Rise (??) in cheating recently

[the hog]

"Howdy to The Hog & Mr1303, I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you both. Hog, even if you're not using a chat service to cheat, the fact that you're typing away could cause your opponents to think that you're hesitating on a bid or play, or, at best, just holding up the game. "

 

Melvis, I would strongly argue that no one has the right to tell me what programs I can run on my PC. Trust me or don't bother to play against me. Anyway as Richard has already pointed out, it would be a great waste of Bbo's resources to police this.

 

Ron

[inquiry]

Ben:

 

What I have a problem believing is that a larger committee can be trusted to keep everything secret. The way some suggest disconneting outside communication means lacking trust in its use, the same way I lack trust that any investigating committee will be discreet. I don't think this is as much of a stretch as you imagine. Consequently I'd rather stop playing than to listen to "whispers" of a group of peers.

Jola,

 

I find it VERY HARD to believe that a committee who reviews hands without ANY Identifiers of who the players would be less descreet than abalucy committees... First, I think you put too much faith in abalucy guys, and Second, a committee who do not know the name of the "accused" could hardly spreed any whispers at all.

 

And in case you don't know it, there are plenty of "whispers" now about this player or that player who "cheats", and this goes on without any committee in place anywhere, and in part out of frustration that no one is trying very hard to stop cheaters.

 

Ben

[doofik]

Ben:

 

And my feeling is that someone had seen something and reported it. Whoever reported it is the beginning of the story. Then there is the committee who, allegedly, gets anonymous hands. Forgive me if I feel that you're too optimistic.

 

It's not a matter of putting too much faith in Abalucy guys, it's just that I've seen it done first hand. Where the matter is being discussed all third parties are excused from the discussion. Is this a guarantee that you're willing to give me? If you can't then I stand by my position.

 

Jola

[Trpltrbl]

Re online messenging services:

 

Perhaps it would be possible to have the client software return data on whether such software is enabled, and for the either (1) that information to be recorded; (2) any messages recorded for checking should allegations later arise; (3) entry in certain tournaments contingent on temporary disabling of such programs; or (4) entry into such tournaments contingent on recording of messages.

 

I like (3).  Tournament oprganizers could set this as a tournament parameter. In practice (2) will never fly -- even if the recording occurs at the client machine to solve the storage problem, no one will ever agree to it.  (4) is ungood for similar reasons, though not as bad as (2).  Many forum users have expresssed distaste for (1), and BBO users in general probably wouldn't accept it.  Maybe a sort of (1.5) is possible: recording only the volume and timing of communication (and possibly matching those for partners).  Maybe that's too much to expect.  But what, other than the initial programming headache, is wrong with giving tournament organizers the right to limit entry to those not using chat?

 

I propose to the owners that this feature would be valuable.  It will not solve the problem, nor even the subset of the problem consisting of communication between partners, but it will make it a lot harder to get away with by taking away what is often the easiest method.  It will be particularly valuable with the increasing seriousness (pay-for-play especially) of tournament play.

As I noted before:

 

Adding the type of functionality that you request would be very complex.

 

Equally significant, adding these funcitons would do virtually NOTHING to improve security. BBO can layer on all the security they want, however, I can circumvent this with a trivial amount of effort.

 

Example 1: There is nothing that BBO could do to prevent me from using a communications media on either

 

(a) A second computer

(:D A second image on the first PC - Check out a cute little company called VmWare that was just bought out by EMC

 

Example 2: There is nothing that BBO can do to prevent me from using a phone

 

In short, if someone wants to cheat, they will be able to find a way to cheat.

 

Wasting enormous numbers of development cycles to provide the illusion of security is idiocy. I'd rather have the developers focus on actual feature set enhancements.

I agree, if people wanna cheat, they will. Don't waste BBO resources or time on it. Play the game, cheaters will be found out and excluded eventually. And I really don't know why people are trying to cheat insomething where you don't have ratings, money or raking to play for. It's just plain stupid and silly in my eyes.

But what people wanna do is up to them, I just feel very sorry for them :P

 

Mike :D

[irdoz]

Banning communications programs would be like banning conversation in a face to face event. It doesn't work. It's a waste of time. It's just security for the paranoid. Playing bridge for hours online is a socially isolating activity as it is...banning chat would make it more so.

 

The one paragraph I this whole thread I most agree with was this by bglover...

