OkBridge & BBO

[Nick Hughes]

Firstly, does anyone have figures on the decline of OkBridge table numbers
and membership over the past couple of years?
Or the corresponding figures for BBO?

We (basically Nicoleta though I play a bit) joined OkBridge in 1995 and have
paid our US$100 every year since. We rarely played tournaments. Membership
is due this month, we are inclined to give it away.
Clegg and Co seem unconcerned at the decline in numbers. There is no mention
of the issue in the monthly OkBridge Spectator, rec.games.bridge.okbridge is
moribund, no hint of a drop in the annual fee. I guess they've made enough
money and are content to see it potter along. Who knows?

We've been playing more BBO lately. (We also play plenty face-to-face!) The
OkBridge interface is great, much better than BBO in almost every aspect.
It's great to be able to call up the auctions and plays at other tables. I
like the photos, stats page, streamlined view of the lobby, tables in play,
etc. At BBO, it all seems so clunky and garish.
The $100 fee and Lehmans of OK get you a more serious game. At BBO, everyone
is a self-proclaimed expert and people leave the table at the drop of a hat.
Admittedly, this casual approach is the very reason many have made the
switch!

At BBO, we like the Vugraph sessions. For us, it's been great to have the
finals of major Australian events. We've also done some worthwhile
partnership practice.

To be honest, we haven't played enough BBO to make a fair comparison. We're
interested in the views of those who have played a fair bit of both. Is
money the main issue?

Nick Hughes, Sydney

[Bill Jacobs]

Post by Nick Hughes
Firstly, does anyone have figures on the decline of OkBridge table
numbers and membership over the past couple of years?
Or the corresponding figures for BBO?
We (basically Nicoleta though I play a bit) joined OkBridge in 1995
and have paid our US$100 every year since. We rarely played
tournaments. Membership is due this month, we are inclined to give it
away. Clegg and Co seem unconcerned at the decline in numbers. There
is no mention of the issue in the monthly OkBridge Spectator,
rec.games.bridge.okbridge is moribund, no hint of a drop in the annual
fee. I guess they've made enough money and are content to see it
potter along. Who knows?
We've been playing more BBO lately. (We also play plenty
face-to-face!) The OkBridge interface is great, much better than BBO
in almost every aspect. It's great to be able to call up the auctions
and plays at other tables. I like the photos, stats page, streamlined
view of the lobby, tables in play, etc. At BBO, it all seems so clunky
and garish. The $100 fee and Lehmans of OK get you a more serious
game. At BBO, everyone is a self-proclaimed expert and people leave
the table at the drop of a hat. Admittedly, this casual approach is
the very reason many have made the switch!
At BBO, we like the Vugraph sessions. For us, it's been great to have
the finals of major Australian events. We've also done some worthwhile
partnership practice.
To be honest, we haven't played enough BBO to make a fair comparison.
We're interested in the views of those who have played a fair bit of
both. Is money the main issue?
Nick Hughes, Sydney

...

I agree with practically everything you say.

When I let my subscription to OKB lapse, I suggested to them that they look
at alternative subscriptions, where someone can pay by the day, or by
number of deals, or something like that. The bottom line was that although
I enjoyed OKB for the very reasons you describe, I wasn't playing nearly
enough to justify the fees. Since their scheme was an all or nothing
thing, it turned into nothing for me.

Cheers ... Bill.

[Lollipop]

I am a convert from okb after having subscribed for several years.

Post by Nick Hughes

The OkBridge interface is great, much better than BBO in almost

every aspect.

I thought that at first too, but once I got used to the BBO interface,
I found it much easier and more appealing than OKb's. The lobby list
is clunky, true, but the play interface is excellent.

Post by Nick Hughes

It's great to be able to call up the auctions and plays at other

tables.

This is easy to do at the 'myhands' webpage, including a full traveller
and full movie of how the hand was played at any table. BBO's myhands
webpage actually gives you more information about hands, about other's
results, and a full summary of your own scores.

Post by Nick Hughes

I like the photos, stats page, streamlined view of the lobby, tables

in play, etc. At BBO, it all seems so clunky and garish.

I changed some of the colors to soften them, using the color option
provided. I would like to see photos added to profiles, but the rest is
just different, not worse.

Post by Nick Hughes
The $100 fee and Lehmans of OK get you a more serious game. At BBO, everyone

is a self-proclaimed expert and people leave the table at the drop of a
hat.

I disagree with the "more serious game" part. I find the competition
on BBO to be far superior to that on okb.

I also find that with no lehmans to 'protect', good players are more
willing to play with a stranger. Even if they decide they don't like
playing with you, people tend to leave pleasantly or at least quietly.
There is almost no partner-bashing like on okb, because no lehman means
no anger at a bad result.

Yes, there are people who claim higher levels than you might think they
deserve, but they are easy to weed out and the quick, easy notes you
can put on their profile allows you to record them for the future.

And yes, the BBO protocol for sitting and for leaving a table is less
formal than on okb, but when someone leaves and a new person comes, you
can just continue the previous hand with very little interruption.

Post by Nick Hughes
To be honest, we haven't played enough BBO to make a fair comparison.

Try playing nothing but BBO for a week, my guess is that you will never
go back to okb. At least that is what happened to me.

Post by Nick Hughes
We're interested in the views of those who have played a fair bit of

both. Is money the main issue?

Money was never an issue for me. The cost of okb per year is less than
the hotel room for one day at a regional. The main reason I tried BBO
in the first place was the horrible rudeness, extensive cheating, and
miserable attitudes about lehman ratings on okbridge, combined with an
administration that tolerates it and doesn't seem to have any interest
in improving the site.

To me, the difference is huge. On okb, you can find a table and play,
or at scheduled times, you can go to a mini tournament. That's it.
Sort of like a large local club.

BBO is more like a permanent Nationals. You can find a table and play,
you can watch vugraphs of excellent players in high competition, you
can find tournament events of all types (team games, individuals,
pairs) at most any time of the day or night, you can practice bidding
with one of the slickest bidding practice systems I can imagine, you
can create a teaching table for teaching a group, you can play ACBL
tournaments for masterpoints, and you can discuss bridge with friends
in private chatrooms. The lack of a fee is just gravy.


I have let my okb subscription expire. There is nothing left there
that I consider worth my bridge time, and I sure don't miss the
cheating, the extreme rudeness, or the poor administration. BBO has
everything I want and better.

[Nigel]

I changed some of the colors to soften them, using the color option
provided.

Where is the color option??

thanks

Nigel

[Lollipop]

Click the "gear" symbot at the bottom of your BBO screen. You will see
a section called Color in which you can adjust the colors of some of
the screen parts.

[craig]

Post by Lollipop
Click the "gear" symbot at the bottom of your BBO screen. You will see
a section called Color in which you can adjust the colors of some of
the screen parts.

Try changing the green background to gray and watch your headaches
disappear.. was best suggestion anyone ever gave me. Sorry no one told me
til I'd been using BBO 4 years.

[Brian]

On Wed, 18 May 2005 06:52:35 GMT, "Nick Hughes"

Post by Nick Hughes
rec.games.bridge.okbridge is
moribund

Without wishing to rake over old history, there's good
reason why r.g.b.o is as near dead as makes no difference.
The OKBridge mailing list (which was where the r.g.b.o
newsgroup came from) still carries a few messages, although
nothing like the volume of r.g.b.

Brian.

[John Schuler]

On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:45:44 GMT, Brian

Post by Brian
On Wed, 18 May 2005 06:52:35 GMT, "Nick Hughes"

Post by Nick Hughes
rec.games.bridge.okbridge is
moribund

Without wishing to rake over old history, there's good
reason why r.g.b.o is as near dead as makes no difference.

I thought it was moderation that killed it...

Post by Brian
The OKBridge mailing list (which was where the r.g.b.o
newsgroup came from) still carries a few messages, although
nothing like the volume of r.g.b.
Brian.

[Brian]

On Wed, 18 May 2005 18:54:06 GMT, John Schuler

Post by John Schuler
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:45:44 GMT, Brian

Post by Brian
Without wishing to rake over old history, there's good
reason why r.g.b.o is as near dead as makes no difference.

I thought it was moderation that killed it...

It's the mailing list that was (and is) moderated. Having
been one of the list moderators for a few months, I'm in a
position to say that with a reasonable degree of certainty!

r.g.b.o. was originally set up because some people preferred
a newsgroup to a mailing list. For a while both co-existed
peacefully enough, postings were even gatewayed between the
two. Then Matt Clegg decided that the two would go their
separate ways (OKBridge ran the gateway software).

Later still, Matt Clegg decreed that the OKBridge mailing
list would be either closed or moderated. Since then,
r.g.b.o. has died a death, despite the occasional attempt to
resurrect it by copying a bunch of the mailing list postings
into it. The moderated mailing list is still alive, although
fairly low volume.


Brian.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Nick Hughes
We've been playing more BBO lately. (We also play plenty face-to-face!) The
OkBridge interface is great, much better than BBO in almost every aspect.

The only thing I miss in the OKbridge UI is something like BBO's "Show
played cards" feature when you're kibbitzing, where the quitted cards
are shown greyed out in the original hands.

[vida]

Post by Nick Hughes
To be honest, we haven't played enough BBO to make a fair comparison. We're
interested in the views of those who have played a fair bit of both. Is
money the main issue?

No. At least for me, money is not the issue. On my experience, finding
a decent game on BBO has proven a way-too-difficult task, whereas on
okbridge is pretty easy. We, of course, owe that to Lehmans.
Lehmans, while totally meaningless and obviously innacurate, is
something one can use as a fairly decent guideline.
Oh, you might say, how can they be a *decent guideline* if they are so
obviously innacurate? They are easy to manipulate, but human nature
comes to the rescue (based 100% on my personal empirical evidence, so
there's the value on that): decent players are not interested in
manipulating them, and most not-so-good players can only manipulate
them to a certain extent, before being let down by their real playing
abilities.

I still gotta see/play with an over 60 imps player who can't execute a
simple sqz, or bid fairly decently.
On the other hand, I still have to play w/ a BBO pick-up partner who
can do either.

Post by Nick Hughes
Nick Hughes, Sydney

-Facundo.

[nige1]

I tried OKB, free, for a month, and I enjoyed ii. The Lehman's rating
system seemed excellent, although I never found out how the measure was
calculated. What is the formula? I thought it would be even better if
you could decide whether the rating system was on or off when starting
a table. Perhaps you can, now?

Anyway, for me, money is a big issue, so I joined BBO. BBO is
wonderful. The atmosphere is friendly and the viewgraph sessions are
superb.

I joined the ABALucy club within BBO, which does seem to have a kind of
ratng system; but I have managed to play very few competitions because
of seemingly insuperable registration problems. More and more BBO
tournaments require small entry fees, which I dare say improve their
administration, although I find it a bit off-putting :)

Maureen Hall started the Beginners/Intermediate Lounge on BBO --
seminal in training competent new players -- with mentors and teachers.
The teaching is mostly free but it is excellent.

[h***@hotmail.com]

OKB was once the standard but alas, no more. I understand it was sold
and we'll have to see if there are any changes. Why would anyone pay
anything for OKB when BBO offers the best around for no charge (unless
you want to play in tournaments)

[Gordon Rainsford]

Post by nige1
I tried OKB, free, for a month, and I enjoyed ii. The Lehman's rating
system seemed excellent, although I never found out how the measure was
calculated. What is the formula?

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/oksimple.html

Post by nige1
I thought it would be even better if
you could decide whether the rating system was on or off when starting
a table. Perhaps you can, now?

Always could. They're called NC (non-competitive) tables, and they're
less popular.

[l***@sanfranmail.com]

BBO is fantastic for the vu-graph and partnership bidding features.

For anything else, I'll stick with OKBridge.

[h***@yahoo.com]

i used to play a lot on okb in spite of the $100 annual fee. i now do
all of my online playing at bbo. even though the level of competition
is uneven at best, and even though i have to fork over a dollar to play
in the acbl tournaments, those who want to avoid such issues can find
plenty strong enough games. in either case, scheduling set games with
good opponents is the best way to insure a high quality game, or at
least as high quality a game as can be had in this context,
distractions at home being rather more present that distractions at the
typical bridge club.

henrysun909

[Hans Georg Schaathun]

On 18 May 2005 11:11:39 -0700, ***@yahoo.com
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: i used to play a lot on okb in spite of the $100 annual fee.

Does anyone know if BBO ever consider getting rid of the dependency
on commercial software?

$100 is a bit too much for the time I want to spend online, but it is
still cheap compared to getting and setting up a second computer with
the required OS for BBO...

[Brian]

On 19 May 2005 07:55:50 GMT, Hans Georg Schaathun

Post by Hans Georg Schaathun
: i used to play a lot on okb in spite of the $100 annual fee.
Does anyone know if BBO ever consider getting rid of the dependency
on commercial software?
$100 is a bit too much for the time I want to spend online, but it is
still cheap compared to getting and setting up a second computer with
the required OS for BBO...

It *is* possible to run the BBO client under WINE - my
regular pard and her husband do exactly that, using Mandrake
10.1 as their OS (not 100% sure what version they're on).

Brian.

[Hans Georg Schaathun]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:41:30 GMT, Brian
<***@meadows.pair.com> wrote:
: It *is* possible to run the BBO client under WINE - my
: regular pard and her husband do exactly that, using Mandrake
: 10.1 as their OS (not 100% sure what version they're on).

