Kibitzing

[barmar]

Kibitzers should be allowed back to watch if all four players agree to allow them to watch. Just an idea.

Most of the time when you're playing in a tourney you don't know your opponents or the kibitzers, so how would you know if they're trustworthy? And every time the round changes, the new players at the table would have to be polled on whether to allow the kibitzers.

[sceptic]

ok, may be I am thick but, if you have access to ACBL tourneys you have to buy $BBO, so BBO know exactly who you are, so BBO could ban the cheaters, if you have explicit evidence, so why then do you need to bar anyone from kibbing that pays for anything on BBO?

[barmar]

I think the problem is that there have been lots of accusations of cheating, not that many of them have been proven. But every accusation has to be taken seriously and investigated. Banning kibitzers removes one of the common types of accusations.

[the hog]

Kibitzing is mostly a poor way spending your time.

 

You will not be a filmmaker by watching John Wayne.

You will not be an author reading books.

You will not be cyclist watching Tour de France.

 

You will not be bridge player by kibitzing.

 

Sorry to say - there is no other way than hard work. 

Claus, the island of Mors must grow some pretty potent weed. Clearly you were smoking some when you wrote this. How can you become a novelist without reading novels? How can you get insights into filmaking without watching Bergman or Kurosawa? (John Wayne??????????????)

 

Kibitzing is an fabulous way to improve your game. Easy solution to all this is not to play in any tournaments where kibbitzers are not allowed.

[barmar]

Claus is partially correct. You won't become good at any of those activities JUST by watching, you also have to practice it yourself. You can watch all the Bergman and Kurosawa you want, but you're not a filmmaker until you actually pick up a camera and start shooting.

[Elianna]

ok, may be I am thick but, if you have access to ACBL tourneys you have to buy $BBO, so BBO know exactly who you are, so BBO could ban the cheaters, if you have explicit evidence, so why then do you need to bar anyone from kibbing that pays for anything on BBO?

People can have their partners pay for both entries, so they don't have to buy BBO$.

[csdenmark]

Kibitzing is mostly a poor way spending your time.

 

You will not be a filmmaker by watching John Wayne.

You will not be an author reading books.

You will not be cyclist watching Tour de France.

 

You will not be bridge player by kibitzing.

 

Sorry to say - there is no other way than hard work. 

Claus, the island of Mors must grow some pretty potent weed. Clearly you were smoking some when you wrote this. How can you become a novelist without reading novels? How can you get insights into filmaking without watching Bergman or Kurosawa? (John Wayne??????????????)

 

Kibitzing is an fabulous way to improve your game. Easy solution to all this is not to play in any tournaments where kibbitzers are not allowed.

No Ron I am not. I think people are upset because they think they are deprived their right to learn. And that has no sense.

 

First they are deprived no right - In rules for these sites, as I remember, Fred states that kibitzing is a privilege. I am not sure I agree or disagree to that.

 

But my message was that this it is not about your options to learn. It is nothing else than your option to enjoy and to have a nice time. If you want to learn bridge you need to study and to practice. By kibitzing you are mostly amazed of what is happening but rarely have the knowledge to know why you are amazed. - And that is necessary if you intend to try to do something of the same kind yourself.

 

It is fun to watch Balicki/Zmudzinski but if you want to play Polish Club you need to study Matula.

[sceptic]

People can have their partners pay for both entries, so they don't have to buy BBO$.

 

Why not have a cant pay cant play policy on ACBL Tourneys, I personally find the people that hang about waiting for someone to pay for thier services a bit like prostitution,

 

now if some of these people are suspected cheaters, then maybe a general ban on that type of player is needed, ban them for a month and see if the game quality improves, may be there is an incentive to cheat for this type of person, as if they get good results other people will pay to play with them.

 

I susppose that is giving someone a motive

[mike777]

At times you got to pay for buddy/partner because you signed on late and pard forgot to buy some bucks and ran out.....:D

[sceptic]

actually I am just peed off, that people pay me a dollar not to play with them

[mrdct]

Easy solution to all this is not to play in any tournaments where kibbitzers are not allowed.

How is one meant to know whether or not a tournament allows kibitzers?

[the hog]

Easy solution to all this is not to play in any tournaments where kibbitzers are not allowed.

How is one meant to know whether or not a tournament allows kibitzers?

Don't they usually announce that Kibbitzers are not allowed?

