bglover

I have played on BBO almost from its inception. I quite possibly have played more hands here than anyone. If not I am certainly in the top three. During my long tenure here I have been cheated and I have seen some cheating while just kibbing. I would never attempt to say cheating is non-existent on BBO.. Nor would anyone else. However, let me say that the cheating is not that frequent that someone can’t find a new table in a hurry with all honest players. Indeed, if you avoid tourneys (where you are locked in for 12 hands) it’s quite easy to find an honest game… and a diligent person can find a good, honest game. However… some people see cheats in their sleep. We all know a few of them around here. People who can’t distinguish between someone who is maybe a bad player and has fixed them or maybe is a bad player on their own and too arrogant to not recognize a good play when it slaps them upside the head. The vast majority of cheating accusations fall firmly into one of those two categories. Listing yourself as a pro and a teacher doesn’t qualify you in anyway to assess YOURSELF. There are some famously fatuous bridge players in the world who believe they are gods when they are, in fact, not even intermediate players. And, these people seem to be the ones who THINK they’ve been cheated the most. BBO can become a very dangerous place if a few loose cannons decide to besmirch the general population and imply the vast majority cheat. You know how they used to stop cannons from going off too soon? They’d STUFF A SOCK IN IT.

Gee Matt... you don't think Melviss would stoop to such a low trick as to imply anyone was insane do you? He's always posted such kind, balanced and sweet posts. Oh... wait. Actually that isn't true, is it? So, I guess this is just another attempt by Melviss to insult the masses for his own self gratification. Suggest the bathroom is a better place for that than here, Mel.

I have been clear as I can be. Apparently, you can't see what is plain on your face. So, I won't bother beyond this little statement. But, you now admit you wanted the right to shut up everybody. You think that's fine. I think that sucks. End of story.

"...table hosts the option of muting kibitzers such as a on a vugraph table." I am sorry. Those are your exact words. And the ONLY part I was fighting stenuously about. You advocated precisely what I fear most-- the elimination of free speech as an option. Freedom of speech has a downside-- we are stuck listening to everyone-- whether they have anything useful to say or are just stupid or annoying. Let's face it, some can be annoying-- me included at times. It iis part and parcel of freedom to speak one's mind. I would denouce any person in any forum who advocates this. It has less to do with BBO per se than the rights of individuals in general. Elimination of individuals' rights leads to totalitarianism. As someone who lives in a free country you should appreciate how precious that is. Please appreciate my position-- had your request been granted it would inevitably lead to further hostilities. And I don't want to see BBO become more hostile than it already is.

Keylime "croaked: However, I think that to say that a curtailment of free speech to result from the filtering chat is incorrect." NO. Jilly advocates a kill all chat button at the table. It is an all or nothing proposition and that is the point. You can ask or HOPE others will focus on bridge and maybe that is even a good goal to obtain (altho when the talk is dominated byr "straight bridge' chat it can get pretty dull). READ WHAT JILLY WROTE AGAIN. I won't bother to requote the text. Turning off ALL CHAT as an option is a horrible thing to ponder. Yet that is EXACTLY what she requested-- the option for a host to do just that. Suggest you read before you write. At times I go way off the bridge track-- on purpose-- to try and eiicit a chuckle from people because the comments get too staid and dull (and I get messages thanking me for lightening the room up). BBO is a SOCIAL SITE where bridge is played. Anything that advocates the devolution of social interaction I am dead against. Some of that has been foisted on us already-- perhaps even rightly. But too much of it is dangerous. It threatens to ruin the fabric of this place even more than it has the past 3 years as the site has grown. Most of the people posting here have been here since 2003 or before, and can remember when BBO was a much friendlier place-- something all us long-timers fondly remember. And most of the people I know wish it could get back to that friendlier atmosphere. Frankly, with the giant influx of people I doubt that is possible-- bridge players by nature tend towards stodginess (which is why I hate live bridge honestly). So, I can only fantasize that BBO will again become that friendly little site I helped to nurture and grow. But, I don't kid myself... those days are gone. On the other hand, any proposals by anyone-- management or users-- that is certain to have a deleterious effect on users rights can only work towards an even greater degree of unfriendliness. What Jilly wants is to do precisely that. If you want proof of this-- just watch what happens whenever someone in a large gallery says "can't you people shut up." This happens at least once a week and is inevitably met with the same response-- let us have fun-- move to another table instead. Sure, the person who says it will get a few private messages saying "hear, hear" and thinks that proves his or her points. But, clearly anyone who pays attention can see those comments are generally not met with a favored response by the masses. You can never keep everyone happy. You cannot say talking is OK but you must only talk bridge. It's impossible. Face it. So, you are faced with 3 options. Stop all talk (which the user himself can currently do thrus his profile), leave the table and find a less chatty one (there are always a few games worth kibbing besides the "big match") or.. and I like this best.. get on with your life and enjoy the ride. Maybe one day BBO will add an option to "ignore kibitzer chat only". That is up to them and no one would object if they did. But please, PLEASE do not further abrogate our freedoms on BBO. We have too few already.