Is it possible to do this without superuser privileges? I have not
been really aware of Wine, but if I actually can run it, I am likely
to try it. Fortunately, I happen to use exactly the kind of hardware
that Wine and BBO support...

[Brian]

On 19 May 2005 10:08:11 GMT, Hans Georg Schaathun

Post by Hans Georg Schaathun
On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:41:30 GMT, Brian
: It *is* possible to run the BBO client under WINE - my
: regular pard and her husband do exactly that, using Mandrake
: 10.1 as their OS (not 100% sure what version they're on).
Is it possible to do this without superuser privileges? I have not
been really aware of Wine, but if I actually can run it, I am likely
to try it. Fortunately, I happen to use exactly the kind of hardware
that Wine and BBO support...

That I don't know, I'm not a Linux guru. I'll try to find
out for you, though.


Brian.

[Brian]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 11:09:38 GMT, Brian

Post by Brian
On 19 May 2005 10:08:11 GMT, Hans Georg Schaathun

Post by Hans Georg Schaathun
On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:41:30 GMT, Brian
: It *is* possible to run the BBO client under WINE - my
: regular pard and her husband do exactly that, using Mandrake
: 10.1 as their OS (not 100% sure what version they're on).
Is it possible to do this without superuser privileges? I have not
been really aware of Wine, but if I actually can run it, I am likely
to try it. Fortunately, I happen to use exactly the kind of hardware
that Wine and BBO support...

That I don't know, I'm not a Linux guru. I'll try to find
out for you, though.

...

I'm told that it depends on how WINE has been installed. If
you installed it from your own account, then as you're the
owner of the files, you have the required privileges to set
things up. If WINE was installed system-wide by a superuser,
then you will need superuser privileges to make some of the
required tweaks.

Brian.

[Travis Crump]

Post by Hans Georg Schaathun
On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:41:30 GMT, Brian
: It *is* possible to run the BBO client under WINE - my
: regular pard and her husband do exactly that, using Mandrake
: 10.1 as their OS (not 100% sure what version they're on).
Is it possible to do this without superuser privileges? I have not
been really aware of Wine, but if I actually can run it, I am likely
to try it. Fortunately, I happen to use exactly the kind of hardware
that Wine and BBO support...

I've run BBO under winex[aka cedega, transgaming's wine, but I built it
myself and didn't pay for it] as a regular user in Debian Sarge. It's
ugly, you need a good video card[the nv drivers don't work if you have
an nvidia card, you need nvidia's] for reasons that elude me, the menu
bar blinks and hides north's/partner's/dummy's cards, chat doesn't seem
to work as it should, the bottom band of the window is garbage, and I've
never figure out how to write the symbols for the suits, but it 'works'.

Travis

[Brian]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 14:23:42 GMT, Travis Crump

Post by Travis Crump

Post by Hans Georg Schaathun
On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:41:30 GMT, Brian
: It *is* possible to run the BBO client under WINE - my
: regular pard and her husband do exactly that, using Mandrake
: 10.1 as their OS (not 100% sure what version they're on).
Is it possible to do this without superuser privileges? I have not
been really aware of Wine, but if I actually can run it, I am likely
to try it. Fortunately, I happen to use exactly the kind of hardware
that Wine and BBO support...

I've run BBO under winex[aka cedega, transgaming's wine, but I built it
myself and didn't pay for it] as a regular user in Debian Sarge. It's
ugly, you need a good video card[the nv drivers don't work if you have
an nvidia card, you need nvidia's] for reasons that elude me, the menu
bar blinks and hides north's/partner's/dummy's cards, chat doesn't seem
to work as it should, the bottom band of the window is garbage, and I've
never figure out how to write the symbols for the suits, but it 'works'.

...

Some of these problems sound familiar from what Bruce told
me, but I think he's solved a lot of them. I know for sure
that he told me he had the suit symbols sorted. I don't know
what his video card is, though.


Brian.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Nick Hughes
To be honest, we haven't played enough BBO to make a fair comparison. We're
interested in the views of those who have played a fair bit of both. Is
money the main issue?

I play almost exclusively on OKB at present, but "couldn't live
without" BBO Vugraph. I still feel it is worth paying membership for
OKB, and I think that some overglamorize the difference between the
sites, possibly to rationalize their more pecuniary motives.

OKB Pros - clean simple interface (OKwin rather than OKplus; chat
options), stratification via rating (certainty of getting a game of
appropriate standard), community. Tourneys are of better standard than
BBO (ifdeclining), though a good pair can clean up regularly, even over
only 12 boards.

BBO Pros - price (or lack of it), vugraph, continual upgrades to
interface. I included vugraph, but I don't consider it a comparison
point in deciding where to play. Actually, the vugraph on BBO is less
interactive than OKB's Goldway matches, since only the prolixity of the
commentators is readable by all - no opportunity for well-timed public
comment from the floor.

OKB Cons - Personally, I think most of these are overstated by
detractors. Cheating is not a big issue any more; rudeness is no better
or worse than BBO. The price, at $99, is pretty good - they could have
made more money by instituting recurring billing on monthly payment
options. Despite some of the claims in another thread, I think Tony
Reus and team bend over backwards to address issues - of course they
don't always get it right, but they do act as they see fit. The major
drawback is that the interface is not updated regularly. It's also true
that the overall standard has declined over the past 18 months. Maybe
this is because of price; maybe some experts have been lured away by
the flattering prospect of a BBO "star" status or an official
commentator's post. (I admit that was a cynical view.) Another possible
drawback is that ACBL masterpoints are no longer awarded on OKB - as we
know, they missed the boat on stronger ACBL affiliation a few years
back. Organized team games are now few and far between - the heydays of
Riko's ladder and the IWBC seem to have gone forever.

BBO Cons - The absence of a sensible rating system is a huge turnoff
for me. I don't consider myself super-competitive, but I do like to
know roughly whether I am playing amongst peers or not before they
demonstrate for me. And I do like my games to have some sort of
meaningful outcome.

Peter.
New York,NY.

[Lollipop]

Everyone has different views of things, but I think you have missed
some points.

Cheating is not a big issue any more; rudeness is no better or worse

than BBO

The absence of a sensible rating system is a huge turnoff for me

Cheating is HUGE on okbridge. I personally know 7 people in real life
who cheat all the time on okbridge, and considering I only know about
30 who play on it, the percent is staggering.

The presence of a rating system on okbridge is precisely the reason
people cheat, and the source of 99% of the rudeness. Rude comments to
partners and opponents on BBO are almost non-existant, whereas they're
a way of life on okbridge.

There is a very simple way to find out the skill level of anyone on
BBO. You are allowed to look at the hand records for anyone, and the
total/average imps/mp% is a very good indicator.

I think Tony Reus and team bend over backwards to address issues -

of course they
don't always get it right, but they do act as they see fit

What they 'see fit' to do is try to keep paying members paying, and if
that means ignoring cheating, babying rudeness problems, and kissing
the asses of anyone who threatens to leave, then that's what way they
bend. The way Reus "addressed" the gerard problem was abominable.

[Kent Feiler]

On 18 May 2005 15:10:59 -0700, "Lollipop"
<***@galaxiesablaze.com> wrote:

Cheating is HUGE on okbridge. I personally know 7 people in real life
who cheat all the time on okbridge, and considering I only know about
30 who play on it, the percent is staggering.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting! Have these 7 people told you that they cheat? If they
have, how did they do it, I'm sure you asked. And finally, did you
report them to Okbridge as cheaters? If not, why not?


Regards,

Regards,


Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com

[Reef Fish]

Post by Kent Feiler
On 18 May 2005 15:10:59 -0700, "Lollipop"
Cheating is HUGE on okbridge. I personally know 7 people in real life
who cheat all the time on okbridge, and considering I only know about
30 who play on it, the percent is staggering.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting! Have these 7 people told you that they cheat? If they
have, how did they do it, I'm sure you asked.

Why do you have to ask? Just have a pair talk to each other on the
phone while they are playing -- or have a kitbizing PC on the side
that shows all four hands. :-)

I have started playing a few hands in OKB with and against former
partners, to practice for the few days in tournaments I've
committed to play the rest of the year, because of my wife's medical
treatments forced me to stay more or less at home for six months.

I thought the practice environment was great. None of our games
was rated. Our opponents have been playing on OKB for years and
had fairly decent ratings, but my partner and I are just ratingless
newbies.

So, I don't believe the RATINGS are what prompt people to cheat.

People with low self-esteem and false sense of accomplishment are
the only reasons I can think of why so many people cheat on
internet games (because it's so easy) or any other games.

Since I was a bumbling newbie not knowing my way around OKB, I saw
a Grand Master looking for a partner and so I asked if he would
play with me. By that time, he already had a partner. So that
was the end of that!

But I was completely surprised that he sent me an e-mail later
offering to play with me in an "orientation game" when he is not
playing with Paul Soloway. So, I thank him for the offer
profusely. Seems like a friendly place to me.

Post by Kent Feiler
And finally, did you
report them to Okbridge as cheaters? If not, why not?

Good questions!

-- Bob.

[Kent Feiler]

On 18 May 2005 22:01:54 -0700, "Reef Fish"

Post by Kent Feiler
On 18 May 2005 15:10:59 -0700, "Lollipop"
Cheating is HUGE on okbridge. I personally know 7 people in real life
who cheat all the time on okbridge, and considering I only know about
30 who play on it, the percent is staggering.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting! Have these 7 people told you that they cheat? If they
have, how did they do it, I'm sure you asked.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you have to ask? Just have a pair talk to each other on the
phone while they are playing -- or have a kitbizing PC on the side
that shows all four hands. :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason I asked is that I can't see people or pairs that cheat
being proud of it and bragging about it to the general public.

If these 7 people haven't specifically told lollipop that they cheat,
then he may fall into the category of people who think that every time
the opponents do something slightly off-kilter and get a good result
they must be cheating. If you're sufficiently paranoid, you can think
that when an opponent takes a two-way finesse the right way it proves
beyond a doubt that they were cheating.


Regards,


Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com

[Lollipop]

Post by Kent Feiler
Interesting! Have these 7 people told you that they cheat? If they
have, how did they do it, I'm sure you asked. And finally, did you
report them to Okbridge as cheaters? If not, why not?

Yes (either told me or I witnessed it directly), a variety of ways, and
Yes (but Reus ignored them).

One thing I'm not about to do is to educate you and all the other
readers here about good ways to cheat.

However, I will tell you that I reported 4 of them (2 pairs) and was
told that it was my word against theirs, so nothing was ever done, and
they continue to cheat to this day. After those two cases, I didn't
bother to report the others. who apparently are still at it, as they
all still play and all still have lehmans far above their real life
levels.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Lollipop

Post by Kent Feiler
Interesting! Have these 7 people told you that they cheat? If they
have, how did they do it, I'm sure you asked. And finally, did you
report them to Okbridge as cheaters? If not, why not?

Yes (either told me or I witnessed it directly), a variety of ways, and
Yes (but Reus ignored them).
One thing I'm not about to do is to educate you and all the other
readers here about good ways to cheat.
However, I will tell you that I reported 4 of them (2 pairs) and was
told that it was my word against theirs, so nothing was ever done, and
they continue to cheat to this day. After those two cases, I didn't
bother to report the others. who apparently are still at it, as they
all still play and all still have lehmans far above their real life
levels.

...

All this says to me is that you satisfied yourself that two pairs were
cheating through your observation, and OKBridge wasn't convinced. That
doesn't strike me as a process lacking in integrity, since presumably
the infractions were not blatantly obvious to all.

My experience is entirely different. I observed two hands which I
discussed with others and which they reported; on one, a pair somehow
forced an oponentless contract of 7NT redoubled going 12 down in their
favour, and managed to get this result credited to their stats. I don't
know how they did it. On the other, a player played a grand slam with
something like AKQ10xxxx opposite x, taking the necessary first round
finesse. On both occasions the pair in question didn't last another day
on OKB.

John Mayne is right about the earlier days where cheats were instructed
to play NC. There was a guy called Sammy (can't remember his login) who
suffered this fate - he had a habit of placing the contract with a
single bid, then playing double dummy in about 5 seconds flat. If his
partners raised his "final" bid - ever - he would abuse them, knowing
he could no longer make. He also had a habit of overcalling 3 and 4
card suits at the three level, always finding his partner with six or
seven card support. I used to enjoy speccing him - he did exactly the
same when playing NC. I miss him, even though it was obviously better
for him to be barred.

I have reported other (to me) suspicious occurrences which have
resulted in no action. Each time I received a response explaining why
nothing was done. Even though I strongly suspected collusion, I
accepted that the investigation had been made and my complaint had been
filed. I didn't sit and seethe, or call Tony Reus names - the guy has a
difficult job.

It's easy to get paranoid about this. There seem to be people who just
love to sit and spectate table 1 of each OKB tourney and make sarcastic
remarks about how so-and-so is obviously cheating, even when they are
making a recognised expert play. One needs to be a very experienced
player to separate the wheat from the chaff here.

Peter.
New York, NY.

[Lollipop]

Peter Clinch: All this says to me is that you satisfied yourself

that two pairs were

cheating through your observation, and OKBridge wasn't convinced. That
doesn't strike me as a process lacking in integrity, since

presumably

the infractions were not blatantly obvious to all.