[mrdct]

Kibitzer status isn't displayed in the tournament information, unless the host chooses to mention it.

 

Whilst it is apparent from this thread that ACBL tournaments now disallow kibitzers, none of the upcoming ACBL tournament mention this.

 

The only way to find out if a tournament bans kibitzers is to enter and then see what happens after the tournament starts. Personally, whenever I enter a tournament and then discover that kibitzers are banned, I withdraw on general principles.

 

It is interesting to consider whether or not the kibitzer ban for ACBL tournaments is legal.

 

Law 76 seems to imply that unless kibitzers are doing something wrong, they are allowed to watch. Law 80 allows sponsoring organisations to establish special conditions (presumably including a kibitzer ban) but one would presume that such conditions would need to be published to be effective. Is the sponsoring organisation for ACBL tournaments the ACBL or BBO? Can ACBL masterpoints be awarded for a card playing session that isn't conducted in accordance with the Laws of Bridge?

[bid_em_up]

Kibitzer status isn't displayed in the tournament information, unless the host chooses to mention it.

 

Whilst it is apparent from this thread that ACBL tournaments now disallow kibitzers, none of the upcoming ACBL tournament mention this.

 

The only way to find out if a tournament bans kibitzers is to enter and then see what happens after the tournament starts.  Personally, whenever I enter a tournament and then discover that kibitzers are banned, I withdraw on general principles.

 

It is interesting to consider whether or not the kibitzer ban for ACBL tournaments is legal.

 

Law 76 seems to imply that unless kibitzers are doing something wrong, they are allowed to watch.  Law 80 allows sponsoring organisations to establish special conditions (presumably including a kibitzer ban) but one would presume that such conditions would need to be published to be effective.

Read the General Conditions of Contest for ACBL games,

 

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/coc/allEvents.pdf

 

(In the section on kibitzing)

 

and you will note that any player may ban any one kibitzer from their table WITHOUT cause. All the player has to do is say, I dont want you here, please go away, and the kibitzer must leave. (A traveling player can only bar one individual for a given session.)

 

Fairly easily enforcable in a face to face environment, but how can you do it online?

The TD cannot make the kibber leave (there is no "bar specific kibber from tournament function" that I am aware of), so then ensues a heated battle between player, TD and kibber. Additionally, this would now go on at every table, requiring a lot more TD intervention, not to mention a hostile environment.

 

Is this really what you would wish to promote?

 

A player in a f2f tournament may ask that more kibitzers leave as well, but must provide cause for their removal and "I dont want them here" or "They make me nervous" are not generally considered to be sufficient causes for their automatic removal. But in a f2f tourny, if this request was made, most kibbers are courteous enough to observe a persons wishes and leave. For some reason, the same courtesy does not seem to apply in online games, for the main reason that it is "anonymous" play, imo and no real repercussions if the kibitzer(s) just flat refused to leave.

 

Solution to problem, ban all kibitzers until such point in time a reasonable alternative can be provided (assuming there is such an alternative).

[mrdct]

So, in other words, are you saying that ACBL Tourneys on BBO are not being played in accordance with the ACBL Conditions of Contest?

 

I note that the ACBL Conditions of Contest state:

 

"Sponsoring organizations may, with ACBL approval only, amend these conditions for a specific event. Such amendments should appear in all printed tournament schedules and be posted prior to the start of event"

 

Obviously some translation to the online environment is required, but it would seem clear that for a ban on kibitzers to be legal in ACBL games, ACBL approval must be obtained (has it?) and the details of the amendment to the Conditions of Contest need to be stated somewhere that players can see when they are contemplating entering an event.

[bid_em_up]

So, in other words, are you saying that ACBL Tourneys on BBO are not being played in accordance with the ACBL Conditions of Contest?

 

I note that the ACBL Conditions of Contest state:

 

"Sponsoring organizations may, with ACBL approval only, amend these conditions for a specific event. Such amendments should appear in all printed tournament schedules and be posted prior to the start of event"

 

Obviously some translation to the online environment is required, but it would seem clear that for a ban on kibitzers to be legal in ACBL games, ACBL approval must be obtained (has it?) and the details of the amendment to the Conditions of Contest need to be stated somewhere that players can see when they are contemplating entering an event.

Read Fred's post in the other thread regarding kibitzing being disallowed.

