[hrothgar]

>I am not sure how the practice of scoring pairs events by IMP ever got started
>since IMP scoring was originally devised for team events. MP scoring seems to
>be a better way of scoring pairs events and IMP for team events.

Matchpoint, IMP, and BAM scoring differ significantly from one another. Consequently, people employ different strategies for each of these scoring methods. I suspect that IMP pairs events originally arose because some players wanted a pairs format that rewarded successfully employing a teams type strategy.

I think that the widespread popularity of IMPs pairs events is related to the relatively high role that luck plays in these types of events. As I understand matters, there is a relative consensus that BAM events are the purest test of skill while IMP pairs involve the most luck. In the New York area, BAM events almost disappeared from the schedule because the same small number of teams dominated the standings year in and year out.

There are a number of par events where scores are assigned based on some kind of external standard. Historically, the par has been determined by taking hand records from old tournaments. In theory, par could be determined using a set of computers. Of course, the problem with par scoring is that relatively few people are ever happy with the external standard. Case in point: Bidding methods have changed dramatically over time. Its questionable whether a set of hand records from the 1982 Blue Ribbons Pairs is necessarily a valid par for a contest that takes place in 2007. In a similar vein, if you want to use a pair of GIBs to determine the pair, you need to be damn sure that the GIBs are going to behave sanely on a given hand. Much as I might slander the Main Bridge Club, I have more faith in it than I do in GIB.

There is a good writeup regarding the relative benefits of different types of cross IMP scoring at http://www.blakjak.d...o.uk/butler.htm

[jikl]

Can we all just admit this is a troll-fest and we are all being sucked in?

He has said last post many time already but re-ignites the fire when it is getting low. Let him speak to himself for a while. Then this thread with the crap in it will end.

Sean

[glen]

So you are claiming that a writer of poker software might be bluffing?

[jikl]

Not exactly, I am claiming he is a %*^%^&$&^.

Sean

[fred]

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

Quote

QUOTE 
12.  I think you will not because you cannot.

Bad choice of words, I should have said: I think you will not because you are probably not allowed to.

As Wayne correctly stated later in the post that I quoted, he and I have indeed enjoyed a long, cordial, and constructive e-mail relationship over the years. Most of these e-mail exchanges began with Wayne offering me a suggestion as to how we might improve our software or service. Some of the time I have agreed with him and some of his suggestions are now part of BBO. In cases where I have disagreed with Wayne's suggestions, I explained my reasoning and he was willing to accept my judgment even when I was unable to convince him that I was right.

For the record, Wayne always struck me as being a really good guy (and he is definitely a smart guy) so it disturbed me to see what at first appeared to be a lot of other good guys ganging up on him in this thread.

That being said, I was not planning on getting involved, but I am doing so now for 2 reasons:

1) Wayne's references to me in his most recent post suggested that he was going to e-mail me to find out what I thought about all of this. I thought that if I was going to express my opinions, it was likely that other people would want to know as well.

2) Wayne's statement that I quoted above struck a nerve.

I will address reason 2) first. This bothered me because I thought it was a not very subtle suggestion that Inquiry (and by extension the other yellows) was on some kind of leash controlled by BBO management.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We give new yellows a few simple guidelines about what constitutes appropriate behavior by a yellow. These guidelines are actually so simple and obvious that there is probably no need to state them - things like "don't initiate chat with an invisible person unless you have a very good reason for doing so".

The reason we do not feel the need to dictate policy to yellows is because we are very careful in selecting new yellows. We only allow people to become yellows if we are completely confident in their judgment and integrity. In short, we will not allow a person to become a yellow if we are worried that we will have to babysit them.

This policy has worked well for us. There have been very few cases in which we have had to tell a yellow "please do not do that in the future", almost all of these cases have been very minor in nature, and in almost all cases the yellow in question has never repeated the questionable behavior that he/she was asked to stop.

Another reason this policy works is because I believe that the yellows appreciate the respect we have for their judgment and that this makes it easier for them to do their jobs and to make the many difficult decisions they face with confidence.