Exactly. The US court system accepts an eyewitness account in a murder
trial, but okbridge won't in a cheating allegation? If someone bids an
opponentless 7NXX making, or opens the bidding at the perfect final
contract, even Mickey Mouse could handle those.

It's the huge number of people smarter than that, who just talk on the
phone, watch each other's computer screen, or share hands on AIM, ICQ,
etc, (or some even easier ways) and manage to reach the perfect final
contract after a believable bidding sequence, or who take every two-way
finesse correctly and claim its a recognized expert play, who are the
ones that okb can't stop.

I never said it was easy, in fact, I clearly said it wasn't. But
okbridge doesn't even try. When an eyewitness to cheating reports it,
they do nothing. When I was solicited to join the phone cheating and
reported it, nothing was done.

So I have moved to a system where people don't have a lehman rating
that their ego requires be higher than deserved, a system where it's
still easy to find excellent partners of your own level, get good
competition, and not worry about being cheated, a system where few
bother to cheat because there is nothing to be gained, BBO.

[asdfg2k]

On 19 May 2005 19:00:51 -0700, "Lollipop"

Post by Lollipop
Exactly. The US court system accepts an eyewitness account in a murder
trial, but okbridge won't in a cheating allegation?

The credibility of the witness is taken into account in the courts,
what makes you think it wasn't taken into account by those at okb?

Of course, *I* would believe you, notwithstanding your behaviour in a
certain other thread. But maybe somebody less understanding of the
human condition might not.

asdfg2k

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Lollipop
I never said it was easy, in fact, I clearly said it wasn't. But
okbridge doesn't even try.

So was John R Mayne lying through his teeth when he just wrote that he
personally kicked off 150 cheaters during his tenure at OKbridge?

[Lollipop]

Of course he wasn't lying, that's where his 1% comes from. It just
wasn't all, or even most, of the cheaters.

[Sean]

Post by Lollipop
Of course he wasn't lying, that's where his 1% comes from. It just
wasn't all, or even most, of the cheaters.

If my math is correct, 1% = 150 then total membership is 15,000?

Does anyone have past & current figures of the membership of both these
sites?

[John R. Mayne]

Post by Lollipop
Of course he wasn't lying, that's where his 1% comes from. It just
wasn't all, or even most, of the cheaters.

That is non-responsive to Barry's point, but that isn't where my number
comes from.

1. I said "under 1%." *Well* under one percent for open play.

2. 150 people over four years is 1% of the members in the same sort of
way that 100% of Americans are dead. (There are likely more than 340
million dead Americans; there are 340 million Americans, thus all are
dead.)

Many cheaters were on relatively briefly; I'd guess that the most
cheaters on who eventually got caught at any one time is about 35 after
April 2001. (The initial purge was a little larger; still no more than
45 for sure).

That is, if you look for playing cheaters at any moment in time who
eventually got caught: 35 after 4/01. The average number of members
during the time I was there was about 18,000. That's 0.2% of players,
and that includes tournament play, where the cheating rate is higher.

The well-under-one-percent estimate includes people I didn't catch,
and is based on number of hands played while cheating. Also, some
cheaters caught were not every-hand cheaters.

3. The people who are frequently leaving tables because of perceived
cheating usually have a vastly inflated view of their own skill level.

I'm not pledging (like I did in another thread) to stay out of this
thread more, but old stories about lions and skunks seem to apply.

--JRM

[Lollipop]

Also, some cheaters caught were not every-hand cheaters.

I'm sure most cheaters are not every-hand cheaters. That may make them
harder to catch, but still cheaters nonetheless.

The people who are frequently leaving tables because of perceived

cheating usually have a vastly inflated view of their own skill level

Before I ended my okb affiliation, my lehmans was 59/56, not
particularly high, but I think I can recognize when I'm being cheated.
.

Also for the continuing innuendos about "how do I know" -- In the case
of one pair, I sat in their living room and watched them play on two
computers side by side on the same table, where both could see both
screens. In another case, one member of a pair (that I had played
quite a bit with while his regular partner was in spec) simply told me
that they talked on the phone, and then offered to let me in on the
deal. I never played with him again and I reset my lehmans because I
had played so much with him. In the third case, I confronted two
relative novices about their high lehmans and one of them admitted to
me that they used ICQ. The seventh person persuaded me to connect to
him on AIM while playing "just to discuss the hand more privately
afterward, not to cheat", and within 2 days sent me some information
during the play of a hand. I never played with him again either.

I don't know what more I could do besides report these cases. If the
okb admin can't tell someone is cheating after I tell them exactly how
it's being done, then the situation is hopeless.

I despise cheating, and that's why (in part, anyway) I now play on BBO.

[craig]

Post by Lollipop

Also, some cheaters caught were not every-hand cheaters.

I'm sure most cheaters are not every-hand cheaters. That may make them
harder to catch, but still cheaters nonetheless.

The people who are frequently leaving tables because of perceived

cheating usually have a vastly inflated view of their own skill level
Before I ended my okb affiliation, my lehmans was 59/56, not
particularly high, but I think I can recognize when I'm being cheated.
.
Also for the continuing innuendos about "how do I know" -- In the case
of one pair, I sat in their living room and watched them play on two
computers side by side on the same table, where both could see both
screens. In another case, one member of a pair (that I had played
quite a bit with while his regular partner was in spec) simply told me
that they talked on the phone, and then offered to let me in on the
deal. I never played with him again and I reset my lehmans because I
had played so much with him. In the third case, I confronted two
relative novices about their high lehmans and one of them admitted to
me that they used ICQ. The seventh person persuaded me to connect to
him on AIM while playing "just to discuss the hand more privately
afterward, not to cheat", and within 2 days sent me some information
during the play of a hand. I never played with him again either.
I don't know what more I could do besides report these cases. If the
okb admin can't tell someone is cheating after I tell them exactly how
it's being done, then the situation is hopeless.
I despise cheating, and that's why (in part, anyway) I now play on BBO.

...

Cheating is a problem online period. If you believe there is any website
where cheating doesnt occur (be at bridge or checkers it doesnt matter) you
are incredibly naive.

[Chris Pisarra]

Post by craig
Cheating is a problem online period. If you believe there is any
website where cheating doesnt occur (be at bridge or checkers it
doesnt matter) you are incredibly naive.

I agree. My GF has been playing Spades online on Yahoo, and has been
stunned at the number of people who message her and want to cheat--just pick
up partners, no one she knows. They just expect that cheating is the norm.

Chris

--
I want to die in my sleep, like my Uncle Jack
not screaming in panic like his passengers. ---Jack
Handy

[Sean]

Post by Chris Pisarra

Post by craig
Cheating is a problem online period. If you believe there is any
website where cheating doesnt occur (be at bridge or checkers it
doesnt matter) you are incredibly naive.

I agree. My GF has been playing Spades online on Yahoo, and has been
stunned at the number of people who message her and want to

cheat--just pick

Post by Chris Pisarra
up partners, no one she knows. They just expect that cheating is the norm.
Chris

I have been asked on more than one occasion by a pick-up pd if I had
ICQ or the like. One doesn't need to be a genius to figure out their
probable intent. Having met a mere 5 minutes before, what in the world
would we have to talk about? I never stuck around long enough to find
out. My doorbell would magically ring during the next hand:)))

Post by Chris Pisarra
I want to die in my sleep, like my Uncle Jack
not screaming in panic like his passengers.
---Jack Handy

PS: Chris, great signature:))

[Sean]

Post by Lollipop
Also for the continuing innuendos about "how do I know" -- In the case
of one pair, I sat in their living room and watched them play on two
computers side by side on the same table, where both could see both
screens.

Without casting ANY aspersions on you WHATSOEVER, if two of my
"friends" openly cheated in my presence, I would feel very sullied and,
quite frankly, very angry at their assumption that I would assume that
behavior was acceptable. You can be sure I would distance myself from
them lickity-split. That pair brings "shameless" to another level.

I don't see how you could have done much more in your other examples.
It's to your credit to have reset your ratings.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Lollipop
I don't know what more I could do besides report these cases. If the
okb admin can't tell someone is cheating after I tell them exactly how
it's being done, then the situation is hopeless.

I guess the cheaters are doing a good job of masking what they're doing,
perhaps by spreading out their cheating.

They can't just kick someone off based on your accusation. Sure, you
claim to be an eye witness, but what do they know about your integrity?
Just as there are lots of cheaters, there may also be lots of people
making up accusations.

So they have to examine the records, to confirm what you're saying. If
the alleged cheaters are careful, their actions may not be blatant
enough to indict them.

The fact that you repeatedly submit cheating accusations may be part of
the problem. It may leave OKB management with the impression that
you're like a conspiracy theorist, seeing cheating every time you
encounter an unusual action. Like a doctor treating a hypochondriac,
they're less inclines to treat your claims seriously.

Sorry, but good cheaters, like good criminals, can actually get away
with it. Luckily, it's just a game.

[Lollipop]

Post by Barry Margolin
The fact that you repeatedly submit cheating accusations may be part

of the problem. It may leave OKB management with the impression that
you're like a conspiracy theorist, seeing cheating every time you
encounter an unusual action. Like a doctor treating a hypochondriac,
they're less inclines to treat your claims seriously

You could be right, twice might be too many for okb management to
believe.

[Julian Lighton]

Post by Lollipop

Peter Clinch: All this says to me is that you satisfied yourself
that two pairs were cheating through your observation, and
OKBridge wasn't convinced. That doesn't strike me as a process
lacking in integrity, since presumably the infractions were not
blatantly obvious to all.

Exactly. The US court system accepts an eyewitness account in a murder
trial, but okbridge won't in a cheating allegation?

I doubt the court system will bring murder charges based solely on
eyewitness testimony, without going at least to the effort to
determine whether a murder has actually happened.

If they would simply take you on your word, you now have the ability
to get any player booted for cheating just by asserting it is
so. There must be supporting evidence, and it's entirely possible that
OKB's investigations failed to turn up a sufficient amount.

It's also possible they didn't believe you, for whatever reason.

Post by Lollipop
It's the huge number of people smarter than that, who just talk on the
phone, watch each other's computer screen, or share hands on AIM, ICQ,
etc, (or some even easier ways) and manage to reach the perfect final
contract after a believable bidding sequence, or who take every two-way
finesse correctly and claim its a recognized expert play, who are the
ones that okb can't stop.

At least some of them, they can. It is hard to be subtle when you have
extra information. Analysis of the hands can pick up that something's
screwy, unless the cheats are very good at limiting their use of
it. Most people aren't good enough bridge players to hide it well.

[John R. Mayne]

Post by Lollipop
Everyone has different views of things, but I think you have missed
some points.

Cheating is not a big issue any more; rudeness is no better or worse

than BBO

The absence of a sensible rating system is a huge turnoff for me

Cheating is HUGE on okbridge. I personally know 7 people in real life
who cheat all the time on okbridge, and considering I only know about
30 who play on it, the percent is staggering.

Wow. You run in interesting circles.

I ran the anti-cheating program on OKbridge from late 2000 to middle
2004, and the percentages of hands cheated on in open play - even
before I got there - were always significantly under one percent. The
allocation of resources to the problem in late 2000 reduced cheating
considerably; that reduction was clear from June, 2001 to when I left.
I am not privvy to current efforts.

The idea that 10% of hands or more played in open play are cheated on
is a sign of extraordinarily poor analysis.

The tournament rate has run somewhat higher than the open play rate,
but it's also very low, especially in comparison to the wildly high
estimates posted here. The problem is that one cheating pair out of a
hundred can seriously screw up the leader boards; some of these were
rather quickly dispatched, while others took longer.

I threw out 150 people or so for cheating in not quite four years; I
threw out more accounts because the cheaters would come back and get
ID'd by Tony Reus, and then get thrown out without refund the second
time. (People quit posing when it cost them $100 per try and they kept
getting caught and booted.)

Post by Lollipop
The presence of a rating system on okbridge is precisely the reason
people cheat, and the source of 99% of the rudeness.

As to the former, it may be a factor, but as a general rule, cheaters
cheat. When cheaters were forced to non-comp (a pre-JRM solution) they
cheated routinely in non-comp.

As to the latter, that is provably false. I've played on a fair number
of online bridge sites (anyone remember Sierra?) and as a general rule,
I've found OKbridgers to be normal. Sure, there are bad apples. But the
rating system is not the problem. Being a jerk is the problem.

Rude comments to

Post by Lollipop
partners and opponents on BBO are almost non-existant, whereas

they're

Post by Lollipop
a way of life on okbridge.

While I do not play on BBO, I do not believe this assertion from either
side.

Post by Lollipop
There is a very simple way to find out the skill level of anyone on
BBO. You are allowed to look at the hand records for anyone, and the
total/average imps/mp% is a very good indicator.

I think Tony Reus and team bend over backwards to address issues -

of course they
don't always get it right, but they do act as they see fit
What they 'see fit' to do is try to keep paying members paying, and if
that means ignoring cheating, babying rudeness problems, and kissing
the asses of anyone who threatens to leave, then that's what way they
bend. [snip]

...

False. To some extent, membership services involves educating the
educable, but the ineducably rude got suspended or expelled on a
regular basis. The "ignoring" of cheating is addressed above.