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=16574&st=0

 

Where he says "Since it was largely aggressive lobbying by me that led to our recent change in ACBL policy (which I should note should be seen as an "experiment" and which, as Uday notes, is likely to soon change to allow some people to kibitz)...."

 

This would imply to me that he sought and received ACBL approval (at least temporarily) to bar kibitzing from ACBL tournies, for what I think are valid reasons or concerns. To me, this would mean that they ARE being played in accordance with the Conditions of Contest regarding amending them. There are no PRINTED tournament schedules that I am aware of (at least not printed by BBO). I suppose one could consider the tournament description to be a "printed" schedule of sorts and the tournament descriptions could certainly have the notation "Kibitzing Not allowed" added to them. Would that make you happy?

 

But seriously, in this environment, are you more or less likely to enter an event because kibitzing is NOT allowed?

 

This "temporary" change in policy does not affect anyone's ability to play in ACBL games. They are not major events. They do not require you to be an ACBL member to play in them (only to receive any masterpoint awards). You are not prevented from playing in them due to this change in policy. And I fail to see how it is possible for anyone who wishes to play to be affected by this temporary change in policy to be affected by its non-publishment in the CoC (unless they were planning to cheat, and now they cant), until such point in time as Fred/Uday/Gweny/ACBL/whoever can come up with final version of the solution that actually might need to be published.

 

And since it is Fred's site, and he, uday, gweny, et. al. ARE the tournament directors, and the CoC DOES give the tournament directors the right to bar ANY kibitzer for cause,

 

"Any kibitzer may be barred for cause by the Tournament Director."

 

if the cause is "we know for a fact that there is cheating occuring in our ACBL games due to kibitzing being allowed and therefore, we wish to bar ALL kibitzers at this time", then I, for one, believe they should be allowed to do so without having to make any amendments, published or otherwise, to the CoC. (And I'm not even certain that BBO even needed to seek the ACBL's approval to institute this policy, under this interpretation of the CoC.)

 

jmoo.

[inquiry]

Where he says "Since it was largely aggressive lobbying by me that led to our recent change in ACBL policy (which I should note should be seen as an "experiment" and which, as Uday notes, is likely to soon change to allow some people to kibitz)...."

 

This would imply to me that he sought and received ACBL approval (at least temporarily) to bar kibitzing from ACBL tournies, for what I think are valid reasons or concerns. To me, this would mean that they ARE being played in accordance with the Conditions of Contest regarding amending them. There are no PRINTED tournament schedules that I am aware of (at least not printed by BBO). I suppose one could consider the tournament description to be a "printed" schedule of sorts and the tournament descriptions could certainly have the notation "Kibitzing Not allowed" added to them. Would that make you happy?

I don't want to speak for Fred, but I think when he said ""Since it was largely aggressive lobbying by me that led to our recent change in ACBL policy (which I should note should be seen as an "experiment" and which, as Uday notes, is likely to soon change to allow some people to kibitz)....", he meant his lobbying with his other partners and the change wasn't in the "ACBL Policy" as it relates to Memphis, but rather the BBO's ACBL policy. I seriously, very seriously, doubt he bothered anyone in Memphis about this.

 

As noted above, private clubs are pretty much left alone by the ACBL.

[bid_em_up]

I don't want to speak for Fred, but I think when he said ""Since it was largely aggressive lobbying by me that led to our recent change in ACBL policy (which I should note should be seen as an "experiment" and which, as Uday notes, is likely to soon change to allow some people to kibitz)....", he meant his lobbying with his other partners and the change wasn't in the "ACBL Policy" as it relates to Memphis, but rather the BBO's ACBL policy. I seriously, very seriously, doubt he bothered anyone in Memphis about this.

 

As noted above, private clubs are pretty much left alone by the ACBL.

That wasnt my interpretation of it, but you're probably in a better position to know otherwise. :blink:

[fred]

Where he says "Since it was largely aggressive lobbying by me that led to our recent change in ACBL policy (which I should note should be seen as an "experiment" and which, as Uday notes, is likely to soon change to allow some people to kibitz)...."

 

This would imply to me that he sought and received ACBL approval (at least temporarily) to bar kibitzing from ACBL tournies, for what I think are valid reasons or concerns. To me, this would mean that they ARE being played in accordance with the Conditions of Contest regarding amending them. There are no PRINTED tournament schedules that I am aware of (at least not printed by BBO). I suppose one could consider the tournament description to be a "printed" schedule of sorts and the tournament descriptions could certainly have the notation "Kibitzing Not allowed" added to them. Would that make you happy?

