Cheating allegations

[mycroft]

I think 1% is too high for my liking. I'd like another nine in reliable (or equivalently, another zero in "cheaters").

 

However, I guess the idea that 1 player in games at two average clubs (25 tables total) is doing something deliberate to gain an illegal advantage sounds about right.

 

I'm really disappointed, though.

[pilowsky]

By complete coincidence, several interesting youtube videos on

popped up in front of me.

Possibly because I'd been watching some MIT videos on probability.

For an Institute of Technology as opposed to an actual University, MIT is quite a good school .

I still remember logbooks and slide rules.

 

I have noticed, in some of the timed robot tourneys that I've been playing, that many players take a very long time before bidding - minutes - enough time to put the hand into Jack Bridge.

Once they start playing, they seem to play very quickly.

[thepossum]

I have noticed, in some of the timed robot tourneys that I've been playing, that many players take a very long time before bidding - minutes - enough time to put the hand into Jack Bridge.

Once they start playing, they seem to play very quickly.

 

I've noticed that watching declarers too. Some seem to take an age analysing their hand and dummy and the their strategy after the initial lead :) Then they seem to play remarkably quickly, unless of course something unusual happens which requires more simulation (sorry slip of the keyboard - I meant of course thought). Of course it may be much lower tech than a computer and software.

 

Sorry I promised not to re-enter this thread at all

 

But I am going to say something about this issue and what I have read here and on other bridge forums about the issue. Either people are taking the adminsitraors for a ride and joking about stuff, or many people discussing the issue (not here by the way) don't have a clue about anything, especially important things likes statistics and technology

 

DISCLAIMER I apologise if any disrespect is taken by the suggestion that any players of any calibre or worth at all would rely on a simulation or any other method. After all, in my experience technological approaches are based on expert knowledge anyway :)

[nige1]

Collusive cheating [is certainly not] incredibly difficult to perpetrate successfully. Not even close to "incredibly difficult" if done in a smart way - advance collusion.

One example: We take the first name of our West or North opponent (or maybe the previous opponents) and figure out the numerical letter value. If it's odd we cheat on even-numbered boards. If it's even, we cheat on odd-numbered boards. Let's say it's Richard. That's 61. So we cheat on even-numbered boards. On these boards, we could do any or all of ...

1. Agree our preempts will be less sound.
2. Agree our TO doubles will not be off-shape.
3. Agree on invitations we will always be at the top of our range.
4. Agree that we will lead more from jacks than kings.
5. Agree we will lead more from 3-card suits vs. NT.

etc, etc. etc. Each of these will give some small edge. (If there are better examples, that's not the point). I think the 'code' could be far less complicated than the above, and still not be detectable. But even if I'm wrong, I think the code could be far more obscure and not rise to the level of "incredibly difficult".

Michael draws our attention to an under-rated but frightening method of collusive cheating. For example, some players and regulators would be tempted to rationalize such ploys as a matter of style.

[pescetom]

Michael draws our attention to an under-rated but frightening method of collusive cheating. For example, some players and regulators would be tempted to rationalize such ploys as a matter of style.

 

I agree.

His example might seem specific to online play but of course is not, in face to face one can still use opponent's real name or the time of first bid or the position of left thumb, u.s.w.

[nige1]

We can attempt to justify agreements, similar to those suggested by Michael Rosenberg, changing them from mainifest collusive cheating

into seemingly innocent variations in style. Thus, depending on board-parity or whatever, we could agree that one of us will

1. Pre-empt less soundly, especially in 1st position.
2. Open all EBU “rule of 18” hands, regardless of quality.
3. Never open "light" in 3rd seat.
4. Double off-shape.
5. Invite only when top of our range.
6. Open 1NT only when 4333 4432 or 5332 and never with a 5 card-major.
7. Lead from a king only if there is no feasible alternative.
8. Lead more often from 3-card suits vs. NT
9. With a choice of count or preference, signal preference.

All can be rationalized as so-called "matters of style".

Regulators seem to condone them and turn a blind-eye to non-disclosure.

Judging by discussions like this, many professionals have adopted such practices.

