a way for experts to cheat and get away with it at bbo

[timouthy]

The following happened to me recently while playing on bbo. I am declarer as north. The contract had two tricks left to play. I lead from the board and while east is deciding what to do, west (LHO) claims!! Only trouble is he doesn't have both tricks. He will win the one that I have led from the board, but his remaining card is one that I can beat in my hand. His partner does have one higher than mine also in that suit but he has to discard first and if he discards this card, then his partner's claim is invalid. I have played the hand to intentionally "squeeze" west and he pauses to think and does not play a card before east claims. Clearly RHO/west is not sure which to discard. I deny claim but now RHO can now infer what to discard, and the hand proceeds and they get the last two tricks. I commented to the table that it was inappropriate for east to have claimed and he, an expert, responded with a tongue lashing saying that it was obvious to his partner what card to discard blah, blah, blah and that I didn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.? The only problem was his partner clearly didn't know which to discard as evidenced by his lengthy pause during the play. I could see that a savvy defender can do this intentionally to pass info. to his partner and appear to have just made an honest mistake.

 

I wrote this situation to bridge base online and asked both if this situation was unethical and also why does bridge base allow a defender to claim remaining tricks out of turn? I got back a tersely written agreement that this was not fair and a recommendation for me to bring it up here in the forums and nothing more, suggesting they had no intention of changing to claiming in turn only. So I put it out there. Anyone think defense should only be allowed to claim in turn? I would really appreciate responses either way. If there is a rationale for leaving things the way they are, I would appreciate knowing what it is also

.

For reference the hand was xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Thanks, timouthy

Edited November 3, 2011 by inquiry
edited the contract and when played to keep id's somewhat hidden

[jmcw]

Interesting scenerio!.

I suggest few players would be "smart" enough to foresee such trickery, and there is no way to know the motive of your opponent. Nevertheless any opportunity to cheat needs to be taken seriously and dealt with.

Your solution seems reasonable to me, indeed allowing the defenders to claim with only 2 tricks to be played hardly seems worthwhile to begin with.

[MrAce]

The following happened to me recently while playing on bbo.,,,,,, (deleted by administrator, read original if your interested)......

 

Hi welcome to forums :)

 

When a defender claims, his pd does not see the claim attempt or claim or any hand. So you are assuming that his pd was aware of the claim, which is not the case. All his pd can see is the delay while he is claiming and u are declining the claim, which could be due to anything by the way. How do i know this ? My pd claims a lot in defense, only thing i see is, if accepted by declarer, we are dealt a new hand. I dont see anything and have no right even if my pd's claim/concede was correct or not. (I am talking about software version of BBO, i never liked the web version, if it is different in web version disregard what i said )

 

Accusing someone of "CHEATING" due to a false/early/flawed claim is way too silly, sorry. I understand your frustration, but if someone wants to cheat in BBO, it is the last method he would choose to do it by making an early claim in defense.

Edited November 3, 2011 by inquiry
see op for why

[nige1]

I'm the #1 fan of on-line claim law but even I am worried by this kind of thing. When declarer disputes defender's claim, a suitable rule would be:

• The claiming defender plays on single-dummy,
• Declarer continues double-dummy and
• The claiming defender's partner's cards are penalty cards. Declarer plays them.

This is similar to the old face-to-face law about defender's claims, which worked fairly and well.

 

Another problem with on-line claim law is the "fishing-expedition". For instance, only ♠ are left and an unscrupulous declarer claims with ♠ AJx opposite ♠ KTx, hoping for a "tell" from a gullible defender with the ♠Q. I suppose that this could also be remedied with a director-call and a large disciplinary penalty for the offender. However, I believe that players on-line quickly become aware of the danger of falling for this ploy.

 

On-line, simply classifying such crooks as enemies may be sufficient.

 

Arrgh. Sorry. if Mr Ace is right (and I'm sure he is) this is over-kill.

Edited November 2, 2011 by nige1

[Bbradley62]

When a defender claims, his pd does not see the claim attempt..

Is this accurate? Doesn't West see "East is claiming 2 tricks" or something to that effect?

[MrAce]

I'm the #1 fan of on-line claim law but even I am worried by this kind of thing. When declarer disputes defender's claim, a suitable rule would be:

• The claiming defender plays on single-dummy,
• Declarer continues double-dummy and
• The claiming defender's partner's cards are penalty cards. Declarer plays them.