I've got an advantage on Fred, who has gotten into some of these rgb
disputes - I'm no longer in the industry. But people, when you accuse
specific people - be it Fred, Uday, Tuna, Matt, JRM - of malfeasance,
maybe you should have your facts right.

--JRM

[John Blubaugh]

Post by John R. Mayne

Post by Lollipop
Everyone has different views of things, but I think you have missed
some points.

Cheating is not a big issue any more; rudeness is no better or

worse

Post by Lollipop
than BBO

The absence of a sensible rating system is a huge turnoff for me

Cheating is HUGE on okbridge. I personally know 7 people in real

life

Post by Lollipop
who cheat all the time on okbridge, and considering I only know about
30 who play on it, the percent is staggering.

Wow. You run in interesting circles.
I ran the anti-cheating program on OKbridge from late 2000 to middle
2004, and the percentages of hands cheated on in open play - even
before I got there - were always significantly under one percent. The
allocation of resources to the problem in late 2000 reduced cheating
considerably; that reduction was clear from June, 2001 to when I left.
I am not privvy to current efforts.
The idea that 10% of hands or more played in open play are cheated on
is a sign of extraordinarily poor analysis.
The tournament rate has run somewhat higher than the open play rate,
but it's also very low, especially in comparison to the wildly high
estimates posted here. The problem is that one cheating pair out of a
hundred can seriously screw up the leader boards; some of these were
rather quickly dispatched, while others took longer.
I threw out 150 people or so for cheating in not quite four years; I
threw out more accounts because the cheaters would come back and get
ID'd by Tony Reus, and then get thrown out without refund the second
time. (People quit posing when it cost them $100 per try and they kept
getting caught and booted.)

Post by Lollipop
The presence of a rating system on okbridge is precisely the reason
people cheat, and the source of 99% of the rudeness.

As to the former, it may be a factor, but as a general rule, cheaters
cheat. When cheaters were forced to non-comp (a pre-JRM solution) they
cheated routinely in non-comp.
As to the latter, that is provably false. I've played on a fair number
of online bridge sites (anyone remember Sierra?) and as a general rule,
I've found OKbridgers to be normal. Sure, there are bad apples. But the
rating system is not the problem. Being a jerk is the problem.
Rude comments to

Post by Lollipop
partners and opponents on BBO are almost non-existant, whereas

they're

Post by Lollipop
a way of life on okbridge.

While I do not play on BBO, I do not believe this assertion from either
side.

Post by Lollipop
There is a very simple way to find out the skill level of anyone on
BBO. You are allowed to look at the hand records for anyone, and the
total/average imps/mp% is a very good indicator.

I think Tony Reus and team bend over backwards to address issues -

of course they
don't always get it right, but they do act as they see fit
What they 'see fit' to do is try to keep paying members paying, and

if

Post by Lollipop
that means ignoring cheating, babying rudeness problems, and kissing
the asses of anyone who threatens to leave, then that's what way they
bend. [snip]

False. To some extent, membership services involves educating the
educable, but the ineducably rude got suspended or expelled on a
regular basis. The "ignoring" of cheating is addressed above.
I've got an advantage on Fred, who has gotten into some of these rgb
disputes - I'm no longer in the industry. But people, when you accuse
specific people - be it Fred, Uday, Tuna, Matt, JRM - of malfeasance,
maybe you should have your facts right.
--JRM

...

I have found that these people rarely let the facts get in the way of a good
story.

JB

[Bill Jacobs]

Post by John R. Mayne
I ran the anti-cheating program on OKbridge from late 2000 to middle
2004, and the percentages of hands cheated on in open play - even
before I got there - were always significantly under one percent.

Can you give an overview of how this anti-cheating program works?

Thanks ... Bill.

[Reef Fish]

Post by Bill Jacobs

Post by John R. Mayne
I ran the anti-cheating program on OKbridge from late 2000 to middle
2004, and the percentages of hands cheated on in open play - even
before I got there - were always significantly under one percent.

Can you give an overview of how this anti-cheating program works?

I am curious too!

Under one percent was what you actually caught, I presume.

Here are two different scenarios which *I* can easily implement at
home to cheat (if I were one of those low-life bottom-dwelling
scumbags). Tell me HOW you can know that a pair cheated, under
each of the scenarios below:


Scenario 1. (Long Distance partners from different States, say)

Partner A and Partner B communicate by phone (with ear plug
attachments for continuous voice conversation during play).
I'll leave out whatever details they can tell each other
(keycards, distribution, what to lead, etc.) that will give
them a tremendous cheaters' advantage.


Scenario 2. (The Ultimate Cheat)

Three OKB subscribers all in the same room at home, on three
different computers and different OKB accounts. Partners A and B
play. C (kibitzer) sees all four hands and show them to the
cheating "pair".


Finally, how did any of the caught cheaters got caught cheating?

-- Bob.

[Henk Uijterwaal]

On 19 May 2005 07:20:58 -0700, "Reef Fish"

Post by Reef Fish

Post by Bill Jacobs
Can you give an overview of how this anti-cheating program works?

I am curious too!

Actually, I'm more curious why somebody would cheat in the first
place. You can win exactly NOTHING by playing on OKB, so why anybody
would want to spend $100 to "artificially improve" his scores is
beyond me.

Henk

[Reef Fish]

Post by Henk Uijterwaal
On 19 May 2005 07:20:58 -0700, "Reef Fish"

Post by Reef Fish

Post by Bill Jacobs
Can you give an overview of how this anti-cheating program works?

I am curious too!

Actually, I'm more curious why somebody would cheat in the first
place. You can win exactly NOTHING by playing on OKB, so why anybody
would want to spend $100 to "artificially improve" his scores is
beyond me.

When it comes to cheating, I think a rational ethical person may not
be in a position to understand.

Why do playing cheat in BRIDGE TOURNAMENTS? They can't sell their
Master Points. They pay much more than $100 playing on in a few
events. So why do they cheat?

One possible motive of an OKB player to cheat is for the player to
build up an IMAGE of an expert player (through cheating) and use
that as the bridge (pun intended) to sucker some REAL experts to
play with them in bridge tournaments to win the same worthless
MPs as the Ratings in OKB.

That's just my conjecture.

-- Bob.

[Dutch]

Post by Reef Fish

Post by Henk Uijterwaal
On 19 May 2005 07:20:58 -0700, "Reef Fish"

Post by Reef Fish

Post by Bill Jacobs
Can you give an overview of how this anti-cheating program works?

I am curious too!

Actually, I'm more curious why somebody would cheat in the first
place. You can win exactly NOTHING by playing on OKB, so why anybody
would want to spend $100 to "artificially improve" his scores is
beyond me.

When it comes to cheating, I think a rational ethical person may not
be in a position to understand.
Why do playing cheat in BRIDGE TOURNAMENTS? They can't sell their
Master Points. They pay much more than $100 playing on in a few
events. So why do they cheat?
One possible motive of an OKB player to cheat is for the player to
build up an IMAGE of an expert player (through cheating) and use
that as the bridge (pun intended) to sucker some REAL experts to
play with them in bridge tournaments to win the same worthless
MPs as the Ratings in OKB.
That's just my conjecture.

...

Would not the ownership of large numbers of rating points possibly allow
someone to sell their services as an expert?

In that case, those points have dollar value as well as ego stroke value.
Although I can't understand the mind of someone who feels pride in
ill-gotten accolades.

[Henk Uijterwaal]

On 19 May 2005 11:16:54 -0700, "Reef Fish"

Post by Reef Fish

Post by Henk Uijterwaal
On 19 May 2005 07:20:58 -0700, "Reef Fish"

Post by Reef Fish

Post by Bill Jacobs
Can you give an overview of how this anti-cheating program works?

I am curious too!

Actually, I'm more curious why somebody would cheat in the first
place. You can win exactly NOTHING by playing on OKB, so why anybody
would want to spend $100 to "artificially improve" his scores is
beyond me.

When it comes to cheating, I think a rational ethical person may not
be in a position to understand.
Why do playing cheat in BRIDGE TOURNAMENTS? They can't sell their
Master Points. They pay much more than $100 playing on in a few
events. So why do they cheat?

...

In face-2-face bridge, there are pro's who are being paid by the
masterpoint. And outside ACBLland, there are tournaments that offer
cash prizes. In those cases, I can understand why people cheat,
just as I can understand why somebody would rob a bank. Not that I
would do it myself.

Post by Reef Fish
One possible motive of an OKB player to cheat is for the player to
build up an IMAGE of an expert player (through cheating) and use
that as the bridge (pun intended) to sucker some REAL experts to
play with them in bridge tournaments to win the same worthless
MPs as the Ratings in OKB.

I'd guess that this works once or maybe a few times. After a few
events, it will be clear to everybody that this player is not the
expert he claims to be.

Henk

[David Stevenson]

Post by Henk Uijterwaal
Actually, I'm more curious why somebody would cheat in the first
place. You can win exactly NOTHING by playing on OKB, so why anybody
would want to spend $100 to "artificially improve" his scores is
beyond me.

Personal satisfaction is a strange animal. It seems manic to cheat at
patience [solitaire for Americans] but people do. What are they
gaining?

In my time on the EBU L&EC we have dealt with a number of people who
cheated. One that stays in my mind is a player who fixed a grand slam
on 23 points, bid it and made it. He was so impressed with what he had
done that he went into the toilet [bathroom for Americans] at half-time
and did it again - a 22 point grand slam this time.

What did he win? Was this the Gold Cup, our premier competition? A
big money event?

No, it was a friendly match between two small bridge clubs in the
country, with nothing at stake. Incredible!

But what people should realise, and so many people don't, is that
other people think differently form themselves. Despite the media in
every country trying to get people to think the same, and having some
success, it is still basic human nature that people are different.

Some people cheat on OLB because "it is not real bridge": some people
cheat anywhere so that others will look up to them and think "Isn't he
wonderful?". Some people cheat because they have the win-at-any-cost
instinct: some people cheat because they are dishonest in every way,
amoral perhaps.

For people like you and me, Henk, it may be very strange that people
cheat, especially where the gain is not obvious, but it should not be
'incredible': our experience in life tells us that some people do this
type of thing for reasons that would not seem reasons at all to us.

[craig]

Post by David Stevenson
In my time on the EBU L&EC we have dealt with a number of people who
cheated. One that stays in my mind is a player who fixed a grand slam on
23 points, bid it and made it. He was so impressed with what he had done
that he went into the toilet [bathroom for Americans] at half-time and did
it again - a 22 point grand slam this time.
What did he win? Was this the Gold Cup, our premier competition? A big
money event?
No, it was a friendly match between two small bridge clubs in the
country, with nothing at stake. Incredible!
But what people should realise, and so many people don't, is that other
people think differently form themselves. Despite the media in every
country trying to get people to think the same, and having some success,
it is still basic human nature that people are different.
Some people cheat on OLB because "it is not real bridge": some people
cheat anywhere so that others will look up to them and think "Isn't he
wonderful?". Some people cheat because they have the win-at-any-cost
instinct: some people cheat because they are dishonest in every way,
amoral perhaps.
For people like you and me, Henk, it may be very strange that people
cheat, especially where the gain is not obvious, but it should not be
'incredible': our experience in life tells us that some people do this
type of thing for reasons that would not seem reasons at all to us.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~

...

As I've stated in at least two other threads, I accept that cheating is a
reality in on-line bridge. I have no choice but to accept that I cannot
change. (I did my small part for the online world by starting a high-ethics
bridge club on BBO, but there isn't much one man can do in the bigger scheme
of things.)

The problem I've had with both OKB and BBO is that management of both is
rather too accepting of cheating and other forms of rancid behavior and has,
in some cases, even embraced it by their failures to act to counter it in
the face of obvious misdoings. This applies to both ... maybe BBO slightly
more, but that's understandable given it is free and has limited resources
available.

It is one thing to look the other way when misdeeds occur.. it is quite
another to assist in malfeasance. Gerard's rant in another thread about Tuna
and his unwillingness to help in the face of rampant abusive behavior is a
fine example of what I mean. If, indeed, OKB had notice of what was going on
and took no steps to rein in the more abusive individuals, it sent a message
that it was "OK" to do this on OKB. It sets a bad precedent (this assumes
management agreed it was abusive to start).

For management to turn it's head away from such types of behavior (or,
perhaps even worse, punish some abusers but not others who act as bad) sends
a terrible message. I've seen a lot of this on both sites, and I imagine it
holds true on every gaming site in the world, bridge or otherwise.

[Sean]

Post by craig
The problem I've had with both OKB and BBO is that management of both is
rather too accepting of cheating and other forms of rancid behavior and has,
in some cases, even embraced it by their failures to act to counter it in
the face of obvious misdoings. This applies to both ... maybe BBO slightly
more, but that's understandable given it is free and has limited resources
available.

Notwithstanding the cheating aspect (I have no experience with this on
BBO to date), I agree with your comments insofar as the acceptance of
bad behavior encourages it. However, in my experience, I have found it
much less so on BBO. The "Gerard fiasco", which I understand occured on
both sites, perhaps shows that BBO is much less tolerant of player
abuse in that many were banned whereas they continue as members of OKB.
Obviously BBO doesn't experience the monetary consequences of banning
players that OKB does but that is hardly a justifcation for turning a
blind eye to the problem in my opinion. Besides, they may be penny-wise
& pound-foolish for not anticipating that not all people will overlook
this behavior and thus take their business elsewhere. I suspect that
this has happened but whether this accounts for a drop in membership, I
am not able to say.