This is another argument for changing the law to "Explain all partner's calls" (including matters of "Style").

Alternatively we can keep Bridge as a cheating free-for-all.

[sanst]

This is another argument for changing the law to "Explain all partner's calls" (including matters of "Style").

Alternatively we can keep Bridge as a cheating free-for-all.

This looks pretty ridiculous to me. You probably also want every player to sit upright and move in a steady tempo like an automaton, thereby preventing body language. Explain all partner’s calls would take an enormous amount of time, because you certainly want a full explanation, not just 1♣ “2+ clubs, 11+ points, usng the rule of twenty”. No, the explanation should also tell what is not included in the call, like 5M or a 1NT hand, and also everything you know about partner’s habits in the field of hand evaluation. Of course the opponents will ask, each at his or her turn, some extra information. How do you propose that no UI is given by asking?

If your suggestions are to be followed, I will most certainly look for an other pastime, not a game that seems to be about legal niceties for nerdy lawyers.

BTW: have you ever seen a systems book from a top-level pair? These usually are many pages long containing not just agreements but also discussed situations. Do you want to have all that available to the opponents to be consulted during auction and play? How much time would that cost. And what about us lesser gods, who don’t have that information on paper? Are we to tell what we know about the way our partner thinks? Looks like a recipe for fine fights between partners and the break up of partnerships.

Why do you play bridge, anyway? You give the impression that you think that everyone is cheating. Can’t be much fun then.

[nige1]

You probably also want every player to sit upright and move in a steady tempo like an automaton, thereby preventing body language. Explain all partner's calls would take an enormous amount of time, because you certainly want a full explanation, not just 1♣ "2+ clubs, 11+ points, usng the rule of twenty". No, the explanation should also tell what is not included in the call, like 5M or a 1NT hand, and also everything you know about partner's habits in the field of hand evaluation. Of course the opponents will ask, each at his or her turn, some extra information. How do you propose that no UI is given by asking?

You are entitled to know opponents methods, especially unusual understandings. Announcing partner's calls eliminates the wait for an alert and avoids the necessity a question, so is likely to save time and reduce UI. It seems hard to avoid some UI.

Why do you play bridge, anyway? You give the impression that you think that everyone is cheating. Can't be much fun then.

Convicted cheats have won several world championships. Alleged cheats have won many more. I enjoy a fair game, so, for example, I believe that the rules of bridge should encourage disclosure -- as self-alerting does on BBO :) According to Nicolas Hammond, however, cheating is rife on BBO :(

[pran]

This looks pretty ridiculous to me. You probably also want every player to sit upright and move in a steady tempo like an automaton, thereby preventing body language. Explain all partner’s calls would take an enormous amount of time, because you certainly want a full explanation, not just 1♣ “2+ clubs, 11+ points, usng the rule of twenty”. No, the explanation should also tell what is not included in the call, like 5M or a 1NT hand, and also everything you know about partner’s habits in the field of hand evaluation. Of course the opponents will ask, each at his or her turn, some extra information. How do you propose that no UI is given by asking?

If your suggestions are to be followed, I will most certainly look for an other pastime, not a game that seems to be about legal niceties for nerdy lawyers.

BTW: have you ever seen a systems book from a top-level pair? These usually are many pages long containing not just agreements but also discussed situations. Do you want to have all that available to the opponents to be consulted during auction and play? How much time would that cost. And what about us lesser gods, who don’t have that information on paper? Are we to tell what we know about the way our partner thinks? Looks like a recipe for fine fights between partners and the break up of partnerships.

Why do you play bridge, anyway? You give the impression that you think that everyone is cheating. Can’t be much fun then.

Well -

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

(My enhancements)

so the player who explains his partner's call has full responsibility to make sure that the recipients of the explanation know everything relevant to that call!

[pescetom]

BTW: have you ever seen a systems book from a top-level pair? These usually are many pages long containing not just agreements but also discussed situations. Do you want to have all that available to the opponents to be consulted during auction and play? How much time would that cost. And what about us lesser gods, who don’t have that information on paper?

