Rise (??) in cheating recently

[inquiry]

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.

Geez, I can READ.

 

I know that UDay suggest an automated process to report hands to a panel based upon XX complaints in YY days against the same player. This is something I loudly and publically supported above.

 

This, however is a completely and totally separate issue from a second thing he proposed, I will REPEAT IT AGAIN so you can read it...if that will help.

 

Uday said (in blue) 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).

 

Note the implications here.... people can flag POSSIBLE cheaters. This is done just like they do Friends and Enemies (as you noted)... but the suggestion doesn't end there... Uday goes on to suggest that a TD (you know, like you) MIGHT HAVE the OPTION to exclude based on these allegations.

 

A TD has no ability to exclude people from my enemy list, but clearly this suggest the possible (floated idea), that I could click someone as a cheater, and a TD would have the option of not allowing ANYONE flagged as a cheater from playing. Now, did uday mean that the TD could flag someone as a cheater and then they would have the option of not allowing htem t play (maybe requires two or more such flags before working but same objection from me)? No, because you can do that NOW with your enemy list.

 

I am sorry, McBruce, but this part of uday's suggestion (granted free thought processes), is a "cheater button" that has the potential of having people "possibly" banned from tournment without any other review. PLEASE reread UDAYS post again. Forget while you are reading his, what your proposal is or what anyone elses is... Don't assume you are on the same or different pages with what he read. There is no SPIN in the statement that a cheater flag (button, whatever) was proposed that is a single click (like marking friends), and that this proposal included the ability of this marked flag to be used by others in some context.

 

Now you find this idea so abhorent, you can't seem to see that this is indeed what was proposed. I share the feeling that this part of the solution is and should be a non-starter. But for goodness sakes, stop shouting that this is a wild, unsubstantiated SPIN, several people beside me have reached the same obvious conclusion, and so far, no one, likes this idea.

 

ben

[luke warm]

people hold tourneys that are open to almost everyone... there's nothing wrong with that at all... there's also nothing wrong with those same people refusing to allow someone to play, for whatever reasons... that's the way it was set up, and it seems to work fine

 

we have private and public clubs... the private clubs are run by (usually) people dedicated to that club and to the idea that bridge is a fun, competitive, *fair* game... this is why i've said at least 2 times that this problem is one of relevance... there are, i'm sure, some tourney and/or club hosts who differ in their opinion as to how serious unethical play is, for whatever reason

 

some clubs are far more competitive than others, because their members are more competitive... i'm sure those clubs are the ones that take such allegations the most seriously... some aren't very competitive, relaticely speaking, existing simply as a place to meet others and have fun... maybe they don't worry about such things... imho both views are fine... as i said before, we each have the right to play where we're most comfortable...

 

it seems to me that if we simply leave it to the tourney/club hosts to handle their own event the way they choose, it will eventually evolve into something more, without anyone imposing their ideas on others...

 

if uday or fred or sherri want to have a hand in the inner workings of each club, that's certainly their right... nothing could be *more* right, it's their server, their product... i just think it's far better to handle these things on a more local level...

 

it doesn't bother me one bit that there may be those in xyz club who cheat... i don't spend any time worrying about it because nothing can be done about it... do i wish everyone was ethical? sure i do... but we can very easily get into the murky area of - just exactly *what* constitutes cheating? to me, it's just as unethical to knowingly fail to explain a bid known to ones partner but not the ops as it is to open an IM and say 'i'm 3244, 14 count' or 'lead a club'...

 

i keep wanting to give examples of what i'm saying, or draw analogies, but it's hard without delving into real life... so i'll do that for a second... i'm a member of abalucy club... now to my way of thinking, it's none of my business how mike and aba decide to handle allegations of cheating, nor how they handle actual cheaters... none of my business, that is, unless they desire to *make* it my business... it's enough for me to know that they're doing what they think right... i have a choice (as i've said 100 times) to play or not...