Post by craig
It is one thing to look the other way when misdeeds occur.. it is quite
another to assist in malfeasance. Gerard's rant in another thread about Tuna
and his unwillingness to help in the face of rampant abusive behavior is a
fine example of what I mean. If, indeed, OKB had notice of what was going on
and took no steps to rein in the more abusive individuals, it sent a message
that it was "OK" to do this on OKB. It sets a bad precedent (this assumes
management agreed it was abusive to start).

...

I believe if you were to ask many of the regular players on OKB who the
"trouble makers" and instigators are, you would probably get a list
that very closely matched that offered by Gerard. That is very telling.

Post by craig
For management to turn it's head away from such types of behavior (or,
perhaps even worse, punish some abusers but not others who act as bad) sends
a terrible message. I've seen a lot of this on both sites, and I imagine it
holds true on every gaming site in the world, bridge or otherwise.

You may be right.

[Rich]

Post by Sean
The "Gerard fiasco", which I understand occured on
both sites, perhaps shows that BBO is much less tolerant of player
abuse in that many were banned whereas they continue as members of OKB.

Please define "player abuse". Please define "cheating".
Please help me understand how it is NOT cheating when you blatantly lie
in order to sell lessons ?
Gerard's definition of "player abuse" is anyone who questions him.
Gerard felt like Tuna should kick off whomever Gerard told him to kick
off, based solely on Gerards word.
Fortunately for Gerard, he found a sympathetic ear in Youday.

Post by Sean
I believe if you were to ask many of the regular players on OKB who the
"trouble makers" and instigators are, you would probably get a list
that very closely matched that offered by Gerard. That is very

telling.

You are wrong, you are making up fantasys without any facts.

[asdfg2k]

Post by Rich

Post by Sean
The "Gerard fiasco", which I understand occured on
both sites, perhaps shows that BBO is much less tolerant of player
abuse in that many were banned whereas they continue as members of

OKB.
Please define "player abuse".

The actions of the wolfpack, of which you are a member, are the
quintessential defintion.

Post by Rich
Please define "cheating".

Violating the rules of THE GAME.

Post by Rich
Please help me understand how it is NOT cheating when you blatantly lie
in order to sell lessons ?

You do not, apparently, have the intellectual or moral capability to
understand, so why should people waste their time trying to talk to a
brick wall? It would never be "cheating", as that term is defined.
It perhaps could be fraud, but only if done while violating a law.
Name the law that says it is illegal to do what you perceive has been
done (and that is even granting you that there have been intentional
fabrications - a point that I'm fairly positive that you would have a
very, very difficult time proving).

Post by Rich
Gerard's definition of "player abuse" is anyone who questions him.

It is so obvious that your stalking rises to the level of player abuse
that to deny it indicates a total lack of a moral compass.

Post by Rich
Gerard felt like Tuna should kick off whomever Gerard told him to kick
off, based solely on Gerards word.

Excuse me, but didn't he have chat logs to back him up?

Post by Rich
Fortunately for Gerard, he found a sympathetic ear in Youday.

Finally. Somebody with a backbone and a brain.

Post by Rich

Post by Sean
I believe if you were to ask many of the regular players on OKB who

the

Post by Sean
"trouble makers" and instigators are, you would probably get a list
that very closely matched that offered by Gerard. That is very

telling.
You are wrong, you are making up fantasys without any facts.

Nonetheless, it is a reasonable conclusion.

asdfg2k

[Sean]

Post by Rich

Post by Sean
The "Gerard fiasco", which I understand occured on
both sites, perhaps shows that BBO is much less tolerant of player
abuse in that many were banned whereas they continue as members of

OKB.
Please define "player abuse". Please define "cheating".
Please help me understand how it is NOT cheating when you blatantly lie
in order to sell lessons ?
Gerard's definition of "player abuse" is anyone who questions him.
Gerard felt like Tuna should kick off whomever Gerard told him to kick
off, based solely on Gerards word.
Fortunately for Gerard, he found a sympathetic ear in Youday.

...

It is not my intention to be your resource for definitions. My point,
which obviously escaped you, was the BBO dealt with the SAME boorish
behavior in quite a DIFFERENT manner.

Post by Rich

Post by Sean
I believe if you were to ask many of the regular players on OKB who

the

Post by Sean
"trouble makers" and instigators are, you would probably get a list
that very closely matched that offered by Gerard. That is very

telling.
You are wrong, you are making up fantasys without any facts.

Nope. I based it on what I was told and your post adds credence to it.

[l***@sanfranmail.com]

I was sure that I had wandered into another thread
accidentally, and I haven't even been to a pub.

Cheers,

Lindy

[Sean]

It's Friday afterall -- pour yourself a cold one -- and 2 for me:)))

[Julian Lighton]

Rich, weren't you bowing out of the public Gerard threads?

I do believe you lasted even less time than Gerard's "I'll never play
bridge again".

Post by Rich

Post by Sean
The "Gerard fiasco", which I understand occured on
both sites, perhaps shows that BBO is much less tolerant of player
abuse in that many were banned whereas they continue as members of OKB.

Please define "player abuse".

By any sane definition (and many deeply deranged ones), your behavior
towards Gerard would seem to fit the bill.

Post by Rich
Please define "cheating".
Please help me understand how it is NOT cheating when you blatantly lie
in order to sell lessons ?

It may be many things, ranging from fraud, to being unethical, to
being perfectly legitimate (depending mostly on the actual facts of
the situation. Since neither you nor Gerard are in the least bit
credible, I don't know. Nor do I care.), but it's not cheating at
bridge.

Post by Rich
Gerard's definition of "player abuse" is anyone who questions him.
Gerard felt like Tuna should kick off whomever Gerard told him to kick
off, based solely on Gerards word.
Fortunately for Gerard, he found a sympathetic ear in Youday.

If you're going to malign him, is it too much to ask that you spell
Uday's name right?

(Yeah, probably.)

[Rich]

Post by Julian Lighton
Rich, weren't you bowing out of the public Gerard threads?

My intention was to stop responding to the thread which dealt
specifically with Gerard lying to gain 3000 masterpoints. This thread
is dealing with the differences between OKB and BBO. I can't help it,
all you Gerard defenders make assumptions not based on fact. For some
reason you seem to believe that this innocent man was unfairly picked
on by evil people. That is patently untrue in regards to the
description of what actually went on.

Post by Julian Lighton
I do believe you lasted even less time than Gerard's "I'll never play
bridge again".

Untrue again. Gerard was playing the next day on BBO under the name
"Big Club". As I am about 3000 miles away, I cannot prove it; but I
certainly believe that he also was never homeless and begging for
bread. I have known him for a long time, he will say anything to get
sympathy for his cause.

Post by Julian Lighton

Post by Rich

Post by Sean
The "Gerard fiasco", which I understand occured on
both sites, perhaps shows that BBO is much less tolerant of player
abuse in that many were banned whereas they continue as members of OKB.

Please define "player abuse".

By any sane definition (and many deeply deranged ones), your behavior
towards Gerard would seem to fit the bill.

You will notice no specific quotes or things that I or anyone else did
that was out of line. This so called "Gerard fiasco" is your believing
his version of events. It is not based on facts. In my opinion, you
react to what seems like my mean spiritedness in this thread, without
knowing what preceded it.

Most conversations I can remember started with something like:
Partner or Spec: "Gerard, you had 11 tricks, all you had to do was
....."
Gerard: "You don't know what you are talking about, there was an
unusual twist to the hand you did not see."
P/S: "I saw 11 tricks"
Gerard: "You're a (bum/imbicile/{insert name here}, "
.... and the conversation might escalate from there.

This is my problem with your version of events, you seem to think that
Gerard was not treated humanly. But you do not realize he was treated
humanly... until he escalated his obnoxiousness and false claims. What
really put everything over the top was his con game he played on the
ACBL. For me at least, that was enough to make me "take of the gloves"
and tell the truth, the whole truth.

Post by Julian Lighton

Post by Rich
Please define "cheating".
Please help me understand how it is NOT cheating when you blatantly lie
in order to sell lessons ?

It may be many things, ranging from fraud, to being unethical, to
being perfectly legitimate (depending mostly on the actual facts of
the situation. Since neither you nor Gerard are in the least bit
credible, I don't know. Nor do I care.), but it's not cheating at
bridge.

I agree Fraud is a better term that Cheating when it comes to
accurately describing Gerards behavior. Certainly you don't believe
making outlandish false claims is acceptable behavior?

Post by Julian Lighton

Post by Rich
Gerard's definition of "player abuse" is anyone who questions him.
Gerard felt like Tuna should kick off whomever Gerard told him to kick
off, based solely on Gerards word.
Fortunately for Gerard, he found a sympathetic ear in Youday.

If you're going to malign him, is it too much to ask that you spell
Uday's name right?

Youday and Fred were both very wrong to assume that Gerard was
innocent. Fred assumed the Rick Beye email was a forgery for no reason
other than Gerard claimed it was a forgery. (Gerard said he didn't
recieve the email, but I did check and his exact correct email address
was used. That same email address I have used to send him email, and
he responded that same day). Youday in particular, took it upon
himself to kick off people on BBO that he assumed were harrassing
Gerard.

In my case, I do not believe I violated any of BBO rules. I believe
they kicked me off because of my postings on here. I do not know for
sure, because Youday will not answer my emails. Yes, I was kicked off,
not given a reason, not given a chance to defend myself, and now Youday
will not answer my many emails. When he acts like a human and treats
me like a human, I will spell his name any way he wishes.

Back to the topic of OKB and BBO.... BBO is popular because it is free;
certainly not because they do anything better than OKB. Tuna of OKB is
human, has prejudices and makes mistakes like all of us. The
difference is that Tuna, JRM, and others with OKB make a big effort at
being fair, they made a big effort to reduce cheating.... To my
knowledge BBO pales in comparison.

[John Blubaugh]

Post by Rich

Post by Julian Lighton
Rich, weren't you bowing out of the public Gerard threads?

My intention was to stop responding to the thread which dealt
specifically with Gerard lying to gain 3000 masterpoints. This thread
is dealing with the differences between OKB and BBO. I can't help it,
all you Gerard defenders make assumptions not based on fact. For some
reason you seem to believe that this innocent man was unfairly picked
on by evil people. That is patently untrue in regards to the
description of what actually went on.

...

Why do you keep makin ths absurd claim about 3000 masterpoints? They are
rating points. They did nothing but make him have to play in higher flighted
events. I do not believe anyone thinks Gerard is completly innocent but
they do believe you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I do not
believe anyone thinks you are evil, just overzealous and perhaps obsessed
(something I am familiar with ;-)

So what you have accomplished so far is to produce a negative reaction to
the mention of your name (I know about this too) and you were banned from
BBO. I find the whole thing bery sad ad I wish you had poured all of this
energy into a more serious cause.

JB

Post by Rich

Post by Julian Lighton
I do believe you lasted even less time than Gerard's "I'll never play
bridge again".

Untrue again. Gerard was playing the next day on BBO under the name
"Big Club". As I am about 3000 miles away, I cannot prove it; but I
certainly believe that he also was never homeless and begging for
bread. I have known him for a long time, he will say anything to get
sympathy for his cause.

Post by Julian Lighton

Post by Rich

Post by Sean
The "Gerard fiasco", which I understand occured on
both sites, perhaps shows that BBO is much less tolerant of player
abuse in that many were banned whereas they continue as members of OKB.

Please define "player abuse".

By any sane definition (and many deeply deranged ones), your behavior
towards Gerard would seem to fit the bill.

You will notice no specific quotes or things that I or anyone else did
that was out of line. This so called "Gerard fiasco" is your believing
his version of events. It is not based on facts. In my opinion, you
react to what seems like my mean spiritedness in this thread, without
knowing what preceded it.
Partner or Spec: "Gerard, you had 11 tricks, all you had to do was
....."
Gerard: "You don't know what you are talking about, there was an
unusual twist to the hand you did not see."
P/S: "I saw 11 tricks"
Gerard: "You're a (bum/imbicile/{insert name here}, "
.... and the conversation might escalate from there.
This is my problem with your version of events, you seem to think that
Gerard was not treated humanly. But you do not realize he was treated
humanly... until he escalated his obnoxiousness and false claims. What
really put everything over the top was his con game he played on the
ACBL. For me at least, that was enough to make me "take of the gloves"
and tell the truth, the whole truth.

Post by Julian Lighton

Post by Rich
Please define "cheating".
Please help me understand how it is NOT cheating when you blatantly

lie

Post by Julian Lighton

Post by Rich
in order to sell lessons ?

It may be many things, ranging from fraud, to being unethical, to
being perfectly legitimate (depending mostly on the actual facts of
the situation. Since neither you nor Gerard are in the least bit
credible, I don't know. Nor do I care.), but it's not cheating at
bridge.

I agree Fraud is a better term that Cheating when it comes to
accurately describing Gerards behavior. Certainly you don't believe
making outlandish false claims is acceptable behavior?

Post by Julian Lighton

Post by Rich
Gerard's definition of "player abuse" is anyone who questions him.
Gerard felt like Tuna should kick off whomever Gerard told him to

kick

Post by Julian Lighton

Post by Rich
off, based solely on Gerards word.
Fortunately for Gerard, he found a sympathetic ear in Youday.