 

The WBF is categorical that "all that" should be available at a tournament and that pairs will use System Sheets to explain in detail to opponents things that are mentioned on the System Card.

 

Many of us lesser gods don't have System Sheets in WBF format, but do have a written partnership agreement that says the same things.

Quite happy to send mine to your phone if you play against me and want to know more detail than the System Card can contain.

[blackshoe]

I don't recall WBF regs saying anything about "system sheets". They do say that where there isn't room for full disclosure on the system card, we are supposed to put a number in brackets on the card, and then under that same number on a "supplementary notes" form, expand the explanation. Is that what you mean?

 

If you're not playing in a WBF event, the WBF's regulations are irrelevant. The ACBL, for example, doesn't mention supplementary notes.

[nige1]

I don't recall WBF regs saying anything about "system sheets". They do say that where there isn't room for full disclosure on the system card, we are supposed to put a number in brackets on the card, and then under that same number on a "supplementary notes" form, expand the explanation. Is that what you mean?

A supplementary-sheet by any other name would be a system-sheet :) Anyway, you need some place for agreements that don't fit on your system-card.

If you're not playing in a WBF event, the WBF's regulations are irrelevant. The ACBL, for example, doesn't mention supplementary notes.

Such rule-variations provide employment for local regulators :) but serve no other purpose :(

[pescetom]

I don't recall WBF regs saying anything about "system sheets". They do say that where there isn't room for full disclosure on the system card, we are supposed to put a number in brackets on the card, and then under that same number on a "supplementary notes" form, expand the explanation. Is that what you mean?

The WBF regs talk about 'supplementary sheets' and say what I said.

 

5. System Cards/Supplementary Sheets

The principle of adequate disclosure requires that competitors fully disclose all conventions and treatments

requiring defensive preparation. In addition to the System cards, pairs will use Supplementary Sheets to

achieve this objective.

The use of Supplementary Sheets is not strictly limited for all events, provided that the entries are properly

numbered to correspond to appropriately cross-referenced numbers on the System card itself. The sheets

must readily legible and the numbered entries must be separated by discernible heavy lines. While brevity

is encouraged, particularly for Category 2 and Category 3 events, full disclosure must not be prejudiced in

any way as a result.

 

 

If you're not playing in a WBF event, the WBF's regulations are irrelevant. The ACBL, for example, doesn't mention supplementary notes.

Many RAs have regulations that closely mirror the WBF regulations.

FIGB for example.

[nige1]

According to Bobby Wolff, Nicolas Hammond and others, the WBF and NBOs avoid prosecuting their own suspected cheats. Worse, legislators rarely afford victims adequate redress.

 

Cameron French relates Collateral Damage a horrific but typical case of what happens to alleged cheats and their victims.

 

In the final of the 1979 ACBL Mens' BAM, in Norfolk, Dr. Jim Sternberg, Allan Cokin, Steve Sion, Alan Sontag, and Peter Weichsel beat Gary Hahn, Zeke Jabbour, David Hoffner, Mike Cappelletti, Sr., David Sacks, and Ron Feldman. During the final, Hahn's team asked for a ruling to investigate alleged cheating by Cokin & Sion, which decided the match. Kit Wolsey and others proved this allegation. Eventually, Cokin and Sion were banned. But, to this day there has been no redress for the victims.

 

Mike Passal relates. on BridgWinners, in The Whole Story, a more recent case. In an ACBL Swiss Teams, Mary Chilcote, Jeff Meckstroth, Eric Rodwell, Mike Passal and Chris Compton beat Marvin Darter's team. Their accounts of a decisive incident in the match:

I tossed a board on the floor after we had gotten a poor result. Sometime during the next hand I noticed a card sitting face down next to a pocket and inserted it ...I counted the cards and found 14 in one hand and 12 in another, so I moved the extra card, which I thought was the one that had fallen out and I had replaced. I should have checked more thoroughly, but I thought I had fixed it. When we compared results, our opponents said there was a fouled board and I realized it was my screwup and owned up to it. They had won 2 IMPs on the board, and we decided to just let that result stand. I should have gone to the director, and I wish I could go back in time and do so.

