[pigpenz]

inquiry, on Dec 11 2006, 12:20 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Nov 27 2006, 11:31 AM, said:

Interested by the claims that cheating occurs at the money bridge tables.  I recall when the money bridge tables were first introduced by BBO that they were advertised as being "cheat proof".  I am not familiar with that side of BBO, but just thought it interesting that we now apparently see cheating in a supposedly cheat-proof environment.

There are no kibitzers at money bridge tables, as part of making it cheat proof.... That was the point.

then lets leave the tourneys that way.
If you really want to go over the hands then just go to myhands and look at them there

[geller]

Quote

[One little query -- is there a comprehensive dictionary of 'online-bridge-ese'? It took me some time to figure out that f2f was an abbreviation for 'face-to-face' bridge.

Try this glossary.

[mike777]

KIbitzers now on all ACBL hands now? Had one at our table in round 2 last night?

[uday]

I'm experimenting; deployment still under way. When complete (probably sometime today) any user with an award symbol of 3 or higher will be able to spec ACBL tourneys.

I might raise/lower the requirement, or revert to 'no specs' depending on how things go.

[mrdct]

I haven't seen it first hand, but I understand Yellows have an option to view a player's IP address by right-clicking on their name. So given that BBO is tracking people's IP addresses, perhaps just barring kibitzers with the same IP address as a player at the table or in the same tournament would be the way to go.

[inquiry]

mrdct, on Dec 19 2006, 06:52 PM, said:

I haven't seen it first hand, but I understand Yellows have an option to view a player's IP address by right-clicking on their name. So given that BBO is tracking people's IP addresses, perhaps just barring kibitzers with the same IP address as a player at the table or in the same tournament would be the way to go.

Rather yellows or the BBO itself can track IP addresses is hardly the answer to the kibitzer issue. With telephone, voice-over-internet, MSN-messenger, et al, UI from "friendly" kibitzer does not require the same IP. On the otherhand, a lot of users share the same IP's quite innocently. I would prefer and "honest" no kibitzers to the solution you propose, even if it was possible and feasible.

BTW, many same IP partnerships play together all the time, most often husband/wife, mother/daughter, etc.

[mrdct]

I've got nothing against people from the same IP address playing together. I just find kibitzers from the IP address as a player a bit sus.

[Al_U_Card]

I suppose you could have "serious" playing areas (no kibbitzers allowed, no dummy seeing all 4 hands etc.) and "relaxed" areas where the "social" norm would be allowed. At least then, players could choose their poison...;-)

[1eyedjack]

mrdct, on Dec 20 2006, 11:55 AM, said:

I've got nothing against people from the same IP address playing together. I just find kibitzers from the IP address as a player a bit sus.

Sorry to learn that. My wife frequently kibitzes me, on her machine. It never occurred to me that we should not be doing this for fear of suspicion. Of course there are some who are inclined to suspicion for all sorts of reasons, and I don't lose any sleep over that.

[inquiry]

Someone more computer savvy than me might know for sure, but I think all AOL customers log in from the same IP address. So if one (or more) AOL members are playing, all other AOL members would be banned by your suggestion.

I happen to find the banning of kibitzers personally distasteful (see my old post on the subject), but it seems to me that the response to banning the kibitzers has been generally favorable, both in number of talbles in play and in comments from various users.

I am not sure how well uday's workaround for "good customers" to allow kibitzing will work. To have "3" in your profile requires only 5 BBO masterpoints. Not exactly a huge hurdle. However, even under such a requirement, many of the people protesting the lack of kibitzing in this thread would be BLOCKED, as they have none or less than 1 BBO masterpoint.

[matmat]

I'm curious -- has banning kibitzers in ACBL tourneys in any way affect the tournament statistics?

[matmat]

mrdct, on Dec 19 2006, 06:52 PM, said:

I haven't seen it first hand, but I understand Yellows have an option to view a player's IP address by right-clicking on their name. So given that BBO is tracking people's IP addresses, perhaps just barring kibitzers with the same IP address as a player at the table or in the same tournament would be the way to go.

I am not sure I understand the reasoning for this. What about the people that play ACBL tournaments quite a bit, but don't really win enough points to go up to 3?

[mike777]

matmat, on Dec 20 2006, 06:36 PM, said:

I'm curious -- has banning kibitzers in ACBL tourneys in any way affect the tournament statistics?

I cannot comment on stats but it did change my perception of the game and some of the players in a good way.

As for stats...it seems my scores have gotten better and there have been less crazy hands...but that is only my perception.....the facts may not back me up...

[mike777]

If Ben has the time perhaps he can run the stats on my ACBL games and see if there really is any change?

[inquiry]

mike777, on Dec 21 2006, 07:24 PM, said:

If Ben has the time perhaps he can run the stats on my ACBL games and see if there really is any change?

If i could, i wouldn't. For one thing, there is a winner, a second place, a third place, just like before. So the "stats" will not change. I suspect what you mean is did someone who won say 50% of the time they played before now never win, or something similiar. Even if that happened it could be partially a coincidence. And if it wasn't, a study might prove it and get someone banned. But then again, we would not discuss it here. You know the policy about not posting stuff about bbo members...

[mike777]

Well you make a good point about other members and yes I did mean that but I also meant that it seems my scores have gone up...but you may not be able to check just me...and I may be dead wrong.

[matmat]

inquiry, on Dec 21 2006, 07:54 PM, said:

mike777, on Dec 21 2006, 07:24 PM, said:

If Ben has the time perhaps he can run the stats on my ACBL games and see if there really is any change?

If i could, i wouldn't. For one thing, there is a winner, a second place, a third place, just like before. So the "stats" will not change. I suspect what you mean is did someone who won say 50% of the time they played before now never win, or something similiar. Even if that happened it could be partially a coincidence. And if it wasn't, a study might prove it and get someone banned. But then again, we would not discuss it here. You know the policy about not posting stuff about bbo members...

no. i don't really care for that particular aspect of stats.

I was more curious along the lines of what the average imp score of the winning pair is pre and post kib banning (for imp games).

[mike777]

I guess, just a guess but the winning scores seem to be a bit lower..heck under 70% winning at mP overall and under 20 imps winning a section..you still need 55 imps to win overall

[barmar]

Has there been a noticeable reduction in cheating accusations? That was the original impetus for banning kibs, right?

[keylime]

I'm interested as well in the overall variance, SD, medians and such of pre/post barring of kib'ers. As long as the reductions are maintained, I'll be there playing.