[Free]

Is there a possibility to disallow kibitzers at your table during a tournament???

I was just playing a tournament and we never had a kibitzer, until the 3rd round. Opponents were 2 Turkish players and we had 1 kibitzer, also a Turkish player. In the 4th round he was gone again (probably followed our opps). I don't know if they were cheating, but if you can disallow kibitzers then that's at least more certainty...

Free

[Gerardo]

You can disallow them, or allow them silent. I prefer the latter.

[BurnKryten]

Quote

I was just playing a tournament and we never had a kibitzer, until the 3rd round. Opponents were 2 Turkish players and we had 1 kibitzer, also a Turkish player. In the 4th round he was gone again (probably followed our opps). I don't know if they were cheating, but if you can disallow kibitzers then that's at least more certainty...

Eliminating kibitzers does absolutely nothing to reduce cheating. There are so many good ways to cheat - such as instant messages or a telephone. I view tournaments as public events, and as such, kibitzers should be allowed to watch the game. In any case, players in tournaments are already barred from receiving private messages, so even the kibitzer would have to use a method outside of BBO to pass along whatever information.

John

[Free]

Quote

Eliminating kibitzers does absolutely nothing to reduce cheating. There are so many good ways to cheat - such as instant messages or a telephone. I view tournaments as public events, and as such, kibitzers should be allowed to watch the game. In any case, players in tournaments are already barred from receiving private messages, so even the kibitzer would have to use a method outside of BBO to pass along whatever information.

John

Eliminating kibitzers DOES reduce cheating, because kibitzers can see all 4 hands, and players cannot. I don't say it eliminates cheaters, but it helps at least something. I just want to reduce the chance as much as possible, that's all...

[Rhutobello]

Yes, not allowing kibitzer will reduce cheating :

BUT will this option maybe be more negative to the game, then cheating itself?

We all know there will always be some people that live for cheating (not many, but a few) The question is, shall we allow them to destroy evrydaysgame with restrictions, or shall we just mark them ouerself, and try to play a nice game without the fear:)

I myself would have laid down all cards if 1 kibitzer had wispered a clue to me..... that is not fun and it is ceartenly not a brigdegame. But don't let us be paranoid, let us have fun;D
Cyou on BBO

[BurnKryten]

Quote

Eliminating kibitzers DOES reduce cheating, because kibitzers can see all 4 hands, and players cannot. I don't say it eliminates cheaters, but it helps at least something. I just want to reduce the chance as much as possible, that's all...

Although I agree that reducing the amount of cheating is a laudable goal, I do not see how eliminating kibitzers will really help. If cheaters want to cheat, they will cheat. I agree, they will not have the knowledge of all four hands, but just the two hands of the partnership is sufficient to give great results.

I think that Rhutobello has hit the nail on the head, and made the point that I really should have made. The cost (to the game) of disallowing kibitzers is not worth the reduction of cheating.

John

[uday]

I know that some hosts disallow specs. Do we think it is only for this reason (ie, to make it somewhat harder to cheat?)

[inquiry]

As a frequent kibitizer, I hate to see kibitizing get a bad name. . Sure, a kibitizer can be an aid in cheating. There are rumors that at least one player log on with two computers and kibitz himself, for instance. There no special phone or instant message system is necessary.

Luckily, where kibitizers are blocked, in the BBO there are plenty of other games one can kibitz. However, when blocking kibitizers, weigh the potential loss of enjoyment of this site of the people who like to watch others play, and the enjoyment some get out of having a large, admiring audience, against the potential to maybe decrease cheating a little bit. I think it is not a contest.

What Free was suggesting, I think, was the ability to block kibitzers at his table during a tourment where they are allowed to kibitiz at other tables. This mimics the situation in the club room where the table host can block kibitizers. I guess I find no great problem with this option. In the long run, it will not help free win, if cheating is going on and he blocks kibitzers only at his table, as the cheating resumes when they the opponents leave his table, and presumably could run up a huge score anyway. I hope it doesn't come to a point where we think we can get a fair game only by blocking all the kibitizers, particularly since enlisting a third party to participate in a cheating scheme has to be the most unlikely and risky way to cheat.

Ben

[hotShot]

What about changing the kib mode in tourneys?

A kib in a tourney should select a player to follow, and can only see this players cards.
Or he can select a table where to kib, and allways stays there.

A kib can change the player only between rounds.

hotShot

[uday]

This is what Fred said about this issue (hiding cards) in another forum.

I understand why this might be a good idea in some regards but ...

"
Several other people have suggested this and
I strongly disagree.

