Two nicks, one player

[GrahamJson]

I have noticed two players who only ever play together and who are blatantly cheating. I'm almost certain that they are actually one person playing with two nicknames. Their (or rather, his) bidding is random, with frequent bidding of short suits. I'm not talking about splinters, but openings, responses and overcalls on singletons and voids occurring almost every board. As an example; xx K10xxxx AQxx A overcalls 1S over a 1C opening. Partner responds 2H on 10xxx QJx xxx Qxx and plays there, doubled making +1. As a consequence of this sort of thing they (he) averages around +4.5 imps a board. Over the last two days he has played 91 boards with pluses on 82 and only nine negatives, with a net score of +445 imps.

 

Goodness knows what this person gets out of this activity. It seems to me like buying a book of crosswords and filling them in after looking up all the answers. Anyway, this person continues playing forty or fifty boards a day despite being reported to BBO Abuse many times. Should I care? Should anyone care? Apart from giving their oppo unmerited bad score (although most don't hang around for more than three or four boards) the random scores that they generate affects all others playing those boards.

 

Any thoughts?

[wank]

most people on here seem to have an overly rosy view of human nature and think this hardly ever happens. in my experience it's rife.

[661_Pete]

I can well understand your annoyance. And like you I don't understand what motivates such people. They surely can't expect to advance their standing within BBO - nor as a bridge player elsewhere.

 

It's a pity that abuse@BBO don't give any feedback. I've sent in a few E-mails in my time (not always about suspected cheating), but never got a peep out of them as to whether any action was taken. I appreciate that there is an online privacy factor, but this only adds to one's frustration.

[johnu]

In the past, I have recommended that BBO send out at least an automated response that they have received a complaint. IMO, they should send out a followup that somebody is looking at suspect hands, and a final email stating whether any wrongdoing was found and any penalties levied.

 

Assuming that somebody is actually reviewing hands, sending followup emails should take much less time than analyzing a single hand. Whistleblowers may get discouraged at the lack of response and decide it's not worth the effort to report additional miscreants.

[GrahamJson]

In the past I have received two replies to each report. The first is automated and states that I will receive a report of any action taken. The second response is from an actual person who says the opposite; that got privacy reasons they cannot give me any further information. I've never had any subsequent communications. Given that the case mentioned above is as clear an example of cheating as there could be I do wonder whether any action is ever taken against wrongdoers.

[billw55]

The general gist from BBO admins has been: we do investigate some cases, and take action if appropriate, including bans. However, anyone can make a new user name and continue cheating and we have no way to prevent them from doing so.

 

The upshot is: you are your own enforcement service. Use your blacklist.

 

And yes, I have observed probable cheating in several cases over the years.

[661_Pete]

In the past I have received two replies to each report. The first is automated and states that I will receive a report of any action taken. The second response is from an actual person who says the opposite; that got privacy reasons they cannot give me any further information. I've never had any subsequent communications. Given that the case mentioned above is as clear an example of cheating as there could be I do wonder whether any action is ever taken against wrongdoers.

Yes that's more or less what I get. The first, auto-reply merely says:

This is an automated reply from Bridge Base Online.

A ticket has been opened regarding your issue.

You will receive additional emails as we take action.

The second, human reply, I strongly suspect is yet another copy-and-paste job: it's a bit more personalised, but nevertheless it almost invariably goes as follows: word for word:

Thank you for letting us know about this. We will investigate the incident and do whatever is needed. Our players provide valuable help to us which allows us to investigate and take appropriate action. The end result: Together we keep BBO a safe, comfortable and friendly place to play our favorite game.

Thank you for writing and especially thank you for making BBO your personal online Bridge Club.

This is fine as far as it goes - but a bit anodyne don't you think? Yes I know the abuse team probably have a lot of complaints to deal with, day after day .... but personally I'd like a bit more than that. ;)

[onoway]

It's really hard sometimes to know for sure what's going on. I have had reports of cheating from time to time in the club and usually it turns out to be that someone played the hand or bid the hand differently than the person objecting. I have had people claiming that a pair must be cheating because they were husband and wife with NO other evidence than that. I'm sure that BBO abuse gets more than their share of those, as well as complaints about the people who really are cheating. Many of us go through periods when everything we do bounces back and smacks us, and other times that we can do no wrong. if I have a concern, I ask for help from someone much more expert than I am and often it's very difficult for them to determine if wrongdoing is going on. Still, when it IS clear cut then they should be booted imo. Even if they do come back with another ID perhaps eventually they'll quit either cheating or playing and either one would be a win.

[GrahamJson]

It's really hard sometimes to know for sure what's going on. I have had reports of cheating from time to time in the club and usually it turns out to be that someone played the hand or bid the hand differently than the person objecting. I have had people claiming that a pair must be cheating because they were husband and wife with NO other evidence than that. I'm sure that BBO abuse gets more than their share of those, as well as complaints about the people who really are cheating. Many of us go through periods when everything we do bounces back and smacks us, and other times that we can do no wrong. if I have a concern, I ask for help from someone much more expert than I am and often it's very difficult for them to determine if wrongdoing is going on. Still, when it IS clear cut then they should be booted imo. Even if they do come back with another ID perhaps eventually they'll quit either cheating or playing and either one would be a win.

