Full Disclosure in ACBL BBO

[pigpenz]

I appreciate that you will consider some way to create an ACBL game for those of us who want to play an ACBL online game in which players know what is expected of them and are "serious" in their personal effort to comply with the "rules". Perhaps this could be incorporated in ACBL's plans (Jan. Bulletin, page 9) to "Develop a pilot progam to test the viability or a sectional and/or regional tournament online." I cannot imagine there is any viability unless the participants are reasonably educated in and respectful of ACBL rules, so maybe they can do some experimenting with BBO ACBL games in their pilot program.

There is no reason that they should not be able to have a sectional online. It would be nice to see an event that is seeded properly and run in the format as a live tournament. There is only one way to find out and that is to try it. $5-6 for playing in a 26 board sectional one or two session event is reasonable and I feel it would bring some publicity for BBO if it could be pulled off. If it were advertised in the Bullettin they could get a pretty good crowd which would be both good financially and publicity wise.

[hrothgar]

Who would you encourage to enter this kind of restricted game? And who would you block from entering ?

From my perspective, the necessary "qualities" to participate in a formal club are primarily mental. I'd let anyone with the right attitude enter.

 

The critical aspect are

 

1. Establishing a well defined set of behavioural norms

2. Publicizing these appropriately

3. Enforcing them

 

I think that there is actually some value doing this within the contex of an established sponsoring organization like the ACBL. These organization already have well defined standards for convention charts, appeals proceedures, etc. I'd be thrilled if this could this could be done outside the ACBL, but I'm a firm believer in following the path of least resistance...

 

For what its worth, if I were the ACBL and considering sanction sectional/regional tournaments at an online site like BBO, one of my biggest concerns would be the ability to support "real" movements. I think that the ones who have right now are inapropriate for real events....

[uday]

ones who have right now are inapropriate for real event

 

What do we need besides seeding the field?

[hrothgar]

ones who have right now are inapropriate for real event

 

What do we need besides seeding the field?

If you're running events which award significant amount of Masterpoints or, alternatively pigmented points you need to ensure that the events are a true measure of skill rather than some kind of crap shoot. The majority of BBO tournaments are very badly flawed... they feature too far too many pairs competing across a very small number of boards. (I readily admit that this is a critique of the conditions of contest rather than the movement per see).

 

With this said and done, even if TD directors do a good job setting the length of the tournament relative to number of pairs competing, you still require some kind of balanced movement. Right now, the best that we can do is to run a Barometer event. However, even Baromters are flawed compared to a well designed Howell or Mitchell. For example, in theory, a Barometer permits a pair to win an event without ever competing against the pairs that place 2nd and 3rd...

 

In real life, the primary argument against running a Howell is the embarassing frequency with which the players (or the director) foul the movement. However, the electronic playing environment permits organizers to mask highly complex movements from the players.

[pigpenz]

ones who have right now are inapropriate for real event

 

What do we need besides seeding the field?

some form of seeding

some form of security(eg exlcuding pairs having same ips)

then go for it

[Elianna]

some form of security(eg exlcuding pairs having same ips)

this would be singularly unfair to couples. Sure, we have more of a chance of cheating, since we could sit next to each other, but people can accomplish the same thing with phones or IMs.

 

Why should couples be banned from playing together in tournaments when they haven't done anything wrong?

[han]

I agree with Elianna, given how easy it is to cheat it makes no sense to prohibit these pairs.

[DrTodd13]

You could add a certification process and only those certified would be allowed to compete in certain tournaments. Let every tournament establish their own certification quiz and before you can compete in a tourney by that person, you have to take the quiz and score a certain percentage. I don't even care if they can sit there with the rules while they are taking the quiz, at least this is a way to verify that they've read the rules and are therefore more likely to follow them.

 

To comment on something somebody else said, yes f2f bridge is not the same as online bridge. We need slightly different rules for the different environments. Alerting rules should not be more relaxed online, only different. You can self-alert and both opps can see your explanations. This greatly reduces potential MI problems and is better than screen play where different explanations may be given on different sides of the screen. We have the capability to do better than f2f bridge and I'm not sure that we are.

