[Chamaco]

paulhar, on Jul 17 2004, 04:24 PM, said:

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.

I disagree.

I know a bunch of italian good players ranging from expert to top teachers in italy.
Most of them have told me that they play in the lobby just for fun.
The like to chat during games and make silly mistakes;
they chat a lot sometimes not even watching cards "who cares?" after all, this is no tourney...

Not all experts do this, but many do: so I REALLY want to see how the big guys play in a competition not in the lobby.

Moreover, in the lobby you are bound to see many more occasional ptships (which often results in more misunderstandings and lower quality of play), in tourneys this is much less frequent.

[paulhar]

(Later in post: team games)

Hard to believe that someone would waste the rare opportunity to play with four decent players in the Main Bridge Lobby and then screw around. Maybe they know each other and can do this all the time. But when I find a roomful of decent players (some would say that room couldn't include me ), I am ecstatic to have the opportunity to play high-level bridge without egregious mistakes on every hand. It seems that the other players must be in the same boat, because I've played some pretty tough games in the Main Bridge Club. And if one of them does screw around and our partnership jumps out to a 15 IMP lead, the bridge gets a lot tougher, because, by golly, it's embarrassing to be down 15 IMPs to me!

Granted, you can't tell in advance which tables to watch because the tables marked 'experts only' seem to be popluated with less-than-expert players.

However, you can mark the people worth kibitzing as 'champions' or 'friends' or whatever and when you see four of them at a table, and they're not your Italian champs screwing around, then it's a table worth watching.

Of course, the rating system would have come in handy here, but I've already lost that battle, so I'll give up.

BB has many team games. These tend to be a higher level of play than the Main Bridge Club. You get to see the same four players play several hands together. Clearly it will be obvious after a couple of hands whether the table is worth watching or not. Again, if they're worth watching, mark 'em as champs or friends with a comment that they're worth kibitzing, as they'll probably be playing many more team games. These are probably also regular partnerships.

I wouldn't be afraid of asking some of these people privately whether they are planning on playing in any team games that you can watch. My guess is that they'll be flattered. I wouldn't be surprised if you got replies if you posted a query on the Forum asking when the top players intended to play team matches.

Also, in one of the 2-table team games (also in the tournament room), the winning strategy is once again to play good bridge. Nobody wants to lose one of these, so the bridge will probably match the calibre of the players.

The one downside is that these people might be playing a system you don't understand. Best of all is to be able to kibitz pairs playing a system similar to the one you play.

I find that I learn more by playing than by watching. After watching a single team match, it's probably time to take your newfound knowledge and play. After all, we learn from our mistakes and if you're watching, you can't make any.

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Jul 17 2004, 05:31 AM, said:

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.

I have had this policy for sometime... see, for instance... kibitzers

One of the great thing about BBO is the ablility to kibitz your friends, your students, your mentors, and your (um) betters. Stopping kibitzers stops that and really does very little to stop the serious cheaters.

Ben

[paulhar]

Many thanks to Ben who has pointed out that this has all been discussed three months ago. Serious followers of this thread would do well to read that thread also. It brings up a point not mentioned yet in this thread about players playing form the same IP. It would be a shame if I could get my favorite partner (that I'm married to) to play a tournament online, and then be accused of cheating for winning a tournament from the same IP. A lot of couples play together on BBO and in this day of networks, most of them are on the same IP and yet most of them do not cheat. Maybe a couple of them might say 'What do we play in this situation?' once in a while but I would guess that these would be in the minority. And allowing these couples raises the level of bridge being played, because couples tend to have firmer understandings than the average pair you'll encounter on BBO.

There was also mention of catching cheaters by sticking in a few 'test hands' where unusual actions would enhance the cheater's score but enough of them would mark him as a cheater. The problem is that once someone is barred for suspicious behavior, the guy gets a new Userid and the cheater is back. Perhaps an enhancement to the software is that instead of barring said cheater, you just make it so his version of Bridge Base is 'buggy' - intentional bugs that nobody knows about - eventually he'll grumble that the software is no good and go somewhere else which gets the desired effect.

But hey - we've got a lot of great minds working together on this Forum and some good ideas are going to come out. Certainly there must be a way that these serious students of the game can watch good high-level bridge without the participants clowning around, without increasing the potential for cheating. I've got a few ideas but I'd like to see others discuss it.

