[kenberg]

Indeed some accusations say more about the accuser than about the accused. Once, playing with a casual partner, rho opened 1NT. I had a running six card spade suit and an outside ace. I doubled, lho inquired, partner said it was for penalties. Three passes later I ran seven tricks. Rho then announced he was going to call the director because the double of a strong no trump supposedly shows 15 or more high card points and I only has 14. Lho talked him out of this director call.

Really I don't see how anyone can say "I think maybe so and so was caught cheating but maybe I don't have the names right". Sure, and I think maybe your mother .... Oh yeah, that was someone else maybe.

[wyman]

 kenberg, on 2011-February-03, 07:07, said:

"I think maybe so and so was caught cheating but maybe I don't have the names right". Sure, and I think maybe your mother .... Oh yeah, that was someone else maybe.

Saved as signature. wp sir.

[nige1]

A suggestion, I made, some years ago, on rec.games.bridge:

On-line sites can easily implement cheat-diagnostic software that randomly injects specially constructed death-trap deals that provide an early-warning system. The software would automatically record, collate, and report anomalous successful outcomes by players/pairs on such deals. A series of such results would suggest further human investigation. Example deals:

• a poor game/slam makes on slender values because key cards lie well.
• an excellent game/slam fails because key cards all lie badly
• a game/slam makes on anti-percentage plays e.g. first round finesse for the queen with ten cards.

You get the idea

If the deliberate construction of such deals smacks of entrapment, then perhaps randomly dealt hands could be sifted for suitable candidates.

Psychological advantages of this process are that

• it is more convincing than accusing opponents after they've performed annoyingly well against you.
• it actively deters cheats, if publicised.

But he main advantage is that it is automatic and objective: it can assemble a better statistical case.

[han]

Good old 2003, when people still cheated on BBO.

[nigel_k]

 Zelandakh, on 2011-February-03, 06:09, said:

Ah, accusations of cheating on BBO are always fun. A couple of days ago my partner was accused of cheating when she alerted a bid as 23+ and when her dummy came down it was 22 hcp with good honour concentration + shape. Goodness knows what this individual would have said had I psyched! If you believe someone is cheating then finish the current hand and leave the table. You should only make the accusation if you are very sure and in that case abuse@bbo.com is probably the correct forum.

As for the finger and foot-tapping incidents, the jury is still out on both. The Italians were not prosecuted for the accustaions (but dividers under the table were brought in and they were quickly dropped from international competition) while there are strong arguments, not to mention whole books, on both sides regarding Reese-Shapiro. Perhaps the most high-profile case of "cheating" in bridge in recent years came from the Norwegian League where the Hels were (loosely) involved in an incident of match fixing (fake score posted for a match that was not played). One of them was briefly suspended and missed a major event. I would also stress that no accusation of cheating at the table has been made here.

Since Helness was not involved in the Norwegian incident at all, maybe you should take your own advice and only make the accusation if you are very sure.

[ggwhiz]

I am one that plays most often with my spouse out of the same location. We view this as a privilege and DO NOT CHEAT but are accused of such from time to time.

If our ACBL ranks and tournament record were publicly available, it would be clear as a bell and would save us a lot of grief. We are entitled to our share of good results and balance that with some real stinkers. I can vouch for several pairs of the highest ethical standard in a similar situation. Has there been a rise in cheating or just unfounded allegations?

Maybe make this information available and make it mandatory to quote it in any complaints. It would save BBO staff time and perhaps cut a bunch of unfounded complaints off at the knees. None of us would mind being flagged or pre-alerting our same location status but that might just make the situation worse.

[blackshoe]

Clearly there are a bazillion cheaters out there. I know this because I sometimes do poorly at the table, and that can't possibly be my fault, or my partner's.

[nige1]

Several times, on BBO, in pick-up partnerships I (and others) have been been accused of cheating, often by "experts" or "world-class" players, embarrassed by being beaten. Some are so incensed that they leave, mid-hand.

A beneficial side-effect of "early-warning" cheat-diagnostic software is that paranoid prima-donnas may come to realise that a couple of lucky results are unlikely to be accepted as proof that their opponents are cheats.

[paulg]

 nige1, on 2011-February-04, 06:31, said:

Several times, on BBO, in pick-up partnerships I (and others) have been been accused of cheating, often by "experts" or "world-class" players, embarrassed by being beaten. Some are so incensed that they leave, mid-hand.

A beneficial side-effect of "early-warning" cheat-detection software is that paranoid prima donnas may come to realise that a couple of lucky results will not be accepted as conclusive proof that opponents are cheats.

Assigning reasonable behaviour to unreasonable people is probably the sign of an optimist.

[ArcLight]

Since I don't play in tournements I don't really have any experience with cheating with respect to the opps sharing their cards (or our cards). However, I frequently see partnerships not divulging their methods, even when asked.

I ask them:
- what lead conventions do you use? (3/5, 4th best? other?)
- what signaling do you use? Attitude? Count? What discards?

Frequently the refuse to answer. I may restate the question to both of them, telling them I haven't receive an answer and need to know before I can play. I occasionally get booted for that. I don't call them names. I do say "its required by the laws of bridge to diclose your partnership agreements". That bets me ejected :-)

So I think deliberate non-disclosure of partnership agreements is quite common. That is a form of cheating, but no where near as bad as telling pard your cards.

[barmar]

 ArcLight, on 2011-February-04, 07:35, said:

SSo I think deliberate non-disclosure of partnership agreements is quite common. That is a form of cheating, but no where near as bad as telling pard your cards.

Although it's against the rules, it's rarely what people mean when they accuse people of cheating. I'd refer to it as "not playing fair".

[the hog]

 barmar, on 2011-February-02, 22:44, said:

When Reese-Shapiro were caught cheating in the 60's, they were considered two of the greats of the game.

However, since the introduction of screens in high-level championships, I think we can be more confident that the greats are honest.

Correction! Wehn R-S were accused, found guilty AND LATER EXONERATED......

[mike777]

 the hog, on 2011-February-05, 00:33, said:

Correction! Wehn R-S were accused, found guilty AND LATER EXONERATED......

m\no

[the hog]

 mike777, on 2011-February-05, 01:52, said:

m\no

Yes they were. The British Federation held an inquiry and found the charges unproven. Please do not attempt to revise history.

[Fluffy]

 Vampyr, on 2011-February-02, 23:34, said:

Yes, Buratti and Lanzarotti. They were suspended for about a week.

For 2 years, and forbidden to play together forever.

[1eyedjack]

 the hog, on 2011-February-05, 02:37, said:

Yes they were. The British Federation held an inquiry and found the charges unproven. Please do not attempt to revise history.

Many of the prosecution witnesses did not appear at the British retrial (I believe they were expected to attend at their own expense), and the so called acquittal was not recognised anywhere but in Britain, and certainly not by the body that convicted. Now, you can choose to believe whichever "court" you wish, to call the British result an "exoneration" is as much an attempt at rewriting history as the reverse.

[Vampyr]

 Fluffy, on 2011-February-05, 09:03, said:

For 2 years, and forbidden to play together forever.

I do not believe it was 2 years in the end.

[qwery_hi]

I thought this was an interesting read - pinch of salt and all that notwithstanding.

http://cam.bridgeblogging.com/

[Gerardo]

 qwery_hi, on 2011-February-06, 00:27, said:

I thought this was an interesting read - pinch of salt and all that notwithstanding.

http://cam.bridgeblogging.com/

Starts in http://cam.bridgeblogging.com/?p=9

[wyman]

Goes until p=17; thanks for posting. This was an interesting read.