The yellows we have are a remarkable group of people and I am normally hesitant to single out any particular yellow for going above and beyond the call of duty. However, if any yellow deserves to be singled out in this way it is Inquiry. Forums regulars already know about the massive number of helpful posts that Inquiry makes, but you probably do not know that much about what Inquiry does "behind the scenes". Although other yellows (including me) sometimes get involved in cheating investigations, Inquiry spends far more time helping to keep BBO clean than anyone.

In this capacity Inquiry has pioneered techniques for detecting cheating, spends countless hours compiling and analyzing hands that suggest that a suspected cheater is actually cheating (or just as important is not cheating), and consistently exhibits incredible judgment and integrity. Even if I was willing to get involved in telling yellows what they were “allowed to do”, I would not even think of issuing orders to Inquiry as far as cheating investigations are concerned – he probably knows more about cheating in online bridge than anyone in the world. He certainly has a lot more expertise and experience in this area than I do.

I would hope that the same respect that BBO management has for our yellows would be felt by our members. That is why it bothers me when people suggest that the yellows are nothing more than people who follow the orders of Uday and me. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the very suggestion involves a contradiction – any yellow who needs to be told what he is allowed to do either would not have been made a yellow in the first place or would not have remained a yellow for long.

As for Wayne’s suggestions as to how we might reduce cheating (by allowing the dummy to see only his partner’s hand for example), it is hard to disagree with him that these measures could only make incidents of cheating fewer and further between.

However, I do not think that this implies that we should implement these suggestions. As I have said before, our general policy is to not remove functionality in an (ultimately futile) attempt to reduce cheating if we believe that such functionality will significantly and adversely impact that BBO experience for people who do not cheat.

My opinion is that allowing dummy to see only declarer’s hand will do just that. It will make being dummy a lot less enjoyable for a lot of our members. Allowing kibitzers to see only one hand will have the same effect. Blocking kibitzers who come from the same IP address as any of the players will not be fair to the honest people who do this and would not be effective for a variety of reasons.

BBO members who are concerned about such forms of cheating already have plenty of options (playing only with trusted friends, playing only at tables or tournaments in which kibitzing is not allowed, playing in games with GIBs). If they don’t like any of these options, all I can suggest is that they accept the fact that they might get cheated on occasion, don’t let this ruin their day, and report suspicious behavior to our abuse department. The bottom line is that, as long as players know who their partners are, cheating will always be a part of online bridge and preventing people from knowing who their partners are would ruin the game for almost everyone. Of course we will continue to try to get rid of people who cheat and to include features in the software to help people avoid the cheaters, but we are not going to try to win this unwinnable battle by implementing features and policies that will make BBO less enjoyable for our honest members.

No doubt some of you are thinking “your ACBL policies contradict what you just said”. That is true, but there is a difference: we have a responsibility to the ACBL to do whatever we can to prevent cheating in the games in which ACBL masterpoints are at stake. It is necessary that this responsibility takes priority over the enjoyment of our members because ignoring this responsibility will mean the end of ACBL games on BBO.

My main impressions from reading this thread have been:

1) That my friend Wayne was perhaps too sensitive to the criticism that his suggestions received
2) That at least some of this was justified as the tone of some of this criticism was not exactly nice and because I did get a sense that people were “ganging up” against Wayne

After a while the whole thing because a vicious circle with each post from Wayne and his critics adding fuel to the fire without really furthering the discussion. I think it is time for everyone to take a break.

I do hope that all of you will be able to get over this because, as I said near the start of this post, I know Wayne is very bright and I am sure he has the potential to be an excellent contributor to BBO forums. I personally think it would be a shame if Wayne stopped posting here. If he does continue to post, I think it would be a shame if his future posts were ignored or dismissed as a consequence of what has happened in this thread.

One more thing Wayne (and everyone): please stop this “Fred himself” stuff! Yes I have won more bridge trophies than most and yes I have been involved in writing the BBO software, but that does not make me a deity. I do not want to be treated as such. It is nice that people seem to admire me and respect my views, but I make plenty of stupid decisions (at the bridge table, in BBO design, and in some of the things I have written in forums) just like everyone else. Please treat me like everyone else. Just because I say something, that doesn’t mean it is right.