 

The reason for any policing unit, be it on a web site or state troopers or whatever, is not to enforce crime but to prevent crime. Sure, once the crime takes place they investigate and enforce, but the main purpose is to provide a framework where bad actors know there is a consequence to their actions and so, hopefully, will cease from doing so in the first place.

 

For me the most important thing is to have well publicised procedures and ethical leadership. The simple act of TDs announcing every event that this site frowns on illegal communications but any suspicions should be handled with privately with the tournament director or by email to abuse@bbo would be an example of well publicised procedures and ethical leadership. In an environment of perceived laxity I've seen what can happen in an online bridge site.

 

And I think BBO is a great site and Im thankful for its existence. At the present time Id like its focus to be on further developing the software and the business plan so that it can be sustainable - policies and procedures like the resources to deal properly with ethical issues may flow when the resources are available to support them.

[inquiry]

Ben:

 

And my feeling is that someone had seen something and reported it.  Whoever reported it is the beginning of the story.  Then there is the committee who, allegedly, gets anonymous hands.  Forgive me if I feel that you're too optimistic.

 

It's not a matter of putting too much faith in Abalucy guys, it's just that I've seen it done first hand.  Where the matter is being discussed all third parties are excused from the discussion.  Is this a guarantee that you're willing to give me?  If you can't then I stand by my position.

 

Jola

Jola,

 

First, "Is this a guarantee that you're willing to give me?"

 

No. The plans for anonoymous review of hands played by suspected cheaters (so that people doing the review do not know the names of the players they are reviewing), was a clever idea expressed by others... Bglover, McBruce, and mike lucy (Yzerman). The effectiveness of the system seems to be as good as anything else, because, someone is currently reporting cheaters that doesn't change in any of the processess. If that person "wisphers" there is liltle to be done about it.

 

Second, your "faith" in Abalucy that third parties are excluded in the discussion is probably well founded. I think they try to handle cheating allegations (going after the accuser and the alleged cheater both.... to make sure the word cheater isn't thrown about recklessly). But I will point out two things. Abalucy does not do anomoyous reviews, and second, Abadaba herself posted in this thread (now in the often refered to deleted post) that she wanted to publically identify those who they identified as cheating. That is hardly the standard you suggest here, and I point out, that after my reply, she came around to that was the wrong idea (publically identifying). The fact is however, anyone of the aba guys might get a similar feeling and let the cat out of the bag at sometime because they DO KNOW the name of the accussed. Perhaps in a fit of anger over some other abuse by the same person. This simply COULD NOT HAPPEN in the model the people are proposing in this thread as they don't know the names of the players they are reviewing. And I wonder what percentage of players thrown out of abalucy for cheating feel like their name has been sullied by the process in place?

 

Third, others have proposed even more radical solutions. There was (and may still be), and effort to organize TD and share the names of trouble makers (rude, jumpers, and yes, alleged cheaters), so that these players could be banned from tournments in a common way. A database of evil doers so to speak. This I opposed, and still do, because of the lack of review (a director who just doesn't like you doofik could black list you across multiple tournments without a "fair review" as to why for instance) . Somehow that solution is really, really objectional to me.

 

I can certainly understand anyone who objects to the process proposed by the people mentioned above, as many do. This is becasue an "its not broke, so don't fix it" approach is surely a reasonable one. But for the life of me, someone who holds up the abalucy process as being wonderful and "discreet", but who on the other hand would "quit" the BBO site if the identical or nearly identical (some would argue superior) process was more widely available like you do, is just impossible contridiction which I can not understand.

 

Now, will uday or fred even consider Mike's, or Steve's or one of the other proposals? I have no idea, they have been very quiet on the subject of online cheating since day one. I think the real problem is the serious cheaters, who are cheating as a pair rather than as one lone guy with two computers, will be impossible to catch. The cheaters that you and I can recognize are perhpas all too easy, I suspect Fred will "know" when a pair is cheating (unknowns out playing even the best world class standard time and time again)...but will not be able to prove that cheating is occuring. I am certain most of us woudl agree that a pair of advanced or expert players with full knowledge of the board could cheat in a manner that would not be "catchable". Thus, a reasonable view might be, if you can't get those guys, why go for anyone? But I think for the good of the site the obvious, stupid cheaters have to be caught simply because everyone (except Claus.. who is to forgiving with misclicks) who sees that kind of cheating recongnizes it when it happens...

 

Ben

[aisha759]

I feel sorry for the person who has to go out of his/her way, to set up 2 computers to win a tournament....