When the board was played at our table, Mr. Passell's pair could make a vulnerable game in either major while we had a minus 300 save in 5D. We took the save and Mr. Passell bid 5H, got doubled, and went down one. At the end of the match, Mr. Passell immediately picked up the boards from the floor and gave them to us to take to our table as it was a round robin. He did not put them on his lap, he did not put them on the table. Thus, he did not have any opportunity to count the cards in any of the hands. After the match was over, we approached Mr. Passell and told him there was a problem with a board. His response was that some cards (not "a" card) had come out and he had put them back in as well as he could. Besides, he said, you won 2 imps on the board. And that's when Linda and I - not Mr. Passell – went to the director. The tournament director told us our recourse was to file a player memo explaining what happened and so we did.

The TD didn't give a ruling. He told Mike's victims to write a player memo. The rest of the story is obscure because ACBL procedures are opaque. Eventually, Mike was suspended from play over the Chrismas holiday with his international career unaffected. His victims received no encouragement and no redress.

 

As usual in Bridge-Law cases, BridgeWinner comments divide on patriotic lines, ACBL pros defend Mike's actions and opine that the ACBL handled him harshly.

 

A couple of lessons...

 

• NBOs should not handle allegations against their own top players and officials.
• Victims should be afforded some form of redress, however belatedtoply. Preferably places and titles should all be moved up. Inevitably this process will often be crude and unsatisfactory (for example, cheats can eliminate a likely winner, in the first round of a KO). Nevertheless it should be attempted: in as simple and fair way as is practicable.

[pescetom]

I agree with most of what nige1 says and consider it a disgrace that the TD did not rule on the Passal case. I don't think it is right to conclude that NBOs should not handle allegations against their own players, however. In the Passal case it is clear that the NBO simply failed to do its job and if that happens repeatedly then it should be reformed or replaced, not derived of its basic disciplinary powers.

 

That does not mean there should be no international anti-cheating authority however. Think about the WADA model where national sports bodies retain internal anti-doping responsibility but are governed and top level athletes are monitored centrally.

[nige1]

On BridgeWinners, Michael and Debbie Rosenberg highlight a simple way for an individual to cheat on BBO without "self-kibitzing".

1. Play slowly then..
2. Using a different BBO account log into My hands
3. Find the hand-records of a fast player, competing in the same tournament.
4. With any luck, he will have already played the hand that you are about to play.
5. You can see all 4 hands, and even perform a double-dummy analysis.

They have reported this security flaw to BBO; it should be easy to plug; but BBO need to address the issue, urgently.

[paulg]

On BridgeWinners, Michael and Debbie Rosenberg highlight a simple way for an individual to cheat on BBO without "self-kibitzing".

1. Play slowly then..
2. Using a different BBO account log into My hands
3. Find the hand-records of a fast player, competing in the same tournament.
4. With any luck, he will have already played the hand that you are about to play.
5. You can see all 4 hands, and even perform a double-dummy analysis.

They have reported this security flaw to BBO; it should be easy to plug; but BBO need to address the issue, urgently.

This is a misrepresentation of the security flaw, as it is not as widespread as this post implies. In fact I regard it as a minor issue, as I suspect would 99% of the BBO members.

 

It does not affect BBO tournaments. If you are playing an event based on multiple team matches that use the same boards, perhaps run by multiple hosts or a BBO user with the privilege to run multiple team matches, then these individual team matches will be available on BBO Hand Records when they finish. At this point, if you are a slow player and know who is playing in a fast match, you could look up the results.

 

The answer is to play different boards in the matches. Or ask BBO for some way to delay publication of results for organiser XYZ, assuming that this does not adversely affect the platform or annoy the faster players.

[pilowsky]

There is another way that I have personally witnessed.

1. Get together in a small group.
2. Simultaneously join a tournament.
3. Stream the tournament live and discuss the play of each hand while watching one of you playing it on TwitchTV
4. Then, when you know the outcome of the deal, play it yourself.

This method is called past-posting for those of you that recall Paul Newman and Robert Redford in George Roy Hill's film "The Sting."