[bendare]

Hey folks, let's not put the cart before the horse. The Jan. ACBL Bulletin quote was on ACBL's 2006 "To do list" to DEVELOP a PILOT PROGRAM for the VIABILITY to hold online sectionals and or regionals. This is ACBL's plans and BBO has no say or at this time any involvement. Even the VIABILITY of online sectional or regionals is yet to be determined by ACBL. IF and when ACBL sectionals or regionals are held online, ACBL will decide on which site or sites they will be conducted.

 

Mine was just a passing thought that POSSIBLY ACBL might consider including a more "serious" BBO ACBL game in its PILOT PROGRAM (dry runs) in determining the viability of online sectionals and regionals---sorry if that was misunderstood as even being in negotiation.

 

For now, THANKS to Uday for being receptive to the cry of some of us for "more serious" BBO ACBL club games. He has asked for player suggestions and I am sure he will give consideration to all reasonable suggestions and input. This seems to be an offer on the table for creating such a game IF BBO deems there is enough player interest.

 

Lets not get off course here with discussions of online sectionals or regionals and let this "seems to be offer" pass us by. Interested parties--make yourselves known. Ultimately, the success of any such game is dependent on PLAYER participation, cooperation and commitment.

 

I am excited! Let's put our money where our mouth is and do what is needed to make this happen.

[pigpenz]

I agree with Elianna, given how easy it is to cheat it makes no sense to prohibit these pairs.

not really the pairs, i understand the problem with pairs playing in the samehousehold but when the same ip shows up as a kibber now thats not nice :)

 

Pairs would be pretty easy to police, you can run their hands through bridgebrowser or look at their previous results. The long term results for them speak for themselves bridgebroswer is a good tool for this.

[uday]

Pairs would be pretty easy to police

 

The volume of hands, the number of people who cry wolf every time declarer guesses a queen, and the effort it takes to analyze one hand make this a difficult issue.

 

Some investigations force us to wade through hundreds of hands for a player , looking for patterns.

 

This is an expensive process.

[Echognome]

Out of interest, can some of the enforcement be automated?

 

For example, can a hand be recognised by having a two-way finesse? Then one could look at the % of the time it was guessed correctly? I would suspect some variance on it (as we know there are a lot of other clues), but if say the % over a certain number of boards was above 80% it might be worth looking in to.

 

I'm sure there are other things one can test automatically, but the main thing is that any numbers are not proof of guilt, just enough proof for an indictment. Alternatively, if someone guessed the two-way finesse around 50% of the time, then I would say that is evidence that they are NOT cheating.

[Gerben42]

How many of these would be real guesses? That's the whole point! Most of the time a guess is not really a 50 - 50 guess.

[uday]

Out of interest, can some of the enforcement be automated?

 

I don't really see how. Sure, stats like avg imp/mp per board over a large number of boards are a red flag.

 

I think it would be too hard to find other patterns. If anyone wants to try, let me know. I can send you a sample data file (played hands) and you can fiddle with it. Or you can discuss this with Inquiry/sfbp ( sfbp produces bridge browser - this product works with a large hand history database and computes stats, ratings, etc )

[inquiry]

I don’t like the direction this thread is going. I doubt I will do much to slow it down, but here is my attempt. First there is no easy, quick way to investigate cheating. Not with myhands, not with records or first place finishes, not with BridgeBrowser. Even uday mentions that high Imp/MP% averages is only a “red flag”. If you want to catch someone at cheating, there is only one reliable way. Have a team of experts examine the hands, sometimes as Uday says, hundreds of hands. There is no short cut, nor quick and easy software solution.

 

As for online cheating, SIGH, it seems this is a favorite topic of some people. Lets start with a few assumptions, personally I am certain that each of these assumptions are correct.

 

1 Online cheating at bridge occurs, pretty much at all online sites

2 Online cheating is no where as frequent as many people assume

3 People caught cheating online at BBO (and other gaming sites) are sanctioned, upto and most frequently including, permanent banishment.

 

Ok, does admitting cheating occurs mean online bridge can not be fun or challenging for honest players? No it doesn’t. We all play online (or we wouldn’t be here), and we all enjoy the game online. Bridge is a game where you challenge yourself, and can seek enjoyment simply by playing. We have this enjoyment despite the assumption that cheating occurs at all online sites. If one buys into the fact that online cheating might occur, but that it is fairly rare, I can assure you that you can still have fun playing, and while doing so, you can help slow down online cheating while doing it. On the otherhand, some players see cheaters in their minds eye at every table. Let me talk to the first group of players (those who see cheaters everywhere are hopeless I am afraid).

