Suspected cheating in BBO

[fuburules3]

We do that when the qualifying rounds of the ACBL Collegiate Championship are done online.

 

Is this a recent development? This never happened when I played in it (and pretty sure didn't happen last year)

[inquiry]

Is this a recent development? This never happened when I played in it (and pretty sure didn't happen last year)

 

The college thing was played onlline, not sure how the conditions of contest were. But for example, here is the cc for the usbf under 21 event that was played on line usbf u21 cc

[barmar]

Is this a recent development? This never happened when I played in it (and pretty sure didn't happen last year)

I was one of the monitors for the MIT team a year ago.

[mr1303]

On this whole cheating thing, sometimes, when playing in the main bridge club, if I'm playing with a new parter I sometimes have a convention card open in front of me.

 

Whilst it is technically against the rules, I'm not hugely bothered. 1) I don't care if opponents discuss their system during the bidding and play of a hand (and freely invite this if I'm playing something complicated).

 

If I'm playing a semi-formal teams match, or in a tournament (I don't play in pay tournaments since the bank charges associated with paying in dollars makes this too expensive for my liking), then I don't. But then I don't care one way or other about the score that I get online.

[barmar]

I think most people understand that minor stuff like that takes place online, and it doesn't generally affect their enjoyment of the game (in the case of peeking at your own CC, they don't even know when it's happening).

 

When people complain about cheating, they're usually talking about players getting out-of-band information about their partner's or opponents' hands.

[mrdct]

I realise that it's possible to self-kibitz on a mobile phone or via an internet connection other than your primary one, but how about something like an amber dot next to your name to indicate that somebody with the same IP address is either kibitzing or playing at the same table or the other table in a teams match? Of course it could be quite innocent, such as family members watching or playing with each other from different PCs on the same LAN, but I think it's fair enough to have to disclose that you are doing that.

[aguahombre]

"Spouse-TerryW, so it is obvious we don't communicate!"

That's what we use on OKB. It's in my profile.

[olegru]

Incidents happened all the time.

Players land in the majestic contracts as a result of partnership misunderstanding;

Players miscount their points to stop in the only makeable contract;

Players chose the superlucky bluffs.

And so on and so forth…

Every of this incidents could look suspicious, but does not prove anything. Any of us was in these positions. We can get lucky on a single strange board, but more often we are losing because of our mistakes.

 

But sometimes we can see something different:

1. Best leads in almost 100% cases.

2. Different actions in the similar positions always in a lucky match with partners hand.

3. 1 major – (2 minor) – double, double could be penalty or negative depends what they need in the current board.

4. Some actions that have no explanations other than external knowledge.

5. Excessive number of doubles and redoubles

6. Incredible stats.

These are kind of cases we are talking about.

 

[[[[[[

 

ALL THE EXAMPLES DELETED.... WHAT PART OF THE FIRST POST WHERE I DELETED SPECIFIC EXAMPLES WAS NOT CLEAR.

 

IF ANYONE WANTS TO GO ON A CHEATER HUNT, GO RIGHT AHEAD. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS CHEATING AND CHEATING ISSUES YOU MUST DO IT SUCH THAT THE HANDS CAN BE FOUND "EASILY" ON MYHANDS. THESE EXAMPLES, GIVEN THE OP, ARE TOO EASY TO FIND. THIS ALSO MEANS YOU CAN NOT POST ANY HANDS YOU PLAYED ON LINE THAT IS STILL AVAILABLE IN MYHANDS (ONE YOU KIBITZ, ONE YOU FIND IN YOUR CHEATER HUNT ARE OK, BUT NOT OF A PAIR THAT IS EASILY OUTED WITH LINKS IN THIS FORUM.

 

THE BEST THING TO DO IS TO REPORT THE ALLEGED CHEATER TO ABUSE AT BRIDGEBASE DOT COM.

 

]]]]]]]]]]

 

There will always be cheaters; it is just too easy to do. Some will be too subtle to be caught.

But since online bridge is basically for practice, it seems not to be too big a disadvantage if opponents play and defend perfectly!

These people are not "too subtle to be caught." :)

 

And as for practice I am completely disagree with you. It is a big disadvantage to play against cheaters even in tearm of practice.

It is just completely different game. Look at examples above.

 

1. You cannot deduce anything about opponents hand based on his bids and leads, because they unrelated to his own cards.

2. No reasons to preempt

3. No reasons to bid close games

 

You are learning nothing playing this kind of game, just losing time and selfconfidence.

