Are these things ethical for on-line competition?

[mangurian]

Several aids are readily available only when playing on-line.

(I think maybe convention cards should be allowed even in face-to-face competition given the age of the average USA player - I recognize that this could be interpreted as unauthorized info.)

 

Is this permitted when on-line?

 

1) Can I look at my convention card during the bidding and play?

2) Can I have reading material open that covers conventions and agreements?

[Vampyr]

Several aids are readily available only when playing on-line.

(I think maybe convention cards should be allowed even in face-to-face competition given the age of the average USA player - I recognize that this could be interpreted as unauthorized info.)

 

Seriously?

 

Is this permitted when on-line?

 

1) Can I look at my convention card during the bidding and play?

Yes

 

2) Can I have reading material open that covers conventions and agreements?

 

I assume you mean at a teaching table? I think probably yes, then.

[hrothgar]

I think that this is (and should be) as the discretion of the event organizers.

 

As a practical example, the USBF is allowing players to consult notes in an upcoming online event. The rationale is that this is a "fun" / "practice" event.

 

During more serious championships, the USBF does not permit people to do so.

[paulg]

If you are playing in an organised event on BBO, then it is not a case of ethics but of legality.

 

The default in the Laws is that you are not permitted to consult your system card or system notes during play. However the Laws give the Regulating Authority, in essence the organiser, the ability to provide their own rules in this area.

 

The English Bridge Union (EBU) has decided that players are permitted to consult their system card and notes during online EBU events. The driver for this decision is that it is unenforceable to do otherwise.

 

BBO has no official position that I can find for its tournaments.

 

The ACBL does not specifically permit it in its general online conditions of contest, so I suspect it is not permitted in most ACBL events. However the recent NAOBC had specific Conditions of Contest and it was permitted to consult your system card and system bidding notes. I would read the ACBL situation as confusing :)

 

The rights and wrongs of this situation is being discussed on Bridge Winners. Surprisingly for the internet most people agree on what the Laws are and the right of the organiser to make changes. But whether the organiser should make changes is suitable for debate.

[nige1]

Some questionable on-line actions:

1. Consult convention-cards?
2. Click on GIB's call to find out what it means by it?
3. Test different choices for your own call to discover how GIB would interpret them?
4. Look back at the auction and alerts during play?
5. Keep and consult a trick-by-trick record of all cards played and by whom?
6. Self-kibitz?
7. Enter the same daylong competition several times using different names?
8. Chat with partner or other players about the hand?

At a pinch, the tournament COC might permit, and a player might rationalise the first 4 actions; but surely the fifth is a NO-NO, and the last 3 are blatant cheating?

[AL78]

Some questionable on-line actions:

1. Consult convention-cards?
2. Click on GIB's call to find out what it means by it?
3. Test different choices for your own call to discover how GIB would interpret them?
4. Look back at the auction and alerts during play?
5. Keep and consult a trick-by-trick record of all cards played and by whom?
6. Self-kibitz?
7. Enter a daylong competition several times?
8. Chat with partner or other players about the hand?

At a pinch, the tournament COC might permit, and a player might rationalise the first 4 actions; but surely the fifth is a NO-NO, and the last 3 are blatant cheating?

 

9. People who live together looking at each others hands.

 

What is self-kibitz?

[hrothgar]

9. People who live together looking at each others hands.

 

What is self-kibitz?

 

It's a euphemism for cheating

 

Some top players competing in semi serious online events logged in on second accounts, kibitzed the hands that they were playing, and were able to play double dummy.

[johnu]

Some questionable on-line actions:

1. Consult convention-cards?
2. Click on GIB's call to find out what it means by it?
3. Test different choices for your own call to discover how GIB would interpret them?
4. Look back at the auction and alerts during play?
5. Keep and consult a trick-by-trick record of all cards played and by whom?
6. Self-kibitz?
7. Enter a daylong competition several times?
8. Chat with partner or other players about the hand?

At a pinch, the tournament COC might permit, and a player might rationalise the first 4 actions; but surely the fifth is a NO-NO, and the last 3 are blatant cheating?

1. Some sponsoring organizations specifically allow consulting convention cards. If so, absolutely no problem.

2. You can't discuss system with GIB and the GIB system notes and convention card are very inadequate to say the least. And periodically, BBO actually does change the meanings of some bids so how are you supposed to know what is happening? And GIB plays some very non-standard sequences. Since you can't discuss bids with GIB before the session, the best you can do is check the meanings of bids while you are playing. No problem.

3. Same as 2. Especially when some of your bids may show 30-35 HCP when the bid you are making is actually a sacrifice. :lol:

4. Explanation of calls allowed by law. Reviews are limited so this is a little iffy. BBO could limit entire bidding reviews.

