[barmar]

FTF money bridge tournaments have Tournament Directors, and one of their duties is to monitor for cheating.

MBT is totally automated, and available 24x7, giving potential cheaters enormous opportunities to scam players. They can spread their games around the clock, so that they play against different opponents -- this will make it harder for any of them to notice the pattern and report them.

[hantveit]

TimG, on Mar 12 2008, 09:40 AM, said:

uday, on Mar 12 2008, 08:37 AM, said:

I don't know if a duplicate-gib tourney would be a test of skill vs a test of something else, but i think it rates to be as interesting than the current style of bot tourney (which uses different hands at each table, and total point scoring )

U

Wow, I just assumed everyone was playing the same deals...I guess this explains some of those crazy results.

Excatly. Everyone I have asked seem to believe that the tourneys are including the same cards. Note that BBO are not writing on the tourney that the same cards are not played. It would be easy to inform about this, but they choose not too.

I am sure they have covered they back by posting it on their website - some where...

Anyway, I have asked a lot of players and they all say that we play the same cards. It is so obvious that everyone seems to believe so...

BBO should clearly state that the same cards are not played. (when you click on the tourney to join)

And even better, they should make a tourney that includes the same cards and let the players choose.

I will bet that the majority of the players will choose to play the tourney including the same cards.

Customer focus bbo?

[hantveit]

barmar, on Mar 16 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

hantveit, on Mar 14 2008, 08:28 AM, said:

Yes, the problem when we are playing different cards, is that you can get a minus result after playing a perfect tourney. It is not fair that the cards should decide whom of the players has the higest chance of winning.

In fact, I do not know of any tournament in the world elsewhere, where the players in a tournament dos not play the same cards...

While the problem you describe can happen in any particular tourney, luck should cancel out in the long run (half the time the bots will get the slam hands, the other half you'll get them), and your skill should take over.

Don't think of MBT/RR as being like duplicate bridge. They're more like rubber bridge. A good player might lose a particular rubber because his opponents got the good cards, but after a few dozen rubbers I think the winnings would be closely correlated to player skill. And the same thing is true in MBT/RR -- you just have to play frequently (no, Fred is not paying me to say this ).

I have played a lot of them. And there is much more luck involved than you think there is. Especially when it comes to winning...

But again, BBO can publish both duplicate and the one they have now. Should be pretty easy...

[hantveit]

barmar, on Mar 23 2008, 11:38 AM, said:

FTF money bridge tournaments have Tournament Directors, and one of their duties is to monitor for cheating.

MBT is totally automated, and available 24x7, giving potential cheaters enormous opportunities to scam players. They can spread their games around the clock, so that they play against different opponents -- this will make it harder for any of them to notice the pattern and report them.

It is impossible to monitor because you can communicate through MSN and other communication ways. This enables you to take the finesse the right way every time. And take it the wrong way when it is only an overtrick.

I will bet you that no director is monitoring the players in detail over time, so this is in practice impossible to discover. (Unless you are too gready and play like you have open cards every hand, but even this requires that the different directors are monitoring you over several different tourneys)

And by the way, only extremely few players bother to do this. Probably only non-skilled players anyway, so I cannot see that this will occur as a hugh problem.

[hantveit]

Rain, on Mar 19 2008, 01:21 AM, said:

I think it's possible to lock out collusion if there's a timer for every play (not board). 20 seconds per bid to start, then 5 seconds for each bid.
20 seconds per play to start, then 5 seconds for each play decision? Of course some people may be annoyed, some decisions take longer, but that's the only time allowed, so all boards change at the same time. Nobody has more time than the next, so nobody has more information during the course of tourney.

Whether each GIB does the same thing....can probably set it at a setting where there's a high chance of making identical decisions at every table.

Players who are used to more time at different decisions may get annoyed initially. But ultimately it is fair because everyone gets the same time allowance?

-----------------
When I saw this thread, I was thinking more of something I really like, and I've mentioned it to a few people. Sorry to hijack, but too lazy to form my own thread.

I want team tourneys ! Official ones.