Jillubean said "so here I am to plead to BBO to give individuals and /or table hosts the option of muting kibitzers" Perhaps you and Phil miss the point of Jilly's post... She wants the option to ban ALL CHAT. In an earlier thread on this subject I went into the history of free speech and how denying it has a chilling effect on the entire population. I also mentioned that doing such a thing would add to the increasingly unfriendly atmosphere on BBO. And anything that adds to that unfriendliness I'm dead set against. I REALLY TRULY HOPE you, Jilly and Phil (and anyone else who thinks this is a good idea) realize that if this campaign is successful you all will have participated in destroying one of the most cherished rights that governments can grant to their citizens. A right BBO has already limited at times. To ask them to do it more is scary. Giving the host the option of killing all chat has been tried- for one "special" individual. He stopped using it-- one should ask "why". I am only speculating here-- but I'm a pretty smart guy so I'm willing to go out on a limb and say-- people couldn't have fun at his table so people started showing up in fewer and fewer numbers. And so, for whatever reasons, this person thought it more important to have his kibitzers than to have his much coveted ability to silence all. Whenever these threads pop up they usually result in a session where everyone is afraid to talk aloud. And I invariably get dozens of messages BEGGING me to say something because silent bridge watching is SO BORING. I always refuse these requests and say "not today-- one day of this will remind them that watching bridge in silence sucks." And, it never lasts more than a day. You better face the fact that people want comments. Sure, it's legitimate to want "just bridge' comments. But, the price you pay for free speech is that sometimes people talk about other things. Sometimes even stupid or inappropriate things. A small (and better) price to pay than advocating "kill all chat". God, I hope you all see that-- espcially a journalist like Roland. Better to merely club the individuals who you dont want to listen to. A really bad idea is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

During the round, a spectator must refrain from mannerisms or remarks of any kind (including conversation with a player). A cynic might point out that spectating a live game-- where kibitzers actions might affect the outcome of a match by distracting the players-- is far different... AND LESS SOCIAL... than kibbing online where the players cannot possibly be affected by what the specs are doing (unless they talk to the table). But, I'm not a cynic... Wait. Maybe I am!

Or, you can mute chat and speak to your friends on Messenger.. See, the programming is already done for you!

"I think that our society has clearly accepted that there are certain places where "free speech" is not applicable, and some of us would like to at least decide for ourselves not to have to listen to it." If the kib gallery isn't a place for free speech-- and, I might add fun and friendship-- what is? That is the entirety of my point. Too bad you are apparently one of those sticks I referred to.

