[candybar]

Winstonm, on Aug 7 2005, 02:40 PM, said:

I simply cannot think of anything more "lame" than to sit at a computer in your own home, playing against people you don't see, for no prize money, no prestige, no rating points, and with no cost to use the site, and feel the necessity to cheat at a game of all things.

These people don't need to be banned; they need counselling and a life. 

(Also, I am not an authority on Sociology, but I am wondering with the worldwide access created by computer bridge if there might not be some cultures where cheating is not considered as hideous of offense as it is in other cultures?)

Winston

There may be more or less emphasis on honesty in different cultures, I don't know, but I think the real underlying problem is that a certain percent of the world is sociopathic. A sociopath doesn't need any reason to cheat -- ignoring rules/laws and a total lack of morality is just their normal way of operating. They're also not curable by counseling -- banishment is the only solution.

[pbleighton]

"I simply cannot think of anything more "lame" than to sit at a computer in your own home, playing against people you don't see, for no prize money, no prestige, no rating points, and with no cost to use the site, and feel the necessity to cheat at a game of all things."

I agree. I can think of one thing which comes close, however: obsessing over online bridge cheating.

Peter

[Bonsaiman II]

Scoring: IMP

1♦ pass 6NT!! pass
pass pass

---

The hand diagram has been turned for convenience.

This board was played some time ago in an individual tournament with IMP scoring.
South took a very long time before the 6NT bid hit the screen. The play, which turned out to be equally inspired, took no time at all:

- ♣K lead by West, ducked
- ♣3 continued for the Ace in dummy, East discarding a small ♠
- ♦9 from dummy, ducked
- ♦4 to the ♦10.

The subsequent ♥ finesse (declarer couldn't be bothered with cashing ♥A first to guard against a stiff ♥Q in West) added up to 12 tricks.

I wonder ... would this be the type of boards pigpenz was referring to?

[FrancesHinden]

That board isn't partiuclarly strong evidence of cheating to me.

Certainly the play isn't: once clubs are 6-1 the play in diamonds is obvious.

I agree the bidding is fishy, but perhaps South couldn't be bothered to have a scientific auction, and knew their partner had sound opening bids.

[inquiry]

This is cute... I remember this hand, but this more proves Fred's point than pigpenz's.

This hand was played on June 11, 2005, and was late in a five round, 10 board individual tourney. From the vulnerabilty shown and the fact that you said the hand was rotated, this was probably board 7 or board 10. Someone turned declearer in on this board as a cheater. We investigated. The bidding here is a little odd, but this was an individual, where bidding is always odd. This was also a late board in a IMP event. South could easily feel like he needs a swing, and why chance a bidding misunderstand, and shoot for a swing.

Ok, so if we disregard the bidding as being "what happens in individuals" with no bidding agreement. Can we explain the play? Duck the first club seems ok, then EAST shows out on the second club. That is clubs split 6-1. Come on, who do you play for the diamond queen? Which such a split the odds greatly favor the queen being with EAST, and you can not afford to cash the ACE first incase they split four-one. So we should be able to accept the diamond finessee...

What about not playing for a singleton heart Queen before hooking the heart? Two singletons were highly unlikely in the first place, but what you failed to mention was the hand with the heart queen threw away a spade on the second club, followed to a spade when one was leaad to dummy (after taking diamond hooks), and his partenr threw away spades as well. Two issues, it was impossible now for there to be a stiff heart with WEST, and the excitement over getting diamonds right blocked the ability to cash and reenter dummy anyway.

So sorry, one hand is not enough, and this one is not really close to the one-hand proof of cheating many suspect. Also, what this hand fails to report is how the player here did on the other hands. Something BBO stafff investigating the cheating allegations DID LOOK into at the time. He/she did have some other good hands, but they were a direct result of opponents stupidity of his/her partners action without his involvement.

Ben

[Double !]

Cheating? Based on what?

My first reaction would be to type "wdo" and then to curse my bad luck for playing against an opp in an indi who could actually count and declare a hand.

DHL

[McBruce]

I agree that the strange bidding and play of one hand is not enough to prove cheating, but I think that North is also a suspect here. Partner has responded 6NT missing two aces. With both missing aces another bid is certainly more reasonable here than pass.

Exchange the A♦ and a small heart for East's two red queens. It's still a 1♦ opener, and if partner thinks he can make 6NT opposite this, surely with both aces 7NT is the optimum spot.

I would hope that both North and South were put on a list of players to watch for. Should more hands like this come in, I would consider a suspension. I'm a little concerned that inquiry is leaning so far to take the side of the jumper here. Nobody in his right mind would bid 6NT with this hand unless they saw all four hands. There is significant evidence of that here. If you decide not to bar this pair based on one hand, OK, but I hope you have at least taken the player names for future such actions. If this had happened in a f2f tournament, we wouldn't be letting it go without a player memo.

[olegru]

McBruce, on Aug 11 2005, 05:36 PM, said:

I agree that the strange bidding and play of one hand is not enough to prove cheating, but I think that North is also a suspect here.

Are you kidding?
For me "Nobody in his right mind would bid" 7NT with North hand after 6NT from the partner.

We must be much more caution with accumption some kind of bid as an unnatural; bid which absolutly unacceptable for one player could be just right for another.
I can't see anything suspition at all at Bonsaiman example.

[luke warm]

i personally don't see anything that would make me accuse anyone of cheating, especially in an indy... ben's arguments seem reasonable to me and i certainly didn't take his words to be 'leaning' especially heavily in any direction