I agree with you, but in this case it could not be clearer. For example opening 1S on a singleton, partner raises on three and you end up in 3NT, making on a non spade lead. Or opening 1S on A Jxxxx Axxxx Jx and rebidding 2C over partner's 1NT response, keeping oppo out of their 4S contract. In fact oppo bid 2NT which goes one off when partner leads a diamond. And these aren't exceptions, almost every board is like this. How about opening 1H on KJxxx X QJx Jxxx and rebidding 2S over partner's 1NT response. This is passed out and makes exactly, partner having Axxx Qxx Kxx xxx. Oppo somehow did not find their heart fit.

[661_Pete]

How about opening 1H on KJxxx X QJx Jxxx and rebidding 2S over partner's 1NT response. This is passed out and makes exactly, partner having Axxx Qxx Kxx xxx. Oppo somehow did not find their heart fit.

I don't think the accusation of cheating is as clear as all that: not in this hand.

 

Clearly, if not a cheat, the opening bid is a psych. But psyching is not illegal - at least not in the casual play areas - provided it's not part of an undisclosed agreement.

 

Let's assume that opener's was a psych, and there was no secret agreement. If playing 4CM, partner might respond 1♠ but 1NT is not entirely wrong. Then opener - apparently - reverses into 2♠ - again psyching. Partner may decide that, even with the reverse and a ♠ fit, their flat 9 points is not enough for game, they obviously prefer ♠ to ♥ .... so they pass. The fact that the opponents were thus prevented from bidding ♥ was unlucky for them, but isn't solid evidence of cheating.

 

But this is not to say that cheating doesn't happen. I'm sure it does. But before making accusations, you need to have cast-iron evidence in every example you bring up.

[johnu]

I don't think the accusation of cheating is as clear as all that: not in this hand.

 

Clearly, if not a cheat, the opening bid is a psych. But psyching is not illegal - at least not in the casual play areas - provided it's not part of an undisclosed agreement.

 

Let's assume that opener's was a psych, and there was no secret agreement. If playing 4CM, partner might respond 1♠ but 1NT is not entirely wrong. Then opener - apparently - reverses into 2♠ - again psyching. Partner may decide that, even with the reverse and a ♠ fit, their flat 9 points is not enough for game, they obviously prefer ♠ to ♥ .... so they pass. The fact that the opponents were thus prevented from bidding ♥ was unlucky for them, but isn't solid evidence of cheating.

 

But this is not to say that cheating doesn't happen. I'm sure it does. But before making accusations, you need to have cast-iron evidence in every example you bring up.

 

IMO, clear-cut and blatant cheating. Anybody who doesn't bid at least game with responder's hand when opener has that hand is bidding looking at opener's hand, in other words, cheating.

[Vampyr]

If it is possible to cheat, some people will cheat, and in online bridge it is easy.

 

You can report people and mark them as enemies, but another idea is to play only in for-pay competitions. The have a money account, players will have to give personal details, and will probably not want to risk a lifetime ban unless they have multiple credit cards in several different names.

[GrahamJson]

I don't think the accusation of cheating is as clear as all that: not in this hand.

 

Clearly, if not a cheat, the opening bid is a psych. But psyching is not illegal - at least not in the casual play areas - provided it's not part of an undisclosed agreement.

 

Let's assume that opener's was a psych, and there was no secret agreement. If playing 4CM, partner might respond 1♠ but 1NT is not entirely wrong. Then opener - apparently - reverses into 2♠ - again psyching. Partner may decide that, even with the reverse and a ♠ fit, their flat 9 points is not enough for game, they obviously prefer ♠ to ♥ .... so they pass. The fact that the opponents were thus prevented from bidding ♥ was unlucky for them, but isn't solid evidence of cheating.

 

But this is not to say that cheating doesn't happen. I'm sure it does. But before making accusations, you need to have cast-iron evidence in every example you bring up.

If this was a one off then you could right it off as a psych. However it happens on about 50% of their boards. E.g you hold xxxx xxx X Q10xxx. LHO opens 1D partner overcalls 1H. You raise to 2H. P bids 3C and then RHO bids 3D. So bidding has been;

 

(1D)-1H-(Pass)-2H

(Pass)-3C-(3D)-

 

You double. This is passed out and goes for 800, partner holding AQ X Kxxxxx AJxx. Again oppo miss their 54 heart fit.

 

I could go on; 1NT overcall on Axx xxx xxx Kxxx, a take out double of 1D on xxx xxxx Axx Jxx, a 1S opening on void QJxx AKxxx Jxxx, a 1S opening on Axx Kxx Kxx KJxx (in this case your 3C rebid is passed by partner, who holds xxxx void Qxxx Q10xxx). In every case the partner takes action that is only explicable if he can see your hand.

[GrahamJson]

Or how about a 2NT opening on AQx xxx Axxx Jxx. Partner responds 3C and passes your 3D rebid. He holds xxx X KQxxx Axxx. You make 3D when most oppo's are making 3H.

