[PaulSK]

First, many thanks to all the members who responded to my post. I am impressed with both the quantity and quality of the responses -- all were considered and thoughtful. Here is my riposte, er.. I mean re-post.

To Nickf, who was first to respond, perhaps because being in Australia, he was the only one awake at the time -- what are "Sheep stations"? Are these very expensive or are they very cheap?

But mostly to Fred: Thank you for your extended discussion of the circumstances leading up to this decision. That was exactly what I was requesting. About some of your points (and some made by others):

1. It is certainly true that if someone is found out, he could always rejoin under another name. He could also change his email address and other information, but if he wants the masterpoints, how does he change his ACBL number? If you simply advise him that no further masterpoints will be awarded by BBO to ACBL number 1234567, one incentive is gone.

2. An attempt to stop kibitzing by 'enemies' of some sort is subject to the same problem - it is possible to reregister under another name. But how about turning that around? Since I know I am not one of the cheaters, I would not object to a rule that requires me to ask permission to kibitz tournaments, and having been granted it, may only kibitz those I have listed as friends. So if those friends start making brilliant plays (believe me, that is not likely) you won't have far to look for the 'wire'. This would take some coding, I am sure, but (see next)

3. I offer this 'contract': For my part, I will recognize this takes time to figure out, and I won't pester BBO about this. For your part, you won't put it on the back burner. [You have my permission to skip town this month for the Hawaii Nationals.]

4. You are absolutely right about the 'collusion' issue. I have always wondered, when cheating scandals arose, how one bridge player managed to get another to cheat with him. I believe Reese mentioned this issue in his book about the 1965 affair, but I am away from home and don't have access to it. (Maybe Truscott said it.)

A personal note about the R-S affair. In 1964 the World Olympiad was in NY and I watched R-S play. I sat right behind Reese. DAMN! IF I ONLY KNEW!

[fred]

PaulSK, on Nov 12 2006, 12:40 AM, said:

A personal note about the R-S affair. In 1964 the World Olympiad was in NY and I watched R-S play. I sat right behind Reese. DAMN! IF I ONLY KNEW!

I met Reese exactly once. He was kibitzing at a table I was playing at during the MacAllan Initvitational in London about 10 years ago. One of my opponents at the time was Boris Shapiro. That was an eerie moment.

At the time Reese seemed like the oldest man I had ever met. I told him I really enjoyed his books. I don't think he heard me. Reese died about 1 week later.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[dogsbreath]

Hi ..

Fred .. are you claiming some part in Reese's demise?

rgds Dog

[nickf]

PaulSK, on Nov 12 2006, 10:40 AM, said:

<snip>

what are "Sheep stations"?  Are these very expensive or are they very cheap? 

</snip>

refer Sheep Stations

nickf
sydney

[the hog]

Quote from PaulSK
"A personal note about the R-S affair. In 1964 the World Olympiad was in NY and I watched R-S play. I sat right behind Reese. DAMN! IF I ONLY KNEW! "

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

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."

[mike777]

OF course I care about cheating if I am paying money to play in tourneys. Good Grief!

I have no interest to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars to play in tourneys where cheating is thought to be rampant or not cared about.

[the hog]

So Mike, are you saying for you that the game is not that important, it is important that you win?

[pbleighton]

"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."

I agree with this 100%.

Peter

[barmar]

Even if you're just playing for fun, most people prefer the game to be fair. It doesn't matter what the stakes are. If you were playing Monopoly with your friends, how would you feel if you discovered one of them was sneaking extra houses onto his properties when no one was looking?

[keylime]

I applaud BBO in not only directly stating that cheating is a problem in the ACBL games, but more importantly, that they wish to reduce it markedly.

The major reason why I wrote my article in concern of online bridge in May 2006's edition of the Bulletin, was my fear that cheating was a significant problem in need of a creative solution. I have privately been disquieted over the fact that I felt that I as a halfway decent player could not consistently compete in the ACBL simple due to this overwhelming anxiety I held about whether or not I was going to have an equal playing ground - this is why I have not played with any regularity for almost 18 months now.

