[mrsayers4]

Two people that I know and respect and who would NEVER cheat at Bridge was accused of cheating on BBO. I believe that the algorithim that was programmed to detect cheating has limitations. ACBL banned them for 6 months and put them on probation for two years. Being accused devastated them. They, ACBL rep., asked on why she make an 'unnatural' lead in a hand she played 4 years ago. One is a senior citizen who wouldn't remember a lead made yesterday. She is an intermediate palyer. One was told she could appeal but noone has ever won an appeal and if she loses thet wouold double her probation to 4 years. That, in itself, isn't right. Bridge is everything to many seniors. It givs them a reason to get up in the morning. It is their total social life. I have been Directing and teaching Bridge for 30+ years. I Direcet 6 games a weekk. This is my 25th year teaching and Direceting on cruise ships. I see that 400+ players are banned from ACBL sanctioned gaames due to 'cheating'. Is it really that rampant??? ACBL memberships has decreased 30,000 players since I first began playing. Banning 400 players decreases table count by 100 tables.....every day. That is a loss of $43,800. to ACBL annually. I am not saying that there are not those who cheat but I truly believe that there are many being accused of something they didn't do or weren't aware that they did. I believe a solution might be to put the decision to punish back on the Unit Board. Blatant cheating, in real time, at a tournament is another issue but on BBO, the 'case' should be visited by the Unit Board in conjunction with ACBL. Let the Board decide the punishment...if any. During the 1st 18 months COVID lockdown and no F2F games, our Unit lost 12 players. None died of COVID. I am a true believer that Bridge keeps people alive. Banning them from the table will kill them!

[johnu]

There are a number of discussions about online cheating and the EDGAR computer program that screens for suspicious bids and plays on Bridgewinners on all the ACBL hands played on BBO, including several in the last 2 weeks. If your friends really believe they are innocent of cheating, and want the experience of experts (and some world class players) to look at their suspicious hands, they, or you, can post them on Bridgewinners and see what other players think.

Or, they can go to arbitration and possibly hire somebody to represent them, or not. The reason that nobody may have won in arbitration is that the evidence is overwhelming. BTW, the evidence is not just one hand, it's probably hundreds of hands, and hundreds of bids that are unnaturally successful.

mrsayers4, on 2024-September-22, 17:47, said:

I see that 400+ players are banned from ACBL sanctioned gaames due to 'cheating'. Is it really that rampant??? ACBL memberships has decreased 30,000 players since I first began playing. Banning 400 players decreases table count by 100 tables.....every day. That is a loss of $43,800. to ACBL annually. I am not saying that there are not those who cheat but I truly believe that there are many being accused of something they didn't do or weren't aware that they did.

The estimate is that at a minimum, 1-2% of online players are cheating. Of course, not all of them played every day, and most players have returned to face to face games, so the online games have decreased.

How many players stopped playing or reduced playing because they felt cheated and nothing was done about it? Surely that would lower income to the ACBL and clubs. How is somebody not aware that they cheated? Did they secretly communicate with partner about their hands or the meaning of bids or plays? That would be cheating. Did they self kibitz? (that was possible until BBO disallowed this fairly early on during Covid). That would be cheating. Maybe they thought they would not use the information, but that would still be cheating.

[thepossum]

I obviously don't know the cases but am concerned at algorithms being used to prove(?) anything
They maybe need a decent lawyer who understand statistics

I'm a nobody but it can't be based on the occasional (lucky) bid or lead

I have no skin the game much at all but care about reasonable statistical inference

[fuzzyquack]

A single hand with an unnatural lead can't lead to any accusations. EDGAR analyzes hundreds of suspicious hands before it arrives at red flags.

[hrothgar]

> How many players stopped playing or reduced playing because they felt cheated and nothing was done about it?


This is the key point

I hear so much discussion about the poor confused old people who didn't understand that their decisions degraded the game for everyone else

Nail their hides to the wall!

FWIW, the punishments that are being handed down are a slap on the wrist

[hrothgar]

mrsayers4, on 2024-September-22, 17:47, said:

Bridge is everything to many seniors. It givs them a reason to get up in the morning. It is their total social life.