Gee, no personal agendas going on here.... It is so sad that some people would fight to abrogate the one right people in the free world cherish most of all-- the right to free speech and free expression. Literally tens of thousands of lives have been lost over the course of history so that free people can express themselves in an unfettered manner. And, it's a given you can already control those people you personally find offensive by simply marking them enemy and never having to see their offending chat. But, that's not good enough for you. It's not enough you can control whose chat you can see... you have to censor everyone’s to ensure you are happy. Well, allow me to assure you that you cannot ever control peoples' thoughts and ideas-- only suppress them. So the only solutions are to entirely or selectively suppress chat (perhaps at the table-host level) IN THE GALLERY ITSELF. Then you will create an entirely different and far more perverse situation-- and you STILL cannot be guaranteed those people who are allowed to speak won't say something you don't like. Why? Because everyone has a different idea of what is "right" or "wrong' speech. But, you people would certainly be happy to repress all of us who talk so that you won't be offended... when you already have the ability to simply mute those whose comments you find offensive or silly or whatever. You’d prefer to impose mass censoring and make so many mad and create even more ill will? BBO used to be about more than bridge-- it was about fun, too. Too bad as it's grown so has the percentage of stick-in-the-muds who make it more unpleasant all the time. Barely a day goes by where I don't get a nasty message or five-- often from strangers-- just for existing. I'm glad I save all my chat logs-- to protect myself against people like you all.

You are right... and the short answer is 'yes" but it is impractical. There are FAR FEWER club managers than TDs.. a mere handful. So the 2 problems-- altho they appear similar in stature-- have absolutely nothing in common. (But, if it were my website I'd quickly revoke TD privvies of any TD who has shown a pattern of abuse of power).

Clubs provide one of the few avenues for "real" power on BBO, even if that power is limited to within the club itself. Power also begets the power to abuse such power. Therefore, shouldn't BBO stringently ensure that club managers (the very few granted such power) not abuse the privilege? One man's humble opinion. And, yes, to anticipate Uday's inevitable response, that would include rules for club managers to stringently follow. With one absolute punishement-- that club manager's powers be revoked upon any single infraction. You'd lose half or more of the club managers immediately. And solve a bunch of headaches. Because currently you have anarchy due to lack of rules.

Jeff Lynne's "Armchair Theatre", best neglected album of the 80s. Listen to "Every Little Thing" a coupla times and watch how awake and alert you are!

True story from a few weeks ago, altho it did not take place in a tourney. Some silly person with world class in his profile is sitting at my table as my opponent. He opens 1 spade, I overcall 2 hearts... he clicks on my bid. I refused to answer. Now, as a general rule I alert everything necessary and even overexplain alerted bids that aren't transfers (transfers I just alert). This guy refuses to bid. Asks me what my 2 heart bid is AGAIN. My partner explains "it's a regular 2 heart overcall." The guy clicks for an explanation again. I just told the guy "leave the table." I do think people are entitled to an explanation. But, not EVERYTHING requires one. This 2nt bid everyone is so focused on (when looking at all the hands) was an obvious attempt at a psyche. It got fielded. So, he refused to explain his bid further, knowing it had been fielded. The guy may be a jerk, that I agree, for not answering. However, it hardly falls into the category of 'cheat." And, Winston (and the TD) have now besmirched this person (everyone who knows the name of the player now thinks maybe he cheated and Winston has praised the TD for expelling same). Don't you see how wrong this is? Don't you understand it is a GAME. A game where people pysche, a game where people make silly bids that sometimes work? And you are willingly heaping praise on the director and the club for endorsing this? Am I saying this guy clearly explained his bids? No. Ami saying it's impossible these 2 were comminicating? No. Anything is possible. What I see is plain lousy bridge, a lousier ruling and someone taking the opportunity to boost himself and simultaneously further drag someone's name through the mux because the director apparently agreed with his (highly likely wrong) assessment of the siutation. Sorry, that's sick. Both you and the director deserve a warning, not any praise for this.

I doubt (and hope anyone would be very hesitant to say) this was cheating. What is disturbing is Winston's glee in getting satisfaction over a clearly suspect ruling and giving kudos to the director for a job well done. Is directing so bad that we must exult for getting (what we think is) a decent ruling? If that's all it takes these days to warrant a post in this forum then something is surely wrong at a deeper level. Happy will be the day that decent rulings are the norm-- not when someone is so surpised to actually get one that he thinks it merits a posting.