And a message for Claus (which I have said before): I find your references to “gigolo bridge” to be deeply offensive. While I admire your study of bidding theory and your dedication to having strong agreements with your regular partners, it is time that you realize that your views in this area place you in a tiny minority of bridge players. It is highly inappropriate to suggest that anyone who does not subscribe to your views in this area (ie just about everyone) is cheating.

I also happen to think you are completely wrong, but we can save that discussion for another day. In the mean time, I am sure we will continue to disagree, but I don’t think it is a lot to ask that you show a little more respect for people whose views in this area are different from your own. Even if you are right, calling 98% (your number) of BBO members cheaters because they don’t agree with your views, really has to stop.

Thanks to all of you for helping to making BBO forums such a stimulating and dynamic place. I hope and expect we will get more of the same in 2007!

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[pigpenz]

fred, on Dec 26 2006, 09:06 PM, said:

Blocking kibitzers who come from the same IP address as any of the players will not be fair to the honest people who do this and would not be effective for a variety of reasons.

So far what has happened in the ACBL games has been great but there are times when you play against couples that auctions seem to be manipulated. Now when we report to abuse@BBO we get a confirmation about authorization that what we sent is not spam

any way that it can be set up so on the forums we can post to abuse here, maybe a fourm where we can only see what we post and it then becomes invisible except to the yellows or whatever is in charge here?

My two biggest questions have come against couples on board 12 twelve of tournies where kibbing is opened up to the general in the last round where the bidding has appeared to be manipulated. coincidence or luck.

(hand deleted by inquiry)....

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2006-December-27, 08:58

[glen]

If they were cheating on this board, it would seem to be quite the effort - hey, we have a 6-4 fit - let's pass on the opening - okay, now let's not overcall but double instead, which is takeout for us (?), and then if they give us another chance the doubler (only) will finally run to our 6-4 fit, and just maybe the opponents will double this, even though both opponents are short in our suit? Quite the planners.

I would be adding a note to the player, but it would not involve 'cheating' in any form, but just that their 'lead directional' doubles are sometimes takeout, and we should be careful to alert/self-explain our 2♦ responses to 2♣ as artificial.

Meanwhile: Who knew you could cheat at chess?

[hotShot]

pigpenz, on Dec 27 2006, 01:19 PM, said:

2.not one person pre empted which suprised me

There are people who think that a 4card (major) side suit should keep you from preempting.
Listening to the 2♣ opening of LHO, creates a "wish i had bid my preempt" feeling followed by some irrational bidding.
Did this move make them win?
I doubt that very much. This is a "last board top or flop" action to compensate bad scores made before.
I doubt that cheating is involved, i think it's inability to do better.

[csdenmark]

fred, on Dec 27 2006, 04:06 AM, said:

And a message for Claus (which I have said before): I find your references to “gigolo bridge” to be deeply offensive. While I admire your study of bidding theory and your dedication to having strong agreements with your regular partners, it is time that you realize that your views in this area place you in a tiny minority of bridge players. It is highly inappropriate to suggest that anyone who does not subscribe to your views in this area (ie just about everyone) is cheating.

I also happen to think you are completely wrong, but we can save that discussion for another day. In the mean time, I am sure we will continue to disagree, but I don’t think it is a lot to ask that you show a little more respect for people whose views in this area are different from your own. Even if you are right, calling 98% (your number) of BBO members cheaters because they don’t agree with your views, really has to stop.

Fred even I agree my expressions are far from main stream I dont think anybody is right feeling offended. I think I express common knowledge. I normally voice that in threads where somebody claim to be fooled of mis-information or missing alerts. I advocate it is no special case but only a variation of a general problem popping up very frequently. Therefore it must be dealt with using general methods. Let's call it 'the computer way'.

