making it harder for cheaters

[kmck95415]

The other night I saw an unusual result in the 'other tables' tab. I went to that table and watched for a while as user1 made some fantastic bids and plays. I noticed that besides me, there was 1 other kibitzer, user2. Then I noticed that when user1 moved to another table, user2 would follow. This went on for hours. Today, user3 was being helped by user2. This is the second time that I have happened upon players with multiple ids who kibitz their own table. I have reported to abuse both times, but it took months for it to stop when I reported the other cheater last year. If I have stumbled on it twice, it must be happening a lot. In fact, all table with a single kibitzer are suspect.

 

My suggestion is this: why not make 'disallow kibitzers' the default option when starting a table? Even the option where permission is required for kibitzing would help. Most aren't aware that they have allowed kibitzing or that there are kibitzers watching.

 

thanks for listening...Kathleen McKenna

[wank]

it's all clouded in secrecy. i don't have much faith that anything is actually done.

 

i reported someone who was incredibly obvious - overcalling 5D on a 4 card suit and hitting his partner with 6 card support for example. it would take me all of 30 seconds to try and convict this person. that person is still playing several years later.

[barmar]

My suggestion is this: why not make 'disallow kibitzers' the default option when starting a table? Even the option where permission is required for kibitzing would help. Most aren't aware that they have allowed kibitzing or that there are kibitzers watching.

The vast majority of players on BBO are not cheaters. Choosing defaults based on the assumption that there are lots of cheaters would make it a less friendly place.

 

And how would this work in practice? When the cheater asks to kibitz, how would the table host know that the kibitzer is a cohort that they should say no to?

 

And of course, the cheater could always host their own table where kibitzers are allowed. Are you so paranoid that you would refuse to join a table that allows kibs? What about most other players?

[661_Pete]

I don't suppose there's any way to completely eliminate cheating in online bridge. The method may be as simple as partners making a phone call to each other - quite undetectable by any technology within the BBO site! What it boils down to, I suppose, is that bridge wasn't invented to be played on computers. With players hundreds, even thousands of miles apart. What would Vanderbilt have made of the present-day scene, I wonder?

 

I think the only way to avoid cheating altogether is to play entirely with robots. I'm well aware that some BBO members do just that. Not really my scene: I'd rather take my chances.

 

The first thing you can do, I suppose, if you suspect cheating by the opponents, is leave a table. Reporting the players is a far more drastic step - one which many would be reluctant to take.

 

I wouldn't go along with discouraging kibitzing - but perhaps that's because I kibitz quite a lot myself!

[helene_t]

The vast majority of players on BBO are not cheaters. Choosing defaults based on the assumption that there are lots of cheaters would make it a less friendly place.

This.

 

That you can kibbitz is one of the great features of online bridge. When a player leave, we often ask if one of the kibbitzers would like to join. Kibbitzers can make an informed choice as to weather they like the table and the prospective partner. This is a much better way of filling seats than just accepting randoms.

 

Cheating is largely a non-problem. Most don't cheat, and some of those who cheat would find a way to cheat without kibbing.

 

Besides, it is not that big a deal if opps cheat. Why would it matter that much for your enjoyment of the game? OK, occasionally you might find a great deception play and then it is a bit frustrating if opps don't get trapped because they can see your cards. But it doesn't happen that often. My guess would be that playing against cheaters is similar to playing against honest players with great card reading skills. Which is good practice.

[barmar]

I don't suppose there's any way to completely eliminate cheating in online bridge. The method may be as simple as partners making a phone call to each other - quite undetectable by any technology within the BBO site! What it boils down to, I suppose, is that bridge wasn't invented to be played on computers. With players hundreds, even thousands of miles apart. What would Vanderbilt have made of the present-day scene, I wonder?

He was also a great socialite -- what would he have made of smartphones and social media? Face it, the world has moved on.

 

And as we've learned in spades recently, there's plenty of ways to cheat in face-to-face bridge.

[onoway]

Helene and barmar both make excellent points. Why should everyone be punished because some misbehave? Outside of tourneys, where you have no control over who your opps are, mark such people as enemy and move on. If kibbing was disallowed, you wouldn't know who to avoid :)