If you're going to malign him, is it too much to ask that you spell
Uday's name right?

Youday and Fred were both very wrong to assume that Gerard was
innocent. Fred assumed the Rick Beye email was a forgery for no reason
other than Gerard claimed it was a forgery. (Gerard said he didn't
recieve the email, but I did check and his exact correct email address
was used. That same email address I have used to send him email, and
he responded that same day). Youday in particular, took it upon
himself to kick off people on BBO that he assumed were harrassing
Gerard.
In my case, I do not believe I violated any of BBO rules. I believe
they kicked me off because of my postings on here. I do not know for
sure, because Youday will not answer my emails. Yes, I was kicked off,
not given a reason, not given a chance to defend myself, and now Youday
will not answer my many emails. When he acts like a human and treats
me like a human, I will spell his name any way he wishes.
Back to the topic of OKB and BBO.... BBO is popular because it is free;
certainly not because they do anything better than OKB. Tuna of OKB is
human, has prejudices and makes mistakes like all of us. The
difference is that Tuna, JRM, and others with OKB make a big effort at
being fair, they made a big effort to reduce cheating.... To my
knowledge BBO pales in comparison.

...

[Rich]

JB,

Apparently I don't state my case clearly enough....
Below is an email I got, senders name ommited.....


Blubaugh has it essentially wrong.

The issue is not whether the points were "real" masterpoints or not,
the issue is Gerard's motivation for lying to obtain them, and the fact
that he lied to get them.

Also, those points were discovered when shotgun looked up Gerard at
Gatlinburg, and the masterpoint (not eligibility point) report said he
had 3,310.87 masterpoints. When we called that number to ACBL we were
told that he had 3,310.87 MASTERpoints not eligibility points. so you
can see why people got riled up.

I'm talking about the scope of his lie to dare to say he deserved 3,000
seeding points anyway. Give us a break! And it's all part of his
grand plan to make himself more important so he can sell himself to
unwitting students, which has always been the objection.

It's not just someone "exaggerating." Saying "I was pretty good back
in France" is exaggerating. saying "i was in top 100 players in
france, and won national championships in England, Israel and France"
is lying with the purpose of committing further fraud. i'm not sure
how any other interpretation could be attached to it.

[John Blubaugh]

Post by Rich
JB,
Apparently I don't state my case clearly enough....
Below is an email I got, senders name ommited.....
Blubaugh has it essentially wrong.
The issue is not whether the points were "real" masterpoints or not,
the issue is Gerard's motivation for lying to obtain them, and the fact
that he lied to get them.
Also, those points were discovered when shotgun looked up Gerard at
Gatlinburg, and the masterpoint (not eligibility point) report said he
had 3,310.87 masterpoints. When we called that number to ACBL we were
told that he had 3,310.87 MASTERpoints not eligibility points. so you
can see why people got riled up.
I'm talking about the scope of his lie to dare to say he deserved 3,000
seeding points anyway. Give us a break! And it's all part of his
grand plan to make himself more important so he can sell himself to
unwitting students, which has always been the objection.
It's not just someone "exaggerating." Saying "I was pretty good back
in France" is exaggerating. saying "i was in top 100 players in
france, and won national championships in England, Israel and France"
is lying with the purpose of committing further fraud. i'm not sure
how any other interpretation could be attached to it.

...

I stand corrected if this is true. I have never heard of the ACBL giving
anyone masterpoints but giving rating points for seeding is common.

JB

[ted]

Post by John Blubaugh

Post by Rich
JB,
Apparently I don't state my case clearly enough....
Below is an email I got, senders name ommited.....
Blubaugh has it essentially wrong.
The issue is not whether the points were "real" masterpoints or not,
the issue is Gerard's motivation for lying to obtain them, and the fact
that he lied to get them.
Also, those points were discovered when shotgun looked up Gerard at
Gatlinburg, and the masterpoint (not eligibility point) report said he
had 3,310.87 masterpoints. When we called that number to ACBL we were
told that he had 3,310.87 MASTERpoints not eligibility points. so you
can see why people got riled up.
I'm talking about the scope of his lie to dare to say he deserved 3,000
seeding points anyway. Give us a break! And it's all part of his
grand plan to make himself more important so he can sell himself to
unwitting students, which has always been the objection.
It's not just someone "exaggerating." Saying "I was pretty good back
in France" is exaggerating. saying "i was in top 100 players in
france, and won national championships in England, Israel and France"
is lying with the purpose of committing further fraud. i'm not sure
how any other interpretation could be attached to it.

I stand corrected if this is true. I have never heard of the ACBL giving
anyone masterpoints but giving rating points for seeding is common.
JB

...

Why would they start giving away what they have been selling all these
many years.

[John Blubaugh]

Post by Rich

Post by John Blubaugh

Post by Rich
JB,
Apparently I don't state my case clearly enough....
Below is an email I got, senders name ommited.....
Blubaugh has it essentially wrong.
The issue is not whether the points were "real" masterpoints or

not,

Post by John Blubaugh

Post by Rich
the issue is Gerard's motivation for lying to obtain them, and the

fact

Post by John Blubaugh

Post by Rich
that he lied to get them.
Also, those points were discovered when shotgun looked up Gerard at
Gatlinburg, and the masterpoint (not eligibility point) report said

he

Post by John Blubaugh

Post by Rich
had 3,310.87 masterpoints. When we called that number to ACBL we

were

Post by John Blubaugh

Post by Rich
told that he had 3,310.87 MASTERpoints not eligibility points. so

you

Post by John Blubaugh

Post by Rich
can see why people got riled up.
I'm talking about the scope of his lie to dare to say he deserved

3,000

Post by John Blubaugh

Post by Rich
seeding points anyway. Give us a break! And it's all part of his
grand plan to make himself more important so he can sell himself to
unwitting students, which has always been the objection.
It's not just someone "exaggerating." Saying "I was pretty good

back

Post by John Blubaugh

Post by Rich
in France" is exaggerating. saying "i was in top 100 players in
france, and won national championships in England, Israel and

France"

Post by John Blubaugh

Post by Rich
is lying with the purpose of committing further fraud. i'm not

sure

Post by John Blubaugh

Post by Rich
how any other interpretation could be attached to it.

I stand corrected if this is true. I have never heard of the ACBL

giving

Post by John Blubaugh
anyone masterpoints but giving rating points for seeding is common.
JB

Why would they start giving away what they have been selling all these
many years.

...

It doesn't make sense to me but very little the ACBL does is logical.

JB

[Barry Margolin]

Post by John Blubaugh
I stand corrected if this is true. I have never heard of the ACBL giving
anyone masterpoints but giving rating points for seeding is common.

Is this really just a matter of semantics? Isn't it the case that the
rating points are commensurate with masterpoints? I.e. if someone is
given 3,000 rating points, ACBL is indicating that his experience is
comparable to players with 3,000 masterpoints. The only real difference
is that his experience didn't take place in ACBL venues, so he couldn't
earn "real" masterpoints.

[John Blubaugh]

Post by Barry Margolin

Post by John Blubaugh
I stand corrected if this is true. I have never heard of the ACBL giving
anyone masterpoints but giving rating points for seeding is common.

Is this really just a matter of semantics? Isn't it the case that the
rating points are commensurate with masterpoints? I.e. if someone is
given 3,000 rating points, ACBL is indicating that his experience is
comparable to players with 3,000 masterpoints. The only real difference
is that his experience didn't take place in ACBL venues, so he couldn't
earn "real" masterpoints.
--
Arlington, MA

...

Yes, I think that is true but here is what was done:

Since ACBL masterpoints are used to determine event eligibility and
relative rankings, we have changed your equivalency points to 3000.00 on
your record to reflect your expertise and/or non ACBL experience. These
points will show up in your total points in our data base and will be used
to determine your starting category for our annual masterpoint races. These
points will not count toward any ACBL honor rank (eg Life Master) or any
masterpoint race totals.
Since ACBL masterpoints are used to determine event eligibility and
relative rankings, we have changed your equivalency points to 3000.00 on
your record to reflect your expertise and/or non ACBL experience. These
points will show up in your total points in our data base and will be used
to determine your starting category for our annual masterpoint races. These
points will not count toward any ACBL honor rank (eg Life Master) or any
masterpoint race totals.

JB

[Julian Lighton]

Post by Rich

Post by Julian Lighton
Rich, weren't you bowing out of the public Gerard threads?

My intention was to stop responding to the thread which dealt
specifically with Gerard lying to gain 3000 masterpoints. This thread
is dealing with the differences between OKB and BBO.

So you make it about Gerard.

Basically, your grand departure meant nothing - it was merely
posturing. Gotcha.

Post by Rich
I can't help it,
all you Gerard defenders

The world doesn't fall into nice clean "us vs. them" scenarios. I'm in
the camp that thinks you're all nitwits.

Post by Rich
make assumptions not based on fact. For some
reason you seem to believe that this innocent man was unfairly picked
on by evil people. That is patently untrue in regards to the
description of what actually went on.

Post by Julian Lighton
I do believe you lasted even less time than Gerard's "I'll never play
bridge again".

Untrue again. Gerard was playing the next day on BBO under the name
"Big Club".

You're sure this time? You've apparantly misidentified somebody as
Gerard at least once in the immediate past.

Post by Rich

Post by Julian Lighton

Post by Rich

Post by Sean
The "Gerard fiasco", which I understand occured on
both sites, perhaps shows that BBO is much less tolerant of player
abuse in that many were banned whereas they continue as members of OKB.

Please define "player abuse".

By any sane definition (and many deeply deranged ones), your behavior
towards Gerard would seem to fit the bill.

You will notice no specific quotes or things that I or anyone else did
that was out of line.

That would require effort. You're not worth it. It's been made pretty
clear in these threads.

Post by Rich
This so called "Gerard fiasco" is your believing
his version of events.

Riiight.

Post by Rich
This is my problem with your version of events, you seem to think that
Gerard was not treated humanly. But you do not realize he was treated
humanly... until he escalated his obnoxiousness and false claims. What
really put everything over the top was his con game he played on the
ACBL. For me at least, that was enough to make me "take of the gloves"
and tell the truth, the whole truth.

No matter how pure your reasons for acting like an ass, that does not
change the fact that you've been acting like an ass.

Post by Rich

Post by Julian Lighton

Post by Rich
Please define "cheating".
Please help me understand how it is NOT cheating when you blatantly

lie

Post by Julian Lighton

Post by Rich
in order to sell lessons ?

It may be many things, ranging from fraud, to being unethical, to
being perfectly legitimate (depending mostly on the actual facts of
the situation. Since neither you nor Gerard are in the least bit
credible, I don't know. Nor do I care.), but it's not cheating at
bridge.

I agree Fraud is a better term that Cheating when it comes to
accurately describing Gerards behavior. Certainly you don't believe
making outlandish false claims is acceptable behavior?

...

No. Nor do I believe organized harassment is.

Post by Rich

Post by Julian Lighton

Post by Rich
Gerard's definition of "player abuse" is anyone who questions him.
Gerard felt like Tuna should kick off whomever Gerard told him to kick
off, based solely on Gerards word.
Fortunately for Gerard, he found a sympathetic ear in Youday.

If you're going to malign him, is it too much to ask that you spell
Uday's name right?

Youday and Fred were both very wrong to assume that Gerard was
innocent.

I agree - "Innocent until proven guilty" is no way to handle things.

Post by Rich
Fred assumed the Rick Beye email was a forgery for no reason
other than Gerard claimed it was a forgery.

I don't blame him. It certainly struck me as bizarre.

Post by Rich
(Gerard said he didn't
recieve the email, but I did check and his exact correct email address
was used. That same email address I have used to send him email, and
he responded that same day). Youday in particular, took it upon
himself to kick off people on BBO that he assumed were harrassing
Gerard.

I'm willing to believe they may have been harassing Gerard. Some of
them seem quite proud of it.

Post by Rich
In my case, I do not believe I violated any of BBO rules. I believe
they kicked me off because of my postings on here. I do not know for
sure, because Youday will not answer my emails.

I doubt you'd believe him anyway.

Post by Rich
Yes, I was kicked off,
not given a reason, not given a chance to defend myself, and now Youday
will not answer my many emails.

Maybe Uday wants you to go away?

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by Rich
(Gerard said he didn't
recieve the email, but I did check and his exact correct email

address

Post by Rich
was used. That same email address I have used to send him email, and
he responded that same day).

Check again, Rich. Didn't you notice that the original e-mail has "T0"
(opposite of from) in Gerard's e-mail address? As a result, the e-mail
was sent to ***@etc.. instead of ***@etc. Hence, he didn't get
that e-mail. Try it! Will you be man enough to admit that I am right?
We'll see.

Post by Rich
In my case, I do not believe I violated any of BBO rules.

You have proven time & time again that what you "think" and what
actually "is" are usually polar opposites. The chat-log Gerard posted
clearly shows you using yet another "alias" (and if this wasn't enough,
pretending to be Mark Smith, someone Gerard felt was his friend); in
this "chat", you harassed & baited him & called him a "bum". Yet here
you are saying you don't "think" you violated any rules?? Think again!

BBO did well to be rid of you and you keep coming back here to prove it
to us on a regular basis.

