We need: No more kibitzing at tournaments

[glen]

I could post hands but they would then be deleted.

 

The lines of play and leads now happening are impressive, but not in a positive sense.

 

Please ban kibitzing. (however now see my last posting in this thread)

[inquiry]

I could post hands but they would then be deleted.

 

The lines of play and leads now happening are impressive, but not in a positive sense.

 

Please ban kibitzing.

This is not clear. A few hands posted without mention of DATE, or players involved (and you had best not be one) would probably not deleted. OF course a better solution is to submit links to the hands in myhands to abuse.

 

Also, it seems to me that the BBO is trying to fine tool the kibitzer rules for ACBL, so an open discussion of the advantages/disadvantages and the way people feel about it seems useful. Keylime has already expressed a view similiar to yours.

[pbleighton]

I would like to be able to kibitz all open tables when I have finished a tournament and am waiting for the results. Can there be any harm in that?

 

Peter

[pigpenz]

I would like to be able to kibitz all open tables when I have finished a tournament and am waiting for the results.  Can there be any harm in that?

 

Peter

in my last 2 weeks experinces that weirdest results have come once the last round is open to general kibbers who dont have a rating of whatever they need to kib ;)

[glen]

While some might think it is unclear, for us it is very clear with the return of kibitzing that some players appear to have amazing double dummy leading and playing abilities.

[pbleighton]

"in my last 2 weeks experinces that weirdest results have come once the last round is open to general kibbers who dont have a rating of whatever they need to kib "

 

What I was suggesting was that this be limited to pairs who have finished the tournament.

 

Peter

[pigpenz]

"in my last 2 weeks experinces that weirdest results have come once the last round is open to general kibbers who dont have a rating of whatever they need to kib "

 

What I was suggesting was that this be limited to pairs who have finished the tournament.

 

Peter

the would require some more programming I assume. The TD's usually just a have a general switch in the table function for the tournament to open or close kibbing. I think the raiting one now implemented for acbl games automatically allows kibs only who have a rating above a certain status, i would assume.

[1eyedjack]

I would like to be able to kibitz all open tables when I have finished a tournament and am waiting for the results.  Can there be any harm in that?

 

Peter

in my last 2 weeks experinces that weirdest results have come once the last round is open to general kibbers who dont have a rating of whatever they need to kib :)

I think I would expect more weird bids and plays in the last one or two rounds than earlier in the event, even without any cheating going on. So the fact that it occurs may not be conclusive evidence of the influence of kibitzers. It could be the case, of course ... you would have to examine the hands in depth to come to a conclusion.

 

Not that I claim to understand the mentality of a cheater, I do however find it quite surprising that someone who is inclined to cheat would choose to play in an event where that opportunity is limited to the final round, then to take advantage of the opportunity for that round.

[hotShot]

Suggestion:

 

Create a kibbing table, where all player(that finished) or kibs can kib. Make it a copy of a real table, but don't show the player names. Start showing the last board of the previous round, and show the the first board of the last round when playing has been finished. The table copied can change every board.

Or you can pick a star players table.

This way everybody can kib and discuss with other kibs and there is no way to submit the information kibed to a player, while the board is played.

 

 

But before investing much work to it, please realise, that the "kib" could just turn into a player and join the tourney. There is a good chance that he will sit on a different position than the player he is helping. So it's possible to message, partners hand or one of opps hands without a problem.

If the "kib" is not interested in his own result he could just play very fast so that he can message the whole board, before his partner starts playing it.

 

So i don't think banning kibs is going to help much against cheating,and even less to reduce the unfounded cheating accusations.

[inquiry]

So i don't think banning kibs is going to help much against cheating,and even less to reduce the unfounded cheating accusations.

Fred said in the post on why kibitzers were banned from ACBL events (see this link for his full comments (Fred view on banning kibitzers),

 

I don't want to get involved in a public discussion of the numbers, but please take my word for it that we would not have taken this step unless we thought that cheating by self-kibitzing in our ACBL tournaments was a serious a widespread problem.

 

Of course, this doesn't address whether or not banning the kibitzers reduced all the cheating, but it does reduce the "serious and widespread problem" of self-kibitzing. As you can see from the post above, some people clearly think the kibitzer ban was effective in limiting at least their perception of cheating. I have heard more positive feedback from people playing in the ACBL events concerning the ban than negative feedback. Everyone wants to kibitz the last round when they finish playing, and I think that feature has always been available.