 

since i don't think cheating can ever be stopped, it's enough for me to know that the environment in which i've decided to play is run by people who do their best to make it the most fair competitive situation possible... now if they decide to ask bbo's help in handling certain aspects of this, that also is their right... again, it's not my business UNLESS they want it to be... that seems the best anyone can do

 

i'm not taking this problem lightly, i do realize how serious it is... i just think that if it's handled on the club level it will improve of its own accord.. maybe even without the risk of harming someone's reputation, whether innocent or guilty

[bglover]

I wont yet again defend why I think it's a BBO problem instead of a "club" or "tourney" problem.

 

I, however, strongly disagree with having a process that is not relatively anonymous as I have suggested. If you leaev it in a club director or tourney director's hands and let THEM do the review (or appoint a hand-picked panel) then there is NO WAY you will have any protection for the accused and the chance that an innocent party's reputation can be wrongly sullied is way too large.

 

Everyone should be most concerned with protecting the innocent first and making sure those rightly caught are dealt with second. Let's say your club's director picks as a reviewer someone with a personal gripe against the accused. Let's say he makes a fair decision and decides the guy is innocent. What if they get into a tiff down the road? What is the reviewer (or the director) just plain doesn't like the guy? Or, what if either just has a big mouth? It's too damned easy to hurt an innocent.

 

I would demand that whatver process is adopted ensures that this cannot happen.

[McBruce]

Uday said (in blue) 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).

 

Note the implications here.... people can flag POSSIBLE cheaters. This is done just like they do Friends and Enemies (as you noted)... but the suggestion doesn't end there... Uday goes on to suggest that a TD (you know, like you) MIGHT HAVE the OPTION to exclude based on these allegations.

 

-----------------

 

OK, I see the point now and I agree. No TD should be barring people only because others have them marked as suspected cheaters. I'd be very surprised if that was what Uday intended, but I guess I have interpreted his words enough already. :(

 

Guess we'll need another ten or twelve pages to hash something that works out.... :D

 

I am for the report/panel process, and ambivalent about the cheater tag except that yes, I agree it should be private. Let's wait for Uday's next post to see what he actually meant by that sentence.

[spwdo]

hi,

 

luke , try keeping a +-100 tables tourney free from chaeting, no way to do it on your own unless you are prepared to blacklist sevaral players that are innocent, 4 hours playing a day, same hosting, and another 36 hours a day looking in hands of allaged chaeting is what u suggest to try and do something about chaeting, wont work i m afriad, can work for abalucys(lesser hands to look at).

 

secondly if /when someone is unethical is it really needed that every tourneydirector/interested party has to find out for himself that someone is unethical if he wishes to do something about the problem, i believe not , however i also find its unethical that tourneydirectors start to exchange"thier"chaeters, all it takes is a td that doesnt like a player to get him blacklisted in other tourneys, so im in favour of bbo to have a strong saying in this , take the right steps that u can take to try and be as fair as can be too the accused chaeters(so that nobody innocent will be punisched) and if found proven by team/panel capable of handling this why allow(unethical players) on bbo then anyfurther .

 

This not stopping in the long run(at least trying too) will result several still ethical players to start doing the same cause its common and "allowed" to do so, aldough not all(humans) are like that,some defantly are.

 

I havent done much about it before, when i got a call from someone saying xx/xy is unethical i mark them as friends so i see at all times where they are so i can try to see where/if they play unethical, as said before it takes to much of my time lately since i took this up, after our tourneys i ask willing tds now to check some pairs where i got complaints ffrom.

 

but try and understand that this is done by volunteers making large efforts to try and do something about this, becuase for one reason only, we love this game with hart and soul and we`re not willing to let it be destroyed from a group that was inintially very small im sure .

 

again the last thing i want is to keep on doing this on my own, this will result in mistakes (innoncent beeing punisched) and guitly walk away im sure so let as suggested a group of capleble volunteers handle this and let bbo do the sanctions

 

 

marc

[luke warm]

I wont yet again defend why I think it's a BBO problem instead of a "club" or "tourney" problem.

 

I, however, strongly disagree with having a process that is not relatively anonymous as I have suggested. If you leaev it in a club director or tourney director's hands and let THEM do the review (or appoint a hand-picked panel) then there is NO WAY you will have any protection for the accused and the chance that an innocent party's reputation can be wrongly sullied is way too large.

