[barmar]

inquiry, on Apr 15 2007, 07:24 PM, said:

TylerE, on Apr 15 2007, 05:47 PM, said:

jmc, on Apr 9 2007, 10:46 AM, said:

What if kibitzers are only allowed to see the dummy and none of the other hands.  This will thwart the self kibitzers and allow other people to watch the hands be played.  Granted its a little less fun than being able to watch 4 hands or even 2 hands, but its way better than nothing at all.

I think this has a lot of upside without much down.

jmc

I'd suggest something similar, but different. I would suggest the option to kibitz a 'player' rather than a table. You'd then be able to see that pleyer's cards and dummy, but no others.

Not that it matters, but lets imagine that I am going to self kibitz by using one of the tricks to log on from two computers. I can of course, see my hand, yes? So when I kibitz, whose hand might I kibitz? My partners I guess would be the best place. How would this solution help limit alleged cheating?

You don't need to kibitz your partner, you can talk to him on the phone or with IM. So you would presumably kibitz one of the opponents, while talking to your partner. This is enough to reconstruct the entire hand, of course.

I can't imagine any fun in just seeing dummy, though. When you kibitz, you're often trying to imagine how you'd play/defend, or if you can see all 4 hands you might wonder whether the players will find a key play that you can see double dummy. Just seeing dummy doesn't give you enough information to involve yourself in the play at all.

[inquiry]

barmar, on Apr 16 2007, 10:45 AM, said:

You don't need to kibitz your partner, you can talk to him on the phone or with IM. So you would presumably kibitz one of the opponents, while talking to your partner. This is enough to reconstruct the entire hand, of course.

I can't imagine any fun in just seeing dummy, though. When you kibitz, you're often trying to imagine how you'd play/defend, or if you can see all 4 hands you might wonder whether the players will find a key play that you can see double dummy. Just seeing dummy doesn't give you enough information to involve yourself in the play at all.

To talk to your partner on teh phone or by IM, you BOTH have to agree to cheat. There is nothing BBO can do to stop this but find evidence that it is occuring (and there are ways to find this evidence, I assure you).

But if you log on twice, and kibitz your partner, you are cheating alone. Cheating alone is much safer to the cheater, read Fred's original reply in this thread to see why.

[pclayton]

julie5607, on Apr 9 2007, 03:37 AM, said:

"But Why? What's the problem with banned?"

The problem with banned is that a large portion of the ACBL playing population are regulars, people who play multiple ACBLs each week or day, with a set of usual partners chosen from the same pool of ACBL junkies. For those people the ACBL tourneys at BridgeBase ARE BridgeBase, the draw that brings them in regularly. Not only that, but they pay a lot of the bills at our "free" site. When they miss the start for a tourney, for whatever reason, they want to kib their friends, regular partners, closest rivals, potential partners - whoever - in the current ACBL while waiting for the next one to start. Banning kibs from the ACBLs lowers their enjoyment drastically.

I don't happen to play ACBLs myself, but I have many friends who do and I prefer to watch them play the tourneys if I can. However, since I don't actually ever pay to play ACBLs I have no leg to stand on in the protest over whether kibs can watch or not. The regular players who are spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year on BBO points have a very legitimate case that banning them from kibbing reduces the experience for them. My suggestion would be instituting some sort of kib application process for the ACBL, allowing kib access one ID at a time based on the personal experience of the ACBL director.

Julie

Fair enough, but I'm willing to bet that its a lot of the paying 'regulars' who complain the loudest when there is prima facie evidence of cheating.

[pbleighton]

"Fair enough, but I'm willing to bet that its a lot of the paying 'regulars' who complain the loudest when there is prima facie evidence of cheating."

Perhaps, but I play mostly on BBO ACBL tourneys, and while I understand and respect the arguments for banning it, I'd like to bring back kibbing.

F**k the cheaters, I just ignore them.

Peter

[sallyally]

I truly do miss not being able to kib acbl games. Not only because of being able to watch my bbo friends but also because I could kib my teacher, Shep. It's a treat for me to watch the play whether or not it is her regular partner or perhaps a student.