[pbleighton]

"Everyone wants to kibitz the last round when they finish playing, and I think that feature has always been available. "

 

It's available only after a certain point - if you are in a "fast" section you wind up not being able to kibitz for quite a while - you can really only kib the last few minutes of the tournament.

 

Peter

[inquiry]

"Everyone wants to kibitz the last round when they finish playing, and I think that feature has always been available. "

 

It's available only after a certain point - if you are in a "fast" section you wind up not being able to kibitz for quite a while - you can really only kib the last few minutes of the tournament.

 

Peter

I am not sure, but I think this is simply a function of the director clicking on the green table button and editing the tournament to allow kibitzers. So I think the speed of it happening is a function of how busy the director is and if he/she remembers to do it. A private message to the director should solve the problem.

[pigpenz]

I am not sure, but I think this is simply a function of the director clicking on the green table button and editing the tournament to allow kibitzers. So I think the speed of it happening is a function of how busy the director is and if he/she remembers to do it. A private message to the director should solve the problem.

in some large tournaments if a section or two is behing they maybe on board 10 and other sections may be open and done already. I have seen that happen a number of times. So every board represents roughly 8% of your score. If someone is going to cheat they will still do it for only a board or 2 if possible. So in some instances they can benefit by maybe getting to do it for 1/3 of the tournament.

[glen]

This was said openly (i.e. -> tournament) at the conclusion of a tourney by somebody I've never seen before:

 

"i had one the other night against me that I thought was so obvious I could almost see his other computer"

 

This person might vote for no more kibitzing. This quote is reproduced here as I believe the attitude is becoming commonplace. imo, either ban kibitzing to help protect the preceived integrity of the game (my vote) or ZT these open comments (in particular, the TD should say these comments are not welcome). That said, I was watching the tourney in question, and enjoyed doing so, albeit I paid zero to watch it.

[manig]

In my experience, as I play many ACBL hands with my students, there are certain players who make & play very unusual way ( READ IT AS SELF KIBITZ) and thus are cheating. Tho, removing kibitz wont remove all the cheating it will go a long way ( as w/o Kibitz one would need twoplyers to cooperate to cheat. Also, i dont see any need to kibitz the 2nd-3rd rate players( most of us in acbl) when there are many star players can be kibitz in main lobby. so PLEASE remove Kibizers

[1eyedjack]

In my experience, as I play many face to face hands, there are certain players who make & play very unusual way. They are not accused of cheating, because they have no kibitzers. They would however be accused of cheating had they made those plays online, because that is the most convenient explanation for the play.

 

If you want to play with no kibitzers, there are opportunities to do so. Just choose your tourney to suit your requirements. Kindly don't impose your wishes on the rest of us.

[glen]

If you want to play with no kibitzers, there are opportunities to do so.  Just choose your tourney to suit your requirements.  Kindly don't impose your wishes on the rest of us.

There are no "opportunities" in ACBL tourneys. However if kibitzers were banned, you, a non-paying person (assuming you just wanted to watch at that point) would still be able to "choose your tourney" from the others available to kibitz. "Kindly don't impose your wishes on the" customers.

[1eyedjack]

If you want to play with no kibitzers, there are opportunities to do so.  Just choose your tourney to suit your requirements.  Kindly don't impose your wishes on the rest of us.

There are no "opportunities" in ACBL tourneys. However if kibitzers were banned, you, a non-paying person (assuming you just wanted to watch at that point) would still be able to "choose your tourney" from the others available to kibitz. "Kindly don't impose your wishes on the" customers.

Don't understand these points. My understanding is the kibbers ARE banned from ACBL events. My understanding is that kibbers generally ARE customers, and lastly I am not the one imposing my wishes on anyone.

[helene_t]

Would it be possible to back up those cheating theories with some evidence? The percentage of offside stiff kings that were picked with and without kibbs, the percentage winning leads, the percentage queens found when it can be finessed either way etc.

[glen]

Here's an example from when I was watching:

 

[hv=d=_&v=_&s=sq8542ht642d842cq]133|100|Scoring: _[/hv]

The bidding goes 1NT-3NT and this hand is on lead. The ♣ Queen is chosen. Dummy has AKxxx in ♣s. The other defender has JT98x of ♣s and two aces. 3NT is defeated.