[Chamaco]

paulhar, on Jul 17 2004, 05:10 PM, said:

I find that I learn more by playing than by watching.  After watching a single team match, it's probably time to take your newfound knowledge and play.  After all, we learn from our mistakes and if you're watching, you can't make any.

Sure thing, I think we are stating the obvious(playing better than watching).
I also like to play and to learn from my mistakes.

However, I want to say again loud that I really wish to be able to see the good players when they "fight for blood" rather than just in the lobby.
Inhibiting this is a serious damage in my opinion.
Please do not take this away from me.

[McBruce]

I've been asked to be "more realistic" so here goes:

If you want to see more tourneys that allow kibitzers, it seems to me that there are two ways to accomplish this:

1. Complain in the forums about TDs who bar kibitzers. Ridicule them when they try to justify their stance on the issue. Criticize their online nicknames! Vow not to compete in tournaments where nobody can watch you. Perhaps we could have organized protests in the lobby, complete with messages letting everyone know which are the Machiavellian TDs that won't let you see the results as they happen.

2. Ask Uday to let you, and those who agree with you about kibitzers, run tournaments and run them, as many as you can handle, whether this is three a day or one a month. If you are right and we kibitzer barring TDs are so wrong, your tournaments will attract dozens of tables while ours will dwindle to nothing.

If you want to change MY mind, #2 is the way to go. The more I see of #1, the more I like my choice.

[Chamaco]

McBruce, on Jul 18 2004, 01:23 AM, said:

1. Complain in the forums about TDs who bar kibitzers. Ridicule them when they try to justify their stance on the issue. Criticize their online nicknames! Vow not to compete in tournaments where nobody can watch you. Perhaps we could have organized protests in the lobby, complete with messages letting everyone know which are the Machiavellian TDs that won't let you see the results as they happen.

2. Ask Uday to let you, and those who agree with you about kibitzers, run tournaments and run them, as many as you can handle, whether this is three a day or one a month. If you are right and we kibitzer barring TDs are so wrong, your tournaments will attract dozens of tables while ours will dwindle to nothing.

If you want to change MY mind, #2 is the way to go. The more I see of #1, the more I like my choice

Mc Bruce,
who are you referring to ?

On my behalf you probably have only seen the manifestation of my great disappointment for this kind of choices, and the explanation of my reasons, never being disrespectful towards any TD nor player.

As an aside, I am old enough to have lost much confidence about "changing other people's mind", but I still believe it is right to express one's own disagreement without having to be regarded as destructive or offensive, so there.

[xx1943]

Hi Ben, hi all

inquiry, on Jul 17 2004, 02:46 PM, said:

One of the great thing about BBO is the ablility to kibitz your friends, your students, your mentors, and your (um) betters.

100% aggreed.
But BBO is a free community and everybody is allowed to do what he wants to do except being rude or unpolite. This is one of the things, why BBO is the greatest bridge-site in the net.
There are many tournaments with kibs, and many without, there are many paid tournaments and many not paid, there are many tournaments I like to play and a few I don't like...............................................
If TD thinks he has good arguments to not allow kibs, so let him do, don't critisize and watch another tournament.

Cheers

Al

[the hog]

Chamaco, on Jul 18 2004, 11:29 AM, said:

McBruce, on Jul 18 2004, 01:23 AM, said:

1. Complain in the forums about TDs who bar kibitzers. Ridicule them when they try to justify their stance on the issue. Criticize their online nicknames! Vow not to compete in tournaments where nobody can watch you. Perhaps we could have organized protests in the lobby, complete with messages letting everyone know which are the Machiavellian TDs that won't let you see the results as they happen.

2. Ask Uday to let you, and those who agree with you about kibitzers, run tournaments and run them, as many as you can handle, whether this is three a day or one a month. If you are right and we kibitzer barring TDs are so wrong, your tournaments will attract dozens of tables while ours will dwindle to nothing.

If you want to change MY mind, #2 is the way to go. The more I see of #1, the more I like my choice

Mc Bruce,
who are you referring to ?

On my behalf you probably have only seen the manifestation of my great disappointment for this kind of choices, and the explanation of my reasons, never being disrespectful towards any TD nor player.