 

How can we slow down online cheating? First, realize that the BBO polices cheating with the help of user like you, who reports possible cheating to Abuse. Having said that, reporting a suspected cheater with just a message that says “so-and-so” is cheating does will probably just end up with the suspects name logged and no real investigation. However, reporting someone with a link to several hands in the BBO’s myhand database (especially with a few words why you think this is evidence of cheating) will get them looked at as these hands will surely be reviewed at least once. If these several hands seem suspicious, abuse will then assign a group of people to investigate further.

 

In most reported cheating cases, there is ample evidence to demonstrate that the players in question are not cheating. It is VERY SURPRIZING to me how many times a pair that comes in DEAD LAST in an event will be reported to us for “cheating” by someone because out a 12 board tournament, the bad pair fixed them once with a stupid bid or play that worked. The other 11 times their poor bridge skills resulted in bad boards. Sometimes somebody does something stupid against you that works because, well, they are very poor bridge players but this was their lucky hand.

 

It is also surprising how many people will write in and say, so-and-so is a horrible player and yet they just won ACBL event or some other event with a 78% score so they must be cheating. Often when we look, we find that their opponents threw them gift-after-gift-after-gift, and other than this one tournament, their other performances are well below average. Then there are people who turn in every single husband/wife pair who have the same name in their profiles. This is a regular occurrence… look “Betty Flip and Bob Flip” played together and bid 3NT on board 1 and 4H on board two… they must be using a home network and cheating. They say this despite on board one Betty and Bob have 1NT opener opposite a balanced 12 hcp with no four card major, and on board two they have two openers opposite each other and a 5-4 fit. A poster in this thread went as far as saying no two players from the same ISP should be allowed to play together (forget presumed innocent to guilty theories, this is cast them all out. This would include people like Fred and Sheri who share a lan).

 

Does the BBO issue sanctions if people are found to have been cheating? Absolutely. Can people cheat with impunity on BBO? Absolutely not. The myhands database is there for anyone to check up on players if they are interested, and as Uday has pointed out, there are other tools available as well, things like using myhands to calculate average imps and MP%, records of high place finishes, and yes, bridgebrowser can be used for a lot of things, including examining hands played by anyone in the database. When abuse catches someone cheating, she acts. When abuse and her experts are not certain someone is cheating, but highly suspect it, she either acts immediately, or orders more study to be sure.

 

It is already “risky” (well, really how much punishment can BBO really give out? Ban from the site, and perhaps report to ACBL) to cheat in high profile events on the BBO. Players have long been pouring over hands from ACBL and cash-prize tournaments by using myhands and turning in suspected cheaters this way. Cheating investigations is a time consuming task and people willing to do this (find the initial incriminating hands) help overworked abuse out. But MOST OFTEN these volunteers are not the best “judges” of the question of guilt or innocence, simply because if they are looking at someone on myhands, it is because they ALREADY assumed the person was cheating in the first place (pre-conceived opinions often shade the assumptions drawn).

 

The good news is it continues to grow more “risky” to cheat in such events. For example, HomeBase Club will have all its tournaments hand reviewed routinely by experts and advanced players to find examples of great bids or plays for their twice monthly newsletter. Perhpas other clubs will follow suit. In such an environment, where review of all good boards is certain and automatic, cheating would be too risky for most cheaters simply because the experts while looking for the great bids and plays would pick up on things so unusual as to suggest cheating and then they would report those hands to abuse. Add to that these hands were found during a general review of play rather than a “witch-hunt”, that is the expert had no pre-conceived ideas about the player found doing odd stuff, their review might (at abuse’s discretion) carry more weight in the review process (certainly abuse would have additional review). Further, Homebase Club is making a version of Bridgebrowser available for their members which can access all hands ever played in any HomeBase events, and for one class of members, for all hands played on the BBO. While this program is not a tool designed to catch cheaters its use by HomeBase members should act as a general deterrent to cheating on BBO itself. Because all the hands will be there for anyone willing to do the hard work and actually EXAMINE the hands, bid-by-bid and card-by-card. BBO members can do the same with the myhands database.

[pigpenz]

I have seen some pretty blatant examples where someone had to know what was going on but you are right the majority arise just from bad bidding.

