Re: Cheating

"Fred Gitelman" <fred@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:IKdKb.26607$i55.16938@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

> 
> "Bill Jacobs" <bill.jacobs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:Xns9467A92FAbilljacobsflashmailc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Thanks Fred.
>>
>> Whilst the two processes look similar, it is interesting that the
>> volumes are so different: 150 over 3 years banned from OKB, and <10
>> from BBO. 
>>
>> I can think of 3 possible reasons:
>>
>> 1.  OKB has a much large number of players.
>>
>> 2.  BBO is more conservative than OKB in "convicting" people of
>> cheating 
>>
>> 3.  The presence of Lehman ratings in OKB provides a motivation for
> cheating
>>
>> Item 3 is the one that interests me.  I am coming to the conclusion
>> that 
> on-
>> line bridge is only playable in an environment where it is played
>> purely 
> for
>> fun - that is, there is absolutely no reward or prize of any kind
> involved.
>>
>> Cheers ... Bill
> 
> The difference in numbers is probably not a function of Item 1.
> In fact, nowadays it is the other way around - BBO has a much
> larger number of players than OKB does. OKB was bigger than
> BBO for much of the 3-year period you are talking about, but
> these days it is not even close. Yesterday we had over 3000
> people logged in at peak time and over 1000 people logged in
> during almost 20 hours of the day.
> 
> If our growth curve continues, then the member****p of BBO
> will surpass the ACBL's around the middle of 2004 (and we
> will surpass planet Earth's population some time in early 2009).
> 

Its nice to know that someone is promoting Bridge, even if it isn't on
this 
world.

But I often think that the folks at the ACBL charged with promotion are 
from another planet.

Otis