[hotShot]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 26 2006, 03:36 PM, said:

There seems to be a misunderstanding of how cheating can effect scores of players that are NOT at the cheater's table. An unusually high score acheived on a board due to bad bidding getting lucky or due to cheating affects every player that plays the board in the direction of the offender.

You can't get more tricks than GIB tells you, not even by cheating.
Most of the odd scores would have been impossible without massive stupidity of some players.

Most of the unusual scores are caused by bidding and playing mistakes. Pick-Up partnerships that take things for granted, lunatic doubles and truly horrible play.

People are allowed to make slams even with 2 Aces missing, because opps are unable to find the killing lead. Player manage to go down in contracts where everybody else makes an overtrick.

The possible effect of cheating on your score is barely noise compared to that.

[csdenmark]

Wayne you are constantly advocating opposition to the basic on BBO. That is 'Rules for these sites'. Please note that playing on BBO is outlined as a privilege and not a right.

Please also note the reason why people are on BBO.




Your obligation is to obey those simple rules and nothing else - if you don't accept that, then the rules ask you to leave the playground. Might be wise of you to read/re-read the complete set of the rules.

[1eyedjack]

I am probably missing something. I have probably fallen into the same error in the past (generally because I accept at face value stuff that is said without checking it). When I am dummy I cannot see the opponents' hands, and I cannot see an option to display them. I have an option to display or hide declarer's hands, but that is it.

[hrothgar]

>There seems to be a misunderstanding of how cheating can effect scores of
>players that are NOT at the cheater's table. An unusually high score acheived
>on a board due to bad bidding getting lucky or due to cheating affects every
>player that plays the board in the direction of the offender. Stopping such
>activity at ONE table does not solve the problem if the same activity occurs
>at other tables.

Here once again, you're acting as if you have some esoteric knowledge that isn't available to the rest of us. I've been playing long enough to remember the "bad old days" when scores needed to be calculated manually. I got roped into doing so far too often. I'm well aware of the mechanics behind calculating scores. The majority of the posters on these forums are serious students of the game. I think that they have similar stories to tell.

In short, we know that cheating effects all the scores.
We still don't care.

From my own perspective, I think that the scores in the Main Bridge Club are so full of noise as to be essentially meaningless. We have rank novices playing against experts. People who speak no English playing against Midwestern Xenophobes. Players who insist that 1940s Goren is Standard American inflicting god knows what on their unsuspecting partners. Then of course, there are the drunks, the folks watching TV, and the porn addicts. And, to top it all off, there's only 16 comparisons, so scores are very sensitive to a small number of weird results. In short, I don't have much faith in any of the scores. So, if there is some cheating going on, it really doesn't subtract anything from the playing experience.

I'm not saying that I don't like to do well when I play, rather that I don't use the MBC scores to evaluate performance. I try to look at boards and consider whether I think that my results would score well in a hypothetical flight A Swiss. If I made a nice end play or did something clever defending (rare that might be), I'll pat myself on the back. If I butcher another defense, I'll frown. it all makes for a much more relaxing evening.

>Perhaps it is I that is missing something ... would someone explain to me
>why seeing the opponents' hands when dummy adds so much enjoyment to the
>game.

Happy to do so as soon as you can conclusively prove that chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla.

In all seriousness, you really need to learn to lighten up.

[pigpenz]

hrothgar, on Dec 26 2006, 09:32 AM, said:

I'm not saying that I don't like to do well when I play, rather that I don't use the MBC scores to evaluate performance. I try to look at boards and consider whether I think that my results would score well in a hypothetical flight A Swiss. If I made a nice end play or did something clever defending (rare that might be), I'll pat myself on the back. If I butcher another defense, I'll frown. it all makes for a much more relaxing evening.

it has become a lost art to some, and to others they never learned it.
"The art of estimating your score"

and you are right about the results being maye meaningless to some degree. In the sixteen board comparisons in the MBC it might be a true representation say at imps to through out the top/bottom 3 and take the average from there.

at matchpoints i am not sure what would be best, maybe they could have hands from old regionals where the results are already matchpointed and assign a score from there, but again if you are playing against unknows then your results can be skewed by who you are playing against.

[Wayne_LV]

   

[bid_em_up]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 26 2006, 08:36 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Dec 26 2006, 01:34 AM, said:

I must be missing something.  How does this:

Quote

But i find it amusing that you think dummy seeing the partners hand is the most common form of cheating.

Dummy not being able to see partners hand, which I believe you have been advocating all along Wayne......equal this:

Quote

Seeing opponent's hands provides the most readily accessible form of information that can be illegally used in the play of a bridge hand.

??