As for having programs running like msn, or a kibber relaying information during play, sounds very stressful.... but tempting :P

Everyone seems to have excellent ideas on how to stop online cheating ...what do you do about the phone?

It would be nice to play in a trusting environment, and not take every good play, or slow play as a sign of cheating.....

It's a great topic for discussion though, because I believe it makes one think twice before they even attempt it..

 

This is not a very enlightening post :D i just wanted to add my views and hope you can come up with a solution which will be acceptable to all members of BBO..

[luis]

Just to add my vision I think that online bridge can never reach the level of seriousness of face to face bridge. I really think NCBOs should refrain from running tournaments giving points for online play.

First of all you can't prevent cheating. And second it's not the same game, there're differences in the proceedings and regulations that make f2f and online bridge incompatible.

I love online bridge but it's just a way to practice, have fun, improve your play and play hands with friends and many excellent players. It's fantastic. But for tournaments and serious competition I will always prefer f2f bridge.

If we focus in what online bridge really is you will realize that there's no sense at all in cheating and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

Luis

[doofik]

Ben:

 

Perhaps what is missing in my and your discussion here is a matter of trust for the committee, a trust in discretion. So we can continue this haggling over a long period of time and neither one of us will convince the other.

 

People's names have been sullied? Really? Can anyone point to either Aba or Mike as the source? Because I presume we all are aware that the source of "talk" is the need to explain in letters sent to several members by the former members. Or setting up chats one-on-one where the accused explains his/her position to others.

 

My point still is that yes, I have faith in "Abalucy guys" as to their discretion and I lack same for the nameless, faceless committee to whom an infraction is being reported by another nameless, faceless player.

 

Perhaps I ought to explain something further. I was born and raised in Communist Poland - how much more would you like me to say?

 

Jola

[keylime]

Faith...a heavily used word in these posts. I'll avoid the semantics of that word itself, for now <ask me in private and I'll tell you directly>.

 

Like before, we must police ourselves. It starts amazing enough, with a very little used item called a "convention card". I can honestly say maybe 15 percent on a good day have had the active ethics to post a CC that I can use in the bidding. In my eyes, posting a CC shows an implicit intent to play on the up and up in the general sense. It was nearly maddening to play in multiple events on a daily basis and maybe run into 3-4 pairs that took the time to make out a CC.

 

Then a "system announcement". Amazing what happens when that occurs - not only are the opponents "aware" of the approach used, but can actually compete against it. Not only does this make it more challenging, but more rewarding when you overcome it. Furthermore, they get to grasp the carding used - and ask when it's not "standard" (imagine the questions received on "Obvious Shift" alone).

 

Lastly, the biggie - "active ethics". This for some reason is like a foreign language to some and also when caught, the organizers are not being stern enough to provide a disincentive to prevent its reoccurrance. When I run events, I have absolutely no tolerance for nonsense - the game has rules and Laws and everyone is responsible for adhering to them. If one thinks about it, it's EASIER online to adhere to the rules than in real life: no leads out of turn, no penalty cards since you can not revoke, etc. Most of the time it's misinformation or UI that is the culprit, but what else is new (as I write this, there's already been like 3 appeals alone in Flt A of the NAOP's in Reno, yuck). There's times where NBO differences creep up and education has to happen (occurs a lot with our Polish players that are geared NOT to alert their openings due to their system regulations - and the occasional "oops" of the Multi), but all in all, it's a good time had by all.

 

If we are going to curb the perceived "threat", "boil", "mole", and "disease" of cheating, start at one table. Fill out a CC, even if it's BB-Basic - at least it's something. Also, seek out those that have a geniune knowledge of the game - I have my "inside circle", so to speak, and trust me, they have a lot more bridge acumen than the average bear. Simply placing "faith" in an sub-community is not nearly enough, especially when it potentially breeds divisiveness and the anti-BBO feeling of difference, instead of a mosaic in which each person is a color upon its canvas.

 

With that said, I'm going to get packing again - the answer is in the "great beyond".

[uday]

Fred is away at a tourney. I am watching this thread.

 

I am sure that the client will never attempt to detect the presence of IM programs. No point to it.

 

Anonymous review sounds ok, but how anon. can a review be in a small circle ( ie, in a private club ) of people? There is currently no software support for making hands "anonymous". It is easy enough to do by hand, of course; download a lin file from www.bridgebase.com/myhands, open with notepad, replace the names of the players wih false names, email lin file.

