Abuseatbridgebase.com

[pigpenz]

I was wondering is it agains the rules of BBO , to post in this forums hands that you feel should be sent to abuse@ so others can see??

 

It would be really easy to make a link to the http in my hands....i think it would be intersting cause some people feel that nothing really happens when hands are turned over to abuse.

 

 

Here they would be laid out for the forum to see, since in reality they are already public record in MY HANDS.

 

 

This could sort of be like a recorder!

[Winstonm]

I like it if for no other reason than it would give us something juicy to argue about. :P

[pigpenz]

[edited by inquiry]

 

here is an exmaple that someone just sent me, take alook and see what you think :P

Edited August 7, 2005 by inquiry

[pbleighton]

I think this is beginner bidding. Wtp?

 

Peter

[bearmum]

[quote name=pigpenz' date='Aug 7 2005, 03:12 PM

 

here is an exmaple that someone just sent me, take alook and see what you think :P[/quote]

I think the 2♥ bid somewhat unusual :P but as pbleighton said perhaps beginners?

 

 

But I think that the auction should go 1♦ 1♠ 2♠ pass

[bearmum]

I was wondering is it agains the rules of BBO , to post in this forums hands that you feel should be sent to abuse@ so others can see??

 

It would be really easy to make a link to the http in my hands....i think it would be intersting cause some people feel that nothing really happens when hands are turned over to abuse.

 

 

Here they would be laid out for the forum to see, since in reality they are already public record in MY HANDS.

 

 

This could sort of be like a recorder!

biggest problem using 'myhands' link is that you are identifying the players you have reported to abuse :P

 

Which I consider unfair --- perhaps report the HANDS here without identifying the players is IMHO a better option

[inquiry]

The answer to your question is no.

 

This is also why your post has been edited and other steps taken. Send hands to abuse, yes, copy hand and post it here without mentioning names is ok too... (don't say i play this hand yesterday or the like, and best if you do it iwth hands you kbitzed or found rather than played). But if it is obvious how to like a name to an allegation of cheating (which is what we are talking about here...), then it will be deleted everytime. Sorry, those are the rules.

 

The hand in question, for example, falls into this category (the original poster did not play it) so it will not be possible to trace it (at least easily) if the hand is just posted here, like this....

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sakt5hk842dkt84ct&w=s7642hat5dq72cak6&e=sqhqj97dj953c9542&s=sj983h63da6cqj873]399|300|Scoring: IMP

West North East South

 

 -     1♦    Pass  1♠

 Pass  2♥    Pass  2♠

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

 

[/hv]

 

IS OK I think. posting a link were you see players names, or calling attention to players by name by indirect methods is not.

[pigpenz]

thats why i am asking but then its public record

but is good for peepz to see what goes on

[pigpenz]

ok thanks for info

[McBruce]

Assuming a standardish system

 

The 2♥ reverse is quite an overbid.

 

Even if 2♥ is a misclick, 2♠ is odd -- 3♣ would be the expected continuation.

 

But don't N-S pay for this poor bidding. Aren't there ten fairly easy tricks in 4♠?

[Rain]

Agree with Ben about the forum rules. Also edited the title a bit so bots don't pick up the email add, hopefully.....

[coyot]

Let's start a debate about BBO forums rules and policies. Last time I checked, there were written rules and unwritten policies (which are enforced quite well).

 

The unwritten policy says that there is to be no public humiliation - which means that when somebody i.e. screws up a contract bidding or play, you're not allowed to post any details here.

 

I happen to disagree with the policy because I think that the contract has been already made public via myhands, but I admit that if the cause of the wrong result/bid was a mistake or lack of skill, then noone should bring it out and cause potential shame to the author.

 

But I would certainly want the unwritten policy changed so that it applies only on humiliation for mistakes - and NOT on humiliation for intentional wrongdoings.

 

In other words, if somebody abuses other players, TDs etc intentionally, I think they DESERVE to be mentioned aloud.

 

Example: BL case has been discussed publicly and no one complained, although it certainly is humiliating for them. A case of a BBO TD adjusting his bad results has been mentioned here and promptly censored by Ben on the basis of unwritten rules.

 

Sorry, Ben, but I think that this is not fair! Allowing BL to be humiliated and protecting the rights of some unknown individual who has abused his TD powers in the worst possible sense is just plain WRONG!

 

I would very much like to have the unwritten rules turned to written - and I would want them to match the needs, interests and wants of the readers. I.e. start a poll that will ask the participants of these forums what they want censored.

 

This thread might have been just a mistake of a beginner, not an intentional abuse - and then it is right to protect his identity to prevent humiliation. The other case a few days back was definitely not a mistake ;)

[pigpenz]

the reason I asked the question and showed the link to my hands, is that MY HANDS is part of BBO and is public information...now....if there was a public BBO RECORDER where hands could be posted it would allow people to see what they are up against so that when it happens to them they can report.

