[1eyedjack]

McBruce, on Jul 19 2004, 03:43 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.  Vowing not to play in them is your right.  Trying to encourage others not to is sour grapes.

Bull (the last sentence, that is). Would you call it sour grapes if players lobbied in favour of kib-barred tourneys? I think not. It is only sour grapes because they happen to disagree with you. As TD you have considerable power that is not available to the player. You can bar (or not bar) kibs without consultation. You are then subject to the whim of market forces - do the players want them or not? If players do not want them they can make their wishes known by a variety of means, one of which is to persuade others to their way of thinking. If they are successful then it would appear that their arguments are persuasive, and market forces will generate the kib-allowed tourneys. The players on the receiving end of lobbying activities are grown-ups. They can make up their own minds.

I would not deny you the right to bar kibs. But if the groundswell of opinion grows against that act I would suggest that it is you, not the players, who would be suffering from sour grapes if attendance falls.

McBruce, on Jul 19 2004, 03:43 AM, said:

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.

I would accept that. I think it is a bad law, and I might lobby to change the law, but for as long as it is the law then it is a compelling argument.

McBruce, on Jul 19 2004, 03:43 AM, said:

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.

There is a big "if" that precedes that sentence. Whether you reduce cheating by 1% is speculative. The inconvenience that you cause to potential kibbitzers is a certainty. It is not an argument that persuades me, nor one that particularly interests me. Go ahead with your kib-barred tourneys and let me go my way, and let me persuade others who might be interested in listening, however I may go about it, as you can try the converse.

McBruce, on Jul 19 2004, 03:43 AM, said:

"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."

The primary function of screens is not to prevent cheating. It is to prevent the passing of UI, the vast majority of which is inadvertent. The receiver of UI is restricted in what he can do. If anything, screens protect the side that might otherwise inadvertently pass UI, more than they protect the other side from cheats.

[mink]

QUOTE (1eyedjack Posted on Jul 19 2004, 11:51 AM)]

Quote

QUOTE (McBruce @ Jul 19 2004, 03:43 AM)

Quote

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.

I would accept that. I think it is a bad law, and I might lobby to change the law, but for as long as it is the law then it is a compelling argument.

This law has been created clearly with kiebitzers at table in mind. If applied the way McBruce suggests, there must not only be no kibs at online tourneys but also no online vugraphs and even no vugraphs at the tournament side like they had in Malmö. This is simply ridiculous.

My oppinion is that kibitzers should be allowed. First of all because if something like cheating is going on, the last thing I would accept is that these cheaters force us to make decisions that make the environment less enjoyable. This would be a victory for the cheaters.

However, I did co-direct in a tourney several times where kibitzers were not allowed. I asked the host about it and he explained that he knows the names of pairs who did not show up anymore since the time when he first disallowed kibitzers, and he had suspected them of cheatin before. Then, one day, the host was not able to direct the tourney himself, and somebody had allowed kibitzers for this tourney. My attention was drawn to a pair by their opps, and I looked at their boards after the tourney and found enough evidence that I reported that pair to abuse. I had not much time to kib this pair during the touney, but when I came to their table close to the end one time there was a kib present with no country and empty profile and with no records in myhands, as I found out later.

But even after having found this case I still believe that kibs should be allowed. I rather encourage others to look at the boards of suspected pairs and report them, too. This way we do not only get those cheaters who cheat with kibs, but potentially all of them, except maybe very cautious ones, but I doubt that very cautious cheaters exist.

And, as I said before, I would not enter the sublist of a tourney without kibs as there is no way to tell how many boards are left to be played. If all did the same these tourneys would be always out of subs.

Karl

[bearmum]

mink, on Jul 19 2004, 11:34 PM, said:

QUOTE (1eyedjack Posted on Jul 19 2004, 11:51 AM)]

Quote

QUOTE (McBruce @ Jul 19 2004, 03:43 AM)

Quote

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.

I would accept that. I think it is a bad law, and I might lobby to change the law, but for as long as it is the law then it is a compelling argument.

This law has been created clearly with kiebitzers at table in mind. If applied the way McBruce suggests, there must not only be no kibs at online tourneys but also no online vugraphs and even no vugraphs at the tournament side like they had in Malmö. This is simply ridiculous.

My oppinion is that kibitzers should be allowed. First of all because if something like cheating is going on, the last thing I would accept is that these cheaters force us to make decisions that make the environment less enjoyable. This would be a victory for the cheaters.