This is similar to the old face-to-face law about defender's claims, which worked fairly and well.

 

Another problem with on-line claim law is the "fishing-expedition". For instance, only ♠ are left and an unscrupulous declarer claims with ♠ AJx opposite ♠ KTx, hoping for a "tell" from a gullible defender with the ♠Q. I suppose that this could also be remedied with a director-call and a large disciplinary penalty for the offender. However, I believe that players on-line quickly become aware of the danger of falling for this ploy.

 

On-line, simply classifying such crooks as enemies may be sufficient.

 

Claiming defender can not see declarer's or pd's hand. But declarer can see. So your suggestion about single/double dummy continuation is already in affect. You guys seem to really underestimate BBO and think that they did not foresee these issues when they build this up. Thats not the case though.

 

Also there is no need for Claiming Defender's pd cards to be penalty cards. Claiming defender did not see them, his pd did not see the claim or claimer's hand. When a defender claims he shows his hand to declarer, declarer either accepts or declines and plays double dummy, defenders still play single dummy and claimer's pd has no clue that his pd made a claim and it was refuses by declarer.

[MrAce]

Doesn't West see "East is claiming 2 tricks" or something to that effect?

 

No

[wyman]

Referencing the hand (and subsequently quoting it) is an accusation of cheating directed at identifiable opponents. This is unacceptable.

[timouthy]

Hi welcome to forums :)

 

When a defender claims, his pd does not see the claim attempt or claim or any hand. So you are assuming that his pd was aware of the claim, which is not the case. All his pd can see is the delay while he is claiming and u are declining the claim, which could be due to anything by the way. How do i know this ? My pd claims a lot in defense, only thing i see is, if accepted by declarer, we are dealt a new hand. I dont see anything and have no right even if my pd's claim/concede was correct or not. (I am talking about software version of BBO, i never liked the web version, if it is different in web version disregard what i said )

 

Accusing someone of "CHEATING" due to a false/early/flawed claim is way too silly, sorry. I understand your frustration, but if someone wants to cheat in BBO, it is the last method he would choose to do it by making an early claim in defense.

 

Excuse my extreme language in the title but I was trying to get attention to this situation. I was not aware that the other defender could not see the claim and my comments to east were made before I denied east's claim so now west does know something! Bridge base should make this clear to players, i.e. just who gets to see a claim, and also instruct declarers to therefore not write any comments in the chat area until the claim is dealt with. BYW I assume that a defender will not be allowed to play until the claim is dealt with but.......I, and I would bet most people on bbo, don't really know that either. If a defender tries to play and bbo wont let them, then they could reasonably infer that a claim by partner has just been made, so again they could be getting advance information, and, the longer a declarer takes to decide the claim, the more likely the defender is to conclude that his partner has claimed. This suggests one more thing bbo should make clear to declarers, hurry your claim evaluation!

 

timouthy

[gwnn]

It used to be the case that if partner claims, I can no longer claim (my claim button turns gray). I created a thread on this about 5 years ago. Did BBO change this?

[BunnyGo]

Referencing the hand (and subsequently quoting it) is an accusation of cheating directed at identifiable opponents. This is unacceptable.

 

Welcome to the forums. We do try to keep complaints like this anonymous. As to your problem, it's interesting. It sounds like a lot of it could be fixed simply by only letting people claim at their turn to play.

[MrAce]

It used to be the case that if partner claims, I can no longer claim (my claim button turns gray). I created a thread on this about 5 years ago. Did BBO change this?

 

It still does. If u want to claim at the same time with your pd, or while he is claiming, claim button will not be available to you for couple seconds, it doesnt make sense to me though if there is a player who is keeping an eye on claim button just to take advantage of this,, because as i said there are easier and more effective ways to cheat as oppose to having some clue from pd's claim.

 

These claims by the way, % 99 of the time either accepted or doesnt matter if refused. I really dont think its worthy of a software change/patch/improvement. As long as we are not able to load common sense to people, there will always be something to be complained in the software imo.

[diana_eva]

It shows on the web version. This should probably be moved to Suggestions for the software so that programmers see it and decide whether the software can be modified to hide claims.

[timouthy]

It shows on the web version. This should probably be moved to Suggestions for the software so that programmers see it and decide whether the software can be modified to hide claims.