Even if it's not 1 team against the next. I mean, MBT in team format, you know? Combined scores count, eliminate the lowest score, this kind of thing. Gives us something(someone) apart from GIB to cuss at.

Yes, you can put on time limits, but do you really think that the problem with cheating is so hugh that bbo should bother to do this?

[hantveit]

TylerE, on Mar 19 2008, 12:22 PM, said:

Ewwwwwwwwww. I would absolutely refuse to play in such an event. That's not bridge, or anything even close to it. If you want a game that doesn't give proper thinking time, play blitz chess or something.

Yes, tought time limits can ruin the game.

[barmar]

hantveit, on Mar 23 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Note that BBO are not writing on the tourney that the same cards are not played. It would be easy to inform about this, but they choose not too.

Click on "Tournament Rules", and it's on the second page of the rules:

Quote

2) RRTs are not duplicate tournaments.  Since players do not play the same hands as each other, it is impossible for players at different tables to collude with one another.

[hantveit]

barmar, on Mar 24 2008, 03:46 PM, said:

hantveit, on Mar 23 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Note that BBO are not writing on the tourney that the same cards are not played. It would be easy to inform about this, but they choose not too.

Click on "Tournament Rules", and it's on the second page of the rules:

Quote

2) RRTs are not duplicate tournaments.  Since players do not play the same hands as each other, it is impossible for players at different tables to collude with one another.

Excatly my point... second page on the tournaments rules...

Why not post it on the page that everyone reads; the page where you enter the tournament? It is a loooot of free place there, and this is critical information that you want as many as possible to read...

[hantveit]

barmar, on Mar 24 2008, 03:46 PM, said:

hantveit, on Mar 23 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Note that BBO are not writing on the tourney that the same cards are not played. It would be easy to inform about this, but they choose not too.

Click on "Tournament Rules", and it's on the second page of the rules:

Quote

2) RRTs are not duplicate tournaments.  Since players do not play the same hands as each other, it is impossible for players at different tables to collude with one another.

It is very easy for the players to communicate through msn, phone and so on. So the argument about that two players might help each other out to win will be applicable here..

[hrothgar]

hantveit, on Mar 25 2008, 05:30 PM, said:

barmar, on Mar 24 2008, 03:46 PM, said:

hantveit, on Mar 23 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Note that BBO are not writing on the tourney that the same cards are not played. It would be easy to inform about this, but they choose not too.

Click on "Tournament Rules", and it's on the second page of the rules:

Quote

2) RRTs are not duplicate tournaments.  Since players do not play the same hands as each other, it is impossible for players at different tables to collude with one another.

It is very easy for the players to communicate through msn, phone and so on. So the argument about that two players might help each other out to win will be applicable here..

You are completely clueless. I don't know if this is related to English as a fourth language, systemic abuse of chemicals, or just really really bad luck in the genetic lottery.

Regardless, you do not understand even the most rudementary elements about how this system is structured, nor do you show any interest in learning.

Instead, you simple prattle on with random delusional comments.

Why do you bother to post?

More formally, the reason that the RRTs use random boards without duplication is to stop people from acruing any advantage from using MSN or the phone system...

[jtfanclub]

hantveit, on Mar 23 2008, 11:55 AM, said:

Yes, you can put on time limits, but do you really think that the problem with cheating is so hugh that bbo should bother to do this?

When it involves money and the Internet?

Um, yeah.

Keep in mind that a few people have been caught cheating (and a number of others we know but cannot prove) in Bridge Addicts. This is unimaginably stupid. You don't get money, Masterpoints, club rankings, or anything else for winning a game like this one...it's just a social game. We don't even keep records.

If they're going to cheat with nothing on the line....

[hantveit]

jtfanclub, on Mar 25 2008, 10:50 AM, said:

hantveit, on Mar 23 2008, 11:55 AM, said:

Yes, you can put on time limits, but do you really think that the problem with cheating is so hugh that bbo should bother to do this?

When it involves money and the Internet?

Um, yeah.

Keep in mind that a few people have been caught cheating (and a number of others we know but cannot prove) in Bridge Addicts. This is unimaginably stupid. You don't get money, Masterpoints, club rankings, or anything else for winning a game like this one...it's just a social game. We don't even keep records.