When you go and piss in the swimming pool, you don't get invited back

Pity these folks never seems to learn basic concepts "don't cheat"

I'll note in passing that these individuals aren't actually banned from playing bridge
They're banned from ACBL games

[pescetom]

fuzzyquack, on 2024-September-23, 08:01, said:

A single hand with an unnatural lead can't lead to any accusations. EDGAR analyzes hundreds of suspicious hands before it arrives at red flags.

The issue debated at great length in the latest discussion is that unusual methods (such as non-forcing 1 over 1 bids) even if disclosed (more or less) may trigger one of its red flags over hundreds of hands, and that it is not clear who or how should realise that this is no longer an indicator of cheating if it ever was.

Be that as it may, it looks to me as if OP is in denial of the problem, which is not surprising if any serious attempt to address it would put our source of income in jeopardy.

[jillybean]

I have some sympathy for the online players who are now facing suspension and loss of Master Points.
IMO, Online Bridge has been a breeding ground for less than immaculate ethics. And who cared, unethical behaviour was a given and an easy avenue for those who wanted
to win at any cost. Then the highly prized (priced) ACBL Masterpoints were introduced to online bridge but online ethics were not addressed.
Now we have a review going back years, I don't think that's fair. I'd rather have seen a date set, the message go out, and monitoring from that date forwards.

Yes, it was cheating but "It was only a game"

No, my opinion isn't self serving. I have not been an ACBL member for years and don't play ACBL online games.

As you all know, I'd rather see an effort put into improving live game ethics.

(RETRACTED)

[thepossum]

I don't understand the point of cheating at Bridge

[sanst]

Let's be clear: cheating is a most serious offence, which can't be allowed. Having said that, if you accuse someone or pair of cheating, you need to present conclusive evidence, you should present this to the accused and give them a change to defend themselves and take in account the level of the players.
To start with the last point: weaker, not to say the hopelessly weak players, are cheating a lot without intent or even knowing it. They make all kinds of remarks, move their hand from one compartment of the bidding box to the other, warn their partners that they should or shouldn't alert, hesitate and don't even know that this information shouldn't be used. Since their usual opponents use the same methods, nobody in their club or line cares. But when they play online, it's a completely different world for them.
Something else is the use of an undisclosed algorithm to detect cheating. However good or bad EDGAR may be, it's not published how it works. AFAIK it's using the line of play good players would use. It's unclear whether the level of the players is taken into account. Unusual leads are a red flag, but for the players that I mentioned above, unusual leads are usual. The same goes for their line of play.
EDGAR most probably uses statistical methods, but basic information about these, like probability, precision, accuracy, in general the information quality, is not enclosed.
Procedural the way the organizers use this algorithm is a blatant form of a legal farce. From the OP I gather that it goes the same in ACBL-land as on Stepbridge, the online club of the Dutch union. You get a message that you have been cheating and are banned - in Holland for live. You may appeal, but the only information they send you is a set of games where you should have cheated, sometimes dating from over a year back. It's almost impossible to defend yourself, which explains that appeals are almost never successful. The CAS, which also is the supreme court in bridge, has decided in a case of match fixing that the human rights should be respected and that therefore there should be a public hearing before a verdict is given as required by European law. It's obvious that that is not the case in the online cheating procedures.
To me, this makes once more clear that online bridge is not for me. I wouldn't risk being banned from offline bridge based on an acquisition to which it's near to impossible to defend yourself against.

[pilowsky]

Stepbridge Australia is far and away the largest club in Australia. It attracts players from many other clubs and runs three times the tables of its closest rival.
Cheating, when it occurs, is very rare and rapidly detected.
OTOH cheating in the other places, in its various forms is poorly policed and widely ignored.

If you want a fair game, play online. If you want a coffee and don't care play FTF.

[hrothgar]

sanst, on 2024-September-25, 06:28, said:

The CAS, which also is the supreme court in bridge, has decided in a case of match fixing that the human rights should be respected and that therefore there should be a public hearing before a verdict is given as required by European law. It's obvious that that is not the case in the online cheating procedures.