I am not going to look up the hands for her games. It has something to do with a not in real time event. I guess I just enjoy watching live!

Maybe, bbo could replay the tournament somewhat later following the end of the tournament. That I would watch.

And please don't ask why the last paragraphs contradict one another. I have no
answer to that.

My computer is where the washer/dryer is located. Believe me when I tell you it is extraordinarily much easier to do laundry while kibbing on bbo!

[mike777]

I also miss being able to kibitz. I can only assume that BBO gets alot more complaints or even finds more evidence of "self cheating" that they felt the need to impose this.

[glen]

Even though it will be hard to program, I would love to see BBO with a time-delay kibitz feature, which would be useful for the tourneys as well as the vugraphs. The delay time would be 10 minutes or so (could be set by host), and, for the vugraph presentations, the commentators would see things at the same time as the rest of the audience.

In other features, if the number of kibitzers at a table is greater than 10, chat by non-players at the table should default to the gallery, and not to the table.

[inquiry]

officeglen, on Apr 16 2007, 06:47 PM, said:

Even though it will be hard to program, I would love to see BBO with a time-delay kibitz feature, which would be useful for the tourneys as well as the vugraphs. The delay time would be 10 minutes or so (could be set by host), and, for the vugraph presentations, the commentators would see things at the same time as the rest of the audience.

In other features, if the number of kibitzers at a table is greater than 10, chat by non-players at the table should default to the gallery, and not to the table.

With the 10 minute delayed before the kibitzers see anything, comments to the table would confuse the players.. the hand etc will long be gone. In fact the tourney maybe over and the players have left the building....

[glen]

In events with time delay, there is no chat to the table - vugraph commentators will chat only with the audience, and in tourneys, players will be left to their own talk and that of the TD. The "other features" was for tables not time delayed, like the JEC events.

Also if one goes to work to provide a time-delayed feature, it would be useful if TDs, when at a particular table, could decide to view a short rewind of the latest table action and chat.

[aloman]

I think the kibitzers should be not allowed at ACBL games. I have played some ACBL tourneys and I found many cheaters. In the most cases it was "selfkibitzing". You will ask "How did you recognized the cheater?" Easy. The player plays always briliant. He finds very unusual ways to make/turn down the game. The kibitzer is often invisible, no info at his profile, or from "exotic" location. The kibitzer follows the player till the end of the tourney.
What about if we disallow kibitzing from the same IP? I can tell you, that there is a way to run the BBO program as many times, as you want at the same PC. For understandable reason, I will not tell you how to do, please dont ask. There is a easy way to change the IP adress too. The kibitzer could be displayed as logged in from the opposite side of the world.
Why the players cheat? Playing ACBL games your compete for ACBL and BBO masterpoints. There are haughty persons, who want to be always the best. They will accept any way, good or bad, to increase their symobl at the profile.
Why the cheaters are bad for the other players? We all play bridge for fun. The winning is a part of the game and it's a motivation to play again and again. If I play well and a cheater takes my first place, it will be a disappointment for me. I will never play, knowing I will never win. Dont forget, that the players pay entry fee. Its important too.
I am a TD here from long time and I run tourneys with entry fee too. The cheaters are
harmful for all. They find a way to cheat even at indys with no kibitzers. We all must find some way to decrease the number of the cheaters at BBO. So I appreciate this decission and ACBL won one more player

[the hog]

"We all play bridge for fun."

"The winning is a part of the game and it's a motivation to play again and again. If I play well and a cheater takes my first place, it will be a disappointment for me. I will never play, knowing I will never win."

So you are really saying you don't play for fun after all. Winning is more important than personal satisfaction for you. How sad!

[1eyedjack]

Heh, I don't know why, and it is not relevant to the thread, but this reminds me of a cartoon in the paper I saw a few weeks ago:

Son, to father: "Dad, why do we need to buy Trident [nuclear defence system]?"

Father: "It's not about winning, son. It's about taking part."