 

The person who sent me the hand has said that they have sent over 50( they said) to abuse on this one pair and nothing has ever been done....so if we are gonna not allow this then what we can do...is ABUSE.....please clean up this mess!!!

[bearmum]

the reason I asked the question and showed the link to my hands, is that MY HANDS is part of BBO and is public information...now....if there was a public BBO RECORDER where hands could be posted it would allow people to see what they are up against so that when it happens to them they can report.

 

The person  who sent me the hand has said that they have sent over 50( they said) to abuse on this one pair and nothing has ever been done....so if we are gonna not allow this then what we can do...is ABUSE.....please clean up this mess!!!

I can understand why you would say that "my hands" is in the public domain -- BUT that ONLY applies if you KNOW the name of the people playing the hand AND the date on which it was played ;) (or unless 'you' [generic not meaning YOU pigpenz :) ])played against them and reported the hand :ph34r:

 

Now the person who reported the hand you posted claimed he had sent in 50 hands on this one pair and 'nothing was done' (to quote your quote of HIS claim :blink: )

 

1. HOW does he KNOW 'nothing was done' ?

 

2. were ALL the hands he sent in REALLY clearcut "cheating"(or some maybe LUCKY in some way or another) and is he an expert who would qualify to sit on a committee to rule on the subject??

 

3. As we can see after the claims in Teneriffe -- there are still procedures to go through before a definitive ruling against the "suspect" pair is agreed -- and goodness knows it's SO much easier deciding on what happened in f2f as against online bridge

 

4. I believe that Fred and Uday (and others I am not specifically aware of) are doing their utmost to keep this site as free from cheating as they possibly can --- BUT please remember that to PROVE cheating is really difficult :blink: :unsure: :( (and also might be subject to legal sanctions by accused pairs perhaps?)

[fred]

Here is something that, as far as I can tell, many people do not understand:

 

Suppose that someone really does send 50 hands to abuse in which it appears that a given player is cheating.

 

Standard procedure is for us to investigate (and it takes a lot less than 50 hands for an investigation to begin).

 

Suppose that, in the course of this investigation, we find another 50 hands that that strongly suggest that the player in question is NOT cheating.

 

It is reasonable to conclude (to me at least) that the person is not a cheater. Most likely they are either a bad player or the sort of player who likes to take more "unusual actions" than most. Everyone is entitled to get lucky, but many people only seem to notice when a bad or strange bridge action works well.

 

Furthermore, we will not always agree that the actions reported on all 50 of the original boards are suspicious. I recently received a letter accusing a player of cheating because he bid all by himself at the 5-level with only 8 HCP. Turns out he had 7-5 distribution and made what I considered to be an excellent bid (which, perhaps needless to say, happened to work on the hand in question).

 

In order for us to take action against an accused cheater, there has to be absolutely no doubt about what is going on. Not only are there legal reasons for this policy, but I suspect that if you were accused of cheating based on your actions on a small % of the hands you play on BBO, you would very much appreciate how we handle this.

 

As for our Forums rules in this area, sorry if you do not agree with them, but our opinion is that they are a practical necessity. The whole abuse/cheating thing is enough of a nightmare for us already. The last thing we need is for the details of these cases to be discussed in a public forum. Besides that, we do not allow public accusations of cheating in BBO itself - why should we allow this in Forums?

 

Please note that the "recorder" argument only supports our policies in this area. In the ACBL at least, the records that the recorder keeps are (properly in my view) not made available to the general public.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[candybar]

4. I believe that Fred and Uday (and others I am not specifically aware of) are doing their utmost to keep this site as free from cheating as they possibly can --- BUT please remember that to PROVE cheating is really difficult  :blink:  :unsure:  :( (and also might be subject to legal sanctions by accused  pairs perhaps?)

BBO should not have any problem with banning anyone they even suspect of cheating. There is no rule that says they have to 'prove' anything. BBO is privately owned and operated, and no fee is charged for membership. I'm sure if they check with their attorneys, they'll find that they can banish anyone they want for any reason they want and not have to explain the reason to anyone.

 

Might be a good idea to put a phrase like "We don't have to prove you are cheating, we only have to be convinced of it" into the Terms of Service. Maybe people would get the point.

[fred]

You are correct that we can legally ban anyone for whatever reason we want (and that we do not have to reveal our reasons to such a person).

 

All that means, however, is that if someone sues us for "wrongful banning" (and emotional distress and...) we would be likely to win the lawsuit.

 

We would still have to invest a lot of time and money to defend ourselves. In all likelyhood we would launch a counter-suit in an attempt to recover these costs, but it might be hard to get enough out of such a lawsuit to make up for the time and aggravation (especially if the creature in question is not wealthy).

 

It is not rare for a person to threaten to sue us when he/she is banned for cheating. If the evidence is overwhelming, however, we can generally get such people to back off (which is one of the reasons we do not ban accused cheats unless we are certain).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[pigpenz]

Fred:

Maybe you can make a recorder forum here, where people can post the hyperlink to my hands, and the only ones who can see the posts are those who have proper access. So it would be sort of hidden/locked forum :unsure:

[fred]

Fred:

Maybe you can make a recorder forum here, where people can post the hyperlink to my hands, and the only ones who can see the posts are those who have proper access. So it would be sort of hidden/locked forum :unsure:

Thanks for a reasonable suggestion, but I don't think this is necessary.