 

My issue with this is that (again, using Aba as an example only) if someone wins 5 Aba tourneys, back to back, is investigated, found guilty by some panel using some internal process to detemine guilt - any action against the player will surely be noticed. Boot the player from Aba? OK, but people will ask him to play, and find out that he is no longer a member. Aba may make an announcement that they are tough on cheaters at about the same time. It is not hard to put these events together.

 

Of course, i'm not picking on Aba.

 

 

It is true that online bridge currently cannot reach the same level of "seriousness" as F2F bridge. But as time passes, this will surely change. We're going to be running games with real rewards and risks sooner or later. Then, Luis' argument about this just being for fun fails, i think.

 

 

What rewards and risks? We've seen the ACBL run early rounds of its college team trials online already. Maybe in the future we'll see cash tournaments , or tournaments with real prizes. ACBL masterpoints ( arguably not a real value but some people disagree) will be going live soon enough on BBO.

 

I understand that we have a problem dealing with cheaters. I dont know that we have a full fledged problem of cheating.

 

I like the idea of farming out this sort of work to panels of people. But it wont work to have a chokepoint (me!) in the process. Maybe ideally the process would go like this:

 

- players reports a potential cheater via software

 

- server notifies the abuse panel when there are more than XX reports in YY days about the

same player.

 

- Panel investigates. Alleged cheaters are (maybe) anonymous. The panel is made up of a number of players who dont know each others identity. From the perspecitve of a panel member, he is occasionally notified about a pending case, and uses a web browser to make a determination. The server supplies what information is has about the players for the hand in question ( IP addresses? and whatever we know about the 2 alleged cheaters). When XX panel members have ruled on a case, that case is closed out with the majority ruling. The accused player is notified that the panel is going to be investigating his case, and is offered a website where he can supply a defence (in summary) and perhaps for each questionable hand.

 

- Panel disposes of cases with a ruling: Cheater, Not a cheater, Don't know. Players who have reported more than XX 'not-a-cheater' in YY days lose the ability to report further cheaters. Panel members get to flag hands as 'needing input' from the alleged cheater, who can then go to the link and defend himself.

 

- TDs ( hosts at open tables?) have the option of refusing entry to people who have been investigated but not cleared (ie, DONT KNOW returned by panel)

 

 

Upshot will be that a group of panel members will be able to flag players as Cheaters, or maybe-cheaters (DONT KNOW). TDs will be able to use these "ratings" to exclude players.

 

BBo doesnt need to get involved with any of this, beyond setting up the software to report possible cheaters (so that bbo users can report cheaters), and writng the sofware to allow panel members to hop in and make a vote on outstanding cases.

 

Depending on how we create panel members, you'll note that this is purely a "self-policing" effort. If enough people think that XX cheats, XX is excluded from games - OWNED BY PEOPLE WHO CARE - that dont want XX to play. Here, perhaps XXs rights are being trampled upon - but he gets a chance to defend himself. True, a player who looks like a cheater will probably be excluded from many events. But this is a social control imposed by the community (in the form of the accuser and the panel).

 

 

 

Is this feasible? Will people really use a web site to pore thru hands from myhands? is any of this worth it?

 

 

Drifting away from cheating, we could also suggest that people flag possible cheaters (like they flag friends). A TD might have the option to exclude based on these accusations ( again , imperfect process but self policing).

 

About people's names being sullied by whispers. I have had at least 4 separate instances of people complaining that other people are "whispering". Whispers are hard to track down ( everyone denies them, naturally), but i can assert that there is no doubt that the targets of the whispering campaign (which might only exist in the head of the accused) feel that this goes on.

 

 

Just thinking aloud here.

[luis]

Fred is away at a tourney. I am watching this thread.

 

I am sure that the client will never attempt to detect the presence of IM programs. No point to it.

 

Anonymous review sounds ok, but how anon. can a review be in a small circle ( ie, in a private club ) of people? There is currently no software support for making hands "anonymous". It is easy enough to do by hand, of course; download a lin file from www.bridgebase.com/myhands, open with notepad, replace the names of the players wih false names, email lin file.

 

My issue with this is that (again, using Aba as an example only) if someone wins 5 Aba tourneys, back to back, is investigated, found guilty by some panel using some internal process to detemine guilt - any action against the player will surely be noticed. Boot the player from Aba? OK, but people will ask him to play, and find out that he is no longer a member. Aba may make an announcement that they are tough on cheaters at about the same time. It is not hard to put these events together.