Well, it tickled me.

[aloman]

The_Hog said:

So you are really saying you don't play for fun after all. Winning is more important than personal satisfaction for you. How sad!

Yes. When I sith down to play, I want to win. Or perhaps you sit down to lose? If I play well I'll win and that is the satisfaction. This is a sport and the goal is to win, but win fair. Then only the FUN is real. Just imagine, your opponents know all four hands, and you know your hand only. Your chance to win is zero and where is your fun? Maybe you dont understand, that the problem is very serious. The statement " Let the cheaters to cheat" is unacceptable at the current situation, because the percentage of the cheaters is
very large and grows.

[mike777]

aloman, on Apr 17 2007, 10:59 PM, said:

I think the kibitzers should be not allowed at ACBL games. I have played some ACBL tourneys and I found many cheaters. In the most cases it was "selfkibitzing". You will ask "How did you recognized the cheater?" Easy. The player plays always briliant. He finds very unusual ways to make/turn down the game. The kibitzer is often invisible, no info at his profile, or from "exotic" location. The kibitzer follows the player till the end of the tourney.
What about if we disallow kibitzing from the same IP? I can tell you, that there is a way to run the BBO program as many times, as you want at the same PC. For understandable reason, I will not tell you how to do, please dont ask. There is a easy way to change the IP adress too. The kibitzer could be displayed as logged in from the opposite side of the world.
Why the players cheat? Playing ACBL games your compete for ACBL and BBO masterpoints. There are haughty persons, who want to be always the best. They will accept any way, good or bad, to increase their symobl at the profile.
Why the cheaters are bad for the other players? We all play bridge for fun. The winning is a part of the game and it's a motivation to play again and again. If I play well and a cheater takes my first place, it will be a disappointment for me. I will never play, knowing I will never win. Dont forget, that the players pay entry fee. Its important too.
I am a TD here from long time and I  run tourneys with entry fee too. The cheaters are
harmful for all. They find a way to cheat even at indys with no kibitzers. We all must find some way to decrease the number of the cheaters at BBO. So I appreciate this decission and ACBL won one more player

Wow in your ACBL games you find many players who make unusual winning plays or bids but no unusual losing plays or bids in the same tourney? I have never found one, let alone many. Interesting.

[kenberg]

My experience is similar to Mike's. I have, from time to time, experienced bids or plays by opponents that I thought were really weird. If weird enough, I would look up their bids and plays for several hands during the tourney. Yep, weird. But usually not successful. I have yet to find a confirmed cheater.


Has anyone checked to see what the ban has actually uncovered? Did an unusually large number of people quit playing after the ban? Or a statistically unlikely number of folks suddenly get much worse? Maybe so, but I would be surprised. Of course one cheater is one too many so I reluctantly accept the logic of the ban.


I have mentioned this before, more than once, but far and away the largest ethical problem I see is hesitating during the play when there is nothing to hesitate about. I saw this with a star a while back. I was pretty sure I had the lie of the cards worked out but I led from the board, rho thought a bit and played low. Surely a star would not do this so I revised my opinion. Wrong. I know, dogs have to be let in and so on, but they often seem to need this service just as a critical play is made. I live with it, but I don't like it. With some players a hesitation is an outright denial of a holding requiring thought, so that can be useful in its way.

Mostly I believe we need to work on ourselves. We all like to win but we have to respect the game. It's easy to get dragged into a lazy "everybody does it" sort of thinking. We need to do our best in play, in courtesy, and in ethics.


Anyway, I am sorry to see the ban and even sorrier to hear that it is thought to be needed.

[jillybean]

kenberg, on Apr 19 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

I have mentioned this before, more than once, but far and away the largest ethical problem I see is hesitating during the play when there is nothing to hesitate about. I saw this with a star a while back. I was pretty sure I had the lie of the cards worked out but I led from the board, rho thought a bit and played low. Surely a star would not do this so I revised my opinion. Wrong. I know, dogs have to be let in and so on, but they often seem to need this service just as a critical play is made. I live with it, but I don't like it. With some players a hesitation is an outright denial of a holding requiring thought, so that can be useful in its way.