Here is the basic principle:

I do not think we should remove features from the software in an (impossible) effort to stop cheating when removing such features will make BBO less enjoyable for the (mostly) honest members that we have.
"

[Free]

Well, if you are kibitzing and you can see all 4 hands, you won't learn a lot. It's better that you can follow one player, see what he does, find the reason, and see if it worked. So I like that idea.

Anyway, I'm not giving kibitzers a bad name, because I like to kibitz too from time to time. And indeed, kibitzers or no kibitzers won't help me to win, but they just might help others. I just want to be able to be certain of the fact that my opponents play as fair as possible. And I only use this at tournaments of at least 16 games, because otherwise it would be ridiculous. That's all

[bhugi]

I agreed with edwin and uday's view points.

People won't get any trophies or cash rewards from winning tourneys running at BBO, and fred made the right decision by not imposing rating system (With that system, chance of cheating increase so I don't like it). So cheaters just ruin their own games, learn nothing and can't improve themselves.

BBO is a friendly, happy and convenient internet-based bridge game.
There's no reason for us to spend lots of resource and time, make most of the normal players suffers in order to stop those minority cheaters ruin their own game, right?

Internet bridge can't be totally reassemble real tournament in club house. (At least one can cheat by reading system notes before making auction to prevent misunderstanding, use instance messagers, etc) There's no way to totally eliminate cheating.

kibitizing with two or more tables is useful somehow.
e.g. when there is vu theater or a tourney with a great hand, I will kibitiz 2-3 tables to see how players deal with that board in a different way, or when I finished the board before the others, I will want to see how they deal with the hands with a different way to mine.

Just let cheaters ruin their own life ... they can't enjoy bridge game as well as getting nothing rewardable in BBO.

[garyt]

I am not a fan of kibbitzers at tournaments, but I have found that when hosting team matches, people aren't happy if kibbitzers excluded. I haven't run enough tournaments to see if that population complains.

I do feel that messaging/cheating is a problem for many in on-line bridge. I am in favor of not allowing kibbitzers from the tournament set-up aspect.
GaryT

[keylime]

It's a mixed bag....most are honest and ethical, some are clearly not...but what it still comes down to is the bridge. I personally do not mind specs at all, rather like it, I get to give play by play to aid them in understanding what I'm really thinking (acts as double check).

[luke warm]

i don't think banning kibbers is a good idea, but it could be that i'm just selfish.. on a percentage basis, i guess i kib 90%, play 10%... i just enjoy watching good players play the game

i do sometimes wish i could set the default 'view' thingy to kib only declarer (right now you have to change it each hand to a certain player)

we've all been the subject of what we suppose to be cheating... it's just a part of online bridge, and will continue for as long as humans play... some people cheat and they can't be stopped if they persist.. all we can do is try to silently recognize who they are and not play with or against them.. but even this should be done very discretely.. after all, we may be wrong

[JRG]

Quote

i don't think banning kibbers is a good idea, but it could be that i'm just selfish.. on a percentage basis, i guess i kib 90%, play 10%... i just enjoy watching good players play the game

i do sometimes wish i could set the default 'view' thingy to kib only declarer (right now you have to change it each hand to a certain player)
[...snip]

That would only work if you didn't get to see any hand(s) until after the auction was over. For example, if you were watching West and South became declarer, then you would already know West's hand.

You did get me thinking though. What would be nice is a short-cut to indicate which player you want to kibitz. So rather than having to go into one's User Profile and set it by direction (N, E, S, or W), it would be nice to (for example) right click on a player and have the choice of kibitzing that player show up in the status popup.

Maybe I'll suggest this to Uday

Oh yes, I like to kibitz a lot as well.

[Gweny]

Quote

Quote

i don't think banning kibbers is a good idea, but it could be that i'm just selfish.. on a percentage basis, i guess i kib 90%, play 10%... i just enjoy watching good players play the game

i do sometimes wish i could set the default 'view' thingy to kib only declarer (right now you have to change it each hand to a certain player)
[...snip]

Wow what nice idea! I like this very much for if kibitzers is communicating to players at least they remove from bidding.

Is this possible uday?

That would only work if you didn't get to see any hand(s) until after the auction was over. For example, if you were watching West and South became declarer, then you would already know West's hand.

You did get me thinking though. What would be nice is a short-cut to indicate which player you want to kibitz. So rather than having to go into one's User Profile and set it by direction (N, E, S, or W), it would be nice to (for example) right click on a player and have the choice of kibitzing that player show up in the status popup.

Maybe I'll suggest this to Uday

Oh yes, I like to kibitz a lot as well.