Edited March 13, 2012 by inquiry
ALL THE EXAMPLES DELETED

[mgoetze]

As aids to play are impossible to detect, I think it is fair to say that there will always be people using them. But anyway, people who mind cheating on BBO can just play Farmville instead. If they really prefer to play bridge they can:

 

• 
   
  
• Attend a local duplicate or rubber bridge club
  
• Join a local league
  
• Go to a tournament
  
• Invite 3 friends over and play some rubbers, or 7 friends and have a team match.
  
• et cetera
  

 

I think you missed the rather obvious "chat to 3 people you know on BBO to start a table, or 7 people you know and start a team match".

[barmar]

I realise that it's possible to self-kibitz on a mobile phone or via an internet connection other than your primary one, but how about something like an amber dot next to your name to indicate that somebody with the same IP address is either kibitzing or playing at the same table or the other table in a teams match? Of course it could be quite innocent, such as family members watching or playing with each other from different PCs on the same LAN, but I think it's fair enough to have to disclose that you are doing that.

We might as well make it a scarlet C, since that's how people will interpret it, and most will avoid these tables. And even if people do play against them, as soon as something strange happens they'll assume the worst -- their expectations will be biased.

 

I prefer the innocent until proven guilty approach.

[mrdct]

ALL THE EXAMPLES DELETED....

Can't some examples be posted sans usernames and with a pip or two changed? Perhaps it's because I rarely play with or against people I don't know, but I've never suspect an opponent of cheating on BBO and I'd be interested to see what sort of things go on.

[billw55]

I admit I am curious about the examples, but the reasons for removing them are good.

 

Most suspicious actions I have experienced are in bidding, for example balancing in a short suit and oh look, partner has six of them! Or psych fielding, etc.

 

(inquiry, I think you have an error in your all-caps edit in olegru's post. The third sentence sounds different than I think you intended.)

[inquiry]

Can't some examples be posted sans usernames and with a pip or two changed? Perhaps it's because I rarely play with or against people I don't know, but I've never suspect an opponent of cheating on BBO and I'd be interested to see what sort of things go on.

 

I personally don't see why anyone would bother posting examples of online cheating. However, SHOULD anyone want to post cheating examples, I personally have not problem with it. However, a few guidelines are necessary.

 

First, if you played the hand (that is the cheating occurred on line against you), you have to either... wait until the hand you are quoting disappears from myhands, or two, change it so much it can not be found by searching your name and myhands. Just changing 7H to 7S and reversing the major suits is not enough, because those are easily found anyway in myhands.

 

If you kibitzed a hand, or took a pair who played against you and then searched their hand record for evidence of cheating and wanted to post hands against other people, that is ok...as long as you don't do as the OP did here, and pinpoint who to look at (as in, I played a pair today, and boy oh boy, look what I found they did against other people.... )

 

In other words, don't make it a "piece of cake" for the curious to see who bid/played the hand. There should be no way to link the hand through you or any other player to the hands in the myhands database. The problem with the examples posted above that I removed (from the OP, and from the recent post) is that it was too easy to find the pair. In fact, olegru did just that kind of hunting based on info in the OP (which is why I said at the time I edited the OP that I probably should delete the entire thing).

 

If you want to see distorted (and mistaken) allegations of cheating there are some blogs I can direct you too. In these blogs, anti-cheating crusaders attempt to out two alleged bbo cheaters. All the anti-cheaters did is show their own ignorance of bridge. Not that there are tons of cheaters who could be exposed, it is just these guys barked up the wrong tree.

[Zelandakh]

In other words, don't make it a "piece of cake" for the curious to see who bid/played the hand. There should be no way to link the hand through you or any other player to the hands in the myhands database. The problem with the examples posted above that I removed (from the OP, and from the recent post) is that it was too easy to find the pair. In fact, olegru did just that kind of hunting based on info in the OP (which is why I said at the time I edited the OP that I probably should delete the entire thing).

I found the pair in question from the information in the OP after your edit within a few minutes. I was surprised you left it in that form.

[HighLow21]

I admit I am curious about the examples, but the reasons for removing them are good.

 

Most suspicious actions I have experienced are in bidding, for example balancing in a short suit and oh look, partner has six of them! Or psych fielding, etc.

 

(inquiry, I think you have an error in your all-caps edit in olegru's post. The third sentence sounds different than I think you intended.)

He meant 'CANNOT,' not 'CAN.'

