[han]

This is not the right place for cheating accusations.

[mikeh]

I agree with Han.

Moreover, trying to 'prove' cheating by listing any number of odd hands is inappropriate. For all we know, the pair in question has perpetrated this type of bidding, leading etc hundreds of times, got awful results most of the time, and all we are seeing are the ones that worked well for them.

Arguing from results is invalid, in terms of proving cheating, unless we have ALL of the results, or, at least, a large number taken consecutively, not cherry-picked to prove a point.

I am not saying that there are no grounds for suspecting something is going on.. I am saying that this is the wrong place to air your thoughts (Just what did you think was going to be accomplished?) and that your approach is fundamentally flawed. So your conclusions, that cheating is happening, may be simply wrong.

[pclayton]

movingon, on Sep 5 2008, 07:38 AM, said:

I am absolutely convinced that something is funny here...
I believe that the pair sees each other's hands but not the opponents. Things go wrong when the opponent's hands hold a surprize for them.

ok, now when someone on the BBO staff tells me that this pair was banned from playing with each other I think that there have been complaints against this pair before. Yet the funny hands keep appearing and they keep playing.

so, one should just watch it and do nothing?
That is hard for me to do when I have to play against this pair on ACBL games.

Relax, something will be done, assuming something should be done.

BBO simply doesn't take cheating casually.

[Old York]

Hi

My regular f2f partner bids like this all the time.
He is an Aquarius so believes that he has 20-20 intuition and never counts Hcp.
We get many tops.
We also get many bottoms. rofl
If this pair get far more than their fair share of tops, then maybe they are both Aquarius?

Strange bidding or just unfamiliar bidding? We do not have enough evidence to judge, sorry

Tony (Duke of York)

[hrothgar]

Mike already did a pretty good job explaining why your analytic technique is problematic. However, I'd like to expand on his point slight:

A significant portion of the hands that you're showing appear to be fairly normal.

For example, consider the following

♠ 93
♥ AKQ
♦ K8
♣KJT952

You provide the following explanation

Quote

You open 1♣; partner bids 1♦; opp overcalls 1 ♠ and you bid 2♣ holding
93♠
AKQ♥
K8♦
KJ10952♣

The final contract is 2 clubs

From the sounds of it, the auction went as follows

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ - (1♠)
2♣

I'm trying to understand what bid you disagree with...

The 1♣ opening seems fine.
The 2♣ looks reasonable

What makes you so suspicious?

[fred]

Not clear to me if you also reported these incidents to the appropriate channel (abuse@bridgebase.com) in addition to this inappropriate channel. If not, please do so. Feel free to cc me (fred@bridgebase.com) and/or the person in charge of our ACBL program (acbl@bridgebase.com) if you want.

Even if you already contacted our abuse department, please do not be surprised if you think we have done nothing or if it takes a while before it is obvious we did something. We don't convict people for cheating unless we are certain and the investigation process that is necessary to establish certainty can take a while.

Given that you seem certain that this pair is cheating, you might find the paragraph above to be annoying, but I suspect you would appreciate our policies in this area if you had been (presumably falsely) accused of cheating based on some successful bridge actions you took that one of your opponents did not understand.

I must echo what the other posters have said. Please do not make posts like this in the future. The fact that you left out names was good, but it is not hard for curious people to discover who it is you have publicly accused of cheating.

I suspect you already know that public cheating accusations are not acceptable in the game of bridge.

Thanks,

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

movingon, on Sep 5 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

Thank you, Mr. Gitelman, for your response.

I have reported this pair to abuse and have sent in many, many hands multiple times.

I will continue to do so, even though it is very time consuming. This is important to me, and I am glad to hear that BBO cares.

Thanks Mr. On, but please call me Fred

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[pdmunro]

I recognize who you are talking about. If I recall correctly, similar bids and leads were made by the random selection of partners and opponents I played with and against last weekend on BBO. Heck, I might have even made some of those bids and leads myself!

I recall an opponent who bid the lower of 2 five cards suits first. They got a good result.

I recall choosing to lead the 4 card suit headed by the A, rather than the suit headed by the K, at 3NT. (OK so I only had 4 to the KQ, not 5 to the K as your "suspect pair" had. But I was in a similar situation where RHO had denied the majors and it was likely he would finesse into my KQ.)

Someone complained to me that they won't play on BBO because most players cheat. I think that is absolutely wrong. I see exactly the same selection of random/crazy/stupid/excellent/brilliant plays on BBO that I see in face-to-face bridge.

People who want to cheat won't persist. I saw it happen once in real life. It was two students at uni who were playing on adjacent computers. But they soon gave up: there was no fun in it. We play bridge for the intellectual challenge.

[glen]

Did I see this correctly:

Bidding 1♦-Pass-2♣-X;-2NT-All Pass

You are on lead with
♠ KQJ102
♥ 52
♦ 97
♣ QJ86

and you lead the 2 of spades, and partner (who doubled) has:

♠ 5
♥ Q7643
♦ A543
♣ K7

What in the world is your point here? It can't be these players are cheating, since why would they lead the 2 to the singleton 5?

And to not want to them to play just because they are bad is not your call.

Or was the 12 card double hand completed by the ♠ ace?

[the hog]

Agree with Hrothgar; there is nothing unusual about that 2c bid. I would do it myself.

[peachy]

movingon, on Sep 5 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

I will no longer publickly post hands on this pair. I am satisfied that BBO will handle things internally.

Have you emailed BBO about this pair, with examples of hands? If not, do it. Posting at the forum is definitely the wrong place, but at least you had no names mentioned. I think some of the examples speak quite loudly and BBO should take a serious look at this pair.

[barmar]

peachy, on Sep 5 2008, 09:35 PM, said:

movingon, on Sep 5 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

I will no longer publickly post hands on this pair.  I am satisfied that BBO will handle things internally.

Have you emailed BBO about this pair, with examples of hands? If not, do it. Posting at the forum is definitely the wrong place, but at least you had no names mentioned. I think some of the examples speak quite loudly and BBO should take a serious look at this pair.

He already replied to Fred, saying that he had reported them to abuse.

[peachy]

barmar, on Sep 7 2008, 12:16 AM, said:

peachy, on Sep 5 2008, 09:35 PM, said:

movingon, on Sep 5 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

I will no longer publickly post hands on this pair.  I am satisfied that BBO will handle things internally.

Have you emailed BBO about this pair, with examples of hands? If not, do it. Posting at the forum is definitely the wrong place, but at least you had no names mentioned. I think some of the examples speak quite loudly and BBO should take a serious look at this pair.

He already replied to Fred, saying that he had reported them to abuse.

Yes, you are right. Somehow I did not see those posts before.