Hearing this development might bring me back to the table, and I think everyone wins when players come back to the tables knowing things are being addressed as constructively and carefully as Fred has stated. I sincerely hope that the ACBL crowd realizes the shame that would befell them if they were found and convicted of collusion/cheating, etc. et al - these things being public knowledge is quite damning, but an unfortunate part of bridge (anything disciplinary is embarassing). My hopes are admittedly raised that this is a first step in jettisoning the negative stigma and perception about tournament online bridge.

I agree with Richard (been a theme lately, interesting) about the concept of a delay; I vote for a 1 round delay.

[bid_em_up]

keylime, on Nov 12 2006, 11:28 PM, said:

I have privately been disquieted over the fact that I felt that I as a halfway decent player could not consistently compete in the ACBL simple due to this overwhelming anxiety I held about whether or not I was going to have an equal playing ground - this is why I have not played with any regularity for almost 18 months now.

I would not place cheating/collusion high on my list of things that I would worry about if regarding where I placed in an ACBL tourny. Why?

12 board tournies are crapshoots. With each board totalling to a little more than 8% of your total score, it only takes three or four excellent boards and average on the rest will "usually" create a decent result. Knowing this, I have found it is not unusual to find pairs with the "play for top" mentality on every board. By this, I dont mean making the best plays, necessarily. It is the mentality of doubling contracts that have no reason to be doubled, or bidding slams that shouldnt be bid just in case it makes. They are "shooting" for tops on every board, and especially in later rounds. While these types of tactics can (and do) work in shorter tourneys, over time it is much less successful. I would like to see longer tournies to balance this randomness out, but I realize it is unlikely for this to occur. I also dont consider this to be "bridge", and you probably dont either, which makes it difficult to do well in this type of tourny.

I haven't played in many of the ACBL tournies on BBO. I do not know if they are run as four 3-board rounds, or six 2-board rounds. If it's the former, and you draw (much) weaker opponents the first round, you are better placed than the pairs that draw compentent opponents in the first round. In most cases, you can easily gain almost a full board (or more) on the field, just via this stroke of luck alone.

OTOH, if you draw competent opponents who manage to bid their games/slams the first round, or defend properly, you can be headed for just another average game (or even worse), though you did absolutely nothing wrong.

The randomness of an unlevel playing field can be quite frustrating. Personally, I played in a 9 board IMP tourny the other day scoring 36.62 imps in the 9 bds. Thats an average of slightly over 4 imps per board. Did it win? No. In 9 bds, this was good enough for 4th. First place had 76 imps in the 9 bds. My first thought? Impossible!! They must be "cheating". However, a quick review of the boards found the pair had done nothing unusual, only that they had been extremely lucky. Their opponents would double them in part-scores that make (and shouldnt even be doubled), or their opps would take extremely unprofitable sacrifices, etc.

[pigpenz]

bid_em_up, on Nov 13 2006, 02:18 PM, said:

keylime, on Nov 12 2006, 11:28 PM, said:

I have privately been disquieted over the fact that I felt that I as a halfway decent player could not consistently compete in the ACBL simple due to this overwhelming anxiety I held about whether or not I was going to have an equal playing ground - this is why I have not played with any regularity for almost 18 months now.

I would not place cheating/collusion high on my list of things that I would worry about if regarding where I placed in an ACBL tourny. Why?

12 board tournies are crapshooots. With each board totalling to a little more than 8% of your total score, it only takes three or four excellent boards and average on the rest will "usually" create a decent result. Knowing this, I have found it is not unusual to find pairs with the "play for top" mentality on every board. By this, I dont mean making the best plays, necessarily. It is the mentality of doubling contracts that have no reason to be doubled, or bidding slams that shouldnt be bid just in case it makes. They are "shooting" for tops on every board, and especially in later rounds. While these types of tactics can (and do) work in shorter tourneys, over time it is much less successful. I would like to see longer tournies to balance this randomness out, but I realize it is unlikely for this to occur. I also dont consider this to be "bridge", and you probably dont either, which makes it difficult to do well in this type of tourny.