 

Everyone should be most concerned with protecting the innocent first and making sure those rightly caught are dealt with second. Let's say your club's director picks as a reviewer someone with a personal gripe against the accused. Let's say he makes a fair decision and decides the guy is innocent. What if they get into a tiff down the road? What is the reviewer (or the director) just plain doesn't like the guy? Or, what if either just has a big mouth? It's too damned easy to hurt an innocent.

 

I would demand that whatver process is adopted ensures that this cannot happen.

exactly right, but this is why i want to leave it local... they can maintain anonymity as easily as anyone else... after all, even if there was a server wide committee, presumeably they'd be getting their info from these same club directors/owners

 

anyway, this is just my opinion

[luke warm]

hi,

 

luke , try keeping a +-100 tables tourney free from chaeting, no way to do it on your own unless you are prepared to blacklist sevaral players that are innocent, 4 hours playing a day, same hosting, and another 36 hours a day looking in hands of allaged chaeting is what u suggest to try and do something about chaeting, wont work i m afriad, can work for abalucys(lesser hands to look at).

 

secondly if /when someone is unethical is it really needed that every tourneydirector/interested party has to find out for himself that someone is unethical if he wishes to do something about the problem, i believe not , however i also find its unethical that tourneydirectors start to exchange"thier"chaeters, all it takes is a td that doesnt like a player to get him blacklisted in other tourneys, so im in favour of bbo to have a strong saying in this , take the right steps that u can take to try and be as fair as can be too the accused chaeters(so that nobody innocent will be punisched) and if found proven by team/panel capable of handling this why allow(unethical players) on bbo then anyfurther .

 

This not stopping in the long run(at least trying too) will result several still ethical players to start doing the same cause its common and "allowed" to do so, aldough not all(humans) are like that,some defantly are.

 

I havent done much about it before, when i got a call from someone saying xx/xy is unethical i mark them as friends so i see at all times where they are so i can try to see where/if they play unethical, as said before it takes to much of my time lately since i took this up, after our tourneys i ask willing tds now to check some pairs where i got complaints ffrom.

 

but try and understand that this is done by volunteers making large efforts to try and do something about this, becuase for one reason only, we love this game with hart and soul and we`re not willing to let it be destroyed from a group that was inintially very small im sure .

 

again the last thing i want is to keep on doing this on my own, this will result in mistakes (innoncent beeing punisched) and guitly walk away im sure so let as suggested a group of capleble volunteers handle this and let bbo do the sanctions

 

 

marc

yes, you run large tourneys and lots of them... so i imagine it would be a daunting task for you... however, imagine other tourneys like yours... maybe some aren't as large, maybe some are... now take all the problems you have and multiply them by the number of tourneys having such problems... now imagine all that being dumped in uday's lap, with no effort having been made at the tourney level to do some background work, some investigation.. and this is apart from the individual accusations uday handles daily, from the main bridge room

 

whatever process is adopted can maintain anonymity, or should... that should be a prerequisite

[kleek]

In the overall interest of moving the important discussion taking place in this thread in a somewhat more productive direction, it might be helpful to summarize the preceding 11 pages. With all due respect to the many and varied minority views, a consensus appears to have developed, which encompasses the following main points:

 

1. Cheating (and other unethical activity) is a fact of life in the online bridge world.

2. Cheating by a relatively small minority of players diminishes the pleasure and accomplishment derived from playing online bridge by the vast, non-cheating majority.

3. Cheating will never be eliminated entirely.

4. There are particular electronic and telecommunication forms of cheating which are either technically impossible, or simply not feasible with available resources, to try to stop.

5. To the extent that they are feasible, reasonable efforts, beyond what is currently being done, should be undertaken to try to thwart cheating.

6. To this end, the formation of an independent Ethics Committee constitutes a feasible and reasonable effort.

7. The mere existence of an Ethics Committee may do as much, or more, to thwart cheating than would the filing, hearing, and disposition of any particular complaint.

8. In any Ethics Committee process, the protection of all of the rights of the individual(s) against whom a complaint is brought (particularly their anonymity) is of paramount importance.

9. There should be a threshold (minimum) number of complaints against any particular individual(s) that must first be reached, before any complaint is ever delivered to the Ethics Committee for review.