 

Could you please clarify what shows? I.e. does the claim by one defender show to the other? I need to know because I have the web version of bbo.

 

thanks,

timouthy

[diana_eva]

Could you please clarify what shows? I.e. does the claim by one defender show to the other? I need to know because I have the web version of bbo.

 

thanks,

timouthy

 

Yes if one defender claims, his partner sees it.

[Bbradley62]

It shows on the web version. This should probably be moved to Suggestions for the software so that programmers see it and decide whether the software can be modified to hide claims.

What? MrAce doesn't know everything like he apparently thinks he does?

[diana_eva]

Wasn't so complicated to actually check what happens before posting :)

[1eyedjack]

Sorry but I would not like the claim option disabled just because it is not my turn to play. I see the merits, but cure worse than disease and all that.

[gwnn]

It still does. If u want to claim at the same time with your pd, or while he is claiming, claim button will not be available to you for couple seconds, it doesnt make sense to me though if there is a player who is keeping an eye on claim button just to take advantage of this,, because as i said there are easier and more effective ways to cheat as oppose to having some clue from pd's claim.

 

These claims by the way, % 99 of the time either accepted or doesnt matter if refused. I really dont think its worthy of a software change/patch/improvement. As long as we are not able to load common sense to people, there will always be something to be complained in the software imo.

I agree with most of this (that this problem is not that important) but this still means that what you said was factually inaccurate (because you do see if your partner claims). And trust me, I don't sit with a magnifying glass on the claim button to see when it turns gray but still I usually notice.

[Free]

If your partner is claiming, you can't claim at the same time. I don't know in which cases this applies (for example, if partner has the popup with amount of tricks he wants to claim, when he actually asks opps to accept the claim,...). So while you can't see partner's claim, you can try to claim yourself and get informed if partner is claiming.

 

I agree with MrAce that using this method to cheat is ridiculous, if they have some kind of messenger they can cheat much easier without drawing any attention. You can't make this fool proof, so I understand BBO's decision not to change anything at the moment.

[diana_eva]

OP reports an issue on the web version. Everything Mr Ace and subsequent replies say is correct for the older version, but not relevant for this case.

 

I agree that using a harsh word as "cheating" is exaggerate, but this all comes down to a suggestion to change how claim works on the web version.

[pooltuna]

IMO the claim button is not used enough!!! So I would object to any changes that limit when you can claim.

[barmar]

Another problem with on-line claim law is the "fishing-expedition". For instance, only ♠ are left and an unscrupulous declarer claims with ♠ AJx opposite ♠ KTx, hoping for a "tell" from a gullible defender with the ♠Q. I suppose that this could also be remedied with a director-call and a large disciplinary penalty for the offender. However, I believe that players on-line quickly become aware of the danger of falling for this ploy.

What kind of "tell" would there be on-line? You can't see the players' reactions. When you claim, they both get to see all hands, so both of them can tell that you don't know which way to finesse. And you also can't tell which of them refused the claim.

 

You seem to be thinking of the f2f coup with A9x opposite KJT, where you lead the J from hand and look for a hitch from LHO to tell if he was thinking of covering.

[nige1]

What kind of "tell" would there be on-line? You can't see the players' reactions. When you claim, they both get to see all hands, so both of them can tell that you don't know which way to finesse. And you also can't tell which of them refused the claim. You seem to be thinking of the f2f coup with A9x opposite KJT, where you lead the J from hand and look for a hitch from LHO to tell if he was thinking of covering.

Barmar is right -- I was extrapolating to face-to-face claim-law. f2f claim-law is complex. Directors differ over its interpretation. It deters players from claiming. Because of all the palaver, directors, too, admit they're reluctant to claim. The game would be faster, fairer, and more fun if f2f bridge adopted the simpler on-line claim-rule. Unfortunately, f2f, the possibility of a "fishing-expedition" is a perceived danger and could be a stumbling block to the progress of such a suggestion.

[Bbradley62]

I suppose that this could also be remedied with a director-call and a large disciplinary penalty for the offender.

What kind of "tell" would there be on-line? You can't see the players' reactions. When you claim, they both get to see all hands, so both of them can tell that you don't know which way to finesse. And you also can't tell which of them refused the claim.

Btw... OP was reporting an incident from the MBC, where there is no director.