As an aside, I am old enough to have lost much confidence about "changing other people's mind", but I still believe it is right to express one's own disagreement without having to be regarded as destructive or offensive, so there.

I totally agree with Mauro here. No one I know who posts here would behave as you have intimated. The suggestion is actually insulting.

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Jul 18 2004, 04:25 AM, said:

I totally agree with Mauro here. No one I know who posts here would behave as you have intimated. The suggestion is actually insulting.

Well, let's see if we can address some of this...

Ron, you did say

Quote

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

That certainly could be interpreted as what McBruce says as "riticize their online nicknames. You, I, and in other threads several people including my favorite partner has said that we will not play in tournments that bar kibitizers, that is exactly what McBruce means when he says Vow not to compete in tournaments where nobody can watch you. This and several other threads about directors who ban kibitzers (yes this isn;'t the first, seocond or even thrid thread on this subject), might at least be reasonable considered as "ridicule" of a TD who decides to do this.

On the otherhand, I don;t know anyone advertizing in the lobby trying to organize protest and calling TD's by name... but then, who knows, maybe it does go on.

To xx1943, who said

Quote

If TD thinks he has good arguments to not allow kibs, so let him do, don't critisize and watch another tournament.

One has no choice but to watch another tournment, since you can't watch those with banned kibitzers, and

Quote

But BBO is a free community and everybody is allowed to do what he wants to do except being rude or unpolite.

I think, to a large degree, this is what is going on here. Ron expressed a concept that he wasn't going to play in such tournments, and McBruce suggested he is going to keep running them. Both can have fun during just that, and neither will suffer by the action of the other. Choice in action. Now, perhaps you took Ron;s comment about "name" as being rude. I am not sure. There is a thread somewhere around here where someone was mentioning that people who didn't list their name in their profile was rude. I don't think it was McBruce who said that, but maybe it was, or maybe Ron thought it was, or maybe McBruce defended that issue. However, what I think Ron meant was that he (Ron) quoting and addressing McBruce thought calling him "McBruce" sounded "awfully rude and formal". In otherwords, when i address "the_hog", i say "ron". i think what Ron wanted to do was address "mcbruce" by his first name, so as not to sound so "formal". i don't think Ron meant any think offensive by the comment, but can see how it was misread.

Ben

[paulhar]

inquiry, on Jul 18 2004, 06:23 AM, said:

This and several other threads about directors who ban kibitzers (yes this isn;'t the first, second or even third thread on this subject)

Good point! Anyone who is deeply interested in this thread would do well to do a keyword search and find the other pertinent threads. Chances are that what you want to say plus what everybody else is saying has been said before.

Unfortunately, you get newbies on the board (like me) that don't realize this and everybody has to say the same thing again for the benefit of the people that weren't on the forum before. And the newbies feel like they have to say their piece, even though it's been pointed out several times before.

Any of you that have been on the board could simply mention that this discussion has already been beaten to death (search for keyword: (pertinent keyword) in forum (pertinent forum)) so that people can see what's already been said before they beat the same horse to death.

Putting the link to the previous forum is great - how do you do that? While I'm asking, how do people put those quotes from other posts in the middle of their posts? I seem to only be able to quote ONE post and put the quote at the top. Clearly I need to be educated. A beginner's guide to the BBO forum ?

Naturally, one could search for every topic but it would be time-wasting because I assume that most topics are new.

[paulhar]

1. These tournament directors do a heck of a job for nothing and deserve nothing but our thanks. Please don't alienate them. Although I'm less likely to want to play in a tournament after having seen this thread and the others before it on the same subject, there are others that want to and if our tournament directors decide that their time is better spent elsewhere, BBO and all its members lose. While we might disagree with their position on something, we must not make a thankless job seem even more thankless.

2. That having been said, everyone has to realize that if you post on BBO, you should be prepared to get a good ribbing if your position isn't popular. There's a lot of people with a good (?) sense of humor on this board and it makes the posts much more fun to read. If you happen to be the butt of their humor this time, suck it up. We've all been there. If you think you've been unmercifully flogged, it probably means you either misinterpreted the post, or it was somebody's misguided sense of humor.