I have about as much respect for the CAS as I do for, say, the IOC or, for that matter, the ACBL

[jillybean]

pilowsky, on 2024-September-25, 06:14, said:

Stepbridge Australia is far and away the largest club in Australia. It attracts players from many other clubs and runs three times the tables of its closest rival.
Cheating, when it occurs, is very rare and rapidly detected.
OTOH cheating in the other places, in its various forms is poorly policed and widely ignored.

If you want a fair game, play online. If you want a coffee and don't care play FTF.

How to they detect this cheating?

[0 carbon]

GlobalClub uses these metrics to detect cheats:

• Cheaters play/bid absurdly well based on seeing their partner's cards -- or playing both hands.
• Monthly history is usually above 60%.
• They do better defending than declaring. Check defence for psychic plays.
• Check 80‑100% successes for odd bidding/alerts/plays. Alerts may be accurate, but differ for the same hand/situation, or be VERY odd.

Check past month using www.bridgebase.com/myhands/ and check some hands.
Check also their "partners". When I find cheaters, I go thru their tourneys over the last month.
Some rings of cheaters have 55‑60% ‑ but the lower results are playing with players outside the ring. When playing with Ps inside the ring, results are >60%
Notice that they are "withdrawn" from many tourneys, no doubt by TDs - or when their cheating does not work well enough.

[pescetom]

0 carbon, on 2024-September-26, 18:56, said:

GlobalClub uses these metrics to detect cheats:

• Cheaters play/bid absurdly well based on seeing their partner's cards -- or playing both hands.
• Monthly history is usually above 60%.
• They do better defending than declaring. Check defence for psychic plays.
• Check 80‑100% successes for odd bidding/alerts/plays. Alerts may be accurate, but differ for the same hand/situation, or be VERY odd.

Check past month using www.bridgebase.com/myhands/ and check some hands.

I did similar checking when I ran tournaments on BBO.
I also do it after playing tournaments on BBO and noting suspect bidding/play.
I would add: check with which partners they play and with which people (and how) their partners play.
Usually it becomes clear that the explanation is simply error or poor judgement.
Occasionally not and there is a pattern, then report.

[barmar]

thepossum, on 2024-September-23, 02:03, said:

I obviously don't know the cases but am concerned at algorithms being used to prove(?) anything

They're not being used to "prove" anything. They're being used to identify suspicious actions. The information is then passed to human investigators, and they decide whether to accuse the players.

There was an article in the ACBL Bulletin a month or two ago that described the entire process.

[mycroft]

1% of players online are cheating, at least according to Edgar Hammond.

I kind of believe them. I wish it was fewer - frankly I wish it were 1/10th as much - but it is what it is.

I mean, it's really easy to complain about partner's call after the hand through the door - and not much harder to start doing it during the auction, before the play.

I certainly know that my "Lead a heart, come on, surely you can see it" when playing with someone in another city is sometimes possible to hear in the other room. I make sure it isn't when the person in the other room is my partner, but again, it's easy to slip.

And once you slip, it's even easier to keep it up if there are no consequences for it - especially if you get better defence from partner!

But seriously, those of you who had or have the joy of playing in large clubs (or even largish tournaments) FtF. Two 13 table sections; how many facial expressions; or "this is a signal" emphasised card play; or 1NT-2♦ "hearts"; 2♥-3♦ with that flourish that means "pass partner, I have diamonds"; or "what was 3♦?" leading to a diamond lead into KJTxx (after all, obviously the asker is confused as it can't be diamonds, can it?) or limited disclosure designed to ferret out questions from the opponents that one can use to place cards (...4NT; 5♥ "two keycards" (or better yet, "two") being my favourite of these, but "what call do you want to know about?" being a great one, too), or the pair who always sits N-S at 2, behind the half-deaf post-mortemers at 3, and magically finds the 5-card preempts when they're right, and avoids preempting with KJTxxxx when it's 1100, or the ones who "are really happy" when they get to explain their bids to "the opponents" (and somehow don't bid as well online when their opponents can't help pass explanations. Well, you know, unless they live together and are doing the announcements aloud anyway because they played so much worse without them?) or...