[Lollipop]

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Check again, Rich. Didn't you notice that the original e-mail has

"T0" (opposite of from) in Gerard's e-mail address? As a result, the
e-mail was sent to ***@etc.. instead of ***@etc. Hence, he
didn't get that e-mail. Try it! Will you be man enough to admit that I
am right

terryb, I have seen a copy of the original email from Beye, and you are
mistaken. It was correctly addressed to

***@entsoft.com

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by Lollipop

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Check again, Rich. Didn't you notice that the original e-mail has

"T0" (opposite of from) in Gerard's e-mail address? As a result, the
didn't get that e-mail. Try it! Will you be man enough to admit that I
am right
terryb, I have seen a copy of the original email from Beye, and you are
mistaken. It was correctly addressed to

dr. lollipop: You may have seen it but I have an actual copy, do you?
Here is a cut & paste

04/19/2005 05:33 PM
***@entsoft.com
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SubjectMasterpoints

Mr. Cohen,

You are clearly <snip>

This is the EXACT address that was on the e-mail (I did delete the
addresses of 3 people who were sent copies -- the row of x's) so I ask
you once again -- did you just see a copy (very easy to overlook) or do
you actually have one? If you don't, get it & you will see I am
correct.

I am not certain it will show here once I hit the "post message" button
but on the copy, the blue underline the normally accompanies e-mail
addresses and URL's (allowing them to be activated with a
"click")INCLUDES the full ***@entsoft.com. I tried sending an
e-mail - it was returned to me.

I know await an admission from you both that I am correct. Will I get
them? We'll see.

[t***@hotmail.com]

As you not doubt noticed, the rec.games program "shortens" the actual
address that appears before the "@" sign.

So, to be clear -- the cut & paste I provided shows Mr. Cohen's full
first name with "To" attached to the beginning of it and then
"entsoft.com" following the "@".

[Peterh]

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Lollipop

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Check again, Rich. Didn't you notice that the original e-mail has

"T0" (opposite of from) in Gerard's e-mail address? As a result, the
didn't get that e-mail. Try it! Will you be man enough to admit that

I

Post by Lollipop
am right
terryb, I have seen a copy of the original email from Beye, and you

are

Post by Lollipop
mistaken. It was correctly addressed to

dr. lollipop: You may have seen it but I have an actual copy, do you?
Here is a cut & paste
04/19/2005 05:33 PM
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SubjectMasterpoints
Mr. Cohen,
You are clearly <snip>
This is the EXACT address that was on the e-mail (I did delete the
addresses of 3 people who were sent copies -- the row of x's) so I ask
you once again -- did you just see a copy (very easy to overlook) or do
you actually have one? If you don't, get it & you will see I am
correct.
I am not certain it will show here once I hit the "post message" button
but on the copy, the blue underline the normally accompanies e-mail
addresses and URL's (allowing them to be activated with a
e-mail - it was returned to me.
I know await an admission from you both that I am correct. Will I get
them? We'll see.

...

The following message was sent as indicated.

----- Forwarded by Rick Beye/ACBL/MEM on 04/19/2005 05:34 PM -----
Rick Beye/ACBL/MEM
04/19/2005 05:33 PM
To ***@entsoft.com
cc xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject Masterpoints

[craig]

Post by Peterh

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Lollipop

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Check again, Rich. Didn't you notice that the original e-mail has

"T0" (opposite of from) in Gerard's e-mail address? As a result, the
didn't get that e-mail. Try it! Will you be man enough to admit that

I

Post by Lollipop
am right
terryb, I have seen a copy of the original email from Beye, and you

are

Post by Lollipop
mistaken. It was correctly addressed to

dr. lollipop: You may have seen it but I have an actual copy, do you?
Here is a cut & paste
04/19/2005 05:33 PM
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SubjectMasterpoints
Mr. Cohen,
You are clearly <snip>
This is the EXACT address that was on the e-mail (I did delete the
addresses of 3 people who were sent copies -- the row of x's) so I ask
you once again -- did you just see a copy (very easy to overlook) or do
you actually have one? If you don't, get it & you will see I am
correct.
I am not certain it will show here once I hit the "post message" button
but on the copy, the blue underline the normally accompanies e-mail
addresses and URL's (allowing them to be activated with a
e-mail - it was returned to me.
I know await an admission from you both that I am correct. Will I get
them? We'll see.

The following message was sent as indicated.
----- Forwarded by Rick Beye/ACBL/MEM on 04/19/2005 05:34 PM -----
Rick Beye/ACBL/MEM
04/19/2005 05:33 PM
cc xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject Masterpoints

...

Why not move this to the ACBL Fumbles thread if you insist on thrashing it
about any more? Think it's fair to say most are sick of it.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by craig
It is one thing to look the other way when misdeeds occur.. it is quite
another to assist in malfeasance. Gerard's rant in another thread about Tuna
and his unwillingness to help in the face of rampant abusive behavior is a
fine example of what I mean. If, indeed, OKB had notice of what was going on
and took no steps to rein in the more abusive individuals, it sent a message
that it was "OK" to do this on OKB. It sets a bad precedent (this assumes
management agreed it was abusive to start).

...

Last year my partner and I noticed some very unusual results by a
particular pair during a couple of tourneys. She reported the boards to
OKB, and within a few days the pair was gone.

So it seems to me that blatant cheaters *will* get booted.
Unfortunately, clever, subtle cheaters probably won't. They're not
going to kick people off just based on accusations, there has to be
overwhelming, objective evidence.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Reef Fish
Scenario 1. (Long Distance partners from different States, say)
Partner A and Partner B communicate by phone (with ear plug
attachments for continuous voice conversation during play).

I recommend two tin cans and a very long piece of string.

[Ian Payn]

Post by Peter Clinch

Post by Reef Fish
Scenario 1. (Long Distance partners from different States, say)
Partner A and Partner B communicate by phone (with ear plug
attachments for continuous voice conversation during play).

I recommend two tin cans and a very long piece of string.

++++I tried that, but made a near-fatal error as to the length of string
required. I was dragged halfway across the living room...

[John R. Mayne]

Post by Bill Jacobs

Post by John R. Mayne
I ran the anti-cheating program on OKbridge from late 2000 to middle
2004, and the percentages of hands cheated on in open play - even
before I got there - were always significantly under one percent.

Can you give an overview of how this anti-cheating program works?
Thanks ... Bill.

Google Groups "John R. Mayne" "Wendy Baze" (both names) for an e-mail
interview I did for the OKbridge Spectator which was reprinted on
Usenet.

Most of those caught were caught based on initial complaints from
members and then analysis of hand records. If the hand records looked
funny after an initial review of 25 hands, or the overall results were
inconsistent with apparent playing skill, I'd review several hundred,
looking for dissimilar actions on similar hands, and a pattern of few
or no unsuccessful eccentric actions with several successful, similar
eccentric actions.

There were other ways to catch people; those methods I plan to be
quieter about. I'm still all for busting cheaters.

As to cheating rate estimates, I stand by the ones I made.

I'm guessing if you search the archive for my name and cheating you'll
be able to put together a pretty good history, but I confess I haven't
done that myself so that might not be true.

--JRM

[Bill Jacobs]

Post by John R. Mayne

Post by Bill Jacobs

Post by John R. Mayne
I ran the anti-cheating program on OKbridge from late 2000 to

middle

Post by Bill Jacobs

Post by John R. Mayne
2004, and the percentages of hands cheated on in open play - even
before I got there - were always significantly under one percent.

Can you give an overview of how this anti-cheating program works?
Thanks ... Bill.

Google Groups "John R. Mayne" "Wendy Baze" (both names) for an e-mail
interview I did for the OKbridge Spectator which was reprinted on
Usenet.
Most of those caught were caught based on initial complaints from
members and then analysis of hand records. If the hand records looked
funny after an initial review of 25 hands, or the overall results were
inconsistent with apparent playing skill, I'd review several hundred,
looking for dissimilar actions on similar hands, and a pattern of few
or no unsuccessful eccentric actions with several successful, similar
eccentric actions.
There were other ways to catch people; those methods I plan to be
quieter about. I'm still all for busting cheaters.
As to cheating rate estimates, I stand by the ones I made.
I'm guessing if you search the archive for my name and cheating you'll
be able to put together a pretty good history, but I confess I haven't
done that myself so that might not be true.
--JRM

...

Ok thanks. I think I got confused by the word "program", which implied to
me that you had some software that would help in the detection process.

Cheers ... Bill.

[Ian Payn]

Post by John R. Mayne
I'm guessing if you search the archive for my name and cheating you'll
be able to put together a pretty good history..

++++If you want a laugh, sling "Boweevil" into the search as well...

[d***@yahoo.com]

Notorious cheats from okbridge are on bbo, some running their own
private clubs and making a buck or two in the process. Sadly the BBO
management gives them a certain amount of protection, but bbo is a
business, after all. There is a general perception that BBO is light on
"paying" cheats, although apparently there is a recent commitment to
catching them, which, if true, can only be a good thing.

I play on both sites, but definitely prefer BBO's interface, the
bidding rooms, vugraph......Seriously considering letting go of
OKbridge.

[l***@sanfranmail.com]

Post by d***@yahoo.com
Notorious cheats from okbridge are on bbo, some running their own
private clubs and making a buck or two in the process. Sadly the BBO
management gives them a certain amount of protection, but bbo is a
business, after all.

David,

The above disturbs me, so please correct me if I have come away
with the wrong impression.

I interpret the above as your having said:

BBO harbors known cheaters and even protects them as long as
they think they can turn a profit for the company.

Is this what you intended to say?

If you do not know this for an absolute fact, it seems a very
serious allegation against Bridge Base as well as against the
certain individuals.

How would you know for certain that some people are "notorious
cheaters" from okbridge or anywhere else?

And do you have certain knowledge that the owners of BBO are
are aware they are cheaters and still somehow "protect" them
because they are generating income for the company?

And if it is true, as you seem to believe it is, why would you
prefer BBO to okbridge?

Please clarify for those of us who were troubled by your post.

Cheers -

[Peter Clinch]

Post by d***@yahoo.com
Notorious cheats from okbridge are on bbo, some running their own
private clubs and making a buck or two in the process. Sadly the BBO
management gives them a certain amount of protection, but bbo is a
business, after all. There is a general perception that BBO is light on
"paying" cheats, although apparently there is a recent commitment to
catching them, which, if true, can only be a good thing.

Before we get into another flare-fest on this, it would be good to get
an understanding from someone who knows, of whether there is any
sharing of data between OKB and BBO on this. It would seem good to me
for such an exercise to take place, assuming BBO is satisfied that
those ejected by OKB are chronic cheaters.

Peter.
New York, NY.

[Lollipop]

Post by John R. Mayne
I ran the anti-cheating program on OKbridge from late 2000 to middle
2004, and the percentages of hands cheated on in open play - even
before I got there - were always significantly under one percent.

Precisely the point ... you caught only a very small number of the
actual cheaters.

As for how they do it, it's easy to talk on the phone, or sit at two
computers side by side on the same table (the two pairs I reported),
but frankly there are a lot easier ways than that if you are computer
literate.

And if any actual cheat-police from okb or bbo wants to know ways to do
it, they can contact me directly, because I'm not going to post them
here.

I moved to BBO in some part because I was sick of being cheated. Not a
day went past that I didn't either leave a table or boot someone for
suspected cheating, and since I've been on BBO, NOT ONCE have I even
felt like I might be being cheated.

Unfortunately, like phone and same-table cheaters, even the
long-distance computer ways to cheat are undetectable from the bridge
software, so there is no stopping them. The only way to avoid the
cheating (as much as possible, anyway) is to eliminate the reason for
it -- the ego tied to a high lehman rating.

[p***@hotmail.com]

Post by Lollipop

Post by John R. Mayne
I ran the anti-cheating program on OKbridge from late 2000 to middle
2004, and the percentages of hands cheated on in open play - even
before I got there - were always significantly under one percent.

Precisely the point ... you caught only a very small number of the
actual cheaters.
As for how they do it, it's easy to talk on the phone, or sit at two
computers side by side on the same table (the two pairs I reported),
but frankly there are a lot easier ways than that if you are computer
literate.
And if any actual cheat-police from okb or bbo wants to know ways to do
it, they can contact me directly, because I'm not going to post them
here.
I moved to BBO in some part because I was sick of being cheated. Not a
day went past that I didn't either leave a table or boot someone for
suspected cheating, and since I've been on BBO, NOT ONCE have I even
felt like I might be being cheated.
Unfortunately, like phone and same-table cheaters, even the
long-distance computer ways to cheat are undetectable from the bridge
software, so there is no stopping them. The only way to avoid the
cheating (as much as possible, anyway) is to eliminate the reason for
it -- the ego tied to a high lehman rating.

...

Lollipop, your views might be taken a bit more seriously if you gave a
more even-handed comparison of BBO vs. OKB.

Unfortunately, given your refusal to recognize (a) that rudeness is
generic to online bridge forums of all types, and is certainly not the
exclusive preserve of OKB; (b)cheating exists not only on OKB but also
on BBO as well as any other competitive internet gaming activity;
(c)the lehman system has some obvious benefits (surely you're familiar
with the multitude of complaints re the oxymoronic BBO "EXPERT"); and
(d) your uniformly negative presentation of all matters pertaining to
OKB, you come across not as an objective critic but as a shrill voice
that has an axe to grind.