10. The Ethics Committee should never be asked, or undertake, to review any problem that should properly have been disposed of by a tournament director or other internal tournament appeal process.

11. BBO software can be developed to facilitate the procedures involved in bringing a complaint to the Ethics Committee, as well as in making a finding and reporting it to the appropriate entities.

12. Neither the Ethics Committee, nor any of the members who sit on it at any given time, has either the ability to bring a complaint, or the authority to make the final disposition of it. Its sole role is to analyze the evidence, come to a finding, and make a recommendation. What is ultimately done with its findings and recommendations is strictly beyond the purview of the Ethics Committee.

13. The highest confidentiality and integrity must be demanded from those who serve on the Ethics Committee and from those who make use of its findings.

14. Persons who repeatedly seek, via this process, to bring complaints that are found to be without merit will find that this activity redounds to thier detriment.

 

I sincerely hope that this summary has been helpful to all of the members who wish to contribute to this discussion in a helpful and productive way, and that further discussion and commentary in this thread (or perhaps, in a new one) might concentrate on suggestions and ideas for the best way to organize, structure, and operate an effective Ethics Committee. Thank you.

[inquiry]

Thanks Kurt,

 

It helped refocus me....

[luke warm]

me too

[McBruce]

Bravo kleek! That is an excellent summary.

 

At the risk of substituting my opinions for consensus, let me suggest a few additions and add a few comments for discussion:

 

8. In any Ethics Committee process, the protection of all of the rights of the individual(s) against whom a complaint is brought (particularly their anonymity) is of paramount importance.

 

I think we need to add that the EC gets only the facts and no names, ever. The main functions of the reporting software (see #11 below) is to strip the names, assign a subset of the full EC to view the facts without names, and collect the opinions and the verdicts. Consider the difference:

 

a: "Look at this hand. Don't you think that East must have had a peek at the other hands?"

 

b: "Look at this hand. Do you see any evidence that one or more of the players has illegal knowledge about what another player holds?"

 

Which is more likely to lead to a fair result?

 

To clarify: if you complain specifically about player X, the software gets the name of the person you are complaining about, to decide when to launch an investigation. If you send a deal without specifying who you feel is suspicious, nothing happens. But the members of the committee just get compass positions.

 

10. The Ethics Committee should never be asked, or undertake, to review any problem that should properly have been disposed of by a tournament director or other internal tournament appeal process.

 

By this we mean that the only thing the EC deals with is allegations that a player had illegal information about someone else's hand AND acted on this information. Behavior issues, adjustment issues, language barrier misunderstandings, hesitation allegations, alert or explanation problems, and anything not related to the issue of "did this player have and make use of illegal information?" should be quickly discarded. Because of this, maybe we should rethink the name of the committee, since many will send complaints of the types listed above based on the name alone.

 

11. BBO software can be developed to facilitate the procedures involved in bringing a complaint to the Ethics Committee, as well as in making a finding and reporting it to the appropriate entities.

 

Let's be clear here: there is no reason that the software developed needs to be a part of the BBO software, and good reasons that it shouldn't. It could be as simple as a Web Site with a form that triggers a program which launches an investigation by sending out case info to members of the EC when the complaints threshold is reached. I think it would be better if there were a separation. F2F bridge is extremely insistent that allegations of cheating should be made IN PRIVATE and only to TOURNAMENT OFFICIALS. We should follow the same guideline. To make a complaint, you must log off, make a small effort to collect the appropriate .lin file, then go to a specific and separate place online to register the complaint.

 

12. Neither the Ethics Committee, nor any of the members who sit on it at any given time, has either the ability to bring a complaint, or the authority to make the final disposition of it. Its sole role is to analyze the evidence, come to a finding, and make a recommendation. What is ultimately done with its findings and recommendations is strictly beyond the purview of the Ethics Committee.

 

What do we think about this: Should the members of the EC make decisions separately or should they be allowed to consult? I think it is best to simply keep a public list of the people on the EC, but for each case nominate 5 people from the list at random (or almost random to avoid overloading anyone) to look at the evidence separately. If the consensus says make a formal complaint, now the evidence can be sent to the next level: to the accused for a defense and to BBO for punitive action.