If you're advocating dummy not being able to see opponents hands, well, currently each person has that option available to them. Maybe the table host should be able to set it for his table as well. I, for one, dont see a reason for that option not to be available to the table host, and would support a suggestion such as this.

If you are actually advocating that dummy not being able to see partners hand.....I think most of us are going to feel that will not accomplish much to alleviate cheating, and it would be a major deterrent to others enjoyment of the game.

I never, in any of my posts, have suggested not letting dummy see partner's hand. I have, however, said several times that not allowing dummy to see the OPPONENT'S hands would IMHO stop most of the CASUAL cheating.

This is sooo frustrating. You are quoting a misquote to make a point.

Yes, it is frustrating.

I dont know if it was a misquote or not.....

And I wasnt attempting to "make a point", but instead only trying to find out what you were actually wanting to accomplish.

And Wayne, really, please stop acting like the rest of us are so dumb that we do not understand how scores are calculated and that results at other tables affect scores as well. It tends to piss people off.

[Al_U_Card]

To adroitly misquote Johnny Bell and the Drells.....

"lighten up, you've got to lighten up"...

[csdenmark]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 26 2006, 05:17 PM, said:

Huh?

Sorry but I do not understand what you are saying I am advocating?

As far as the rules you copied and posted:

I think there have been some changes mades since these rules were written.

ACBL Masters points are now as stake in ACBL tournaments

Money is at stake in BBO money games. Wonder why money games can only be played with GiB as a partner?

And I would contend that pride has ALWAYS been at stake. Pride in trying to play the game as well as you can possibly play.
 
And what is the reference to obligation to obey the rules?

To the best of my knowledge I have not violated any rules.  Unless, of course, expressing an opinion is a violation of rules????

The problem is most people are playing on BBO for recreational purposes. They try to take advantage from tools best possible and accept with ease where there might be some problems. No restrictions to their freedom of how to behave, as long as it is accordance with ordinary good manners, to be accepted.

The part of the rules I have have uploaded are those you find on BBO today. I understand from your message that those rules are new to you!

[Wayne_LV]

   

[bid_em_up]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 26 2006, 11:30 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Dec 26 2006, 10:50 AM, said:

And Wayne, really, please stop acting like the rest of us are so dumb that we do not understand how scores are calculated and that results at other tables affect scores as well.  It tends to piss people off.

Where will it end?

I agreed with you and still pissed you off?

I realize that some of you must know how scores are derived but the comments made really don't seem to reflect that knowledge.

Wayne, really.....please read and understand. I did not say I was pissed off, I said that talking to people like they are dummies tends to piss people off. But you, evidently unknowingly, have a way with written words that you dont even notice. The only alternative to that is you are deliberately being inflammatory.

I would suspect that MOST (if not all) of us know how scores are derived. Not many of us learned this game yesterday and telling us over and over and over that "you dummies dont even understand how scores are calculated" (my generalization of your words and how they come across when read). Implying this, tends to instantly make people combative (or pissed off) towards you.

Take it for what its worth.

[hrothgar]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 26 2006, 07:30 PM, said:

Where will it end?

I agreed with you and still pissed you off?

I realize that some of you must know how scores are derived but the comments made really don't seem to reflect that knowledge.

Let me try an analogy:

Suppose that you showed up and my house, looked at some of my plants, and decided that they needed watering. So, you helpfully pulled out your Johnson and took a piss on my Christmas cactus. I'd probably get upset even though you were trying to do the right thing.

There is a big difference between what you do and how you do it.

I readily admit, I'm probably the last person to be lecturing anyone about forum etiquette. I'm an arrogant SOB and probably won't ever change. However, if you're gonna act this way, do so with a bit of style. Trying to combine "I know best" with "Martyr complex / why doesn't anyone love me" just doesn't work.

[Walddk]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 26 2006, 06:30 PM, said:

I will open myself wide open yet again, but I think there is just as much skill involved in rubber bridge and total points as the farce of duplicate bridge simulated online. Tournaments are the exception I admit.

<snip>

If I could find a few really good players that would come down off their pedestals long enough to play some real bridge, I would never play duplicate.

The man has lost his senses completely; please bear with him. I am regarded as a pretty good player, and no one has ever accused me of resting on some pedestal. Yet I can only find one (nice) word for your views:

Rubbish!

I am perfectly happy to be playing in the Main Bridge Club.

Roland

[Free]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 23 2006, 05:47 PM, said:

I get a real insight into bridge player's mentality everytime I ever post to one of these threads.