The answer will depend a lot on bidding styles and how an auction has started. If you are playing 2/1 GF, it is often right, with forcing values, as responder, to start with 2 of a minor. Partner's 1st obligations SHOULD be to raise your minor if he has 4 card support. Your bid is known to be possibly artifical so, if you now rebid his major you have shown that. The other way is, in a forcing auction that starts out 1M, 2 OM a bid by operner of a minor should promise 4 cards looking for a fit. Again, with 4 pieces more correct to show support and later return to major if slam seems unlikely. Had this come up last week: p,p 1S (me) p 2c* (Drury) p 3D (slam interest). Partner did not choose to raise diamonds directly, but instead splintered (( wasn't sure if this showed 4 diamonds or was just meant to show me his singleton as a cooperation for slam). Long story short, we played 6 spades off 1, where 6 diamonds is unbeatable... sigh.

That was an incomplete answer. Jordan shows (usually) specifically a limit raise in the major-- i.e., 4 pieces of trump. With three trumps most people start with a redouble followed by a raise of partner's suit to the appropriate level. This doesn't cost as the redouble alerts partner we have the balance of power. Partner will usually get another bid (the hand will never be passed out in 1M xx as doubler isn't going to let it sit if his partner passes). If not, the redoubler certainly will get to bid again. For example, 1 spade, double, redouble, pass, pass 2 clubs and now 2 spades by the redoubler (instead of x or a new suit) would show exactly 10 points (ish) and precisely 3 trumps, as he chose not to use Jordan. The jump to 2NT therefore, not just shows the known major suit fit earlier but tells partner about that valuable 4th trump... often the deciding factor in deciding whether to bid game or stop in a partial.

I think people focus too much on the Law and its general usefulness as a whole. I've stated several times before on this forum that people misapply the Law with too much frequency and generally make a mockery of it. I've had "expert" partners who claim to be slaves to the Law misapply it so frequently that I wonder if they ever really understood it to start. There is no mathematical way to quantify "judgement", which basically the Law seeks to do. If one blindly just does the trump calculations and fails to (1) listen to the opponent's bidding (to locate where outside honors are likely to be sitting, and thus make the proper adjustments for guarded kings, etc.) and (2) doesn't account properly for distributional values, the Law is worthless. And, I can say confidently that a great many players do not seem to do both of these when applying the Law. It can, and should, be used as a "guide" only and can only be useful if the other factors/adjustments are used properly. My experience has been that many people never learn to use the adjustments at all. And, that obviates the value of the Law entirely. I stopped playing bridge for a number of years, then returned to the game. My new partner (after my return) used to constantly refer to the Law and I had no idea what he was talking about. BUT I ALWAYS KNEW to compete another level with a 9 card fit and i ALWAYS KNEW that a hand that holding a singleton or void with a trump fit was more likely to produce more tricks than a hand that was 4432. All the Law does is quantify theses principles. Any good player knew these things long before Cohen's books appeared. Misapplication of the Law is very common BECAUSE people use it to replace good judgment. To focus solely on the Law (or even primarily) to make decisions whether its proper to compete/sacrifice is, in my opinion, a mistake. There are usually "other" factors to consider. And any good player must be aware of everything going on in the hand at that moment to make the "best" decision.

I've noticed, since time change, all post times are off an hour now. Perhaps servers weren't changed over?

Dang, you keep dangling that carrot and yet....

This issue has not a thing to do with two clubs. Uday and Rain seem to want to tie this into that. It has to do with one issue only: Has someone abused their position as yellow? Now, it apparently is true there is an incident where a yellow invoked the TopFlight name as a reason for closing a tourney (see thread: http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...?showtopic=5091 for more info), but that is only periphery to the question at hand. There has been a continual stream of posts regarding possible inapproprate bannings, ban threats done in the name of others, etc. And, often, this club thing is invoked, I fear, as a smoke screen to cover the real issue of whether the actions involved are appropriate period. It seems convenient more than anything else to blame the "club issue" than deal forthrightly with the real issue. I fear that Rain and Uday are trying to put this into "its just 2 clubs fighting" vein and make it seem, somehow, to be less than it really is. This issue had nothing to do with that club fight and never has. It has to do with the appropriateness of behavior-- the fact the Topflight name was invoked by this yellow as a justification for one of these actions is incidental contact at best. I would personally appreciate it if things were dealt with honestly and not jumbled as to give the impression there is a lesser problem because it involves an old and ugly incident-- because frankly this has nothing to do with that incident in the least and anyone with two eyes open can see that.

