[rona_]

There are four tournaments going on as I write this, and three of them disallow kibitzing. Is this going to be the norm from now on?

[uday]

Lets hope not. BBO has no opinion (well, maybe we think specs should be allowed).

I can guess why some Ts do this.

- to see if it reduces accusations of cheating
- to increase the pool of subs

[jdulmage]

Yes, I for one encourage tournament directors to disallow kibitizers. People cheat all of the time, whether or not we see it is another thing and disallowing kibitizers makes it easier for us TDs to make sure fairness is played out.

[Cascade]

jdulmage, on Jul 15 2004, 03:20 PM, said:

Yes, I for one encourage tournament directors to disallow kibitizers. People cheat all of the time, whether or not we see it is another thing and disallowing kibitizers makes it easier for us TDs to make sure fairness is played out.

I am not sure.

Cheats will cheat whether there are kibitzers or not.

[JRG]

For what it is worth, banning kibitzers from a tournament seems silly to me. The only exception I'd make would be for something like the BIL where there are novices and beginners who might feel intimidated by the presence of a lot of kibitzers.

If kibitzers cannot talk to players (via BBO), then what's the point? As pointed out elsewhere, people who want to cheat, will cheat regardless.

[the hog]

"Yes, I for one encourage tournament directors to disallow kibitizers. "

This is a really poor attitude. One of the pleasures of bbo is to kibbitz your friends. As has been pointed out by others - if you want to cheat you can always find a way. Surely no one is so concerned with winning a meaningless tournament that you would take people's pleasure away from them.

[spwdo]

hi,

Agree with cascade, however with disallowing kibitzers they dont have access to 52 cards when the bidding hasnt begun(using the friendly kibchaetingoption), at best now they exchange their cards and fill partner in how to play a hand when dummy, but chaeting is discouraged till certain degree, accusations a lot .

More ppl go offline in pairs after scoring bad(maybe coincidence) when u host without kibitzers, what i woud like to see is an option for tds to set , kibitz partner only when dummy so a dummy coudnt see opps hand, togheter with no kibs allowed we coud have fair tourneys without none chaeting allegations because there woud be no ground.

Lets not make this too much of a problem when kibitzers are off, remember we got an excellent webpage where u can look into whoever hands u want, i for one go there , look at 20 baords in ten minutes.

It got totally nothing to do with punisching the good for a few rotten apples, we taking here about tourneys with limited number of hands played wich again can be find seconds after tourny is over, so these baords are not lost .

I can name several pairs that dont play with kibs disallowed, while they play other tourneys i host where kibs are allowed.Also i can name pairs that score good with kibs allowed and score bad with kibs disallowed, some of these pairs avoid like i said the kibs off tourneys.

I noticed a dicrease in bluff/spyche bids ( mainly what i talk about is bidding Spades with no spades will opps sitting on a nine fit ) then they end up playing a savely haert game or below and opps stayed out of the bidding, i seen some spyche gone totally bad( personally i think it can go either way) in fact i gotten tired of only psyches gone good(must add to that when opps make spyche and it turns bad no one will inform a td i guess)

In the last 3 weeks tourneys over 4000 ppl played "bridge too far" so i think i have some ground to come forward with my opinion

i also think that a tourney is competition and main bridge club/teamgames are less competitieve for a large group of players so therefore the excuse of disallowing kibitzers in one of my tourneys.

Want to add here also i help out in several other tourneys where kibs are allowed with no problem whatsoever, im not asking/pushing/dictade what others shoud do, as always on BBo every one is allowed to do his own thing, lets keep it that way.


Marc

[paulhar]

uday, on Jul 8 2004, 10:06 AM, said:

- to increase the pool of subs

I'm surprised at this one. It's hard to believe that someone kibitzing in a tournament would want to sub in the same tournament.

First, I would assume that someone who is kibitzing is kibitzing a particular player or pair. That is how they wish to spend that block of time. If they really want to play in a tournament but feel like kibitzing a pair, tournaments are prevalent enough that they can kibitz until the next tournament whisks them away.

Somebody who is willing to sub wants to play bridge and might more likely be in the Main Bridge Club playing rather than kibitzing.

Kibitzers can always be on the sub list for the tourneys they're not subbing in. That's why I think barring them is short-sighted. Tournament directors can do each other a favor by allowing kibitzers because your kibitzer can be somebody else's sub. If all the TD's bar kibitzers, you might cut down on the total number of subs available for all tourneys.