 

Of course, i'm not picking on Aba.

 

 

It is true that online bridge currently cannot reach the same level of "seriousness" as F2F bridge. But as time passes, this will surely change. We're going to be running games with real rewards and risks sooner or later. Then, Luis' argument about this just being for fun fails, i think.

 

 

What rewards and risks? We've seen the ACBL run early rounds of its college team trials online already. Maybe in the future we'll see cash tournaments , or tournaments with real prizes. ACBL masterpoints ( arguably not a real value but some people disagree) will be going live soon enough on BBO.

 

I understand that we have a problem dealing with cheaters. I dont know that we have a full fledged problem of cheating.

 

I like the idea of farming out this sort of work to panels of people. But it wont work to have a chokepoint (me!) in the process. Maybe ideally the process would go like this:

 

- players reports a potential cheater via software

 

- server notifies the abuse panel when there are more than XX reports in YY days about the

same player.

 

- Panel investigates. Alleged cheaters are (maybe) anonymous. The panel is made up of a number of players who dont know each others identity. From the perspecitve of a panel member, he is occasionally notified about a pending case, and uses a web browser to make a determination. The server supplies what information is has about the players for the hand in question ( IP addresses? and whatever we know about the 2 alleged cheaters). When XX panel members have ruled on a case, that case is closed out with the majority ruling. The accused player is notified that the panel is going to be investigating his case, and is offered a website where he can supply a defence (in summary) and perhaps for each questionable hand.

 

- Panel disposes of cases with a ruling: Cheater, Not a cheater, Don't know. Players who have reported more than XX 'not-a-cheater' in YY days lose the ability to report further cheaters. Panel members get to flag hands as 'needing input' from the alleged cheater, who can then go to the link and defend himself.

 

- TDs ( hosts at open tables?) have the option of refusing entry to people who have been investigated but not cleared (ie, DONT KNOW returned by panel)

 

 

Upshot will be that a group of panel members will be able to flag players as Cheaters, or maybe-cheaters (DONT KNOW). TDs will be able to use these "ratings" to exclude players.

 

BBo doesnt need to get involved with any of this, beyond setting up the software to report possible cheaters (so that bbo users can report cheaters), and writng the sofware to allow panel members to hop in and make a vote on outstanding cases.

 

Depending on how we create panel members, you'll note that this is purely a "self-policing" effort. If enough people think that XX cheats, XX is excluded from games - OWNED BY PEOPLE WHO CARE - that dont want XX to play. Here, perhaps XXs rights are being trampled upon - but he gets a chance to defend himself. True, a player who looks like a cheater will probably be excluded from many events. But this is a social control imposed by the community (in the form of the accuser and the panel).

 

 

 

Is this feasible? Will people really use a web site to pore thru hands from myhands? is any of this worth it?

 

 

Drifting away from cheating, we could also suggest that people flag possible cheaters (like they flag friends). A TD might have the option to exclude based on these accusations ( again , imperfect process but self policing).

 

About people's names being sullied by whispers. I have had at least 4 separate instances of people complaining that other people are "whispering". Whispers are hard to track down ( everyone denies them, naturally), but i can assert that there is no doubt that the targets of the whispering campaign (which might only exist in the head of the accused) feel that this goes on.

 

 

Just thinking aloud here.

In my opinion trying to make online bridge behave like serious bridge will never be possible and will only cause trouble to the players that enjoy online bridge as a way to practice/socialize/have fun/improve your game.

 

You set-up a candybar as a prize and some strange pair of kiddo-x/kiddie-wiz will win with 95% from Cheatland. You will have to start "Examining" hands, forming comitees, etc etc and at the end the fun and the naive approach of just playing online because you want to play bridge will be ruined. I think it's absolutely impossible to run prized tournaments in a free online club. I also believe that paying for online bridge doesn't make any sense at all so I was very happy with the initial BBO approach, no fees, no prizes, you play just because you love the game.

 

Maybe you will have to split the userbase between paid and unpaid susbscriptors and only allow paid susbscribers to play in tourneys where masterpoints or money is given. Why? because chetaing to earn money should be illegal and you need a way to prosecute the cheaters so you need a way to validate identities so you may need them to subscribe using a valid credit card.

 

Luis

[uday]

What of , for instance, blind individuals ? I'm not saying people will want them. I am saying that they can be secure enough for our small prizes, if not secure enough for the Cavendish.

