[mike777]

Have Kibiterzs been banned from ACBL tourneys again? 8PM EDT?

[uday]

Y, as of a couple of weeks ago.

[jmvr]

I would like to add my remarks to this subject. It is my belief that kibitzers greatly contribute to the BBO site.

There are MANY elderly people, ill people (just returning from surgery - or too ill to play), beginners, students, weaker players and the rest of us, who enjoy watching those people whom we know.

I have been told that if I wanted to watch live bridge I could go to Vu-graph. Honestly, I am not interested in watching Vu-graph unless the US is playing or people I know. I have little interest in Iceland, Turkey, Poland, etc. competitions. Nothing against these people, please understand, but I am much more interested in observing friends, potential partners, and our experts that I believe I may learn from.

I have made many, many friend on BBO - which I contribute to having been able to observe them, or having them observe me. Banning kibitzers has greatly impeded social interaction between bridge players, one of the reasons I believed this site was initiated.

I personally would rather NOT gain master points then NOT be able to kibitz. I have been told that the reasoning was to stop people from cheating - I don’t think this stops anyone - I have no idea who wants to cheat - but I do know that stopping kibitzers does not eliminate telephone calls, MSN, Skype, two computers, couples in the same household playing at the same time, etc. Anyone who WANTS to cheat, will find a way. If winning is THAT important and having won, knowing you have not played fairly - then so be it - but why spoil the entire bridge adventure for the rest of us.

I hope that BBO may find a better solution than banning kibitzers. When Fred plays anywhere on BBO there are thousands of US kibitzers, why is this? It is because we know him and enjoy watching him. Yesterday there were 789 people watching the Icelandic competitions, I counted the Americans who were watching, there were 7, seven out of 789 - something is wrong with that percentile.

BBO please find a better solution. For those of you who agree with me, and those who do not, please add your comments. Thank you. Joanmarie von Richthofen

[nosie]

I am opposed to banning kibitzers from ACBL tournaments- Part of hte enjoyment for me is kibitzing my friends, partners, and students-It doesn't seem fair for all to suffer because of a few rotten eggs- Cheats will always find a way-msn,yahoo,skype,cell phones, 2 computers, 2 phone lines. etc-as far as I know, most of the ACBL members want to kibitz the ACBL tournaments- AS members of ACBL, we should be allowed to-

[fred]

Thanks for your sharing your thoughts on this jmvr.

Here are the reasons for BBO's "no kibs in ACBL" policy:

There are 2 ways to cheat in online bridge:

1) Illegal communication with another player via phone, MSN, whatever

2) Self-kibitzing

There is nothing we can do to stop 1) if people want to try this. Hopefully the severe penalties (expulsion from BBO and informing ACBL) for those who get caught will be enough to deter some potential cheats.

We can stop 2). Our "no kibs in ACBL" policy does just that.

We know we cannot stop cheating, but we can reduce it greatly. Cheating with another person is a completely different thing than cheating on your own. In order to cheat with someone else you have to take the risk of suggesting it to them.

This is risky because the very act of asking "do you want to cheat?" says "I am a cheat." A possible reaction to this question is "No, and I am going to tell everyone I know that you are a cheat".

I suspect that many bridge players who might otherwise cheat would not be brave (or foolish) enough to take this risk.

BBO general philosophy is "we know we can't stop cheating so we won't make our honest members suffer by disabling useful features that are subject to abuse". Another general policy is "we try to give our members what they want".

In this particular case, however, there is more to it than policy. The ACBL has granted BBO a sanction to run ACBL masterpoint tournaments on BBO.

Under this sanction BBO has an obligation to make a real effort to deal with the cheating issue.

Taking this obligation seriously means that we must bar kibitzers. We know that this will significantly lower the number of cheating incidents. It would be irresponsible to the ACBL (and to our players) for BBO to allow kibitzers.

I do understand that people like to watch their friends and I am truly sorry that they are being inconvenienced. Hopefully this post will help these people understand the situation from BBO's point of view.

Besides ACBL tourneys and vugraph there are a lot of good kibitzing opportunies on BBO.

You can almost always find leading bridge players and personalities from all over the world (including America of course) playing the Main Bridge Club or in Team Matches. Look for tables with lots of kibitzers - they are often worth joining and watching.

We welcome feedback from our ACBL regulars. If you don't want to make such feedback public you can always e-mail acbl@bridgebase.com.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mrdct]

A sensible compromise would be to only allow kibitzers who don't share an IP address with someone else in the tournament.

A self-kibitzing cheat would then need to be employing somewhat tricky technological work-arounds to present a different IP address for his kibitzer than his own.

I know this wont solve the problem for all bona fide kibitzers, but I think it would allow the vast majority of genuine kibitzers to watch ACBL tournaments in peace.

[blackshoe]

Tricky tech work arounds or simply having multiple machines connected directly to the internet, instead of through a router (the latter is how most home users probably do it, granted).

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Apr 7 2007, 02:28 AM, said:

Tricky tech work arounds or simply having multiple machines connected directly to the internet, instead of through a router (the latter is how most home users probably do it, granted).

Even so, you can just assume that they're on the same class C network and just look at the first three bytes of the address

[cherdano]

mrdct, on Apr 6 2007, 05:22 PM, said:

A sensible compromise would be to only allow kibitzers who don't share an IP address with someone else in the tournament.

A self-kibitzing cheat would then need to be employing somewhat tricky technological work-arounds to present a different IP address for his kibitzer than his own.

Is this really so tricky? I don't know how to do this and I am no computer scientist or know much about networks, but I suspect I could learn how to do this in less than an hour.

[Gerben42]

I don't see the problem, there are enough other tournaments you can kibitz. Maybe I should play in one of the ACBL tourneys again and see what kind of crowds are in there in the first place.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Apr 7 2007, 01:34 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Apr 7 2007, 02:28 AM, said:

Tricky tech work arounds or simply having multiple machines connected directly to the internet, instead of through a router (the latter is how most home users probably do it, granted).

Even so, you can just assume that they're on the same class C network and just look at the first three bytes of the address

Conneting my labtop via the WiFi and my desktop via the ADSL I have two computers on the same desk, connected via different networks. You can tell that both computers are in the Netherlands and with some arrangement with the ISPs you may get the information that both are in Leiden.

Maybe it would be a solution to replay the boards for kibbers with a delay of one round. The kibbers could still chat to each other, and after the last board the players themselves could join and give comments.

[mike777]

Ty for response. I note Fred made the statement that not having kibiterzs does cut down on cheating version 2. I note he implies BBO feels there is cheating and BBO has some evidence they are getting results.

[JanTucson]

I certainly respect Fred's decision, but I can only think how sad it is that there are cheaters on this wonderful site. Or, for that matter, in the bridge world at all. Call me naive, but I find it incomprehensible.

[nik1998]

But Why? What's the problem with banned?We like to see good players at ACBL!

[julie5607]

"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

[jmc]

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

[bid_em_up]

deleted

[nik1998]

No good but.........

[TylerE]

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.

[inquiry]

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?