If they're going to cheat with nothing on the line....

Yes, some will always try to cheat.

But the point is that BBO offers, through different clubs, tournaments that includes money and they play the same cards.

So it is not an argument against making the same tourney with only gib's involved and one human per table.

[jtfanclub]

hantveit, on Mar 25 2008, 12:03 PM, said:

But the point is that BBO offers, through different clubs, tournaments that includes money and they play the same cards.

But the clubs catch cheaters. They have human opponents who notice oddities. Some clubs have volunteers who actually check unusual results for suspicious bidding or play and then the directors watch them.

In addition, a club doesn't have to accuse somebody of cheating to keep them out. The next time the cheater tries to join, they're not allowed to. When they ask why, they are not given a reason. Since clubs are 'at will', they can kick you out because they don't like you.

In contrast, GIB has no human overhead, and the only reason why somebody would be locked out is if they were accused of cheating. So with GIB games it's much tougher to catch cheaters and causes more problems when they do catch them.

[hantveit]

jtfanclub, on Mar 25 2008, 12:33 PM, said:

hantveit, on Mar 25 2008, 12:03 PM, said:

But the point is that BBO offers, through different clubs, tournaments that includes money and they play the same cards.

But the clubs catch cheaters. They have human opponents who notice oddities. Some clubs have volunteers who actually check unusual results for suspicious bidding or play and then the directors watch them.

In addition, a club doesn't have to accuse somebody of cheating to keep them out. The next time the cheater tries to join, they're not allowed to. When they ask why, they are not given a reason. Since clubs are 'at will', they can kick you out because they don't like you.

In contrast, GIB has no human overhead, and the only reason why somebody would be locked out is if they were accused of cheating. So with GIB games it's much tougher to catch cheaters and causes more problems when they do catch them.

Fantastic, this reminds me of the refugee camps usa have...

Noone should be locked out before they are convicted. Too look out someone just because you are suspicious is very bad.

It is important that the clubs, managers and tournament directors play accordingly to the rules of the society.

The persons should also be allowed to defend themselves.

Nobody will gain from a system that locks out a persons based on a "feeling".

[jtfanclub]

hantveit, on Mar 31 2008, 10:06 AM, said:

Fantastic, this reminds me of the refugee camps usa have...

Noone should be locked out before they are convicted. Too look out someone just because you are suspicious is very bad.

Yeah, because being locked out of a bridge club is so much like being in a refugee camp...

My short answer is, too bad. Don't like it? Don't play them. My slightly longer answer is, if the pay games didn't lock out people who were suspected of cheating, the only people playing them pretty soon would be cheaters with the occassional sucker thrown in. It's easy to show mathematically if somebody is a likely cheater. It is next to impossible to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, even if (for example) both members of the partnership come from the same IP address.

[hantveit]

It is fun to re-read all the comments I got on my suggestion on the new tournament form, when we all know how popular the new tournament form has becommed.

Strangely, I have not received even a thanks from BBO.

Many years ago I also suggested (through email) that they should create a function "follow that player in the whole tournament". They made that too, and I heard the same; nothing.

I hope they at least appreciate the input...

[gwnn]

How do you know you are the only one to come up with the idea?

[Rain]

Good memory Hantveit. I think dups and a few other features were planned before you said anything, but you were definitely on the same wavelength as Fred. See if you can predict what's coming in 2012

[babalu1997]

hantveit, on 2012-January-08, 02:57, said:

It is fun to re-read all the comments I got on my suggestion on the new tournament form, when we all know how popular the new tournament form has becommed.

Strangely, I have not received even a thanks from BBO.

Many years ago I also suggested (through email) that they should create a function "follow that player in the whole tournament". They made that too, and I heard the same; nothing.

I hope they at least appreciate the input...

Next time, before issuing a sugestion, demand CASH ON DELIVERY.

that way the burden sgifts to you to thank bbo.

[barmar]

babalu1997, on 2012-January-09, 12:05, said:

Next time, before issuing a sugestion, demand CASH ON DELIVERY.

that way the burden sgifts to you to thank bbo.

Register your ideas with the Patent Office first