[fred]

inquiry, on Dec 13 2006, 11:20 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Dec 13 2006, 04:56 PM, said:

Where he says "Since it was largely aggressive lobbying by me that led to our recent change in ACBL policy (which I should note should be seen as an "experiment" and which, as Uday notes, is likely to soon change to allow some people to kibitz)...."

This would imply to me that he sought and received ACBL approval (at least temporarily) to bar kibitzing from ACBL tournies, for what I think are valid reasons or concerns. To me, this would mean that they ARE being played in accordance with the Conditions of Contest regarding amending them. There are no PRINTED tournament schedules that I am aware of (at least not printed by BBO). I suppose one could consider the tournament description to be a "printed" schedule of sorts and the tournament descriptions could certainly have the notation "Kibitzing Not allowed" added to them. Would that make you happy?

I don't want to speak for Fred, but I think when he said ""Since it was largely aggressive lobbying by me that led to our recent change in ACBL policy (which I should note should be seen as an "experiment" and which, as Uday notes, is likely to soon change to allow some people to kibitz)....", he meant his lobbying with his other partners and the change wasn't in the "ACBL Policy" as it relates to Memphis, but rather the BBO's ACBL policy. I seriously, very seriously, doubt he bothered anyone in Memphis about this.

As noted above, private clubs are pretty much left alone by the ACBL.

Ben is 100% right.

ACBL wisely does not micromanage the (several 1000) clubs whose games that they sanction. They give the clubs a lot of latitude to do what they think is best for their members.

I assume ACBL prefers that clubs try to solve their own problems and that ACBL would just as soon not get involved unless it is absolutely necessary. We try not to bug them unless we really feel we need to.

I suspect that ACBL will receive less complaints of cheating as a result of the rule in question. Besides that, ACBL management is concerned about cheating in online play and the new rule is helpful in that regard.

So I suspect that, if ACBL knows about this rule (I have no idea if they do or not), that they would approve.

I don't care if some official rule exists that claims that this is illegal and I would bet that ACBL would feel the same way. Online bridge is obviously different from "live" bridge. I would rather do what I think is right (especially if I feel strongly about it) than blindly follow rules that were written for a different game.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

bid_em_up, I think that Conditions of Contest document you linked to only applies to events run by the ACBL, i.e. Sectionals, Regionals, and NABCs. There's no mention of this CoC anywhere in Club Managers Handbook, nor in the Club Sanctioned Game section of the ACBL Handbook.

[the hog]

barmar, on Dec 15 2006, 04:13 AM, said:

bid_em_up, I think that Conditions of Contest document you linked to only applies to events run by the ACBL, i.e. Sectionals, Regionals, and NABCs. There's no mention of this CoC anywhere in Club Managers Handbook, nor in the Club Sanctioned Game section of the ACBL Handbook.

Regardless, as a matter of decency, fair play and respect for participants, it is only right that the full conditions of contest are published and made available to prospective participants. Not to do this is unconsionable, particularly over as controversial an issue as the allowing of kibbitzing.

[Trysalot]

The disallowing is disabled and kibitzing restored on the last round so those who finish early can watch the slower tables play while waiting for them to finish so results will post for everyone to view.

And, for whatever it may be worth to anybody, my opinion is that the allowing or disallowing of kibitzing ACBL tourneys is only a controversial issue here in this forum. Otherwise I would be seeing a lot of lobby chat about it and I am not. (Of course I don't know what kind of chat goes on during the day when I am at work).

Trysalot

[Wayne_LV]

   

[csdenmark]

Wayne_LV, on Dec 25 2006, 09:28 PM, said:

I applaud BBO for taking the steps already taken to reduce cheating.

I would like to see further steps considered:

1. Require kibbers for any IMP or MP scored game to select a person to kib before joining the table.  Permission must be granted by the person being kibbed (someone else already made that suggestion).  Then only display the hand of that person to the kibber during the bidding and play of a hand.  Continue to allow kibbers to review already played boards via the movie function.  I think if this method were employed, kibbers could then be allowed once again in ACBL tournaments since a "self-kibber" gains no additional information about the other hands.  And yes, these steps can be beaten by multiple kibbers.  But as Fred and/or Uday have pointed out before, the greater the number of participants required for a conspiracy, the less likely that conspiracy is to occur.

2. Do not allow the dummy to see opponent's cards during the play of the hand.  It is only an opinion, but I think the number one source of casual cheating is dummy communicating to partner such information as which way to finesse or when to drop a stiff or even when small cards are winners and the declarer may have forgotten ("don't forget your clubs in dummy are good").  I also think a fair number of people have gotten so used to this ploy as to not even think of it as cheating.  I never see the opponent's hands as dummy since I prefer to follow partner's line of play with no more information than  he/she has.  I find this to be no inconvenience whatsoever and I find that I am less likely to criticize partner for not guessing what I am staring at.

In live games, all of the above restrictions are physically placed on kibbers and dummy.  So why not duplicate the live environment for online bridge?

I hope my opinions on this subject do not get THIS thread moved to the Water Cooler.

Wayne

You seems to have learned very little from last thread Wayne

[Wayne_LV]

    

[Trysalot]

"These are just that, suggestions... take em or leave em."

I vote to leave them.

[inquiry]

Trysalot, on Dec 25 2006, 03:45 PM, said:

"These are just that, suggestions... take em or leave em."

I vote to leave them.

I agree.. however, IF anyone wants to make suggestions for the software or the way the BBO operates, please post those in the proper thread. Water cooler and General BBO discussion is not the correct place. The most appropriate place is the thread entitled suggestions for the software.

[awm]

Actually the first of these suggestions seems reasonable to me, at least for "serious" tournament events (like the ACBL ones).

I agree with Fred that it will be virtually impossible to stop people from cheating via software, and that software changes which make BBO less enjoyable for the non-cheating majority in order to attempt to reduce cheating are not desirable.

On the other hand, it is perhaps worthwhile to distinguish two types of cheating:

(1) Cheating based on two or more people collaborating.
(2) Cheating performed by a single individual abusing the software in some way.

The first kind of cheating is virtually impossible to stop. Two people playing together can always get on the phone and discuss their hands during the auction, and it's hard to imagine anything BBO could do about this. On the other hand I bet that there are not all that many of this type of cheater, because you have to find a "partner in crime" and approaching that person about the possibility of cheating is probably a delicate maneuver (not to mention the observation that more people in the "conspiracy" makes it more likely to be found out).

The second kind of cheating, however, seems like it might be possible to stop using software. For example, if kibitzers are not permitted it's hard to see how to cheat in an individual tourney. If players had an option of "hide hand from kibitzers" or "hide hand from non-friend kibitzers" this would accomplish much of the same thing, at least for those people suspicious that cheating may be occuring.

I think it's enjoyable (and a good learning experience at times) to be able to kibitz the top players on BBO. I've enjoyed watching Fantoni and Nunes play on many occasions, in part because I can pick up some nuances of their methods and in part because they make some remarkable plays during the hands. On the other hand, I don't really see kibitzing the ACBL tourneys in the same light -- for the most part these are not examples of top-flight play. Sure it can be fun to watch my friends play (even if they're not world class players), but if I could see only my friends' hands I don't think it would reduce the enjoyment all that much.