5. Cheating

6. Cheating

7. You aren't guaranteed to play the same boards if you enter multiple times. So it would be always illegal according to conditions of contest. If you encounter the same hand and play it the same way every time you played it the first time, is that cheating?

8. Cheating

[Vampyr]

I think that this is (and should be) as the discretion of the event organizers.

 

As a practical example, the USBF is allowing players to consult notes in an upcoming online event. The rationale is that this is a "fun" / "practice" event.

 

During more serious championships, the USBF does not permit people to do so.

 

I don’t think it is such a good idea to ban something that cannot be enforced or even detected. But I have to admit that I am OK with CCs, but not with system notes.

 

If entering a daylong more than once were cheating, BBO would block people from doing that.

[pilowsky]

I have multiple monitors (and computers) but use only one login.

On one screen I have seen players observing themselves on twitchTV while playing in an IMPS tournament or in a Team match.

This means that in an 8 board "Host: bboadmin" robot duplicate tournament which takes ~30 minutes to complete, some of the competitors are watching this live TV show and observing the play of one of the players hands while listening to the persons commentary.

At the same time, Other people are in the same room preparing cups of tea for the host and also commenting and playing the same hands. This means that within a tournament of 8+ people 4-5 are part of this twitchTV group and the rest are not.

Chat is happening on a sidebar.

 

On a separate occasion, I observed the same pair playing a match against another pair in a different country who were also observing themselves (as well as this pair) on their own separate twitchTV channel.

 

I began to wonder if the hands were being played, quadruple dummy!

 

ethical/bizarre/odd/hilarious I gave up and did something else.

[nige1]

What is self-kibitz?

The possibility to watch anonymously was turned off the last couple of month. It was turned on again and now turned off again. I hope this will be the final decision as watching anonymously is supporting self kibitzing more than anything else. Thanks for turning it off again!

Link to "Watch Anonymoulsy" topic

[hrothgar]

If entering a daylong more than once were cheating, BBO would block people from doing that.

 

How would BBO block this?

 

BBO can and does block on user ID.

 

However, if I am using multiple user IDs and being careful with VPNs, TOR, and cookies I'm not sure what they are going to be able to do.

[Vampyr]

How would BBO block this?

 

BBO can and does block on user ID.

 

However, if I am using multiple user IDs and being careful with VPNs, TOR, and cookies I'm not sure what they are going to be able to do.

 

Yes. I am thinking about people entering with the same ID. If that is blocked, I agree that there is not a lot else BBO can do.

[pilowsky]

There are reasons why someone might enter a tournament under multiple usernames.

They would need to be very narcissistic. By which I mean they would have to want masterpoints for the sake of having masterpoints even if they had no talent.

It might work this way.

A person - with money of course - enters a paid daylong tournament using multiple identities. They do poorly with all but one identity. This increases their chances of gaining masterpoints.

Increasing the number of participants inflates the number of masterpoints available to the field so they win both ways. It's a bit like buying lots of lottery tickets. Simultaneously pointless and stupid.

 

In the old days before computers. Rich people simply paid poor but talented people to be their bridge partners. https://observer.com/2013/11/million-dollar-hobby-inside-the-world-of-big-money-bridge/

Bad writers have ghostwriters.

Bad Bridge teachers steal good teachers material from the web and claim it as Free lessons with (___).

Fraudulent and unethical behaviour is everywhere. Some people call it being 'smart'. I call it being as cunning as a gold-toothed rat. There are other names.

[Vampyr]

There are reasons why someone might enter a tournament under multiple usernames.

They would need to be very narcissistic. By which I mean they would have to want masterpoints for the sake of having masterpoints even if they had no talent.

It might work this way.

A person - with money of course - enters a paid daylong tournament using multiple identities. They do poorly with all but one identity. This increases their chances of gaining masterpoints.

Increasing the number of participants inflates the number of masterpoints available to the field so they win both ways. It's a bit like buying lots of lottery tickets. Simultaneously pointless and stupid.

 

In the old days before computers. Rich people simply paid poor but talented people to be their bridge partners. https://observer.com/2013/11/million-dollar-hobby-inside-the-world-of-big-money-bridge/

Bad writers have ghostwriters.

Bad Bridge teachers steal good teachers material from the web and claim it as Free lessons with (___).

Fraudulent and unethical behaviour is everywhere. Some people call it being 'smart'. I call it being as cunning as a gold-toothed rat. There are other names.

 

It’s not important though is it.

[chigal64]

i would like all players to create a profile om the system they use and the conventions they play. Several different systems are used here and it would make the understanding the bidding better for you and your partner and against other players.

[deb_wastle]

How would BBO block this?