Sure, it's the Prisoner's Dilemma where if others are barring kibitzers while you allow them, you're providing subs for them while they're doing you dirt. (The Prisoner's Dilemma is a situation where everybody has a choice and if everybody takes the choice that is worse for them personally, the whole population benefits, because the choice that is worse for you is better for others by a wider margin. A good example is recycling - it's a pain to do it but if everybody does it it's well worth it.)

So maybe if the TD's all make nice and allow kibitzers, there will be a lot more subs to go around - nobody has to feel guilty leaving a table to get called to a tournament if he is only kibitzing anyway.

[spwdo]

paulhar, on Jul 16 2004, 10:15 AM, said:

uday, on Jul 8 2004, 10:06 AM, said:

- to increase the pool of subs

I'm surprised at this one. It's hard to believe that someone kibitzing in a tournament would want to sub in the same tournament.

hi,


Dont be surprised, some add themselves to sublist, do a peek a boo and get subbed in, happens a lot when someone is missing that a player goes red and his partner gives u a name of a "willing sub" that happen to be watching.

Off course this is not what most do, very pleased that the majority isnt like that and plays it fair but it happens frequently, almost once in every tourney and i believe its not intenionally chaeting but its unethical to say the least.

This is the main reason we long ask since players coud find their own sub that it becomes impossible to sub a player in that is kibitzing that tourney, i think its active now(occupied players/kibs in same tourney nolonger get invitations send) correct me if im wrong Uday.

What players do now is ask td to do sub manually, so they give a name and unknowing td subs that player in...

spwdo

[bambi1]

Most of the tournaments I run, I allow kibitzing, but here are a couple of incidences that happened.......

One night while directing a kibitzer messaged me and told me that a pair was known for cheating (they were at table 1). The following round I kept my eye on the pair (and the kibitzers!). The next couple of rounds I changed the tournament to disable kibitzers. Whoa and behold the pair dropped from table 1 to table 17 in 2 rounds. Coincidence?

Another tournament I disallowed kibitzers, and a player messaged me and said, "could I leave please, I won't play without my kibitzer". Now, that was a first for me!

All, in all, I think kibitzers should be allowed. It is a great way for ALL of us to learn more.

Cheaters will cheat and there is not much we can do about it. What satisfaction comes from it? They know they didn't win legally? Does this boost an ego? And if so, I feel sorry for them.

[hrothgar]

Not sure if anyone cares, there's a good writeup on Prisioner's dilemma available at

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PRISDIL.html

Paul's explanation is pretty close, but misses a couple of salient points

[paulhar]

bambi1, on Jul 16 2004, 09:29 AM, said:

Another tournament I disallowed kibitzers, and a player messaged me and said, "could I leave please, I won't play without my kibitzer". Now, that was a first for me!

I'm sure most of you must think there is cheating here. There might be another quite plausible reason. The player is learning and the kibitzer is the player's pro who will later discuss the player's errors with him. Take away the kibitzer, and the player will wish to go play in the Main Bridge Room where his kibitzer can once again be there to collect hand records and watch the student play.

[hallway]

or it could be his Mother helping him to learn - remember that one Karl !

[Dwayne]

james, on Jul 15 2004, 01:20 PM, said:

Yes, I for one encourage tournament directors to disallow kibitizers.  People cheat all of the time, whether or not we see it is another thing and disallowing kibitizers makes it easier for us TDs to make sure fairness is played out.

...boring...

people people...can we get over this 'stop the cheaters at all costs' mentality.

It really gets up my nose when I can't kibbitz a tourney. Barring specs deters cheaters from using one methodology but if I had the time and inclination I bet I could list 100 other ways to cheat on BBO...for what it's worth.

Dwanye (formerly Noodles on TwoplusTwo.com)

[xx1943]

Hi Dwayne, hi all

Quote

people people...can we get over this 'stop the cheaters at all costs' mentality.

Very right
IMO there were much more people talking about cheating as there are cheaters.
Not every strange lucky bid is a cheat.
Besides cheating in BBO must be boring. We don't play for money, we don't play for Masterpoints, we don't play for qualifying the Bermuda-Bowl, we play just for fun and entertainment.
Imo cheating is the same reading a crime-story from the end.