I find v breaks in tempo interesting but very challenging to deal with online. (no doubt in real life too)
I have spoken with few very experienced TD’s to try to understand BIT and how to apply the relevant the laws in an online setting. The advice was all BIT must be addressed and it’s the job of the TD to look at the use of the BIT - not to rule on the BIT itself.

Dog wants in, coffee is ready, brain fart, difficult decision or deliberate pause, it doesn’t matter – we must look at how the BIT was used.

jb

[kenberg]

Well, yes, except. Two things.

I was more referring to the case where I lead from dummy towards my KJx and on my right the guy thinks a bit and then plays low. He was thinking of rising with the queen to save me a guess? It's not a matter of his partner using the information but of him being cute.

As to the usage of breaks in tempo by the breaker's partner, whatever the directors may say when chatting, nothing happens when you summon them to the table. I am not the sort who does this frequently. I have been playing online acbl tourneys for quite a while and I believe I have called three times in total. Two of the cases were, I thought, egregious. The other I thought at the time was wrong but I later changed my mind and decided it was acceptable, at least acceptable enough to not get in an uproar over. No matter, all three were a waste of effort. To the best of my knowledge no bidding, however unjustified over a tempo break, has ever been rolled back in an online acbl tournament. One of the directors told me, accurately or not, that it was their policy not to evaluate such matters.

I accept this. Some things are the way they are, and you accept it or you go elsewhere. I regard the online tourneys as good fun and these quirks are a bit annoying but few things in life are perfect.

I try to keep myself in line and I am pleased to say there are many others of similar disposition. That's satisfactory enough. Generally, I trust my fellow bridge player and believe the trust is warranted. It would be naive to think that no one ever takes advantage.

[rbforster]

I just wanted to add my regret that I can't kibitz my friends or stars playing in online tournaments. I have never played in such a tournament, but I know I would be much more likely to in the future if I could watch or two first.

I don't know if this ban is the right choice for BBO - even if there are a few "self kibitzing" cheaters spoiling the tournaments, it may be worse to punish the very large number of real kibitzers. If the cheaters are motivated by earning masterpoints, perhaps the answer is to change the business model to running cheaper/free non-sanctioned events (in which cheaters would have less interest).

You could even imagine charging a small optional fee per user for the right to kibitz all live tournaments for a year. I know I would definitely pay a yearly fee to regularly watch star players competing in live tournaments.

Remember, there are a lot more honest folks out there. Make sure your business model reflects that.

[jmc]

A fee is an interesting idea.

I am also happy to report that Okbridge still allows kibbing of its tournaments. I hadn't used my membership their in months but have been using it as a new source for kibbing tourneys.

I still do not understand why kibbing but only showing the dummy is a problem. This stops self kibbing which was the main reason for the ban. Could someone explain why we cant just kib the players seeing only the dummy?

jmc

[fred]

jmc, on May 7 2007, 07:02 AM, said:

A fee is an interesting idea.

I am also happy to report that Okbridge still allows kibbing of its tournaments. I hadn't used my membership their in months but have been using it as a new source for kibbing tourneys.

I still do not understand why kibbing but only showing the dummy is a problem. This stops self kibbing which was the main reason for the ban. Could someone explain why we cant just kib the players seeing only the dummy?

jmc

In order to force kibitzers to see only the dummy some software changes would be required.

While it would not be difficult for us to make the necessary software changes, it would be necessary for people to download a new version of BBO in order for the changes to take effect.

There is no way we are going to force 100,000s of people to download a new version of BBO for the sake of a new feature like this. Making the new program a voluntary download for people who want to kibitz the dummy in ACBL tournaments is an option, but there would be additional complications in handling things this way.

For me personally I cannot imagine that seeing none of the hands during the bidding and only the dummy during the play would be a satisfying experience. If enough of our regular ACBL players feel differently about this and let me know (via either forums posts or e-mail) then I will reconsider your suggestion.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com