I haven't played in many of the ACBL tournies on BBO. I do not know if they are run as four 3-board rounds, or six 2-board rounds. If it's the former, and you draw (much) weaker opponents the first round, you are better placed than the pairs that draw compentent opponents in the first round. In most cases, you can easily gain almost a full board (or more) on the field, just via this stroke of luck alone.

OTOH, if you draw competent opponents who manage to bid their games/slams the first round, or defend properly, you can be headed for just another average game (or even worse), though you did absolutely nothing wrong.

The randomness of an unlevel playing field can be quite frustrating. Personally, I played in a 9 board IMP tourny the other day scoring 36.62 imps in the 9 bds. Thats an average of slightly over 4 imps per board. Did it win? No. In 9 bds, this was good enough for 4th. First place had 76 imps in the 9 bds. My first thought? Impossible!! They must be "cheating". However, a quick review of the boards found the pair had done nothing unusual, only that they had been extremely lucky. Their opponents would double them in part-scores that make (and shouldnt even be doubled), or their opps would take extremely unprofitable sacrifices, etc.

what i like to do is cull out boards from tourneys using bridgebrowser and see all the bids made on a board and what the results are for such boards....alot easier to do with bridgebrowser than to open each hand with myhands from bbo.

Its alot easier to see what affects bidding has on the final contract and defense. Yes I agree with you that the shortness of the matches tends to bring into effect very aggressive bidding like using DONT over NT opening on 4-4 hands, not good bridge but effective in these short matches.

so to me the shortness of the matches begs for the question do you want to win the event or just play real bridge??? Your choice!

along time ago I asked Gweny; How about there being a full 26 board game?
the people who play in the ACBL games play almost in all of them so its a matter of them wanting to play in a real game or just going for the points...being that you can win twice as much in 2 short 12 board events as opposed to one 26board event

[mike777]

6x2 board tourneys do seem be the standard online tourney. From what I understand this is where the demand is. 90 minutes seems to fit many online players schedule.

Keep in mind I would bet those that pay and play online ACBL games play much more online bridge than face to face bridge. In fact I would bet many play almost zero face to face bridge.

I am not sure why people think those of us who pay would not mine rampant cheaters or the perception of such.

I am sure as technology accelerates at an ever increasing pace more types of tourneys will come online. As I mentioned before I expect to be playing holograph bridge in my family room before 2020 on bbo.

[keylime]

Chuck,

That is the secondary reason why my ACBL games have been few and far between - the 12 board format where you can earn 1.20 mps is not only disadvantageous to live players, but it is exactly as you espouse - a crapshoot.

The best I ever did at ACBL game at IMPs...if memory serves, I had one or two 80+ imp games in the 2AM ET game.

[mike777]

I really appreciate hearing back from bridge players, esp f2f bridge players, on their experience in the ACBL online games. I hope more will post.

While I also dislike playing in the imp pairs games I do when that is all that is offered. As for the MP games I find my poor results are very much the result of my poor bridge not the opp jerking me around.

Any other comments?

[keylime]

My experience with ACBL games has been very uneven; I've had some of the worse rulings I've ever dealt with offered, yet I have had at times very good success.

I think the IMP pairs at times becomes a lot like Swiss Teams, and MPs a lot like BAM, in terms of perspective...

[barmar]

mike777, on Nov 13 2006, 06:37 PM, said:

6x2 board tourneys do seem be the standard online tourney. From what I understand this is where the demand is. 90 minutes seems to fit many online players schedule.

Once upon a time OKBridge's tourneys were all 26 boards, but they were not very well attended. Then they added 12-board "mini" tourneys to the schedule. For a while they ran both full and minis, but the minis got far more participation.

Eventually they did away with the long tourneys. In their place they paired up the minis. All pairs that played in both minis of a "combo" had their scores combined, and they are all then ranked in a secondary contest (this is kind of analogous to the "continuous pairs" events at ACBL regional and national tournaments).

[pigpenz]

well eventually as we get things worked out i think the time is coming when there will be an online sectional And hopefully that is what Fred is shooting for!

[mike777]

As I mentioned before, the ACBL is hoping to offer sectionals online in 12 months.
I have not been able to get any details of what the problems or worries are.

My guess that two of them are cheating and hurting attendance at f2f games.

[bid_em_up]

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.