[keylime]

Kurt,

 

Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. And ditto. <again> :P

[slothy]

Funny that you wrote all that Kurt...it was on the tip of my tongue :huh:

 

....and i second it. <á la Dwayne ditto>

[dogsbreath]

dog has read all 11 pages ..very interesting but tiring :huh: I have no sympathy for cheaters nor any understanding of why they do it on a not-for-money site , but I am concerned about the complexity of the proposed solutions.

Working on these committees will be tiresome work ..so the cheaters are likely to eventually drain the volunteers of any enthusiasm for their task. Additionally, an almost equal effort is required to deter the accusers.. I have had 2 unpleasant incidents recently where a silly comment about bids/leads has seriously upset an inexperienced partener. It has also been pointed out to me that we have many bridge teachers playing on BBO who regard such accusations against them as potentially very damaging.

The effort required of these volunteers would be much more productively spent in mentoring or other development activities.

 

This inclines me towards Lois' attitude that we must learn to live with the limitations of on-line bridge. If Fred,Uday etc feel that 'cheating' is adversely affecting the reputation or viability of the BBO site then they will be driven to find a workable solution. It seems to me that we are moving to a situation where you only play with people you trust, or in a club, or accept the conditions you find at other 'random' tables with as much good grace as you can muster ;)

 

The cheaters will eventually go away.. they dont really like bridge anyway and will find another stream to pollute.. Rgds Dogsbreath.

[kleek]

Thanks all. To McBruce's detailed reply, I agree with the some of the specific points made, disagree with others:

 

8. Agree that the EC never gets the names of the accused. Thought that was implied by my statement, but it doesn't hurt to state it in so many words. :huh:

Of course, the committee should get only the relevant facts, and no extraneous comments that might prejudice a review. You may be going a bit too far here, though, in not even wanting to divulge which anonymous compass direction is the "subject" of the complaint. Please remember that, at the point a complaint is brought to the EC, there will (by way of requirement) already be quite a number of deals involved in the allegation, all of which will have to be analyzed, in order to arrive at some conclusion, and the "subject" in question could have been sitting at any compass direction on different deals. Do we really want the EC wasting its time simply identifying which compass direction might be the "subject" of the complaint? After all, there might be more than one unusual, or questionable, action on any particular deal, and the committee wouldn't want inadvertently to attribute the wrong "action" to the wrong "subject".

 

10. Again, all of the items you delineated, and many more, should properly be handled by a tournament director. The EC should only become involved with the most egregious examples of unethical behavior, not the ordinary violations of rules, laws, and conduct. Also, for your information, the "illegal" knowledge of hands other than one's own during the bidding and one's own and dummy's during the play is NOT the ONLY possible form of cheating (or highly unethical activity) which can occur, and therefore become the subject of an EC review. Lest I give anybody any bright ideas, I will leave it to you to figure out what they might be. The name of the committee should not be a problem in this process, one way or the other, but if there is a "better" name, that's fine.

 

11. I am not a programmer, and I wouldn't presume to argue what can and can't, or what should or shouldn't, be done with any software that might be used to help in this process. Since various BBO officials are going to be the end users of the EC's work product and will make the ultimate determination of how a complaint is disposed of (either directly or via controlled procedure), I don't quite understand why the need for separation of the software. The salient point is that the EC PROCEDURE should be separate and confidential, not the software.

 

12. I like the idea of having the EC composed of a rotating group of different people (from a compiled master list of those who qualify and offer to serve), who serve for a limited, and defined, period of time, before they are replaced by another random group selected from the list. I don't understand the point of why it would somehow be "better" for each member of the EC to do his own analysis, make his own finding, and make his own recommendation, without any contact with the other EC members who are reviewing the same complaint. Not only would this approach lead to a great amount of duplicated work, but also one of the main reasons to have a "committee" is so that different work can be delegated to different individuals, and so that the committee can benefit from the knowledge and insight of all of its members, each of whom may bring different aptitudes and strengths to the analysis being done. I am for a collaborative committee effort. Not just the sum of individual efforts, the majority opinion of which is put out under the "name" of a committee.

 

Perhaps, as a more detailed outline of how all of this is actually going to work in practice is developed, many of these questions will be answered more fully. Thanks for the input.