I think you agree to the nature of the problem as I think most interested agree to the nature of the problem. I think we disagree to the assessment of the graveness of the problem and we therefore also disagree to the cure of the problem. It is an uphill struggle and I know quite well I am a part of a small minority - no problem with that.

I mostly raise voice to:

• Controversial views on general topics
  
• Any view on controversial topics

My intensions raising my voice to the post you refer to was nothing than this simple to transform the old wisdom sentence There is little point in crossing the river looking for water

[helene_t]

csdenmark, on Dec 26 2006, 07:21 PM, said:

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.

If I understand this correctly, you're refering to pairs who bid and signal on the basis of unformalized mutual understanding rather than formalized agreements. Pairs who play symmetric relays and similar formalized methods can (and often will) provide near-100% disclosure. Pairs who use less formalized methods can't do that, in particular with respect to negative inference and mixed strategies.

We had (at the Dutch stepbrigde.nl/forum) a discussion about this problem, initiated by a case from a high-level Dutch pairs tourney in which one player (playing Ace-asks-attitude) objected to the agreement that "we play either count, attitude or suit pref depending on what we think partner is most interested in". He said that pairs playing non-formalized carding methods are not providing full disclosure.

I don't think it's fair to call this "cheating" except in the highly hypothetical case when a pair deliberatly chooses non-formalized agreements in order to lessen the disclosure obligation. It's certainly not against the rules and I don't think it's against good sportsmanship if only because 98% (your number) of all players have no alternative.

Another thing is that I don't think the problem (if it is a problem at all) is very prevalent on BBO. Most partnerships just have the agreement to play "Sayc" (who knows what that means ....) and don't have enough partnership history to have much knowledge of each other's style. So partner is equally uninformed as are opps.

[inquiry]

pigpenz, on Dec 27 2006, 06:19 AM, said:

fred, on Dec 26 2006, 09:06 PM, said:

Blocking kibitzers who come from the same IP address as any of the players will not be fair to the honest people who do this and would not be effective for a variety of reasons.

So far what has happened in the ACBL games has been great but there are times when you play against couples that auctions seem to be manipulated. Now when we report to abuse@BBO we get a confirmation about authorization that what we sent is not spam

any way that it can be set up so on the forums we can post to abuse here, maybe a fourm where we can only see what we post and it then becomes invisible except to the yellows or whatever is in charge here?

My two biggest questions have come against couples on board 12 twelve of tournies where kibbing is opened up to the general in the last round where the bidding has appeared to be manipulated. coincidence or luck.

First, I have edit your post and minor edits to some of the replies to make it difficult for people to use myhands to look this hand up in an effort to protect the identity of the people you strongly hint may be using extra information (cheating). I believe we can discuss your issue publically without all the nitty-gritty details and publically casting a cheating allegation directly at a pair of BBO players. We routinely remove such details from post (better to say "I kibitzed" or something like that even when you played the hand, so no one would try to look it up). You even gave the data and the board number, plus the contract... .that was way too specific to stay when attached to the concerns you raised.

Next, very few of the BridgeBase Online game players ever visit this website, so I suspect that having to report abuse here would not work very well. I am not sure what board 12 has to do with "couples", I mean, by definition, would couples need to wait until the table is open up for kibitzers if they were going to cheat (and would they have three computers to do so?).

Also, i find bidding with the hand in question after the double more or less acceptible. The real question is what was the double? Suggesting very good holding in the doubled suit? Takeout? Lead directing? Some two suited hand conventional? Last board swing?

I will tell you that if you send just this one hand to abuse, the odds are fairly good nothing will come of it. Abuse ask for a number of hands (more than one), although one "good one" can get action from abuse, it is important to remember that a single funny board can be anything from a misclick to a misunderstanding, to plain stupidity that worked well.

[csdenmark]

helene_t, on Dec 27 2006, 04:44 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 26 2006, 07:21 PM, said:

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.

If I understand this correctly, you're refering to pairs who bid and signal on the basis of unformalized mutual understanding rather than formalized agreements. Pairs who play symmetric relays and similar formalized methods can (and often will) provide near-100% disclosure. Pairs who use less formalized methods can't do that, in particular with respect to negative inference and mixed strategies.

