[Free]

For me the thread can be closed and deleted. I find it extremely hypocrite from vianu2 to keep claiming these hands are posted for us to enjoy the bidding system, while vianu2 even put in a play problem (nr9). It's clear vianu2 wants us to comment on some weird looking actions (although not all of them are as weird as vianu2 thinks) and wants us to point out that this player/pair is probably cheating. Like been said by others, there's an email address available for cheating accusations.

About future cases, I think it's best to look at it case by case. One board should be acceptable, several boards/threads is already over the top imo. This is similar to UI questions, appeals,... We don't want to ban these as well. But as long as the poster is honest about his intentions, the amount of boards are limited and there's no chance the accused player can be identified, there's no problem for me. But don't be a hypocrite about it!

[inquiry]

Free's response above convinces me. I will delete the thread in question, even though I said I wouldn't after getting angry over one person jerking the poll around, but the forum bans mentioned stay in place for that individual.

In the future, Such public attempts to expose online cheating will be reviewed by adminstrators individually with a decision to delete them or leave them in our hands. A new forum rule will be written to try to explain this policy. I actually correctly judged the forum's opinion on this matter when I ordered the OP to stop posting hands and explained why, I wanted to delete the entire thread then, but couldn't find the "legal" (forum rules) to do so. I try to follow the established rules and hope everyone else does as well. So we just established a new rule.

[rduran1216]

The point is that its so easy to cheat online you either have a legitimate way to enforce no cheating, or you be foolish and allow reasonable doubt.

The abuse stuff doesn't work at all. If there are 50 hands cited where the pair took an anti-percentage or unusual play that worked because of the layout, and that pair is otherwise by the book and solid, its obvious cheating. Its one thing when a consistently bad player strikes gold by doing something dumb, but the times I've complained in the past it was by consistent winners who only stepped off the road when it worked. To me there is no more obvious form of cheating. Using this forum to see if other good players smell something fishy should be allowed. Obviously the wording and tact of the accusations is one thing, but I dont see anything wrong with looking for opinions from forum people.

Look, if it offends you and you think it doesn't belong, how hard is it to not click on the thread or not post in it? I can't understand wanting to "clean it up". Just dont post in the thread and it'll die.

[Free]

rduran1216, on 2011-July-27, 12:50, said:

Look, if it offends you and you think it doesn't belong, how hard is it to not click on the thread or not post in it? I can't understand wanting to "clean it up". Just dont post in the thread and it'll die.

Not clicking on the thread is actually quite difficult because there's no reference at all that this thread was about a cheating accusation. And you can't know if you'll be offended unless you read the content - in which case it's already too late...

[jjbrr]

rduran1216, on 2011-July-27, 12:50, said:

The point is that its so easy to cheat online you either have a legitimate way to enforce no cheating, or you be foolish and allow reasonable doubt.

The abuse stuff doesn't work at all. If there are 50 hands cited where the pair took an anti-percentage or unusual play that worked because of the layout, and that pair is otherwise by the book and solid, its obvious cheating. Its one thing when a consistently bad player strikes gold by doing something dumb, but the times I've complained in the past it was by consistent winners who only stepped off the road when it worked. To me there is no more obvious form of cheating. Using this forum to see if other good players smell something fishy should be allowed. Obviously the wording and tact of the accusations is one thing, but I dont see anything wrong with looking for opinions from forum people.

Look, if it offends you and you think it doesn't belong, how hard is it to not click on the thread or not post in it? I can't understand wanting to "clean it up". Just dont post in the thread and it'll die.

You seem to assume that threads about cheaters are offensive. That's not true. In my opinion, threads about random BBO cheaters are just terrible and do nothing but pollute the forums. They don't generate constructive discussion for new players to learn from. They do make people paranoid.

This isn't necessarily a rhetorical question: what purpose exactly does discussion about possible cheaters serve? We all understand that cheating on BBO is relatively easy. We don't need proof to support that hypothesis. The good news, though, is that it doesn't matter! Your precious imp results in the main bridge club are completely meaningless. Whether you win by 50 or lose by 200 to cheaters, there is no net effect whatsoever. Obviously in tournaments for which you've paid to enter this isn't true, but I hope and assume that abuse@ takes cheaters in real tournaments more seriously than in the main bridge club. If your problem really is paid tournaments, do your homework and send the info to abuse@, but don't post it for public scrutiny. We can't do anything but speculate anyway, and we certainly can't change your tournament result.

There are much better things to squander our time speculating about, like global warming.

[pirate22]

Lets assume the writer of this article is or is not concerned
with Cheating.......... Hands should be displayed and discussed.

I for one will never play Bridge for money on BBO,because i have
no doubt cheating is possible-unless the three persons of the 4
are known to me.......... I have had experience of well bid
hands by us with nothing Icky,to get a lead out of the blue,to defeat
us------ and calls made by opps non alerted,leading to unheard
success. mostly leads out of the blue.....
Im convinced cheating does go on -and BBO keeps very quiet about it.
Nothing published-Nothing posted.i personaly know how to accede to
this low level.but refuse to join the ranks........

[1eyedjack]

pirate22, on 2011-August-04, 01:52, said:

Lets assume the writer of this article is or is not concerned with Cheating

That seems a tortology. Certainly he will either be concerned with cheating or not concerned with cheating. The universe does not allow for any other possibility. In fact it is patently obvious that he IS concerned with cheating so by all means let us make that assumption.

pirate22, on 2011-August-04, 01:52, said:

I for one will never play Bridge for money on BBO,because i have no doubt cheating is possible

You have said this before, and your error has been pointed out before. Your persistence in ignoring it is a mystery, but your right, but there is no need to propagate the myth. That cheating occurs on BBO is not in doubt. To suggest that it occurs at the money bridge tables would require, I think, some demonstration of probable cause.

pirate22, on 2011-August-04, 01:52, said:

-unless the three persons of the 4 are known to me

Well two of them are robots, and there are no kibbitzers to help the third. Do you suggest that the robots cheat? How do you suggest that the human opponent cheats? Has he an inside line to the server? OK that did happen once in the poker sites, but if that is your only fear let us have it out in the open.

[1eyedjack]

rduran1216, on 2011-July-27, 12:50, said:

The point is that its so easy to cheat online you either have a legitimate way to enforce no cheating, or you be foolish and allow reasonable doubt.

With the greatest of respect this is a complete load of tosh.

There is no doubt that it is easy to cheat online, except in the money games.

Where cheating is a possibility, there is no "legitimate way to enforce no cheating". The best that you can hope to achieve is to put in place controls that reduce the chances of escaping detection and perhaps limit some of the avenues by which cheating can occur. There are no controls that eliminate altogether the chances of escaping detection - a reduction is the best that you can hope to achieve. The effectiveness of the controls which you choose to employ will be dependent on the the resources devoted to that cause. It necessarily requires a judgemental decision, how much resource you choose to deploy and what resulting level of cheating you have to accept in consequence. The available resources are limited and will carry a financial cost.

Given that a "legitimate way to enforce no cheating" is a mythical pipedream, how can you then conclude that the only alternative, to allow reasonable doubt, is an act of foolishness?

It is possible that you disagree with BBO management regarding whether they have struck the right balance between devoted resources and the resulting extent of cheating to be regarded as acceptable. I doubt that you have available all of the data from which to make an informed judgement of your own. But let us be honest, the only complaint that anyone can have is in the execise of that judgemental decision.

[rduran1216]

1eyedjack, on 2011-August-04, 10:45, said:

With the greatest of respect this is a complete load of tosh.

There is no doubt that it is easy to cheat online, except in the money games.

Where cheating is a possibility, there is no "legitimate way to enforce no cheating". The best that you can hope to achieve is to put in place controls that reduce the chances of escaping detection and perhaps limit some of the avenues by which cheating can occur. There are no controls that eliminate altogether the chances of escaping detection - a reduction is the best that you can hope to achieve. The effectiveness of the controls which you choose to employ will be dependent on the the resources devoted to that cause. It necessarily requires a judgemental decision, how much resource you choose to deploy and what resulting level of cheating you have to accept in consequence. The available resources are limited and will carry a financial cost.

Given that a "legitimate way to enforce no cheating" is a mythical pipedream, how can you then conclude that the only alternative, to allow reasonable doubt, is an act of foolishness?

It is possible that you disagree with BBO management regarding whether they have struck the right balance between devoted resources and the resulting extent of cheating to be regarded as acceptable. I doubt that you have available all of the data from which to make an informed judgement of your own. But let us be honest, the only complaint that anyone can have is in the execise of that judgemental decision.

the policy on hesitations online is a joke. Yes people have connection troubles, but the odds of someone playing cards quickly, then all of a sudden having a 10 second connection problem when its their turn to play a key card that gives info to their partner is just BS. How hard would it be to be on the phone with your partner relaying every card you have. People who consistently find K leads from Kx into partners Axx or always come up with double dummy defense are either known players, or people cheating. Has anyone ever been banned from BBO for this type of cheating? Or has it always been ISP matches, or does BBO even track that?

idk, I've been screwed by hesitations and questionably good plays by people nobody has ever heard or seen. This could be misfortune, or it seems to me more likely that people scoring consistently in the 70's with perfect leads and "occasional internet glitches" be disciplined

[mr1303]

rduran1216, on 2011-August-07, 00:35, said:

the policy on hesitations online is a joke. Yes people have connection troubles, but the odds of someone playing cards quickly, then all of a sudden having a 10 second connection problem when its their turn to play a key card that gives info to their partner is just BS. How hard would it be to be on the phone with your partner relaying every card you have. People who consistently find K leads from Kx into partners Axx or always come up with double dummy defense are either known players, or people cheating. Has anyone ever been banned from BBO for this type of cheating? Or has it always been ISP matches, or does BBO even track that?

idk, I've been screwed by hesitations and questionably good plays by people nobody has ever heard or seen. This could be misfortune, or it seems to me more likely that people scoring consistently in the 70's with perfect leads and "occasional internet glitches" be disciplined

Hesitations online really do signify nothing whatsoever. Maybe I've got some music or whatever on in another window and I want to find a song that I like. That could easily take more than 10 seconds.

And so what if someone cares so much that they'll be on the phone with their partner telling them what they've got. Unless this happens when playing in a paid tournament (and even then...) I couldn't care less what my score is. Most opponents are unknowns when I play, and I take no pleasure from taking 1100 or similar on a regular basis.