 

People can simply e-mail links to abuse@bridgebase.com. Our abuse department will make sure that these hands are brought to the attention of the appropriate people should the need arise.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Winstonm]

I simply cannot think of anything more "lame" than to sit at a computer in your own home, playing against people you don't see, for no prize money, no prestige, no rating points, and with no cost to use the site, and feel the necessity to cheat at a game of all things.

 

These people don't need to be banned; they need counselling and a life. :unsure:

 

(Also, I am not an authority on Sociology, but I am wondering with the worldwide access created by computer bridge if there might not be some cultures where cheating is not considered as hideous of offense as it is in other cultures?)

 

Winston

[candybar]

I simply cannot think of anything more "lame" than to sit at a computer in your own home, playing against people you don't see, for no prize money, no prestige, no rating points, and with no cost to use the site, and feel the necessity to cheat at a game of all things.

 

These people don't need to be banned; they need counselling and a life.  :unsure:

 

(Also, I am not an authority on Sociology, but I am wondering with the worldwide access created by computer bridge if there might not be some cultures where cheating is not considered as hideous of offense as it is in other cultures?)

 

Winston

There may be more or less emphasis on honesty in different cultures, I don't know, but I think the real underlying problem is that a certain percent of the world is sociopathic. A sociopath doesn't need any reason to cheat -- ignoring rules/laws and a total lack of morality is just their normal way of operating. They're also not curable by counseling -- banishment is the only solution.

[pbleighton]

"I simply cannot think of anything more "lame" than to sit at a computer in your own home, playing against people you don't see, for no prize money, no prestige, no rating points, and with no cost to use the site, and feel the necessity to cheat at a game of all things."

 

I agree. I can think of one thing which comes close, however: obsessing over online bridge cheating.

 

Peter

[Bonsaiman II]

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sk98h973daj952ca6&w=sj4ht642d7ckq9873&e=s76532hq85dq863cj&s=saqthakjdkt4ct542]399|300|Scoring: IMP

1♦ pass 6NT!! pass

pass pass[/hv]

 

The hand diagram has been turned for convenience.

 

This board was played some time ago in an individual tournament with IMP scoring.

South took a very long time before the 6NT bid hit the screen. The play, which turned out to be equally inspired, took no time at all:

 

- ♣K lead by West, ducked

- ♣3 continued for the Ace in dummy, East discarding a small ♠

- ♦9 from dummy, ducked

- ♦4 to the ♦10.

 

The subsequent ♥ finesse (declarer couldn't be bothered with cashing ♥A first to guard against a stiff ♥Q in West) added up to 12 tricks.

 

I wonder ... would this be the type of boards pigpenz was referring to? :o

[Finch]

That board isn't partiuclarly strong evidence of cheating to me.

 

Certainly the play isn't: once clubs are 6-1 the play in diamonds is obvious.

 

I agree the bidding is fishy, but perhaps South couldn't be bothered to have a scientific auction, and knew their partner had sound opening bids.

[inquiry]

This is cute... I remember this hand, but this more proves Fred's point than pigpenz's.

 

This hand was played on June 11, 2005, and was late in a five round, 10 board individual tourney. From the vulnerabilty shown and the fact that you said the hand was rotated, this was probably board 7 or board 10. Someone turned declearer in on this board as a cheater. We investigated. The bidding here is a little odd, but this was an individual, where bidding is always odd. This was also a late board in a IMP event. South could easily feel like he needs a swing, and why chance a bidding misunderstand, and shoot for a swing.

 

Ok, so if we disregard the bidding as being "what happens in individuals" with no bidding agreement. Can we explain the play? Duck the first club seems ok, then EAST shows out on the second club. That is clubs split 6-1. Come on, who do you play for the diamond queen? Which such a split the odds greatly favor the queen being with EAST, and you can not afford to cash the ACE first incase they split four-one. So we should be able to accept the diamond finessee...

 

What about not playing for a singleton heart Queen before hooking the heart? Two singletons were highly unlikely in the first place, but what you failed to mention was the hand with the heart queen threw away a spade on the second club, followed to a spade when one was leaad to dummy (after taking diamond hooks), and his partenr threw away spades as well. Two issues, it was impossible now for there to be a stiff heart with WEST, and the excitement over getting diamonds right blocked the ability to cash and reenter dummy anyway.

 

So sorry, one hand is not enough, and this one is not really close to the one-hand proof of cheating many suspect. Also, what this hand fails to report is how the player here did on the other hands. Something BBO stafff investigating the cheating allegations DID LOOK into at the time. He/she did have some other good hands, but they were a direct result of opponents stupidity of his/her partners action without his involvement.

 

Ben