3. As Ben has said before, cheating at tournaments has been discussed a lot already. This thread was started out (I assume) because Rona was concerned that her ability to kibitz competitive bridge would be taken away. Chamaco has vehemently expressed this concern also. While I personally could care less about the right, I strongly support their view that they should be able to watch good bridge. Instead of having the same argument for at least the fourth time, perhaps we should figure out a way to make that happen. Because people interested in making that happen probably aren't reading this thread anymore, I'm going to start a new thread devoted to that. This thread will be in 'General BBO discussion' since tournaments themselves may play less of a role in this whole discussion.

[inquiry]

I might add, there are lots of players who PREFER to play in tournments where kibitzing isn't allowed. This is because they don't want people watching them play and/or they are very concerned about outline cheating and think (rightly or wrongly) that blocking kibitzing eliminates or reduces it. So having kibitzerless events are good for those who prefer that type of game.

Others feel the opposite, and perhaps the vast major do not care one way or the other. There is plenty of room for both types.

Ben

[xx1943]

paulhar, on Jul 18 2004, 04:53 PM, said:

Quote

Putting the link to the previous forum is great - how do you do that?

1. Copy the URl you want refer to on the clipboard (e.g. CTRL+C)
2. Put the cursor in yout text, where you want the URL to be inserted.
3. Click on the grey button "http://" above the editor-window.
4. Oaste the URL.
5. Type in any description for the link, that you like.

Quote

While I'm asking, how do people put those quotes from other posts in the middle of their posts?

1. Copy the piece you want to quote in clipboard (e.g. by typing CTRL+C)
2. Put the cursor in your text, where you want the quote to be inserted.
3. Click on the grey button QUOTE above the editor-window.
4. Paste the piece.
5. Click ok or type RETURN.

Quote

A beginner's guide to the BBO forum ?

I had the same questions and problems you have now a few week b4.
I was looking for a beginners guide or FAQ, but I found out people in this forum are very nice and patient with rookies. I got answers to all my questions in very short time. If nobody can help you, ask Ben (INQUIRY). He knows everything about this forum.

cheers

Al

[paulhar]

Thank you xx1943!

[1eyedjack]

I think that the decision to disallow kibbitzers is misguided.
I do not think it will cut down on cheating (however prevalent - which I think is not very).
I do think it will cut down on the enjoyment of BBO.
I do think that it casts the tournament host in a poor light, ie as one who is naturally suspicious.

I shall do my tiny bit in protest: Make myself available as sub only for tourneys that do not bar kibbitzers, and only play in tourneys that do not bar kibbitzers.

Incidentally, is there any way of telling, when entering a tourney, whether or not kibbitzers will be disallowed?

[aisha759]

such a shame to disallow kibbitzers!! it would help to categorize them as observer/spectator, but still wouldnt solve the "cheating" which is causing such distress ....

It is very enjoyable to kibb one's friends, and be kibbed in return.... this is a social site, and many are taking the fun out of it, so sad

I know, i know, you are going to say, if we want to socialize we can go to the main bridge club and kibb there! But we want our kibb rights for turneys!!! Give them back to us!!!! pulleeeeeeeaaase

Aisha

[1eyedjack]

I also think it is wrong for the software to ban chat to someone playing in a tourney. The same reasons apply: Any pair of individuals prepared to cheat can do so by ICQ or similar messenger. All you are doing by barring the chat is to prevent non-cheaters sending messages to players in tourney, which simply reduces the functionality of the site and creates irritation.

You could allow the tourney host to allow or disallow private chat to players, and the more enlightened hosts could then choose to allow it.

You could also allow individual players to block incoming messages when playing in tourneys, which they may want to do in order to preserve concentration. (That setting could be set as a default in the personal settings).

At least if you include these options in the software, if a message is blocked it is because of a decision by a human rather than a blanket decision by the software.

Just my 10 cents' worth. Probably the point has been made before.

[McBruce]

inquiry wrote:
However, what I think Ron meant was that he (Ron) quoting and addressing McBruce thought calling him "McBruce" sounded "awfully rude and formal". In otherwords, when i address "the_hog", i say "ron". i think what Ron wanted to do was address "mcbruce" by his first name, so as not to sound so "formal".