[luis]

What of , for instance, blind individuals ? I'm not saying people will want them. I am saying that they can be secure enough for our small prizes, if not secure enough for the Cavendish.

I think you are right about individuals Uday.

[bglover]

I have posted in a different thread my fear that awarding prizes of any sort (be they masterpoints or cash or a free pen) will create an additional incentive to cheat.

 

BBO's and Fred's original vision include no rewards as a disincentive to this type of behavior. As soon as rewards of any sort came into play so did the allegations... please see my original post from this thread (now almost almost 7 months ago).

 

If nothing else, we've seen a perception of increased incidents in that time... quite a large perception if not actual incidents. Ok, it is a hard and fast reality that tourneys are here and awards are here as well. Adding Masterpoints or prizes into the mix is likely to increase the incentive to act bad (maybe it wont happen as i envision). This is the new framework and much different from the original BBO vision. Its Fred, Sheri's and Uday's right to change it as they please. I certainly support their right to turn a profit from the site and to try and do so as they see fit.

 

That must be balanced, of course, by providing an environment conducive to ethical conduct. I honestly do not think it is correct to accept that ethical conduct should not be expected online (altho I emphatically agree that acting unethically is 1000 times easier online). It is in BBO"s best interests to do so. If they do not, another website will take their customers because they will build a better mousetrap; i.e., work to make their site less cheater-friendly. This is a simple business principle at work, no more.

 

You say, Luis, that you wouldn't pay for online bridge and that is why you come to BBO. Well, would you pay, say $50 per year for a site that you felt was fairer and more vigilant in combatting unethical behavior? I bet you would. I bet most serious players would.

 

Does that mean this competing site was cheat free? Of course not. That is impossible, we all know that. But, it would be worth that $50 just to know that it was a more ethical place than some other place.

 

Promoting the best possible ethical environment is in this site's interest! BBO is the one to benefit.. not just its customers.

[luis]

You say, Luis, that you wouldn't pay for online bridge and that is why you come to BBO. Well, would you pay, say $50 per year for a site that you felt was fairer and more vigilant in combatting unethical behavior? I bet you would. I bet most serious players would.

No, I wouldn't pay because first of all U$S 50 is a lot of money here, I strongly believe that having the same annual fee regardless of where the player is from is discriminatory. It's exactly the same as charging more/less because of your skin or your language or whatever.

 

Having said that I wouldn't pay for online bridge because I only play online to improve my game, meet friends, have fun and entertainment reasons, it's a great tool to have fun and it's a great tool to improve but I just don't think it has any competitive value at all. You can't "compete" playing online and as in any sport I love competition, even when you lose all the time :-)

If you win 708 imps against a pair? Is that good/bad or you don't care? I don't care. If you win a tournament are you happy or you are happy when you are playing well regardless of the result ? If you play very well and finish 50th are you happy? I am.

In face to face bridge you can play horrible and if you win you will be happy because the competitive factor exists. I can be completely wrong but if you feel competitive playing online and want to "win" things I think you don't know this game at all.

[doofik]

Uday:

 

Your response, while illuminating, has the same flaw as Ben's opinion, imho. We're staring at a possibility of a witchhunt by a faceless, nameless committee - are you saying that you don't see anything wrong with this? And no, I don't have a perfect solution nor even anything that resembles a solution.

 

I don't think that accusations of cheating ought to start with someone's success in 5 tourneys in close succession. However, and this is just my private observation, a drastic reversal of game level in an extremely short period of time will, by its nature, bring questions of honesty. I'm not talking about hands that are perfect for one bidding system vs. another, I'm talking about declaring and defense.

 

When accusing there are so many issues to look at. I'll give you a for instance. Lately I've been playing Polish Club which happens to have more variations than pills in any pharmacy. Is there anyone out there who's an expert in everything that the Polish Club offers? How about blends of Polish Club with strefa? If you're planning to use experts they ought to be aware of those combinations and the question that lends itself is, will those players lend a hand to an investigation in which, aside from a gratification of catching a potential cheater, there's nothing to gain?

 

I'd be curious to hear what others think.

 

Jola

[inquiry]

Uday,

 

The xx reports in yy days trigger investigation seems fine to me. I also very much favor the automatic ignoring of those who cry wolf too aften as you proposed.