However, I did co-direct in a tourney several times where kibitzers were not allowed. I asked the host about it and he explained that he knows the names of pairs who did not show up anymore since the time when he first disallowed kibitzers, and he had suspected them of cheatin before. Then, one day, the host was not able to direct the tourney himself, and somebody had allowed kibitzers for this tourney. My attention was drawn to a pair by their opps, and I looked at their boards after the tourney and found enough evidence that I reported that pair to abuse. I had not much time to kib this pair during the touney, but when I came to their table close to the end one time there was a kib present with no country and empty profile and with no records in myhands, as I found out later.

But even after having found this case I still believe that kibs should be allowed. I rather encourage others to look at the boards of suspected pairs and report them, too. This way we do not only get those cheaters who cheat with kibs, but potentially all of them, except maybe very cautious ones, but I doubt that very cautious cheaters exist.

And, as I said before, I would not enter the sublist of a tourney without kibs as there is no way to tell how many boards are left to be played. If all did the same these tourneys would be always out of subs.

Karl

MAYBE the direcftor SHOULD have reported the suspect pair AFTER the did not play in tourneys AFTER he disallowed kibitzers

[uday]

( Nonyellow voice:)

Online cheating is real. I happen to think it is wrong to try to shout down someone who is trying to solve the problem, even if you happen to think that his cure is worse than the disease.


(Yellow voice:)
Whatever your opinions, though, pls. remember to be nice. If your post appears to be overly hostile, it will likely be moderated.

[dogsbreath]

hi
I also deprecate the recent tendency to bar kibbers AND am also annoyed by the flood of ACBL tourneys. Please put these 2 tourney types on a separate sub-menu.. they are of no interest to anyone except those who play in them and are undermining the spirit of BBO
Rgds Dog

Quote

furnulum pani nolo

[McBruce]

The "spirit of BBO?" Is there something I missed reading?

I expect one objective of BBO is to allow anyone to play online bridge in as many ways as possible without charging a fee.

I do not expect that one objective of BBO would be to belittle the tournaments that annoy you by putting them on a separate sub-menu. In fact, once again I must suspect that you simply want these tournaments to be harder to find so they will have more trouble attracting players.

It all sounds like this is BBO's Roe v. Wade. An angry mob wants the authorities to crack down on tournaments that bar kibitzing. TDs like me say "where do you get off telling me what to do with my tournament?" The authorities refuse to budge, so the pro-kibitzer life mob reacts with public criticism of pro-choice TDs, a public campaign against the practice that emerges every few weeks in these forums, and now we're up to an attempt to hide the no-kibs tourneys in a sub-menu because it's so annoying to be told that you can't always get what you want. Where will it all end?

[the hog]

"TDs like me say "where do you get off telling me what to do with my tournament?"

An equally valid argument is "where do you get off by telling us that discouraging players from playing in tournaments which bar kibbitzers is sour grapes?" Really you can do what you like in tournaments you run, but don't expect people who feel strongly about this issue to either play in them or do anything to support them.

[epeeist]

dogsbreath, on Jul 19 2004, 07:00 PM, said:

hi
I also deprecate the recent tendency to bar kibbers AND am also annoyed by the flood of ACBL tourneys.  Please put these 2 tourney types on a separate sub-menu.. they are  of no interest to anyone except those who play in them and are undermining the spirit of BBO
Rgds Dog

Quote

furnulum pani nolo

Hmm, you suggest that ACBL tournaments -- which are open to ALL, whether ACBL members or not -- should be put on a special sub-menu because you find their existence annoying?

Well, what if I find tournaments that require membership in a particular club, or a particular level of skill (I know it can be reset, but I consider it deceptive to change my skill level to "advanced" until I think I'm actually that good... ), or a particular nationality (again can be reset, but I consider it deceptive) annoying, or think that they're undermining the spirit of BBO? Should all of these have their own sub-menus? Some people hate sayc, let's put all those sayc-only tournaments in their own area also...NOT!

It's fine as it is, everything in chronological order and those with restrictions/entry fees clearly marked. There aren't so many tournaments as to be confusing, it's not like I've ever seen more than a handful of tournaments starting within the next few minutes at any particular time.

I note also, with only one exception of which I am aware (confirmed cheating during a particular tournament), the ACBL tournaments allow kibitzers, and e.g. Fred Gitelman will occasionally play in one. So people who enjoy kibitzing expert players should applaud the ACBL tournaments

[the hog]

The problem with these is that they are rather meaningless for non ACBL members. I might play in one but the aquisition or otherwise of masterpoints is meaningless for me.

One major problem is that pd and I could not play our normal ordinary everyday system in these events as they are at the moment, as the GCC is so ridiculously restrictive. So what is the point of our playing? If superchart events are played it would be a different story - I can't see that happening.