[HighLow21]

In other words, don't make it a "piece of cake" for the curious to see who bid/played the hand. There should be no way to link the hand through you or any other player to the hands in the myhands database. The problem with the examples posted above that I removed (from the OP, and from the recent post) is that it was too easy to find the pair. In fact, olegru did just that kind of hunting based on info in the OP (which is why I said at the time I edited the OP that I probably should delete the entire thing).

I see your points and cede them fully; I was not aware of the sensitivity about cheating accusations and the ability to find out who I'm referring to when I originally posted. I'm sure Olegru is in the same boat. That said, now that I understand the issue better, I fully agree with BBO's position and won't do it again. It's definitely best left on an innocent-until-proven-guilty basis, and the proving grounds must be with the BBO abuse team. Anything else is tantamount to asking for people--potentially many people--to have their reputations damaged by malicious or ill-informed accusations of cheating, which is far worse than the cheating problem itself.

 

That said, I can see the value in constructing example hands (possibly based on actual cheating examples, however modified for protection) to help curious people understand the things to look for.

[WellSpyder]

I admit I am curious about the examples, but the reasons for removing them are good.

I happened to see the examples before they were deleted. I am not in the least interested in who they referred to and did not try to find out, but I was interested to see whether I thought the accusations could be the result of lucky opponents and a somewhat paranoid attitude to when things happen against you.

 

Having read them, I would say that if all these examples happened in one session as described, then I for one have absolutely no doubt that there was indeed cheating going on. Every single one of the half dozen or so examples was pretty suspicious, but perhaps just might have been the result of complete cluelessness combined with good luck. All of them together happening through a combination of luck and cluelessness is just too incredible to believe, however. So I agree with olegru's comment that these were not "too subtle to be caught". I also sympathise with the view that if things as extreme as this happen then it is tough just to brush them aside and say it doesn't matter because you are only playing for practice, since what you are experiencing is so far removed from what normally happens at the table that the practice is unlikely to be very helpful.

[HighLow21]

I happened to see the examples before they were deleted. I am not in the least interested in who they referred to and did not try to find out, but I was interested to see whether I thought the accusations could be the result of lucky opponents and a somewhat paranoid attitude to when things happen against you.

 

Having read them, I would say that if all these examples happened in one session as described, then I for one have absolutely no doubt that there was indeed cheating going on. Every single one of the half dozen or so examples was pretty suspicious, but perhaps just might have been the result of complete cluelessness combined with good luck. All of them together happening through a combination of luck and cluelessness is just too incredible to believe, however. So I agree with olegru's comment that these were not "too subtle to be caught". I also sympathise with the view that if things as extreme as this happen then it is tough just to brush them aside and say it doesn't matter because you are only playing for practice, since what you are experiencing is so far removed from what normally happens at the table that the practice is unlikely to be very helpful.

Inquiry effectively corroborated your analysis (and that of others) in his original reply to this thread.

[JLOGIC]

Grunching, but yes people cheat, just report to abuse AT bridgebase DOT com, then don't worry about it anymore. They are pretty good about conducting investigations and being fair but erring on the side of caution like they should be. Def don't post about it on these forums, it's considered a no-no (lol @ me saying this, I know).

[JLOGIC]

And obv if you have good evidence that they are cheating, they will get caught and dealt with. If your evidence is deemed to suck, nothing will happen. I definitely believe you found some people who cheat, it happens if you play with randoms a lot.

 

FWIW BBO is pro-active in many ways in trying to find cheaters, esp in their tournaments.

[barmar]

And we've been racking our brains for some time trying to come up with effective ways to deal with them. But the anonymity that the Internet provides makes this very difficult.

[HighLow21]

And we've been racking our brains for some time trying to come up with effective ways to deal with them. But the anonymity that the Internet provides makes this very difficult.

The anonymity the Internet provides leads to a LOT of problems that are hard to deal with. :-)

[Vampyr]

So I agree with olegru's comment that these were not "too subtle to be caught".

 

I didn't see the examples, and I am sure you are right. My own comment was just general --that it is possible to cheat subtly, so there will always be some who are getting away with it.

[aguahombre]

The anonymity the Internet provides leads to a LOT of problems that are hard to deal with. :-)

This dovetails a bit into the other, more contentious, thread. How do we know that the user earning masterpoints is the person with that ACBL number?

[billw55]

I didn't see the examples, and I am sure you are right. My own comment was just general --that it is possible to cheat subtly, so there will always be some who are getting away with it.

I fear this also applies to face-to-face games.