 

I am not at all in favor of a "cheater" button very much like the friends and enemy button. That maybe simple to impliment but I think that creates way more potential problems than it solves.

 

Somehow taking you out of the loop seems wrong to me. I think there should be at least an appeal process to anyone branded by the panel where they can at least face the hands and explain it to a third person. Who knows, Jola maybe right, there maybe a good explaination for a bid or play that the group of volunteers overlooked (what if they didn't ASK for why).

 

Ben

[McBruce]

Thanks for monitoring this and sending us your opinions, Uday!

 

The suggested process is that a computer program collects suspect deals, and when enough are received about a single player (or perhaps pair), these deals (minus names) are sent to members of a panel to collect opinions on how serious they are. The people serving on the panel itself need not be anonymous, but the subset of the panel that (individually, not in consultation) reviews each case is secret. If the panel decides that there is evidence of cheating, the player accused is invited to defend himself, and the record of such cases is available for TDs/others to use in deciding who to ban from their tournaments/tables. Even if they ban someone, the person can always urge the TD to review the case if he wants to be reinstated. One other idea I have not seen mentioned is to include in the program some way of ensuring that people who serve on the panel make consistent decisions: those panelists who constantly disagree with the others should be left off.

 

I fail to see anything resembling a witchhunt at all in this. In fact, it sounds a lot like the Recorder system used in the ACBL. There is an extra step -- the panel decision -- between the initial complaint and the forwarding of the case to abuse@bbo, which allows for frivolous complaints to be dispensed with, and accused or suspect players to offer a defense for their actions. If cheating is on the rise (and 11 pages and counting suggests pretty strongly that it is), what better way to deal with it than to have concerned people try to take the workload of investigation off of the talented BBO team?

 

There are comparative projects going on on other game servers. One that comes to mind is the RepBot computer player on FIBS (First Internet Backgammon Server). Just as a concern about online bridge is knowledge of the other hands by carious means, a concern about online backgammon is the people who complete only matches that they are going to win. The RepBot 'bot' never plays a game, but records vouchers about players who complete their matches and complaints about those who drop their connections when losing. Over the course of time, all players get a RepBot rating and players can, if they wish, take this into account when invited to play a match.

 

One essential difference between online and f2f bridge is that in online bridge nobody can see what you're doing. No ethical player at table 5 South would ever consider taking a cellphone call from table 7 South while holding cards, because people will see what is happening. The call may be innocent, but the appearance is not. Meckstroth and Rodwell got into trouble a while back when one left the table while dummy and went to the men's room, and then subseqently the declarer did the same thing. It was innocent enough, but it looked bad. In online bridge nobody is watching and you can do a lot of things you would never dream of doing in f2f bridge. Unfortunately for the majority of us, this includes peeking (by various means) at what the other players hold, and taking advantage of this knowledge.

 

I think enough players share this view and enjoy BBO enought to be willing to do a little work to help make it better for all of us.

[McBruce]

Oops. Tried twice to send this with no browser response and it did get sent twice, so I'm editing the second identical version to this...

[spiralscan]

Not to throw another wrinkle in to this pot but there are a LOT of accusations that go on that are unfounded as some have so eloquently stated. My partner and I play a very artificial strong club system and although we alert everything necessary have been accused more than once of "cheating" simply because our opponents felt that the bids should not be allowed.

 

In fact, all bids were thoroughly explained and we exercise a full disclosure policy. There has been a lot of harassment over this to us and probably others...... so I believe there is a fine line between policing and harassment. I would hate to see players harassed that are simply playing their game.

 

Implementing a cheater button such as UDAY suggests could harm individuals who are playing an artificial system since many basic players simply don't understand complex agreements. Nor would they understand complex defensive systems and might automatically think cheating when no cheating exists! My partner and I have worked very hard at hammering out our agreements!

[keylime]

Imagine if this was the scene:

 

Players "X" and "Y", who so happen to be a pair of the ages, one of those iconic figures in the game, decide to drop into BBO, privately, and sits with two "experts". After 12 boards our fearless duo are giving the "experts" a buttkicking for the ages, and the "experts" decide to press the "button" to report the hands, where it's discovered that the pair in question are multiple world champions holding nearly 70 NABCs COMBINED. There's NO way that a "cheater" button would serve to progress BBO - if anything, it would serve to detract from the great community we have at BBO.