[rona_]

This might have been mentioned already in the 11 pages of comments on the subject, and if I have missed it I apologise. If dummy can only see his own hand and if players have the option to block kibs from viewing their hand, won't it help towards solving part of the problem?

[inquiry]

This might have been mentioned already in the 11 pages of comments on the subject, and if I have missed it I apologise. If dummy can only see his own hand and if players have the option to block kibs from viewing their hand, won't it help towards solving part of the problem?

Hi Rona,

 

I think your solutions will do very, very little to solve the "problem." First, if a pair is going to cheat, seeing the hands during play is of modest value at best.... sure partner can tell you which way to finessee or to play for drop...etc... but the big culprit is bidding. And even if you block kibitzer if a and b are going to cheat, they can communicate during the bidding.

 

Second, lots of people enjoy kibitizing, count me chief amoung them. i would hate to see all kibitizing blocked, but that is what it would take. Blocking a kibitizer at your table does no good if a person logs on with two computers or uses a friendly (?!) kibitzer to share info about the hand... the kibitzer (eihter real or virtual... 2nd log in of the player) can go to any table in a tournment and send info back to the player.

 

I think the final solution is to do as others suggested here... find some friendly, card players at or above your skill level who play fairly, and play with them. Let the cheaters go play with each other, and let them figure out which ones can pick the best double dummy contract given double dummy defense while playing in their own sandbox. Eventually, a true zero tolerance anti-cheating private club will start with their own ethics police and you will be able to find a tournment where the results are studied to be sure that blantant cheaters are excluded...Abalucy is trying to reach something like this... but there is still room to grow that type initiative.... Another WONDERFUL solution is to play in team matches with groups of your trusted friends and trusted opponents...

 

But just as I enjoy kibitizing, while dummy, I enjoy looking at the hands and seeing what the defense is trhying to do and trying to guess if partner will find the best percentage line, the 100% secure line or the wrong line that oddly works on a particular hand... If I can't see anything but my own hand 25% of the time (more because I tend to raise my parnters with support but they seem to rebid their suit or bid NT when they support me)....I will be very bored.

 

Ben

[aisha759]

You can do all sorts of blocking on BBO (which would be extremely disappointing) then there is no more fun in kibbing.... i think OKbridge has solved that problem (up to a point) they have defined the difference between a kibber and a specatator... a spec can see all hands, therefore cannot talk to anyone , where as a kibber only sees dummy like everyone else.... (the terminology is a bit different, and i can't quite remember it) that still doesnt stop specs from using messenger or some other form of communication....

I enjoy kibbing, and seing all hands (learning experience) So please don't do anything to change that ;)

It seems to me, that you can stop some from cheating, but you will always get new cheaters! If cheating is most rampant in the bidding, then blocking kibbers wont help...... 70% of good a good contract is in correct bidding ( so i'm told he he )

Dont know where i'm getting at with this actually, but maybe one day, someone will come up with a brilliant idea to make it more difficult to cheat, but stopping it completely, seems like an impossible task.

 

Aisha

[inquiry]

Dont know where i'm getting at with this actually, but maybe one day, someone will come up with a brilliant idea to make it more difficult to cheat, but stopping it completely, seems like an impossible task.

 

Aisha

Yes we all hope that blocking kibitzer is never deemed the solution...this punishes the innocent as well as the guilty. And you are correct, stopping all cheating is going to be impossible.. heck stopping even some of it is going to be difficult.

 

The best solution if you are really worried about cheating is to find ethical people and play with and against them. But bbo wants to start eventually tournments that you have to pay to enter. I will not join these tournments until and unless some form of anti-cheating policy is started. I am just happy to play on lilne with my friends and people I know who are very ethical players, and of course the gold stars.

 

ben

[aisha759]

Hi Ben;

I wouldnt join paid tourneys either, especially that there are so many free ones, and with all that cheating you all are talking about, it sort of takes the fun out of it (unless of course i decide to take up cheating and get my money's worth :o))

For paid tourneys to be successful, they would have to have a certain benefit... now dont get me wrong; there is a lot of pleasure in doing well in a free tourney, and i don't necessarily mean winning; but a paid tourney, well.....thats a bit more serious, so maybe winning a Tshirt might make me wanna cheat....watch out!!!