 

BBO can and does block on user ID.

 

However, if I am using multiple user IDs and being careful with VPNs, TOR, and cookies I'm not sure what they are going to be able to do.

[deb_wastle]

If you have the same ACBL number associated with 2 or more BBO handles, could BBO not discover this behaviour? I suppose you could play a daylong a couple of times with a handle with NO ACBL number, then play it with your regular username that does have your ACBL number associated. That would certainly give you a leg up on some board, but not all. Surely this could also be tracked, though, just by virtue of the fact that you are getting too many excellent boards for your skill level. It would be weird for players with no ACBL number to play these games since they are much more expensive than the ones that just offer BBO points. Bridge players have to think like a detective, so I still think they would get caught eventually.

[nige1]

It's not important though is it.

Sandra, my wife, would agree with Vampyr :) I concede that Bridge is just a game. Which is the better game (f2f or on-line) is a moot point. Some regard the latter as the future of Bridge. Anyway, many take both seriously. For some Bridge is a vocation. For others it is a living. IMO, In this context, cheating is infra-dig and immoral and the question is important.

[Vampyr]

Sandra, my wife, would agree with Vampyr :) I concede that Bridge is just a game. Which is the better game (f2f or on-line) is a moot point. Some regard the latter as the future of Bridge. Anyway, many take both seriously. For some Bridge is a vocation. For others it is a living. IMO, In this context, cheating is infra-dig and immoral and the question is important.

I don’t agree with your wife. But I do think that if some people are entering these daylong tournaments with more than one ID it is no big deal.

[Vampyr]

i would like all players to create a profile om the system they use and the conventions they play. Several different systems are used here and it would make the understanding the bidding better for you and your partner and against other players.

 

I have a convention card with each of my partners. There is no point in writing out a kind-of convention card in your profile, because partner’s might be different.

[mmerz]

2) Can I have reading material open that covers conventions and agreements?

 

 

Regarding this, ignoring the "legalities" (about which I have little to contribute), I have two conflicting thoughts.

 

The first is that for informal pick-up (e.g., individual) games where my partner says "I play 2/1 with double-upside down Drury" (or worse yet, asks to play their info and has 12 conventions listed), I like to be accommodating. In such cases, I may need to take a quick glance online to remind myself of the responses to a 2D rebid... This has nothing to do with regular partnerships, though - just to facilitate pickup games.

 

By contrast, following the "I can review online materials" to its absurdist conclusion, one might believe that some quasi-optimal scientific method would be the best approach to bidding. The reason these don't gain more popularity in "real life" is that the alternate branch on the fifth relay is hard to remember (for both partners). Thus, allowing "reading material" clearly has its limits in terms of fairness. Otherwise, we'll just get into complexities that, for me at least, would damage the game.

 

So, as usual for me, I'm a radical moderate. I say, "sure - check the meaning of a few conventions or twists in informal events and pickup partnerships, but otherwise it's a bad policy.

 

-- MM

[RD350LC]

Some questionable on-line actions:

1. Consult convention-cards?
2. Click on GIB's call to find out what it means by it?
3. Test different choices for your own call to discover how GIB would interpret them?
4. Look back at the auction and alerts during play?
5. Keep and consult a trick-by-trick record of all cards played and by whom?
6. Self-kibitz?
7. Enter the same daylong competition several times using different names?
8. Chat with partner or other players about the hand?

At a pinch, the tournament COC might permit, and a player might rationalise the first 4 actions; but surely the fifth is a NO-NO, and the last 3 are blatant cheating?

 

 

Regarding #8. I have a regular partner, and we frequently discuss bridge hands. We do make a point NEVER to discuss the hand currently being played. Once the bidding is over, and we are declarer, we can discuss the bidding. Only when the HAND is over will we discuss the full bidding, and the play.

[pilowsky]

It's not important though is it.

 

It is important if you are the person (not me) whose copyright teaching material is being stolen from the web then copied hundreds of times without your name on it and used as if you (this other person) had created it.

 

 

This is called theft of intellectual property.

Large companies can seek remedy,

But the average 'Joe' can do nothing.

 

It is morally wrong because the person in question is using the material to increase the profitability of their organisation and enhance their job security.

[JJE 0]

I know that in other online games "multi"s as they are referred to are multiple accounts presumably used by the same person with the same IP address, and they are generally forbidden in those games.

 

My understanding is that almost every online "massive" game forbids this, checks routinely, and suspends any accounts that are doing this.

 

For ACBL black point regular weekly club play, there are lots of husband-and-wife pairs; I do not particularly suspect them of cheating (although the opportunity is evident), but it would surprise me greatly if they all took the care to get separate IP addresses!