[GrahamJson]

One last example with the same sequence as the first; 1H - 1NT - 2S passed out. The 1H opener holds Kxx xxx KQxxx xx, the 1NT bidder, who passes 2S, holds QJxxxx Axx X Qxx.

[olegru]

If all this idiocy is going on at the table of the main club and nobody is forced to play and compete with them it is probably better just to blacklist that player(s) and forget about it.

 

It is harder if they play in free tournaments, but I don’t think BBO abuse cares too much about cheating in free games.

 

If cheating is going on in paid tournaments (ACBL or others) you should report cheaters and supposedly abuse team will take care on it.

[barmar]

It is harder if they play in free tournaments, but I don’t think BBO abuse cares too much about cheating in free games.

It's not that we don't care, but we have limited resources so cheating in tournaments gets priority.

 

It's also harder for us to stop them if they do this in the MBC. If we ban them, they can just create new accounts. But if they play in pay tourneys, we can block their credit card so they can't purchase BB$.

[Zelandakh]

Could it be that they are playing some form of undisclosed transfer system? That would of course also be cheating but on a different level from that of one person bidding both hands in such a way as to cause confusion deliberately.

[661_Pete]

Here's a very simple instance, I just hope it's more a case of me being paranoid, than me being suspicious. Judge for yourself.

 

I'm sitting over dummy, holding a bare K in the trump suit. Dummy holds AQ10xx and my partner (as I find out later) holds Jxxx. Nothing in the bidding, nor the play up till now, has given any hint of the distribution. And my gaining the lead would not be a danger to declarer. Nevertheless, declarer leads from hand and after a longish pause goes up with the A. How would you react?

[barmar]

How would playing with two nicks help him figure out what your cards are? And why would there be a longish pause before he played the ace?

 

He'd need to be in cahoots with a kibitzer for this to be cheating instead of a lucky guess.

[661_Pete]

He'd need to be in cahoots with a kibitzer for this to be cheating instead of a lucky guess.

That was my point. I didn't, as it happens, bother to check whether there were any kibitzers at the time.

 

I am aware that 'guests' can kibitz without having an account - they are given a temporary ident beginning with "zzzz..." I would not wish this feature to be suppressed - it's a great way of attracting interest in the site, the more the merrier! But it carries some risks...

[olegru]

I'm sitting over dummy, holding a bare K in the trump suit. Dummy holds AQ10xx and my partner (as I find out later) holds Jxxx. Nothing in the bidding, nor the play up till now, has given any hint of the distribution. And my gaining the lead would not be a danger to declarer. Nevertheless, declarer leads from hand and after a longish pause goes up with the A. How would you react?

I know one player in F2F club who _always_ starts play by taking her aces, no finesses.

She asked me recently to teach her how to play on BBO. I guess she finally learn :)

 

On a serious note. One hand say noting at all, no needs to share it. If you have suspicious about a player - check his/her archive. It is not always easy to confirm suspicious, but 9 times out of 10 you will be able to reject suspicious pretty fast.

 

Addition: It was very easy to find the board you referred to. (Not good, by the way). The last week player in question lost in average 1.37 imps per board. I would not call hypothesis about his cheating very probable.

Edited December 22, 2016 by olegru

[johnu]

I am aware that 'guests' can kibitz without having an account - they are given a temporary ident beginning with "zzzz..." I would not wish this feature to be suppressed - it's a great way of attracting interest in the site, the more the merrier! But it carries some risks...

 

Besides anonymous accounts, it's easy enough to create a 2nd (or 3rd, 4th, etc) account so you could have one person playing 2 accounts as partners.

[barmar]

Besides anonymous accounts, it's easy enough to create a 2nd (or 3rd, 4th, etc) account so you could have one person playing 2 accounts as partners.

That's the scenario in the original post.

[661_Pete]

One idea that occurred to me - is it at all feasible?

 

Can't think of any way of stopping cheating partners from exchanging UI, but for the kibitzer issue: could we make it so that kibitzers cannot watch a hand being played in real time, but only via a delay loop? Arrange it so that they are actually viewing the previous hand being played, not the current one. That way, the possibility of any 'funny business' via kibitzers is eliminated. Furthermore, it means that kibitzers can, if they so wish, chat freely to the table without influencing the players. And furthermore, I don't see why this should in any way spoil the enjoyment for kibitzers. It's no different from watching (in UK) Match Of The Day rather than going to the match live...

 

Seeing as all boards played on BBO are recorded anyway, I don't see how this would consume more server space than is currently in use. If I were on the software team supporting BBO, I'd regard implementing a change like this as a challenge!

 

But I'm not holding my breath, seeing as I'm not on that team....

 

Regarding the inadvertant 'release' of players' identities, in hands I've referred to: yes I'm sorry about that. It's indeed difficult to cite any sort of happening on BBO without giving out this information. Having a different identity on BBF than on BBO - with the cross-reference only visible to Mods - would help. Is this - too - feasible?

 

I think I'm asking rather a lot now.... :unsure: