[jodie]

I've played a lot of f2f bridge. I like online ACBL tourneys much better. It's now been about 3 years since I've really played in a f2f tourney. I finally figured out, that for me, tourneys were stressful and exhausting. I well understand that's not the case for everyone, but, for me, that was the case. I like having the online ACBL tourneys as an alternative. I can relax at home, and play. I don't care much about the masterpoints one way or the other, but the partners I play with like to win points if we do well, so that's why I end up in those tourneys. I have played quite a number of them, and I have not noticed people cheating against me, or at least it's not something that enters my head too often. I'm sure it happens. Just as I know it was happening in f2f bridge. I guess, I feel like it's sort of just something that does go on, and I've always felt that if one must cheat to win, it's something that makes me pity them. I play to learn, worry about my own plays and bids, and don't judge anybody else. It works for me. I know not everyone agrees. Just my two cents!

[mike777]

Thanks for the reply, I am glad someone seems to enjoy the tourneys besides me.

[PaulSK]

The_Hog, on Nov 11 2006, 09:31 PM, said:

If only you knew what? I hope this is not an intimation that Reese Shapiro were cheating. This perrenial emerges regularly on rgb.

First:
1. His name was Schapiro.
2. That's 'perennial'.
3. No 'intimation' is necessary for anyone who has read both books -- by Reese and by Truscott. The evidence was devastating.

[the hog]

You are correct. Truscott's book was so poorly written and the evidence so flimsy that it is devastating that anyone with even half a brain could accept the cheating allegations.

By the way, from a grammatical point of view, that should be "Firstly", and not "First".

[barmar]

bid_em_up, on Nov 13 2006, 11:17 PM, said:

eBridge ran 26 board tournies for a long time as well. They were usually poorly attended, for a few different reasons. The times they were scheduled were not in the best interests of those type games (they were scheduled for 10 am on Sat. and Sunday.), and also because, people for whatever reasons, just dont want to commit three hours to sit and play.

This has to do with both external (real life) commitments, and the fact that many online partners are not regular partnerships. How many people want to commit to 3 hours with someone they have never played with before? At least, if its only 12 boards, they are done in an hour and half.

Myself, I would prefer longer tournaments as well, but popularity wins in this case.

I assume they ran them on weekends because work and family obligations made it hard for people to commit 3 hours on a weekday evening. Also, time zone differences made it difficult for a 3-hour block to be a reasonable time on both the east and west coasts of the US (a 7-10PM PT game is 10PM-1AM ET).

As for committing 3 hours with a pickup partner, isn't that what you do when you go to the partnership desk at a f2f tourney? In fact, often you're entering a two-session event, so you're committing to 6 hours. Yet at large tournaments, the partnership desk is usually very busy. One difference, though, is that when you meet someone in person it's often possible to size them up by talking to them for a few minutes, before agreeing to play with them -- online pickups are almost a total crapshoot.

This all comes back to a point I've made a number of times: many people don't think of online bridge as serious bridge. It's a casual, spare-time activity, not an appointment like a f2f club game or tourney. It's also why there's less compunction against cheating -- the cheaters don't feel as bad because it's not "real bridge" to them (also, the fact that it's so easy -- this is similar to the attitude towards online music/video sharing, I think). I think there may be a psychological effect that permeates much online activity: when you can't see the other players, it's less personal -- there's less sympathy and empathy for the faceless people at the other end of the Internet connection.

[bid_em_up]

barmar, on Nov 15 2006, 03:57 AM, said:

eBridge ran 26 board tournies for a long time as well. They were usually poorly attended, for a few different reasons. The times they were scheduled were not in the best interests of those type games (they were scheduled for 10 am on Sat. and Sunday.), and also because, people for whatever reasons, just dont want to commit three hours to sit and play.

As for committing 3 hours with a pickup partner, isn't that what you do when you go to the partnership desk at a f2f tourney?  In fact, often you're entering a two-session event, so you're committing to 6 hours.  .

You must have me confused with someone else.

I don't go to partnership desks, if it can be helped. I'd rather go back home and enjoy my day playing on BBO, than to sit thru two miserable sessions.

And as you stated, it is much easier to weed thru compatible partners f2f, than it is to look at profiles and randomly pick someone to play with.

Actually, eBridge ran the games at those times because those were the only time slots available in their tournament schedules where they could work the games in and find a director. Or, at least, this is what I was told by their management at the time.

And believe it or not, the time zone really didnt have a lot of bearing on games scheduling. Just like BBO, it was a multi-national site, and they had games that ran pretty much 24 hours a day. (First morning 12 bd tournament was at 5 am EST, last 12 bd tournament of 'day' was 2 am EST). There were many foreign players in all of these games, so the East coast/West coast was really a non-issue. It was mainly the lack of players willing to commit to a three hour game.

[jodie]

In my experience the people playing f2f bridge can be every bit as rude and judmental as anybody online. I've heard outrageous statements made at the bridge table, in f2f games. I have heard comments occasionally online, but have seen and heard much more f2f.

I do agree online bridge is a different experience. It's different for many reasons. Some people are better able to concentrate, some less so, but being that there are no 'real' cards, it's just a totally different experience.

[matmat]

Ok. I gotta ask.

Now that kibitzing has been banned for about a week (more or less? i really have no idea when it started). Has there been any change in the score patterns? in the group of people placing significantly well? in the group of people playing?

[1eyedjack]

Interested by the claims that cheating occurs at the money bridge tables. I recall when the money bridge tables were first introduced by BBO that they were advertised as being "cheat proof". I am not familiar with that side of BBO, but just thought it interesting that we now apparently see cheating in a supposedly cheat-proof environment.

[hrothgar]

1eyedjack, on Nov 27 2006, 07:31 PM, said:

Interested by the claims that cheating occurs at the money bridge tables. I recall when the money bridge tables were first introduced by BBO that they were advertised as being "cheat proof". I am not familiar with that side of BBO, but just thought it interesting that we now apparently see cheating in a supposedly cheat-proof environment.

I don't recall any claims that people are cheating in BBO's money bridge events. I'd be interested if you could point me at any such threads.

For what its worth, the BBO money bridge tables aren't "cheat proof". If BBO wanted to, they could rig the hands so that the North-South pairs were more likely to get good cards than the East-West pairs. With this said and done, my understanding is that BBO's management was careful to design a fee structure such that they don't have any financial incentive to do so. BBO collects the same amount of money regardless of how well any individual player might do. If Fred and Uday were to do something untoward they'd suffer enormous losses with no gain on the upside. I'd be shocked if they were to do anything this silly.

In theory, there are other ways that players might be able to cheat at money bridge. For example, players might use some kind of AI running on their own PC to assist their level play. However, I don't tend to get overly worried about this kind of thing. It really doesn't matter much to me if I get hustled by a brilliant bridge player or a somewhat good bridge player using one hell of an AI.

[bassaidai]

movingon, on Nov 27 2006, 03:59 PM, said:

How about a couple of 18 board tournaments?

Good idea, I'd like to play in them.

[1eyedjack]

hrothgar, on Nov 27 2006, 05:57 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Nov 27 2006, 07:31 PM, said:

Interested by the claims that cheating occurs at the money bridge tables.  I recall when the money bridge tables were first introduced by BBO that they were advertised as being "cheat proof".  I am not familiar with that side of BBO, but just thought it interesting that we now apparently see cheating in a supposedly cheat-proof environment.

I don't recall any claims that people are cheating in BBO's money bridge events. I'd be interested if you could point me at any such threads.

Possibly my bad. I thought that MBC was TLA for money bridge competitition on BBO. I could well be wrong. But in that context it was in this thread, at
http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=159725

[jikl]

MBC = Main Bridge Club

Sean

[1eyedjack]

jikl, on Nov 27 2006, 11:38 PM, said:

MBC = Main Bridge Club

Sean

Oh ja - obvious now you mention it.

[barmar]

FYI, the abbreviation you were probably confusing it with is MBT, which is Money Bridge Tournament. The other type of money bridge on BBO is the one-on-one Money Bridge games, but I don't think there's a TLA for this.

[PaulSK]

fred, on Nov 11 2006, 11:33 AM, said:

Since it was largely aggressive lobbying by me that led to our recent change in ACBL policy (which I should note should be seen as an "experiment" and which, as Uday notes, is likely to soon change to allow some people to kibitz), I would like to add some comments.

It's time. Hawaii has been over for 2 weeks now and you can turn your attention back to serious matters, such as Kibitzing at Tournaments. I can offer some suggestions.

1. The 10-minute delay might solve some problems. But your programming staff might walk out in a huff over this.

2. Perhaps a "Trusted Kibitzer" category could be established.

3. Kibitzing a player could be allowed subject to these restrictions:
A. The player kibitzed must give consent.
B. The player and kibitzer must be established as mutual 'friends'.
C. The kibitzer is limited to watching that one player and seeing only what he sees. (That is along the lines of the usual f2f ethic of kibitzing -- you're supposed to watch one hand.)

[One little query -- is there a comprehensive dictionary of 'online-bridge-ese'? It took me some time to figure out that f2f was an abbreviation for 'face-to-face' bridge.]

[Posleda]

The_Hog, on Nov 12 2006, 11:31 AM, said:

Incidentally this will be an highly unpopular opinion, but I would not worry about cheaters on BBO at all. If someone is so pathetic a human being that they resort to cheating in order to bolster their ego, then let them. After all as Nick points out, there are no sheep stations at stake here.

Unfortunately I suspect that those putting pressure on BBO are just as concerned with their egos and are taking a somewhat self righteous attitude. "I am better than you; if the only way you can beat me is by cheating than I will ensure that that avenue is closed so that I can prove my superiority legitmately."

I am not able to write it better.

[Posleda]

mink, on Nov 11 2006, 07:08 PM, said:

But I guess that banning kibs at some tourneys will hardly decrease the overall amount of cheating, as the cheaters simply play in other tourneys.

I am sure that the BBO abuse team does a good job identifying the cheaters simply by their way of play and the fact that some other account was logged in from the same IP address. This is the way the problem should be handled, rather than banning lots of innocent kibs just to keep a few cheaters out.

Karl

I am not able to write it better.

[inquiry]

1eyedjack, on Nov 27 2006, 11:31 AM, said:

Interested by the claims that cheating occurs at the money bridge tables. I recall when the money bridge tables were first introduced by BBO that they were advertised as being "cheat proof". I am not familiar with that side of BBO, but just thought it interesting that we now apparently see cheating in a supposedly cheat-proof environment.

There are no kibitzers at money bridge tables, as part of making it cheat proof.... That was the point.