[pilowsky]

Just wanted to congratulate Benczek18 (87.01%) who defeated benczek17(84.59%) to come 1st in the most recent daylong.
I'm sure that with practice the other 7 Benczekxx's that played will be able to join 18 on the podium.
Interestingly Benczek33 (who managed only 70.66%) was not joined by the other Beczekxx's who were a no show on this occasion.

I understand the argument for using a large deal pool as an anti-cheating measure.
I am also aware that BBO is able to detect when different names are coming from the same IP address (it is stated that BBO$ are not awarded in the free Sunday tourney when multiple entries come from the same IP address).

Can I suggest an improvement in BBO's fair play measures so that where multiple IP addresses are detected in a tournament, only the lowest score stands.

Otherwise, what's the point of bothering at all.

[smerriman]

A moment of silence for poor benczek11, who is the only number less than 34 that failed to even exist

[johnu]

Special thanks to the anonymous "Palooka" family for playing like patzers so that the benczek family could do as well as it did.

[LBengtsson]

The easiest way for BBO to deal with this is ban the users IP addresses. It is a obvious dupe. They cannot register as other users on the computers they use, and so will soon run out of terminals or phones to access. It is a simple and effective solution, so why cannot BBO do this?