[1eyedjack]

It is all about "neat filing", and nothing more than that.
As one who probably will not play in an ACBL tournament it would be *FOR ME* more convenient if they were tucked away somewhere.
I am very pleased that the ACBL tourneys are there. Anything that works symbiotically with BBO and enhances BBO is great. I only wish some of the other NCBOs would get on the bandwagon. EBU seems to have gone down a blind alley with the other site, it seems to me.

The answer, I think, lies in granting the end user more power over how tourneys etc are displayed on their personal machines. If I as a personal user could group the ACBL tourneys together and expand/contract the tree at will then I would personalise it to my preference, without having any impact on anyone else.

As things stand I think they are best muddled in with the other tourneys, so that you can easily see which tourneys clash time slots.

[dogsbreath]

hi ..
I respect TD's right to organise tourneys as they think best, but barring kibbers means the events cannot be of interest to anyone not playing.. so file them separately. Similarly, ACBL events have no attraction what-so-ever for many of us on BBO .. the system restrictions are dull and the master-points meaningless for us. So why is our 'Tourney' menu now cluttered with these events (4 or more a day, several days in advance)??
This is SERIOUS screen clutter .. it now takes a considerable time to scroll to 'tournaments-in-progress' even for those of us who enjoy a broadband connection.
This seems a natural design progression to me ..we started with no Tourney facility at all ..now we have one and teams and other tourneys are on separate sub-menus.. it seems reasonable to consider further sub-division of 'Tourney' menu into (eg) Free-Tourneys, Pay-for Events, Other restricted events.
Rgds Dog

Quote

furnulum pani nolo

[hrothgar]

Personally, I like the current chronological ordering.
I'm most interested in knowing when a tournament is occuring.
Sorting based on different categories doesn't seem particularly valuable..

Its not that difficult to get down to the list of tournaments in play.
Just drag to the end of the list and work backwards...

[uday]

Quickie: in the tourney list, press the End key to jump to the end of the list, the Home key to hop back to the top. Scrolling past 150 entries can be painful.

[inquiry]

Well, I am pretty much against the idea of subdividing the tourment list. However, I do a lot of tournment kibitzing, and get called to tournments as a yellow for one problem or the other a good bit. So it would be nice if there was a way to zoom to the list of tournments in play. Maybe a jump to end button or something.

To dogsbreath, you don't like kibitzerless tournments or ACBL ones, I respect your right to avoid them. As a general rule, I don't play at kibitzerless tables, tournment or not. But many people enjoy not having others looking over their shoulder. I don't think a directory for free versus a director for private clubs veruss a direcotry for kibizerless, and one for MP and another for imps, and more for survivor versus normal, and more for long events versus short ones, and more for ones with playing directors versus noplaying and more for fast play (4-6 mintues per board), average play (7-8 minutes for board), and long play (unclocked or 9+ per board) is the way to go.. .i can see it now.. looking for a imp tournent, that is free...

1) click tourment,
2) click free
3) click imp
4) click non-playing director
5) click not survivor
6) click average play time
7) click long matches (>12 boards)

You find nothing staring soon.. go back, start over...

1) click tourment,
2) click free
3) click imp
4) click non-playing director
5) click not survivor
6) click average play time
7) click intermediate matches (8-12 boards)

Find one starting in an hour... .do you sign up? Well, maybe matchpoints isn't a bad idea, go back...

1) click tourment,
2) click free
3) click MP
4) click non-playing director
5) click not survivor
6) click average play time
7) click long matches (>12 boards)

Nothing shows up anytime soon... well, maybe you realize there is an survivor imp game with 0% cuts (these help directors with sub problems if people are disconnected)... go back

1) click tourment,
2) click free
3) click imp
4) click non-playing director
5) click survivor
6) click average play time
7) click long matches (>12 boards)

Shoot, you find one, but it just started 30 seconds ago, if only you hadn't wasted so much time clicking around....

Sorry, the current method seems fine for me. I can look to see if anything is comming up in the next few hours, I can see what the conditions of contest are (free? Survivor? Imp? time/board? Number of boards? and start time). This is great. To try to subdivide based upon each users personal preferences is wrong. Now, I guess filters like the ones used in the lobby might be ok... a filter for type of tournment, a filter for free/paid, a filter for "my private clubs", etc. But as a yellow, I can tell you users have enough trouble with filters in the main lobby (I know my friend is here, but I can't see them... how come only people from USA show up in the lobby.. .what happened to all my friends...), sthat is you put filters on, tournment participate will decrease. Also finding subs will get a lot harder.

I for think, this is not a problem, and other than a zoom to the end feature, I wouldn't encourage uday to waste one second on any of the other suggestions.

Ben