We had (at the Dutch stepbrigde.nl/forum) a discussion about this problem, initiated by a case from a high-level Dutch pairs tourney in which one player (playing Ace-asks-attitude) objected to the agreement that "we play either count, attitude or suit pref depending on what we think partner is most interested in". He said that pairs playing non-formalized carding methods are not providing full disclosure.

I don't think it's fair to call this "cheating" except in the highly hypothetical case when a pair deliberatly chooses non-formalized agreements in order to lessen the disclosure obligation. It's certainly not against the rules and I don't think it's against good sportsmanship if only because 98% (your number) of all players have no alternative.

Another thing is that I don't think the problem (if it is a problem at all) is very prevalent on BBO. Most partnerships just have the agreement to play "Sayc" (who knows what that means ....) and don't have enough partnership history to have much knowledge of each other's style. So partner is equally uninformed as are opps.

Pairs who play symmetric relays and similar formalized methods can (and often will) provide near-100% disclosure
This is just perfect. If all did so the medicine would have proven right. So thats not the problem Helene.

Most partnerships just have the agreement to play "Sayc" (who knows what that means ....) and don't have enough partnership history to have much knowledge of each other's style. So partner is equally uninformed as are opps
This is a part of the problem - but no core part

If you review some of the threads about mis-information and missing alerts I think the nature will become clear to you. Or maybe take a look to a thread up right now about opening multi 2♦. Also an example which will likely cause problems to as it looks like not only opps. but the players themselves as well.

I don't think it's fair to call this "cheating" except in the highly hypothetical case when a pair deliberatly chooses non-formalized agreements in order to lessen the disclosure obligation. It's certainly not against the rules and I don't think it's against good sportsmanship if only because 98% (your number) of all players have no alternative.
Regarding rules it is 40a and 75. The rules Richard are much better at than I am. You can find several threads dealing with these problems. I think it is against good sportmanship for 2 reasons:

• Lazyness - you dont pay attention to the event and time and effort of your opponents
  
• You use arbitrarian tools paying little attention to partner and opposition

-----------
Please note when I state 98% it means nearly everybody and not only online bridge. The problem is based in ignoring the problem in club level.

As discussed elsewhere the handling of the problem will be a bit easier if bridge rules would be updated to be fit for today. This means to introduce handheld devices like mobilphones and pocket-PC. At high level some kind of neurologic tools will be right - at least in the future. In that way WBF is likely to be able to gain authority online as well as they now have offline.

[pigpenz]

inquiry, on Dec 27 2006, 09:57 AM, said:

Also, i find bidding with the hand in question after the double more or less acceptible. The real question is what was the double? Suggesting very good holding in the doubled suit? Takeout? Lead directing? Some two suited hand conventional? Last board swing?

i would answer your question but then you would have to edit my response.

he said he was pretty sure we were cold for 6spades and was hoping for us to redouble so he could now bid his 6 card suit! this was his response to me at trick two Pretty clairvoyant of him to say that Do i need to send you the chat logs next???

[inquiry]

pigpenz, on Dec 27 2006, 10:33 AM, said:

inquiry, on Dec 27 2006, 09:57 AM, said:

Also, i find bidding with the hand in question after the double more or less acceptible. The real question is what was the double? Suggesting very good holding in the doubled suit? Takeout? Lead directing? Some two suited hand conventional? Last board swing?

i would answer your question but then you would have to edit my response.

he said he was pretty sure we were cold for 6spades and was hoping for us to redouble so he could now bid his 6 card suit! this was his response to me at trick two Pretty clairvoyant of him to say that Do i need to send you the chat logs next???

Anything that deals with specific BBO members that smacks of possible cheating allegations should not be posted in the public forum. So anything else I have to say (or you want to say) should be handled via email or private BBF mail.

Thanks.