Cheers.

Nick

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Lollipop

Post by John R. Mayne
I ran the anti-cheating program on OKbridge from late 2000 to middle
2004, and the percentages of hands cheated on in open play - even
before I got there - were always significantly under one percent.

Precisely the point ... you caught only a very small number of the
actual cheaters.

I think the assumption is that most of the ones who don't get caught
aren't cheating very much. If you cheat often enough for it to make a
significant difference, someone is going to notice the weird results and
complain, and then an analysis of your long-term behavior will make the
cheating apparent.

Sure, lots of cheats will get away with it. Would you also claim that
law enforcement is ineffectual because so many criminals get away with
it? My guestimate is that only a small fraction of speeders get
tickets, for instance.

[Lollipop]

Barry Margolin: Sure, lots of cheats will get away with it. Would

you also claim >>>that law enforcement is ineffectual because so many
criminals get away with it? >>>My guestimate is that only a small
fraction of speeders get tickets, for instance.

Absolutely true, that's exactly why I moved to a site where crime
doesn't pay and there aren't so many criminals in the first place.

[Peterh]

Post by Lollipop

Barry Margolin: Sure, lots of cheats will get away with it. Would

you also claim >>>that law enforcement is ineffectual because so many
criminals get away with it? >>>My guestimate is that only a small
fraction of speeders get tickets, for instance.
Absolutely true, that's exactly why I moved to a site where crime
doesn't pay and there aren't so many criminals in the first place.

IN your humble opinion. How could you possibly know ? Sounds like BS or a
gripe to me

Peterh

[Lollipop]

Barry Margolin: Sure, lots of cheats will get away with it. Would

you also claim that law enforcement is ineffectual because so many
criminals get away with it? My guestimate is that only a small
fraction of speeders get tickets, for instance.

Right, but at least the traffic cops don't pretend that they've caught
them all.

And this is the best reason I can think of for moving to a site where
(1) there are fewer criminals in the first place, (2) crime has very
little payoff, and (3) the cops don't pretend there isn't a problem.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Lollipop

Barry Margolin: Sure, lots of cheats will get away with it. Would

you also claim that law enforcement is ineffectual because so many
criminals get away with it? My guestimate is that only a small
fraction of speeders get tickets, for instance.
Right, but at least the traffic cops don't pretend that they've caught
them all.

Who is claiming that they caught all the cheaters? They just say that
they do the best they can.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Lollipop
Everyone has different views of things, but I think you have missed
some points.

Cheating is not a big issue any more; rudeness is no better or worse

than BBO

The absence of a sensible rating system is a huge turnoff for me

Cheating is HUGE on okbridge. I personally know 7 people in real life
who cheat all the time on okbridge, and considering I only know about
30 who play on it, the percent is staggering.
The presence of a rating system on okbridge is precisely the reason
people cheat, and the source of 99% of the rudeness. Rude comments to
partners and opponents on BBO are almost non-existant, whereas

...

they're

Post by Lollipop
a way of life on okbridge.
There is a very simple way to find out the skill level of anyone on
BBO. You are allowed to look at the hand records for anyone, and the
total/average imps/mp% is a very good indicator.

I think Tony Reus and team bend over backwards to address issues -

of course they
don't always get it right, but they do act as they see fit
What they 'see fit' to do is try to keep paying members paying, and if
that means ignoring cheating, babying rudeness problems, and kissing
the asses of anyone who threatens to leave, then that's what way they
bend. The way Reus "addressed" the gerard problem was abominable.

...

With all due respect (which isn't much), I've rarely read such
unsubstantiated garbage. I read Tony Reus's response to Gerard as
posted by the latter, and it looked fine to me - no asses kicked, and
no preconceptions. That is good policing.

What is your recommendation to handle cheating, since you apprarently
see it everywhere? You seem very good at telling everyone else what is
wrong with them - your view of the world is sickeningly bleak.

I have no interest in playing 100% unrated, non-competitive bridge. If
I think someone is cheating, I report them. At least two players who
are clear cheats on OKB havbe been removed with the aid of observations
I have made at the table. I am not prepared, however, to reduce online
bridge to glorified practice sessions - I put my trust in the
governance of OKB to support me in this, and I believe in their
sincerity.

Peter.
New York, NY.

[Sandy E. Barnes]

Post by Lollipop
Everyone has different views of things, but I think you have missed
some points.

Cheating is not a big issue any more; rudeness is no better or worse

than BBO

The absence of a sensible rating system is a huge turnoff for me

Cheating is HUGE on okbridge. I personally know 7 people in real life
who cheat all the time on okbridge, and considering I only know about
30 who play on it, the percent is staggering.
The presence of a rating system on okbridge is precisely the reason
people cheat, and the source of 99% of the rudeness. Rude comments to
partners and opponents on BBO are almost non-existant, whereas they're
a way of life on okbridge.
There is a very simple way to find out the skill level of anyone on
BBO. You are allowed to look at the hand records for anyone, and the
total/average imps/mp% is a very good indicator.

I think Tony Reus and team bend over backwards to address issues -

of course they
don't always get it right, but they do act as they see fit
What they 'see fit' to do is try to keep paying members paying, and if
that means ignoring cheating, babying rudeness problems, and kissing
the asses of anyone who threatens to leave, then that's what way they
bend. The way Reus "addressed" the gerard problem was abominable.

...

You need more couch time Dr. Lollipop. No system is perfect, and no system
will ever be perfect. Are you suggesting that OKB has not made real efforts
to address such conduct?

The fact that you hang out with confessed cheaters is more of a reflection
on yourself than OKBridge. No doubt you have already reported these
offenders actions, along with your comments on Gerard's actions, to OKB. I
wonder ..................

Sandy Barnes

[Lollipop]

Sandy E. Barnes: The fact that you hang out with confessed cheaters

is more of a reflection
on yourself than OKBridge.

Sorry but your cute twister games don't work on me, I'm the one who
reported them, remember? Knowing someone and condoning their cheating
are two separate things, but then you probably never thought about that
before. No intelligent content in your post is usually a sign of none
in your head either.

Yes, I am suggesting that okb has not done enough to stop the cheating.
I'm not sure if more could be done, given the ease of online cheating,
but if okb refuse to acknowledge the problem exists, then it is
guaranteed that nothing will be done.

[Peter Clinch]

Post by Nick Hughes
To be honest, we haven't played enough BBO to make a fair comparison. We're
interested in the views of those who have played a fair bit of both. Is
money the main issue?

I play almost exclusively on OKB at present, but "couldn't live
without" BBO Vugraph. I still feel it is worth paying membership for
OKB, and I think that some overglamorize the difference between the
sites, possibly to rationalize their more pecuniary motives.

OKB Pros - clean simple interface (OKwin rather than OKplus; chat
options), stratification via rating (certainty of getting a game of
appropriate standard), community. Tourneys are of better standard than
BBO (ifdeclining), though a good pair can clean up regularly, even over
only 12 boards.

BBO Pros - price (or lack of it), vugraph, continual upgrades to
interface. I included vugraph, but I don't consider it a comparison
point in deciding where to play. Actually, the vugraph on BBO is less
interactive than OKB's Goldway matches, since only the prolixity of the
commentators is readable by all - no opportunity for well-timed public
comment from the floor.

OKB Cons - Personally, I think most of these are overstated by
detractors. Cheating is not a big issue any more; rudeness is no better
or worse than BBO. The price, at $99, is pretty good - they could have
made more money by instituting recurring billing on monthly payment
options. Despite some of the claims in another thread, I think Tony
Reus and team bend over backwards to address issues - of course they
don't always get it right, but they do act as they see fit. The major
drawback is that the interface is not updated regularly. It's also true
that the overall standard has declined over the past 18 months. Maybe
this is because of price; maybe some experts have been lured away by
the flattering prospect of a BBO "star" status or an official
commentator's post. (I admit that was a cynical view.) Another possible
drawback is that ACBL masterpoints are no longer awarded on OKB - as we
know, they missed the boat on stronger ACBL affiliation a few years
back. Organized team games are now few and far between - the heydays of
Riko's ladder and the IWBC seem to have gone forever.

BBO Cons - The absence of a sensible rating system is a huge turnoff
for me. I don't consider myself super-competitive, but I do like to
know roughly whether I am playing amongst peers or not before they
demonstrate for me. And I do like my games to have some sort of
meaningful outcome.

Peter.
New York,NY.

[Rich]

I agree totally Peter. I am of the mindset that: If you are not
keeping score, you are not competing. The lack of a rating system
equals the lack of keeping score. While the lehman system might could
be improved, it is better than any other rating system... including the
accumulation of masterpoints.

Hence I think BBO is good for those who like"kitchen bridge" or those
who can easily arrange set games. To be able to log on, and quickly
find good competition commiserate with your ability, and have everyone
at the table competing vigorously, OKB has no equal.

Also, while I am no fan of Tuna or JRM, they were WAY more fair than
Youday and Fred when it came to matters of discipline.

Rich Regan

PS. John Blubaugh should stick to things he knows about, like maybe
bridge bidding and play problems.... and leave the ethical judgements
to those who recognize ethics.

[John Blubaugh]

Post by Rich
I agree totally Peter. I am of the mindset that: If you are not
keeping score, you are not competing. The lack of a rating system
equals the lack of keeping score. While the lehman system might could
be improved, it is better than any other rating system... including the
accumulation of masterpoints.
Hence I think BBO is good for those who like"kitchen bridge" or those
who can easily arrange set games. To be able to log on, and quickly
find good competition commiserate with your ability, and have everyone
at the table competing vigorously, OKB has no equal.
Also, while I am no fan of Tuna or JRM, they were WAY more fair than
Youday and Fred when it came to matters of discipline.
Rich Regan
PS. John Blubaugh should stick to things he knows about, like maybe
bridge bidding and play problems.... and leave the ethical judgements
to those who recognize ethics.

...

So, do I now get the Gerard treatment? You know nothing about my ethics but
you have certainly showed yours. I'll keep mine, thank you.

JB

[swangames]

Post by Rich
I agree totally Peter. I am of the mindset that: If you are not
keeping score, you are not competing. The lack of a rating system
equals the lack of keeping score. While the lehman system might could
be improved, it is better than any other rating system... including the
accumulation of masterpoints.

What other systems have you compared it to? Lehmans are theoretically
inferior to SWAN Games's rating system because the inputs to the
calculation - duplicate scores - are not independent of each other. Thus,
a rating system built on duplicate scoring requires correction for
strength of field, which Lehmans lack. While duplicate scoring makes
sense for relatively short events like tournaments, it is not the best
system for online ratings, and SWAN's system does not use them. Of
course, this means SWAN's system suffers in that many players don't
understand it. But that doesn't mean the system isn't doing a good job
overall of describing a player's relative skill level with a single
number.

Many will point out that no single number can describe a player's bridge
level. This is why - for every player - SWAN also calculates overall
average MP and IMP, keeps running totals of masterpoints won in tourneys,
and allows a self-described level. Each of these measures something
different, and they shouldn't necessarily be compared to each other. So
yes - while a masterpoint system clearly doesn't suffice as a rating
system - it is still a form of useful information.


---matt

Join SWAN Games Internet Bridge Club
Win ACBL Masterpoints online - just 50 cents a game!
http://www.swangames.com

[lotus]

Comparing apples and oranges is an understandable obsession of otherwise
intelligent looking people. It is the same as cheating behind a mask.
Belongs to human behavior. Rating or not, OKB or BBO or Swan or Zone or any
other on-line or ftf place where competitive game is played cheating exists.
In BBO you can mark those for yourself to avoid them. That is the maximum
one can do without being vexed. Why they do it? Because it is possible. Who
is doing it? Otherwise normal looking and nice people do it as well as nasty
idiots. How many are cheating? I guess much less than 1% of bridge players
belong to that not preferred category. Is it a rubber bone subject? YES it
is, and vastly overrated, and as much meaningless as comparing OKB and BBO.

Post by Nick Hughes
Firstly, does anyone have figures on the decline of OkBridge table numbers
and membership over the past couple of years?
Or the corresponding figures for BBO?
We (basically Nicoleta though I play a bit) joined OkBridge in 1995 and
have paid our US$100 every year since. We rarely played tournaments.
Membership is due this month, we are inclined to give it away.
Clegg and Co seem unconcerned at the decline in numbers. There is no
mention of the issue in the monthly OkBridge Spectator,
rec.games.bridge.okbridge is moribund, no hint of a drop in the annual
fee. I guess they've made enough money and are content to see it potter
along. Who knows?
We've been playing more BBO lately. (We also play plenty face-to-face!)
The OkBridge interface is great, much better than BBO in almost every
aspect. It's great to be able to call up the auctions and plays at other
tables. I like the photos, stats page, streamlined view of the lobby,
tables in play, etc. At BBO, it all seems so clunky and garish.
The $100 fee and Lehmans of OK get you a more serious game. At BBO,
everyone is a self-proclaimed expert and people leave the table at the
drop of a hat. Admittedly, this casual approach is the very reason many
have made the switch!
At BBO, we like the Vugraph sessions. For us, it's been great to have the
finals of major Australian events. We've also done some worthwhile
partnership practice.
To be honest, we haven't played enough BBO to make a fair comparison.
We're interested in the views of those who have played a fair bit of both.
Is money the main issue?
Nick Hughes, Sydney

...