Especially if it has my name on it :P

 

A tourney i have to pay for, should have some benefits, other than just a "bit of winning satisfaction".... IMHO ;)

 

Yours truly

Aisha

[luke warm]

Dont know where i'm getting at with this actually, but maybe one day, someone will come up with a brilliant idea to make it more difficult to cheat, but stopping it completely, seems like an impossible task.

 

Aisha

Yes we all hope that blocking kibitzer is never deemed the solution...this punishes the innocent as well as the guilty. And you are correct, stopping all cheating is going to be impossible.. heck stopping even some of it is going to be difficult.

 

The best solution if you are really worried about cheating is to find ethical people and play with and against them. But bbo wants to start eventually tournments that you have to pay to enter. I will not join these tournments until and unless some form of anti-cheating policy is started. I am just happy to play on lilne with my friends and people I know who are very ethical players, and of course the gold stars.

 

ben

i guess i'm a little more fatalistic... since i'm pretty sure that cheaters will always find a way, i'll just play (even the paid tourneys) and trust that those in charge are doing and have done all they can to limit it...

 

i'll *never* have total peace of mind that cheating isn't going on, so i'll just choose to do my best and that's that

[aisha759]

I belive Luke Warm has the right attitude.... play and enjoy! We can't get paranoid over every well bid and well played board even if suspicious sometimes...

[etherwiz]

Hi - this replay is more to the point of the last few pages then my other posts have been

 

1st - I have not only been a programmer working in the "trenches" as Fred and UDay are (doing the design, programming, testing, error tracking and fixing on a day to day basis simply because we are the only ones in the computer department) - I have also been a Project Manager many times and System person on International Insurane Company's Main Frame.

 

I GUARENTEE YOU that there are many more practical, User-Wanted, and Comercial Aspects they they both could be working on then customizing the software to record charges about the ethical of users!

 

I am also sure that if we could come up with someting that had more then a slim hope of success they would do it. But several factors lead me to the conclusion that this may not happen.

 

a) There is NO WAY that from a recording of the bidding and play anyone except an All-Knowing GOD could tell the cheaters from the talented, from the Lucky, or even from the UnLucky but Once In A BLue Moon ....................

This is simply imposiible. Even it LOOKS LIKE, even if 5 TRillon Master Point Winner says "It SURE LOOKS LIKE CHEATING", there is no way anyone can ever say 100% certainty.

 

:o An investigation about someone would have to record EVERY HAND THEY PLAY (at least in Tournament play) just to be sure that they do not react the same ALL THE TIME and got complaints only when they "lucked out". And worse yet - perhaps they only play that way with a certain partner (I myself make bids with novices I would never try with my betters - but that is because I know my betters would open hands of less then 13 pts or only 4 major suit).

 

c) for such an Ethics Committie to be created both UDay and Fred would have to have totally implicit trust in (most) committy members. Because if the Committy ever left the cause - THEY THEMSELFS would have to run it. If anyone thinks it is bad now, what would it be like if an Ethics Committy got up and running for only 3 or 4 months then disbanded ?

 

2nd - no time for a second right now, but I have other problems that might come up with the other topics presented here - Be Back Soon

 

_*_Dave

[rona_]

[hv=n=sk109865ha7d3cak53&w=sa4hkj986dakqxcj2&e=s73h43dj9876c8764&s=sqj2hq1052d1054cq109]399|300|North is declarer in 4 after west opened and alerted 1C[/hv]

 

4♥ led by east , small from dummy ,8♥ by west taken with Ace by declarer. Spades led by declarer, Ace taken by west and a small diamond lead by west from AKQx to the J in his partner's hand to lead a heart again. Can you tell for sure that this is cheating? I kibbed this hand in a tournament. :o

[jtfanclub]

:o An investigation about someone would have to record EVERY HAND THEY PLAY (at least in Tournament play)

 

You are already aware that happens, right?

 

On August 17th, you played 10 boards. The last four were with mridd627. You got...well, see for yourself what you got.

 

http://online.bridgebase.com/cgi-bin/history.pl?...00&p=2004-08-17