[pigpenz]

inquiry, on Dec 27 2006, 10:37 AM, said:

pigpenz, on Dec 27 2006, 10:33 AM, said:

inquiry, on Dec 27 2006, 09:57 AM, said:

Also, i find bidding with the hand in question after the double more or less acceptible. The real question is what was the double? Suggesting very good holding in the doubled suit? Takeout? Lead directing? Some two suited hand conventional? Last board swing?

i would answer your question but then you would have to edit my response.

he said he was pretty sure we were cold for 6spades and was hoping for us to redouble so he could now bid his 6 card suit! this was his response to me at trick two Pretty clairvoyant of him to say that Do i need to send you the chat logs next???

Anything that deals with specific BBO members that smacks of possible cheating allegations should not be posted in the public forum. So anything else I have to say (or you want to say) should be handled via email or private BBF mail.

Thanks.

i am talking about playing real bridge Ben!!!
If there are 40 something tables playing the same hand and the auction is virtually the same on all 40 plus tables except for one individual that is a little weird.

Now in real world bridge you can get barred for capricious bidding.

I dont expect you to do anything cause I relaize most likely nothing will ever happen.

But then we are also not idiots either

[inquiry]

pigpenz, on Dec 27 2006, 10:42 AM, said:

i am talking about playing real bridge Ben!!!
If there are 40 something tables playing the same hand and the auction is virtually the same on all 40 plus tables except for one individual that is a little weird.

Now in real world bridge you can get barred for capricious bidding.

I dont expect you to do anything cause I relaize most likely nothing will ever happen.

But then we are also not idiots either

What is weird is if the bidding goes the same at nearly 40 tables, not that one table deviates.

I am uncertain of two of your quotes.. the first being "talking about playing real bridge". What I said was that "Anything that deals with specific BBO members that smacks of possible cheating allegations should not be posted in the public forum. " This refers to any posting, by you or others. BBO simply does not allow public accusations of cheating. Period. What real bridge has to do with my statement is unclear.

Your next quote was "Now in real world bridge you can get barred for capricious bidding." While this is true, I seriously doubt there would be any consequences for this pair in the "real world". They bid to a contract and made it. Lucky? Completely weird? Sound bridge? Big gamble needing a swing? Utter beginners?

As far as expecting me to do nothing, that is already clearly not true. I have edited your post, I have edited others post (very minorly) in response to yours, and I invited you, should you care, to continue the dialogue via email or BBF private messaging. So there are something syou know about. I have taken a very limited step of making your complaint here a "formal one", that is, rather or not abuse gets your email, the details of your complaint have been logged.

Finally, "but then we are also not idiots either". I am not sure who "we" are in that sentence. It seems a number of responders didn't think much of the hand you showed, so it is not the forum members who responded when they could see the "evidence." I assume this statement is meant to suggest that you are certain that the evidence of this one hand is overwelming that cheating was occuring. We never reach a conclusion on the grounds of a single hand, and we start off with the presumtion of fair play (innocent if you prefer).

[jdeegan]

I seem to be a late arrival to this thread, but I do have one observation that may be of interest to some, although I doubt it is news to the BBO management. It is:

THE EASIEST AND MOST FOOLPROOF WAY TO RECOGNIZE CHEATS IS TO CHEAT YOURSELF.

As you attempt to maneuver a competitive auction in YOUR favor, you witness your opponent distorting HIS auction in response. It can become very obvious and can be quite interesting in a droll sort of way.

Other than watching my 'friend' play these sort of games, I, personally don't have a clue who is cheating when I play normally. During the brief period when I was watching my 'friend' cheat, I got the impression that most tournament pair games have at least one pair up to no good. This bothers me not at all; it just makes the competition better which is a good thing for me as I am just trying to stay in practice for the 'real thing'.

[the hog]

jdeegan, on Dec 29 2006, 09:56 AM, said:

Other than watching my 'friend' play these sort of games, I, personally don't have a clue who is cheating when I play normally. During the brief period when I was watching my 'friend' cheat, I got the impression that most tournament pair games have at least one pair up to no good. This bothers me not at all; it just makes the competition better which is a good thing for me as I am just trying to stay in practice for the 'real thing'.

Yea verily. A Daniel come to judgement.