If that answer isn't "at least one", I will be shocked. If the people at the club couldn't *tell me* who does each of those things (okay, they'd tell me "I need to remember to give full explanations to 'what was 2♦' to maybe not complete the 'hey partner, I have 13 flat' information from the question" or "we don't ask when that pair goes into Alert-land", or "yeah, this player guesses *really well* with their preempts" or. I'm *sure* they wouldn't even dream of suggesting anything improper. Because they know *they'd* be the ones getting banned from the club) I'd be shocked. If it was a 50 table a session sectional, and there wasn't one pair who "we think are really fishy", I'd be beyond shocked.

Hey - that's 1%! Funny that!

IOW - yes, I'm disappointed that 1% are cheating online. But the same percentage (at least) are cheating face to face, too; it's just that we don't have all the bid and play, explanations and timing, of all the hands to use the statistical tools to show it. I'm disappointed at that, as well.

As for the OP, I don't know the players, and I don't know the case. I absolutely believe that there are "false positives" coming through, and *definitely* that some of the evidence is "mispull" or "distracted" or "forgot system" or even "systemic; you don't understand our system". But I bet it's low, and I bet that there are modes of communication that would pass totally under the radar to players but statistically can be shown to affect the partnership play to their benefit. The "most ethical players" could easily be using one of those modes. They may not even realize that it's a problem; 30 years of club play and nobody else realized it was a problem either (okay, maybe "suspicions" or "worries", but not a problem worth reporting); but the statistics point it out clearly.

I haven't been called out by EDGAR yet, and it would be - a problem - if I were; of course, I don't think I do anything that gets me this kind of "extra edge", either. But you know, I don't really know. I wouldn't mind knowing, so I could fix it before I gain any more than I have and it becomes a C&E matter. It would be interesting if borderline cases could be sent a "hey, if you're doing anything illegal that might lead to this kind of flagging, you should really stop. We don't yet have a case, but we have our eye on you" and see what happens. I bet that would get into "unnecessary landshark territory" way too fast. But I *like* being able to warn people that they're playing close to the edge and need to clean up/stop now rather than have nothing, nothing, nothing - and then the next step is into the "C&E pit".

[sanst]

Mycroft, that's one of your better posts. We're humans with the faults that come with the species. We communicate in more than one way. And it's also human, and actually that goes for most individuals from any species, to attempt to get the bigger share. If cheating in its broadest sense, including facial expressions, sighs etcetera, helps, it's against your natural behaviour not to cheat. And, since most of us aren't saints, we will involuntarily 'cheat'.
The basic problem is, that online bridge makes voluntary cheating easy. You can have a phone connection with your partner which is impossible to detect. The results of those who do this continually, will be remarkable if these can be compared to their results offline. But what about those who cheat irregularly on two or three games, just to improve their results a bit? No way you can prove cheating with statistics in these cases.

[pescetom]

I encountered a fairly typical example of a false positive in a recent tournament on BBO. Opponent on lead against 6NT holding Kxx T98xxxx xx x led a small diamond, finding his partner with KQ, the only honours in his hand. Only one other table found the same lead. Now that is probably going to increase a red-listed counter in Edgar and was just suspicious enough for me to take a look at opponents' other hands at the end of the tournament (nothing else of note). But it can easily be explained by our auction: 1NT (2D) 6NT all pass, where 2D was not alerted but explained on request as an undisclosed 6 card major. And at the other table where diamonds were led, Declarer had shown hearts after Stayman in an uncontested auction. Both had good reason not to lead hearts.

So significant frequency of positive events is important, as is human scrutiny of their context.

Of course there is always also the issue that Sanst raises of an occasional cheat, staying below the threshold but doing enough to improve results. So maybe just once in the tournament they did ask "what should I lead, pard?". But I strongly doubt it, and in any case there is at least as much opportunity for similar occasional cheating in f2f at the club.

[mycroft]

We had the Bridge+More boxes demonstrated to us a month ago or so. One of the nice features is that if you don't shuffle your hand, just put them on top of each other after play, the box will work out the play for you (not sure about claims, but I'm sure there's something that can determine that). And present that in the results (along with the auction, if done on the phones/tablets).

We don't have explanations or Alerts (unless that's also done in the tablets) but clubs that use this could very easily be able to amass the kind of statistical information from FtF play that we're getting on BBO and elsewhere.

I think that would be interesting (FCVOInteresting), don't you?