Quote

It really gets up my nose when I can't kibbitz a tourney. Barring specs deters cheaters from using one methodology but if I had the time and inclination I bet I could list 100 other ways to cheat on BBO...for what it's worth.

100% agree.

Besides I learned after some bitter experience: Psychics maybe fun for you, but never for your partner. Psychics destroy partnerships confidence and faith.
I was a great psycher and had to learn: Psychs don't pay in a long run on a high level. I'm not talking about tactical bids, which could not confuse partner.

Al

[McBruce]

I've argued this before in other threads, and I seem to be an odd sort of bridge player because watching others in real time doesn't excite me as much as actually playing in real time. So, with respect to those who feel differently...

No TD who bars kibitzers will argue that it stops all cheating. What it does do is it makes it harder to cheat. Those of us who bar kibitzers think that players who choose to play in our tournaments deserve that cheating not be as simple as connecting with your desktop and laptop at once and watching yourself double-dummy. Of course there are other ways to drop singleton honours offside and bid to miracle slams. But the other ways are harder.

It's not unreasonable to take a small action against something that is wrong (like online cheating) even if your action will not completely prevent it. People participate in protest rallies all the time with a very low chance of actually changing anything. What would the Olympics be like if officials decided that 'we can't keep pace with performance-enhancing drugs, so to hell with it, let them use whatever they want?' You cannot criticize those who bar kibitzers because doing so doesn't stop cheating completely. That's not why we do it. We do it because it reduces cheating.

BTW, any pro worth the money he is paid will happily go through 12 or 15 boards in less than half the time it took to actually play them and find a client's errors. Not only that, it will probably benefit the client more to read such a report than it will to have the pro kibitz and let the client know after each hand what could have been done better. "I won't play without my kibitzer" is to me extremely suspicious and I would start checking that player's results.

[Chamaco]

Almost everything has been said on excluding kibs from tourneys.

If this is a sort of poll, add my vote against excluding kibs: I would be really sad if allowed to kib onbly in the main lobby, where players tend to play less competitively (hence less instructive), I like to learn from kibitzing real competitive games

[the hog]

"I won't play without my kibitzer" is to me extremely suspicious and I would start checking that player's results.

McBruce, lets be a little realistic here. If someone was actually cheating, do you think they would make this comment? Maybe you think this is the classic "double double cross". No thats too hard. I am sure there is a reasonable explanation.

Actually I am forming a policy now: I will categorically refuse to play in any tournament that bars kibbitzers, and I encourage people who post here to do the same.

PS whats your first name? McBruce sounds awfully rude and formal.

[paulhar]

Chamaco, on Jul 17 2004, 04:03 AM, said:

If this is a sort of poll, add my vote against excluding kibs: I would be really sad if allowed to kib onbly in the main lobby, where players tend to play less competitively (hence less instructive), I like to learn from kibitzing real competitive games

Maybe I'm the exception, but from what I've seen in the main bridge lobby as opposed to tournaments, I think otherwise.

I think you would see a much higher level of bridge watching four decent players in the Main Bridge Club. The reasons are simple and motivated by the desire to win.

When playing in the Main Bridge Club with a good partner against competent opponents, by best strategy for winning is to play my best possible bridge. A shaky double may cost double digit IMPs if it helps the declarer make the hand, and against good competition, these will be difficult to make up.

A tournament is another thing altogether. If the opponents make a shaky game against you in a 6 board cross-IMP tournament, you are virtually out of the tournament so you might as well double because if you set it two or more, you have greatly enhanced your chances of placing near the top. (The same is true to a lesser extent even in a 12 board cross IMPs tourney, especially if the first few boards have been uneventful.)

Matchpoint tournaments rate to be a little closer to true form, but here too, in a short tourney, a smart player will make the assumption that his opponents have done the wrong thing, because if that assumption is wrong, he can't win the tournament.

I've noticed that other people play wilder in the tourneys than in the Main Bridge club too. If I want a learning experience for either me or partner, I will head straight for the Main Bridge Club and try to find a decent table.

[paulhar]

The_Hog, on Jul 17 2004, 04:31 AM, said:

PS whats your first name? (last name deleted) sounds awfully rude and formal.

Yes, I was suprised to click my own handle and not find my full name in my profile. I didn't see a spot for it. Maybe a suggestion for the software?