 

Many players admittedly are scared of a system that's not exactly "standard". Then again the definition of "standard" has changed over the years. Remember when weak two's came into vogue, limit raises, Precision, 2/1, Bergen style bids, LOTT, so on? Simple shows the game is evolving. In my eyes, to get better, you must expose yourself to new ideas.

 

Case in point: our WJ'ers. At first, I had no clue how to compete. So, I read up on it (thanks to the nice docs sent to me about it). Realized the essence of the system, and then went about it. Now, we like the WJ'ers. We enjoy the WJ'ers. We drive the WJ'ers absolutely nuts. Fun times had by us.

 

At least there are some folks like I who practice full disclosure.

 

Let the system development continue!

[McBruce]

OK. Hold it right there. Cease and desist. SPIN ALERT!

 

Nobody is advocating a CHEATER button. Nobody. In order to report cheating under the proposals I and others have made and read, a player would have to either:

 

1) ask his TD to look at a suspect board and report it (under the guidelines below) if he felt it suspicious.

 

or...

 

2) go to a website and fill in a form. To identify the board the accuser would need to fill in their name, the accused name(s), the board number, and the date played. I think the first page should be a short paragraph (linking to translations) about the risks taken by players who make a habit of submitting reports without merit. This should link to a second page explaining what action will be taken when the report is sent, how the panel will decide based only on the bids and plays. Only then, when the player has clicked on two links stating that he understands the process, would the form even come up.

 

The notion of a CHEATER button is SPIN. Nobody has come close to advocating this.

 

Let me further clarify that I (and probably others) do not advocate the report/panel process for any of the following:

 

--damage following a mistaken or poor explanation

 

--inability to explain or understand a bid due to language barriers

 

--hesistation allegations

 

--failures to alert

 

--poor behavior at the table (rudeness, badgering, table jumping, etc.)

 

These issues are problematical, but they should be dealt with by the TD or by comaplints directly to abuse@BBO. But as frustrating as the issues above are, they are far, far less of a concern than the auctions and plays that scream of illegal knowledge of the concealed cards held by another player. Slam bids out of the blue that work. Passing forcing bids when the last plus has been reached. Dropping offside honours with an incredible rate of success. The last thing any TD wants is to lose players who enjoy playing in his/her tourneys because they are tired of the 'miracle workers.'

[inquiry]

OK.  Hold it right there.  Cease and desist.  SPIN ALERT!

 

Nobody is advocating a CHEATER button.  Nobody.

 

(snip)... The notion of a CHEATER button is SPIN. Nobody has come close to advocating this.

Perhaps Uday might not like being called "nobody", what he said was (hopefully this idea will die)... was...

 

"Drifting away from cheating, we could also suggest that people flag possible cheaters (like they flag friends). "

 

Flagging possible people like you flag friends sounds like a button to all of us. Read Uday's long post on above this one (almost at the top of page 6 on my computer of these post... the one that starts while fred is away playing in tournment I have been mointoring this thread).

 

Np with the rest of your post... your solution, Yzerman's solution, Bglover's solution, udays solution (with an appeal) all sound fine to me...

 

Ben

[McBruce]

I don't see anything in Uday's words that implies that there will be a cheater button that will automatically make a report of the current deal being played. Instead, I think Uday was suggesting (this is the verb he used) that we might distinguish 'enemies' and 'suspected cheaters' at some point in the future. You'd tag as enemies people who were rude, left the table inappropriately, etc; and suspected cheaters as people who seem to be able to see thorugh the backs of the cards based on unusual bridge actions. As long as this is a user option that simply distinguishes players and doesn't lead directly to a report to the reveiw process, I see nothing wrong with it.

 

But this thread is making progress toward a solution, and when people assume from this one sentence that Uday's proposal is that one click will send a report to the panel for review, this is spin that threatens to knock the consensus we are developing off the road. I think it is important to ensure that this doesn't happen.

 

Surely Uday understands that a one-button automatic report to the panel would generate hundreds of new cases a day to sift through and most would be meritless. The way to make it work would be to encourage the people reporting to understand the process: to report you must start at this link, click a button that says I have read and understood this, and I wish to submit a report, then fill in the form. Completely meritless reports would generate a stern e-mail warning to the player who made the report.

 

This is a productive thread and it would be a shame to see a developing proposal shot down because of rhetoric. Opponents of the consensus we are developing are free to oppose, and many have made good constructive points. But characterizing Uday's suggestion as a cheater button is a misinterpretation to extremes: i.e. spin. If we want to see something done, we need to keep the discussion productive.