I accept that I misinterpreted "PS whats your first name? McBruce sounds awfully rude and formal." as a critique of my screen name. I spend enough time on BBO that a mouse hover over my screen name there will reveal me as Bruce McIntyre. I've had the nickname McBruce for almost 20 years, so clearly I don't see it as rude and formal. We have nicknames of all sorts on these forums and few posters feel uncomfortable using them. If you want my real name, ask nicely and I'll be happy to tell you. But at the end of a critical post in which The_Hog wrote "I will categorically refuse to play in any tournament that bars kibbitzers, and I encourage people who post here to do the same," how surprising is it that I missed the meaning? How difficult would it have been to rephrase to "McBruce, I'd like to address you less formally -- your screen name seems too formal to me," instead of dragging in the loaded word 'rude'?

I must say that, as with the last time this came up, I am tired of the bickering and pointless repetitive arguing. The thread started with a complaint that three of four tournaments running at 6:50 AM Pacific time on July 8, disallowed kibitzing. As I write one of two does so. This will not change, it is an option that belongs to the individual TDs. BBO does not include the automatic right to kibitz; you do not have the right to demand that a TD run his game your way. A poll will not give you that right no matter how slim a minority I am in.

If you want to see more kibitzer-allowed tournaments, I really do think you will have more success by banding together and making sure kibitzer tournaments are run. Grumbling about the no-kibs events doesn't solve anything. Vowing not to play in them is your right. Trying to encourage others not to is sour grapes.

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge (76A) say that a spectator should only look at one of the concealed hands during the bidding and play. One might make the argument that kibitzing all hands during a tournament on BBO is contrary to the Laws.

In several other threads, I have argued my side of the case. I ban kibitzers for the first two-thirds of my unclocked tourneys, to make cheating more difficult. I open it up for the last third to allow those who have played to watch others who are not as fast. I believe if I get 1% of the cheaters to stop cheating in my tournaments by barring kibitzers, it is a victory for the players who play in them, worth the regrettable nuisance to honest kibitzers. Most of the arguments against banning kibitzers boil down to the view that it isn't a solution, since they can cheat in so many other ways. As I wrote several months ago in the first thread:

"Hey, what the hell good are screens? If Meckwell want to cheat there are a million ways they can do so even with screens, right? So let's burn all the screens, they're useless in combating cheating and they're a real nuisance."

Same argument, same fallacy is my opinion. You have every right to yours.

[Chamaco]

McBruce, on Jul 19 2004, 08:43 AM, said:

If you want to see more kibitzer-allowed tournaments, I really do think you will have more success by banding together and making sure kibitzer tournaments are run.  Grumbling about the no-kibs events doesn't solve anything.

Mc Bruce,
your one is really a bad reaction, but unfortunately I see it is becoming widespread (see the thread on excluding advanced from BIL lounge).

1) there was no "grumbling". This forum is for the people to express their ideas, as long as they are polite.
It may sound strange for you, but they may express disappointment even about your actions. Or do you want everyone to agree with you ?

2) The fact that you are volunteer does not mean at all that everybody will like the way you handle things. I have been volunteer too and this is a fact that one should accept.
When volunteering, I have never-ever used this status as a shield from (polite) criticisms.

3) there are many ways a volunteer can face polite criticicisms:
a ) accept confrontations [edited ui] ; among these, you may view polite criticisms as feedback. Maybe you could even like to know how many people like the things you organize(or, more likely, you do not care of what people think).
For example, this policy has been used by Fred and Uday for their BBO software.
I cannot imagine how many crazy criticisms or suggestions they receive, but they respond politely, first explaining their reasons, and if the requirements are insisting, they just say that they have other priorities given the available resources.
This is answering like an adult

b ) [para edited ui] "I do what I do the way I like, and if you do not like, do it yourself your own way". This approach is not worth any further comments...


This does not mean you should run your tourn they way other people want.
It is obvious you run them as you like, you put the effort, you decide.
I simply wish to be able to express my disagreement without having to be called destructive.
This post may have been aggressive, but the previous ones weren't, they were only defending the right to say I do not like this policy, then do whatever you like.

If we can discuss nicely about one point, nice. But if the argument is like in the above "b" line, the discussion is not a discussion anymore, it just shows a lack of argument.
An argument like "I just do what I want", expressed in this form, is not bound to generate a nice discussion (e.g. an EXCHANGE of ideas).
I thought this was obvious, perhaps it is not.