[EugeneLS]

For the record: I'm all in favour of Kibbing; I do it myself and it certainly gets a lot of mention in Victor Mollo's immortal Menagerie series!

Kibbing is allowed in the 'social' clubs and I notice that Kibbers are allowed to post comments 'to the table' so that they can be seen by players.

Of course I'm sure that 99% of those who Kibitz on BBO play by the rules, and don't post comments that could influence the play.

Unfortunately the remaining 1% aren't so well-intentioned. For this reason many BBO'ers when starting a table go for the "no kibitzing" option. I think this is a shame: it limits the choice of tables we can watch. Could something be done about it - apart from using the "permission to Kibitz" option?

[mike777]

EugeneLS, on 2026-October-25, 06:10, said:

For the record: I'm all in favour of Kibbing; I do it myself and it certainly gets a lot of mention in Victor Mollo's immortal Menagerie series!

Kibbing is allowed in the 'social' clubs and I notice that Kibbers are allowed to post comments 'to the table' so that they can be seen by players.

Of course I'm sure that 99% of those who Kibitz on BBO play by the rules, and don't post comments that could influence the play.

Unfortunately the remaining 1% aren't so well-intentioned. For this reason many BBO'ers when starting a table go for the "no kibitzing" option. I think this is a shame: it limits the choice of tables we can watch. Could something be done about it - apart from using the "permission to Kibitz" option?

You have the option of allowing kibitzing and denying them from talking to the table.
Probably more than 1% just prefer their game to be private.

[jillybean]

The table host needs the ability to remove a kibitzer, like we have now to remove a player.

I experienced this problem recently.
It’s a situation where there is a group of players who play together regularly so kibitzing and chat to table is appreciated.
One random kibitzer made some misguided comments to the table.

The comments may have been intended for the kibitzers, it’s happened to me before.
What is the default destination for chat messages when kibitzing ?

[EugeneLS]

jillybean, on 2026-October-25, 08:56, said:

What is the default destination for chat messages when kibitzing ?

The default is 'chat to [other] kibbers'. Obviously not much fun if you're the only one!

Recently I was kibbing - quite innocently, just watching - and a player complained that a kibitzer (obviously not me) had made insulting remarks. I don't know whether it was to the table or privately to one of the players.

Suggestions as to the bidding or play, after a hand has been played out: fine if made politely. Otherwise - keep stumm!

[Rfulrabbit]

Again a table host is able to restrict kibbers.
Most tables allow them.
But some people endeavor to harass players. To avoid that I used to put them on ignore list, but then discovered that they issued disparaging comments about me to the table. only way to be safe from them is to block.
i am satified with the options available of blocking kibbers, allowing with permission or leaving it open.
Eugene , why do you insist on this micromanagement of others?

[diana_eva]

There is a lesser known setting which was designed specifically to stop abusive kibitzers from disrupting a table without forcing the host to disable kibitzing for everyone else.

If the host writes the username of the offending player between two minus signs, like this:

-johndoe123-

in the table description, that player (and only that player) can no longer send any chat to the table or to the kibitzers. They can still send private chats, but for this individual players can put him on Ignore.

[jillybean]

Super!Does work when hosting team matches?

[EugeneLS]

Rfulrabbit, on 2026-October-26, 09:16, said:

Eugene , why do you insist on this micromanagement of others?

Sorry, but I'm totally perplexed by that remark. Who or what am I accused of 'micromanaging'?

[diana_eva]

jillybean, on 2026-October-26, 13:17, said:

Super!Does work when hosting team matches?

Yes, it works for team matches too. It's what the high profile match organizers use to keep the unruly kibs under control.

[Rfulrabbit]

Thanks. This can be very useful, Diana.

[Rfulrabbit]

 EugeneLS, on 2026-October-26, 14:22, said:

Sorry, but I'm totally perplexed by that remark. Who or what am I accused of 'micromanaging'?

Hi Eugene
It is the right of table hosts to restrict kibbers. As far as I know that was so even in the days of the Microsoft Zone.


Any given time there are thousands of tables playing at BBO, you only need one to kib and I am sure you can find one.

Why should increasing the number of tables to watch be any kind of driving principle?

[EugeneLS]

Rfulrabbit, on 2026-October-27, 03:03, said:

Hi Eugene
It is the right of table hosts to restrict kibbers. As far as I know that was so even in the days of the Microsoft Zone.

I'm not disputing the 'right'. It's just that some table hosts are restricting kibbers purely because of a perceived 'problem'.

Quote

Any given time there are thousands of tables playing at BBO, you only need one to kib and I am sure you can find one.
Why should increasing the number of tables to watch be any kind of driving principle?

Because I'm only really familiar with Acol, and aim to improve my skill mainly under that system. So I restrict my searches to the 'Acol Club'. There are far fewer tables in play there - especially during weekday working hours (in UK) - for obvious reasons. Often enough I can't see any that allow kibbing.

[jillybean]

Is Acol still played or is everyone playing Acol 5 card majors and strong nt?