I don't want to speak for Fred, but I think when he said ""Since it was largely aggressive lobbying by me that led to our recent change in ACBL policy (which I should note should be seen as an "experiment" and which, as Uday notes, is likely to soon change to allow some people to kibitz)....", he meant his lobbying with his other partners and the change wasn't in the "ACBL Policy" as it relates to Memphis, but rather the BBO's ACBL policy. I seriously, very seriously, doubt he bothered anyone in Memphis about this.

 

As noted above, private clubs are pretty much left alone by the ACBL.

Ben is 100% right.

 

ACBL wisely does not micromanage the (several 1000) clubs whose games that they sanction. They give the clubs a lot of latitude to do what they think is best for their members.

 

I assume ACBL prefers that clubs try to solve their own problems and that ACBL would just as soon not get involved unless it is absolutely necessary. We try not to bug them unless we really feel we need to.

 

I suspect that ACBL will receive less complaints of cheating as a result of the rule in question. Besides that, ACBL management is concerned about cheating in online play and the new rule is helpful in that regard.

 

So I suspect that, if ACBL knows about this rule (I have no idea if they do or not), that they would approve.

 

I don't care if some official rule exists that claims that this is illegal and I would bet that ACBL would feel the same way. Online bridge is obviously different from "live" bridge. I would rather do what I think is right (especially if I feel strongly about it) than blindly follow rules that were written for a different game.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

bid_em_up, I think that Conditions of Contest document you linked to only applies to events run by the ACBL, i.e. Sectionals, Regionals, and NABCs. There's no mention of this CoC anywhere in Club Managers Handbook, nor in the Club Sanctioned Game section of the ACBL Handbook.

[the hog]

bid_em_up, I think that Conditions of Contest document you linked to only applies to events run by the ACBL, i.e. Sectionals, Regionals, and NABCs. There's no mention of this CoC anywhere in Club Managers Handbook, nor in the Club Sanctioned Game section of the ACBL Handbook.

Regardless, as a matter of decency, fair play and respect for participants, it is only right that the full conditions of contest are published and made available to prospective participants. Not to do this is unconsionable, particularly over as controversial an issue as the allowing of kibbitzing.

[Trysalot]

The disallowing is disabled and kibitzing restored on the last round so those who finish early can watch the slower tables play while waiting for them to finish so results will post for everyone to view.

 

And, for whatever it may be worth to anybody, my opinion is that the allowing or disallowing of kibitzing ACBL tourneys is only a controversial issue here in this forum. Otherwise I would be seeing a lot of lobby chat about it and I am not. (Of course I don't know what kind of chat goes on during the day when I am at work).

 

Trysalot

[Wayne_LV]

   

[csdenmark]

I applaud BBO for taking the steps already taken to reduce cheating.

 

I would like to see further steps considered:

 

1. Require kibbers for any IMP or MP scored game to select a person to kib before joining the table.  Permission must be granted by the person being kibbed (someone else already made that suggestion).  Then only display the hand of that person to the kibber during the bidding and play of a hand.  Continue to allow kibbers to review already played boards via the movie function.  I think if this method were employed, kibbers could then be allowed once again in ACBL tournaments since a "self-kibber" gains no additional information about the other hands.  And yes, these steps can be beaten by multiple kibbers.  But as Fred and/or Uday have pointed out before, the greater the number of participants required for a conspiracy, the less likely that conspiracy is to occur.

 

2. Do not allow the dummy to see opponent's cards during the play of the hand.  It is only an opinion, but I think the number one source of casual cheating is dummy communicating to partner such information as which way to finesse or when to drop a stiff or even when small cards are winners and the declarer may have forgotten ("don't forget your clubs in dummy are good").  I also think a fair number of people have gotten so used to this ploy as to not even think of it as cheating.  I never see the opponent's hands as dummy since I prefer to follow partner's line of play with no more information than  he/she has.  I find this to be no inconvenience whatsoever and I find that I am less likely to criticize partner for not guessing what I am staring at.

 

In live games, all of the above restrictions are physically placed on kibbers and dummy.  So why not duplicate the live environment for online bridge?

 

I hope my opinions on this subject do not get THIS thread moved to the Water Cooler.

 

Wayne

You seems to have learned very little from last thread Wayne :angry:

[Wayne_LV]