of you? But, alas, 6NT had no play. Seem a little strange? Now I can handle playing against the occasional cheater(s), even when it is as blatantly obvious as in the above examples. I will simply add those opponents' names to my growing group of black-listed names of players that I will never again knowingly play against in the future. But what lessons do you think that my novice partner came away from the table with? When people are first learning to play, they can be semi-isolated in novice and beginner games, but when certain beginners seem to show some promise, we encourage them to get out there and play against the "better" players. We claim that this is the best, and the fastest, road to learning more about the game and improving one's skills. In this kind of environment, is it really? I suppose you can count me among the group that thinks every reasonable effort should be made by everyone to rid the online bridge community of those players who feel it necessary (and enjoyable) to cheat at the game. Although the growth and success of online bridge may ultimately prove to be the salvation of the game we all enjoy so much, if there is one issue that could foreshadow its failure, it is how well or poorly it does in handling the ethics/cheating problems. They should not be ignored.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to all who were offended by my previous remarks. It was not my intention to offend anyone, but rather to explain why I no longer felt comfortable participating in this match. In addition, I categorically state that I do NOT believe, and deeply regret if it was implied, that those playing the MOSCITO system are somehow cheating. I am also gratified to learn that I was misinformed regarding luis and that he and his partner will be playing on the Scientist team after all. Obviously, the main thrust of my prior comments was widely misinterpreted. I do not wish to belabor the argument further, since I will not be playing on the Naturalist team anyway, but I do want to take one more stab at making what I think is a valid point (and the one that I was trying to make from the beginning). The Naturalist team, from the inception of this match, was to have been (perhaps, still is to be) comprised of 2 unestablished, unfamiliar partnerships, playing an unfamiliar (to some team members) version of standard. Apart from having to work out all of those little "standard" details, which everyone knows are standard for some and not standard for others, the Naturalist team members must also come to agreement on how to defend against the Scientists' unusual bids. Would it be safe to say that one, or more, of the team members might forget what has been agreed to as the "standard" bid, or treatment, in an unusual or undiscussed situation, or might misunderstand, or misuse, whatever the agreed-to defense to a MOSCITO bid is, which might lead to a ridiculously "stupid", unfortunate, or even disastrous result? What should the Naturalists' reaction then be? I quote from hrothgar's response: "I felt that that it would be best to ensure that the MOSCITO team fielded pairs that are experienced playing with one another. My primary goal was to avoid “stupid” boards where some kind of bidding misunderstanding ruined everyone’s enjoyment." I rest my case.

A few comments regarding the pending match: 1. It appears that nobody from the Scientist team has had the courtesy to respond (at least, not publicly) to luis, the originator of this thread. Isn't it a shame, in an overtly heavy-handed attempt to assemble who they think will be the "best" representatives for the Scientist team, and having already gone through a few line-up permutations in that effort, that they not only have taken over control of the team, but have also excluded luis (and his partner) in the process? 2. I want to associate myself with the comments previously made by Fred regarding playing, and/or playing against, highly unusual, non-natural methods. In my (not-necessary-to-be-diplomatic) opinion, such methods have little (if any) intrinsic, constructive value. Their perceived value stems mainly from the confusion and difficulty caused for opponents unfamiliar with the methods, from the random results that may be generated, and from what I'd call the "personal entertainment factor", i.e., the thrill the users get when one of these little gambits pays off (in successfully disrupting the opponents). Why not simply permit controlled, systemmic psychs as part of the game, too? Then, there would be no need to devise (legal) systems and conventions which are tantamount to the same thing. Psych away, tell (or not tell) the opponents when your partner is likely to be psyching, see what unusual results this can generate...and see what this does overall for the game of bridge. 3. What is the purpose of this match? When it was originally proposed, it purportedly set out to demonstrate the differences and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of a (primarily) natural system vs. some non-natural, or "scientific", system. This has since been determined best to be 2/1 vs. MOSCITO. I'm sure that many would take issue with the premise that a well-developed 2/1 partnership is non-scientific and that a MOSCITO partnership is, although the natural vs. non-natural distinction may hold. On the other hand, some may feel that MOSCITO is not the best representative of the non-natural, scientific side. I have recently been informed that no established 2/1 partnerships will be used on the Naturalist team, but rather unfamiliar partnerships, playing some version of BBO standard. Have any similar restrictions been placed on the Scientist team? Is this fair? 4. So, what is all of this going to mean/demonstrate, in the end, to those viewing the match? Basically, absolutely nothing. Which methods are "better"? I think not. Which players are "better"? Not really. To me, this whole thing has all the aura of the inane analysis and build-up to some meaningless sporting event. Those most eager to watch are probably doing so mainly to get some cheap laughs out of the potential screw-ups, not because they are interested in the presumed "reason" for the competition. In conclusion, I request (of those with the "power" on the Naturalist team) that I be replaced with another player more interested in promoting this spectacle. I have no doubt that some BBO "star" can be enlisted as my replacement, thereby enhancing the potential of the Naturalists.