I mentioned a program to flag potential cheaters and some of you go off into how impossible such a program would be to program. Not true... all would be needed would be to periodically check the average scores for players and look for only 3 things. 1. Is the average per board > 1 IMP or MP averages > 58% (pick a number) AND 2. does the player play with the same partner over 80% (again pick a number) of the boards. If the answer to all 3 of those is yes and 3. the player has played over 1000 boards in the past month, I guarantee you that player is cheating in some fashion.

Well, lets test your hypothesis with my name:
1. IMP average is +1.10, and usually it's positive.
2. I've played a lot with "downagain", who is sometimes a f2f partner but mostly online (because we live pretty far away from each other). I'm not going to count the exact percentage
3. 174 boards in the last month. Well guess what, we both had lots of work to do, but I'm sure we could reach 1000 boards if we had enough time.

So suppose with a better time schedule, I would play 1000 boards with "downagain", would probably score +1.10 again, and I would be considered a cheater. I know for sure that I don't cheat, I guess most bridgebase forum people and online friends know (or are pretty sure) that I don't cheat, so these rules don't work. Rules for accusing people should work ALL the time, there's no room for mistake imo.

Ok, so what if we change the rules a bit?
1. IMP average +1.50? +2.0? More? Suppose we play more against GIB's. We average about 30 imps on 15 boards online against GIB's. Perhaps these robots just make assumptions on our bidding, while we give other meanings to the auction. So what, we still win too much don't we?
2. Lets say I'm practicing with a f2f partner for a big tournament and we play exclusively with each other. Whatever percentage you mention, it will not be enough...
3. take 10000 boards? Well, if you can find someone with the time to play 333 boards per day, good luck! 1000 boards already is a lot for most people, so how many cheaters will you catch anyway? All cheaters who play 999 boards a month will not be caught. So should you take a lower limit? 100? Damn then I should be (according to the rules) a cheater.

We can take even more rules into account, but there will always be a percentage of people who will be falsely accused, and you'll limit your search for potential cheaters to a very small percentage of the entire community. You can't make this process automatic because it would fail too many times, and it doesn't even work for 99% of the online players...

[csdenmark]

Wayne - the most frequent way of cheating is using undisclosed methods(Gigolo bridge). Approx. 98% of players are guilty of that - and most of them dont know and dont care.

Most salvators have a difficult life on earth - but they need to adapt.

Read 'Rules for these sites' and apply to those. Your agenda is not mine and it looks like there are few in this Forum which share your agenda.

Please dont be mistaken - the only real serious of tournaments is the word itself. A few organizers incl. table hosts have higher aspirations. We are a small minority which probably will be able to yell as long as we like. Nobody really cares and maybe all best served in that way.

[the saint]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 25 2006, 09:35 PM, said:

I KNOW there are players that have averages of over 1 IMP per board for over 1000 boards because I have seen the records for some (long before I posted to this thread).

I still think this is a extremely difficult (but not impossible) thing to do without 1 of 3 things occuring:

1. Psychic powers - maybe they really do exist?
2. Divine intervention - I would define that as anything occurring with odds greater than 1 in a million. Others may define it as extremely good luck.
3. Cheating

This is nonsense. There is an incredibly wide standard of play on BBO. Give me someone who I have some kind of understanding with as a partner and put me against 2 random pickups and I will go at +3IMPs per board in the main club - and I suggest there are a lot of reasonably practiced high-standard pairs who could easily do the same. To suggest +1IMP per board is cheating is ludicrous. Any two players on BBO are far from equal. My average may not be +1IMP per board over time however, because I don't spend my time playing in bunny bash mode but generally playing with friends and coaching juniors.

Once again, people are looking for things where they simply don't exist. If you concentrated on your own game you would see more benefits than worrying about others!

Alan

[keylime]

Agreed.

With Larry and I with our comedy of errors at the beginning, we're pegging almost +1.4 imps/board and generally for the monthly spread it's 0.56. Surely I'm not fudging.

[matmat]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 26 2006, 11:30 AM, said:

So why not? Well I tell you why I don't. It seems that after every beginning bridge player learns Stayman they think the only form of bridge worth playing is Duplicate. It is hard to get a total points game with 4 players that even play Stayman. If I could find a few really good players that would come down off their pedestals long enough to play some real bridge, I would never play duplicate.

because total points is such a fair game?
as a former poker simulator (or whatever the job title is) do you have any idea how many hands you'd have to play with the same partner against the same pair to even get a feel for relative ability? The reason duplicate is so much popular is because it is so much fairer than the rubber game (or chicago, or whatever).

And, are you insinuating that we do not play "real" bridge?

[Wayne_LV]

   

[pigpenz]

whats interesting about watching the vugraph championships is that there are so many hands where the results can be either way.....and the players just keep going on their merry way....they probably realize more than we do that it is just bridge