I don't think you and Henri are right. I think what color someone happens to be wearing at that particular moment is relatively unimportant. A yellow has his responsibilities whether wearing that color at that moment or not. If I were a yellow and I saw someone breaking a rule I would ban him even if I was logged in under a normal color. I don't see why this is such an issue. Having said that, however, I think the real issue isn't what color someone is logged in under, but whether that yellow (or any yellow) acted RESPONSIBLY in barring club. (Or any other person, for that matter.) Clearly, in this particular matter, given the facts as stated, there is reason to suspect ACBL acted responsibly and in accordance with her status as a yellow. She just happened to be signed in as ACBL rather than Gweny. I have no problem with that. I'd have done the same. However, that scrutiny is applied to this one specific case only. Ecepal's post indicates she received a ban threat from some yellow for kibitzing a tourney when, in fact, she wasn't even logged into BBO at the time she was supposedly kibitzing. APPLYING THAT SAME SCRUTINY I would say the actions now were way past the point of appropriate-- even bordering on bullying. And, if there is a pattern of this sort of bullying by any specific yellows-- and let's be honest, that is the real concern here-- then, perhaps the entire situation regarding that yellow needs reviewing. It is not hard to imagine some yellows abuse their privilege. We have to rely on Fred and Uday to ensure that any yellow who does so is kept under control. It seems, these days, to me, that more of these posts are hitting the forum for a reason. That reason is apparent-- some people think that control isn't being properly exercised.

I can assure Willem, Topflight has no game scheduled on Saturday nite. FOT does and is not a game limited by skill level. And FOT has never asked that any game, beyond AbaLucy, officially not interfere (there are private reasons why AbaLucy has, in theory, agreed not to interfere with FOT/TopFlight, as well as gentlemen's agreements in place with Stars). Although I am technically no longer a part of TopFlight, I am personally offended someone invoked the name I was known under for so long to try and persuade another that something was being officially done at the request of that name. And, this incident implies we asked protection. TopFlight has NEVER asked on an official basis that a tourney run by another be cancelled. (We have, on occasion, made a personal request that a tourney competing for similar skill levels reschedule, but that is all). This is offensive to both me and to my former partner, Ece. Even if I am no longer a part of TopFlight, I do not appreciate ACBL wrongly invoking a name I worked so hard to build (and hopefully stand for integrity) to achieve his/her own aims.

You got into Topflight on a technicality and you know it!

I would like to reiterate a couple of things I said way back in this thread: First, the sort of "bad" things one sees in tourneys tend not to be "card play" things but the actions of the players themselves-- purposely delaying the playing out of a hand or the rejection of a valid claim as time is running out because it is going to be a bad board, so better to take the Avg minus rather than a flat-out zero seems to be the most prevalent I observed, closely followed by abusive behavior against TD/Opps during a tourney. Second, as mentioned above, the number of people who are accused of cheating in card play vs. the number of people that actually do is way out of proportion. Every time someone gets fixed (good result due to bad play) the director gets called. In face-to- face bridge this sort of thing just doesn't happen as much-- people more readily accept being fixed in a live card game where they can see their opponents (and probably already know them in life from the bridge club) and already "know" their opponent isn't a very good card player to start and so, therefore, is quite capable of generating bad plays on the whole. I've investigated literally dozens of cheating allegations on BBO that occurred during tourneys i was running. I am quite sure one person was cheating, kind of suspect another was. This is out of probably over 50 accusations. (I'm quite sure, personally, that card-play abuse is more frequent in the main room than in tourneys given what I've seen.) In any event, the reason I point this out is that I think even a one-percent number would be a huge overstatement in terms of the cheating population on BBO. Perhaps five-percent of the accusations against individuals have any merit (probably even less than that). That is why I felt that it was so important that any system of investigation stripped out the names of the players before the investigators got ahold of them... too easy for unfounded rumors to start. Because, the reality is, very few people actually do cheat compared to the number accused.