Two nicks, one player

[johnu]

That's the scenario in the original post.

 

You could also have a scenario where somebody with 2 accounts (or maybe an accomplice with their own account) plays the same tournament/set of boards with one ID playing very fast, and the other ID playing slow (or maybe just a later start) so the 2nd ID will have full access to the hand records. There wouldn't have to be any kibitzers at the 2nd table.

[1eyedjack]

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?

I for one think it outrageous that declarer should be under the slightest suspicion in this case, and only surprised that I seem to be the only one to think so.

 

It takes me back to an occasion some decades ago when I was a pretentious student upstart playing in a simultaneous pairs in Leeds. Playing in 3N with no danger hands, no danger suits, I was faced with AQxx in dummy opposite xxxx in hand and needed to maximise my expected tricks from the suit. I cashed the ace, dropping the offside Kingleton, after which RHO LOL commented "he must have peeked". Well, that smarted, but I was only about 20 years old, new to the game, playing as a guest among regulars and said nothing. If it happened to me today I would have her drummed out of the club. But of course even if she had not said anything, the fact that she even thought it is unpleasant to contemplate, although you cannot help the way people think.

 

OK, in my case cashing the Ace was the correct play (ducking the first round would be as good, as long as you next play the Ace before low to Q), and we had the satisfaction of a pre-published commentary after the event exonerating my play. In the case quoted above playing the Ace is inferior but only by a tiny margin. Few players memorise the odds of all combinations, and of those who do not, few have the intellectual capacity to calculate the odds on the fly within this hand's margin of error without being fined for slow play.

 

Indeed it is far from intuitive that if you want to maximise your chances of at least 4 tricks in the suit at the possible cost of making 5 tricks, the best play is low to the Q. I calculated the relative odds of 3 lines of play on this hand:

 

Line A: Finesse 10 then finesse Q

Line B: Finesse Q then finesse 10

Line C: Cash Ace then finesse 10

 

Line C works out to be inferior in every respect but, as I say, by only a tiny margin. A full table is shown here:

https://kvisit.com/S8Kv0Aw

 

In reality there is always SOMETHING in the preceding bidding and play to disturb the "vacuum" odds.

 

I suggest that if you wish to include hands like this as evidence of suspicion you need a huge number of successful instances of such minor deviations from optimum. The greater the deviation from optimum, the fewer the number of evidential hands required. This one just does not even hit the radar.

[nullve]

Playing in 3N with no danger hands, no danger suits, I was faced with AQxx in dummy opposite xxxx in hand and needed to maximise my expected tricks from the suit.

Why not start by playing a low from dummy? RHO might not be able to calmly play low from Kx.

[1eyedjack]

Why not start by playing a low from dummy? RHO might not be able to calmly play low from Kx.

You are right, of course.

 

But then there would have been no story. Having made her Kingleton, RHO would have been content.

 

And there is also to be considered the possibility that LHO with Kxx onside might not resist the temptation to rise with the K in front of Qxx on the second round were you to start with Ace then low to Q. Which could suggest ducking in dummy to the (then) offside Kingleton. You still have the option to lead up to Qx on 3rd round if RHO shows out on second.

[barmar]

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...

I think this would be confusing if the kibitzers and players want to chat about the hand, since the players will be a hand ahead of the kibitzer.

 

I don't think we want to ruin all the casual, friendly tables because occasionally there are some people who abuse the freedom of the site. It's not like playing in the MBC means anything. There's no money or even masterpoints on the line.

[661_Pete]

I for one think it outrageous that declarer should be under the slightest suspicion in this case, and only surprised that I seem to be the only one to think so.

No you're not the only one. I raised the incident in question in the first place and perhaps I shouldn't have. The point I was trying to make was, not that I myself suspect anyone of cheating, but that an 'average' bridge player in my position might have had a suspicion. And I believe I'm fairly 'average' in that respect.

 

Isn't that just human nature? All bridge players (robots apart) are human, after all. And when you've been having a bad run (as I have :( ) isn't it more likely that you might think the unthinkable?

 

As to my bad run: I think most of the long-suffering pick-up partners whom I've let down over the past days, have been very understanding, but I can't be sure in all cases. Some may well be thinking things about me. And it won't be about cheating!

 

And on those rare occasions when I've made a lucky guess, I can't be sure what the opponents are thinking. Especially if they keep silent.

 

Maybe your hapless opponent's offhand remark was meant to lower the temperature, not raise it?

[661_Pete]

I think this would be confusing if the kibitzers and players want to chat about the hand, since the players will be a hand ahead of the kibitzer.

Speaking for myself, as a kibitzer I would never chat to the table about the hand in progress. To other kibitzers, yes, but not to the table. That would surely be construed as interfering in the play, wouldn't it? In any live bridge club which allows kibitzers (the one I go to doesn't), surely it's a golden rule that they remain silent during play?

 

I don't think we want to ruin all the casual, friendly tables because occasionally there are some people who abuse the freedom of the site. It's not like playing in the MBC means anything. There's no money or even masterpoints on the line.

OK, I appreciate the (mostly!) friendly nature of BBO (I wouldn't be sticking to it otherwise). I don't think my proposal would really spoil the enjoyment, though. I already note that you don't allow kibitzers on many of the tournaments, especially the paid-for ones. And I do take my play in the casual area quite seriously, as well as it being for fun!

[sfi]

Speaking for myself, as a kibitzer I would never chat to the table about the hand in progress. To other kibitzers, yes, but not to the table. That would surely be construed as interfering in the play, wouldn't it? In any live bridge club which allows kibitzers (the one I go to doesn't), surely it's a golden rule that they remain silent during play?

 

The point is that the analogy to a live bridge club is not necessarily accurate. Some people use it more as an internet version of home bridge or of a practice session where you want to discuss hands. For instance, this evening we had three of the four players talking to kibitzers while playing as well as the players themselves discussing the hand - some in the same room and some over skype. None of which skewed the results or the competitiveness of the session.

 

Any number of these points would be inappropriate for many of the games on BBO, but they are extremely valuable to us. The fact that BBO provides options to suit a range of different uses is a positive, and limiting those options would be a step backwards.

[barmar]

Speaking for myself, as a kibitzer I would never chat to the table about the hand in progress. To other kibitzers, yes, but not to the table. That would surely be construed as interfering in the play, wouldn't it? In any live bridge club which allows kibitzers (the one I go to doesn't), surely it's a golden rule that they remain silent during play?

I never said talking about the hand in progress, I meant chatting about the hand that just finished. The suggestion was that kibitzers would always be a hand behind, so if a kibitzer chatted about the hand they just saw, it would be the previous hand to the players. And the players would be busy playing the new hand, and the kibitzer would be interrupting them.

 

And if the players chat about the hand they just played, it would make no sense to the kibitzers. A player might say "Nice squeeze", and the kibitzer would have to wait until the end of the next hand to know what he was talking about.