 

the other day had an opp overcall 1NT with a singleton and 14chp and then bid 4♣ on his own after we bid to 3♠. I wish we had doubled but all you can do is report to TD and make a player note that the player is an idiot :lol:

 

I have gone over lots and lots of hands with bridgebrowser and it is very tediuos and most of the time, wasteful. But when someone says that so and so does this more than once it makes it alittle easier to find a pattern.

 

One pair I had noticed by looking at about 500 of their 1♣ openings (maybe short) that they only alerted when short and didnt alert when they werent short. Something like that all you can do is alert to abuse@...the pair no longer does this :P

[uday]

We're going to try a game restricted to ACBL-LM's, Midchart. Probably around 10PM EST or so. A little late for East Coasters but it gives the West Coasters a chance to hop in. When? Probably in about a week, then we'll see what happens.

 

The ACBL-in-memphis tells us that that the masterpoints awards must be reduced (just as they are for the 0-299 games) because the game is restricted.

[bendare]

That is interesting. I was aware masterpoints were reduced when restricted games had upper limits, but I would not have thought so when there was a lower limit but no upper limit. In fact I always thought that in restricted games, the higher the minimum requirements, the higher the master points awarded.

 

A reduction in master points will certainly be a deterrent for many, making it unlikely this new restricted game will get off the ground.

[uday]

I am guessing that the people that want a game in which everyone is conversant with ACBL-in-memphis regulations ( and in which everyone can count to 13, can handle midchart conventions, etc ) won't care so much about reduced awards.

 

Anyway, we'll see...and feel free to contact the ACBL-in-memphis and point out that a "restriction" of LM should lead to an increase, not a decrease, in awarded masterpoints :)

 

True offline tournaments do award more points for restrictions like this, apparently, but the BBO-ACBL-games are considered "club games" and those are treated differently.

[hrothgar]

That is interesting. I was aware masterpoints were reduced when restricted games had upper limits, but I would not have thought so when there was a lower limit but no upper limit. In fact I always thought that in restricted games, the higher the minimum requirements, the higher the master points awarded.

 

A reduction in master points will certainly be a deterrent for many, making it unlikely this new restricted game will get off the ground.

If one makes the assumption that Master Points are intended as a measure of skill, this policy seems very counter-intuitive. The number of masterpoints awarded is already adjusted based on the size of the game. One would think that the impact of excluding non-life masters would be sufficient...

 

If, on the other hand, one made the assumption that master points are primarily intended as a mechanism to generate revenue, the policy make much more sense.

 

Not that i'm suggesting anything...

[glen]

We're going to try a game restricted to ACBL-LM's, Midchart. Probably around 10PM EST or so. A little late for East Coasters but it gives the West Coasters a chance to hop in. When? Probably in about a week, then we'll see what happens.

 

The ACBL-in-memphis tells us that that the masterpoints awards must be reduced (just as they are for the 0-299 games) because the game is restricted.

First, congrads on having a LMs Mid-chart game.

 

Second, are we certain that ACBL-in-Memphis understands the nature of this restriction? I ask this before I write a letter to the ACBL bulletin.

[uday]

We're certain

[Elianna]

In club games, at least from what I remember from ACBL score, the only way to limit a game to LMs only is to make it invitational (I haven't seen a way to make a BOTTOM limit to points, etc.), and this has the same multiplier (.8, I believe) as the 299er games.

 

So the information that Uday received makes perfect sense to me.

 

Also, for these club games, the more people playing doesn't affect the points that much, as they seem to be given per section rather than overall, so if you're playing in a 24 table game that's split into two 12 table sections, that's the same as playing in a 12 table game. From what I've noticed about BBO ACBL points.

[uday]

Yes, it is a "restriction" and so there is a masterpoint penalty.

 

We issue section awards rather than overall awards since this maximizes the total points issued in the tourney.

[Elianna]

Yes, it is a "restriction" and so there is a masterpoint penalty.

 

We issue section awards rather than overall awards since this maximizes the total points issued in the tourney.

And I'm still somewhat confused by this, because i've seen club games issue both.

 

For example, here's some results (in short recap form) from a bridge club in Los Angeles: http://www.bridgescore.com/bbc/games/feb_09_bb*.a.htm

 

Not that it gives both section and overall awards.

 

It doesn't seem to be significant difference in numbers, though, because I've long held the suspicion that normal club game awards are capped at 1.50 points, but have yet to have time to mess around with ACBLscore to find out.

 

(normal as opposed to club championships, etc.)