 

Is this proof? No. The person could have reasoned that their hand is very weak, so they need to hit partner's hand. The person could have misclicked. The person might be looking for a swing in these short 12 board events.

 

So the problem is there are a whole bunch of boards like this which are not proof but are strange enough to cast doubt on the integrity of the event.

 

Here's other example from yesterday:

 

[hv=d=_&v=_&s=sq8542ht642d842cq]133|100|Scoring: _[/hv]

This hand opened 3NT, "to play, can be a variety of hands", got a ♥ lead, made the contract, and picked up 11 IMPs. Have you seen a 3NT opener like this before? I haven't, but I'm the one who opened 3NT, and found partner with a wonderful 1=4=4=4 shape with two jacks. Now look at it from my opponents' point-of-view - at the end of the hand they see this 3NT opening, it looks bizarre to them, and they wonder wtf is going on here. They may look at responder's hand and then conclude 3NT was plain silly, or they might just not consider it much longer then to think: "here we go again".

[helene_t]

FWIW, I found the lead of ♣Q completely normal. The second example is a lot stranger, allthough "cheating" would not be my favorite theory (then again, while I suspect cheating appr. once or twice a weak at the local club, I have never encountered anything suspious on BBO, other than overt cheating such as double-shooting TD calls).

 

This just shows that for a statistical analysis the collected evidence must be based on objective criteria. Subjective criteria like "this is strange" could be confounded by a (possible subconscious) effect of the kind: "There was a kibber watching us so opps could have been cheating, I'll report this one".

 

Of course, objective criteria could be confounded as well (there are probably other differences between the WP Refugee and ACBL Tourneys than the allowance of kibbers) but if something statistically significant could be found at least we would know that something is going on, and could proceed to discussing possible confounders.

[hrothgar]

Here's an example from when I was watching:

If this is a representative example of the type of evidence you use to bolster your case, then you probably want to keep your mouth firmly shut.

 

I don't think that there is anything particularly strange about a club lead on the first hand. I'm not sure if I'd lead a club or a spade. (I suspect that I'd lead a Spade). However, I certainly wouldn't get bet out of shape if the opponents

 

(A) Lead a Club

(B) It happened to work

 

On the second hand, you don't provide any information about the bidding. For example, did the player open 3NT in first second seat or in fourth? (Big difference between these two opening bids) Moreover, it doesn't sound like the 3NT opening lead to a very good contract. 3NT might make on a heart lead and continuation, however, I suspect that it could have just as easily gone down on a different lead.

 

As Helene notes: The distinquishing characteristic of online tournaments is their relatively short length. In turn, this virtually requires players to adopt extremely high variance strategies. You need to roll the dice every chance that you get and then pray that the card gods are smiling. Personally, I think that this type of risk taking offers a much more convincing argument for both the bids in question.

 

If you want to make a serious case about cheating than you need to conduct a real statistic study. I very much suggest that you aquaint yourself with standard concepts like

 

"Confidence intervals"

"sample size"

"statistical significance"

 

This posting is brought to you by the number 1.96 and the letter "T"

[glen]

Be aware I have a degree in math, so you could consider the probability that I might know those terms (to assist with your probability, I should also reveal that I developed a statistical program purchased by Fortune 500 companies, worked extensively with SAS, created sampling PL/SQL in Oracle, blah blah blah).

 

I'm not making a "serious case about cheating" with two examples - how could one (also since one involved me)? I'm talking about perceptions and using two examples that might be perceived one way (e.g. see Helene on my 3NT) or the other.

 

"Moreover, it doesn't sound like the 3NT opening lead to a very good contract" - yes, it was a terrible contract, no play at all regardless of lead.

 

"this virtually requires players to adopt extremely high variance strategies" - also the fields have a high mix of skill levels - thus one will see a lot of stuff that appears strange. If Kibitzers are allowed, some will conclude that this could be the reason for some of the strange stuff. Not allowing kibitzers will rule out people taking this conclusion based on their perceptions.

[pbleighton]

Glen:

 

Unlike some posters who complain about cheating, I have found your posts pretty reasonable.

 

However, I think that you share a misperception with other posters, namely that some people who don't play "standard" bridge are "up to something".

 

I don't play much with pickup partners any more, but what I remember from their bidding and play makes me dismiss thoughts of cheating when opps do spectacularly weird things and get a good result.

 

I'm not saying that cheating doesn't exist, but I think that 99% (a made up number, to be sure) of these bids and plays are just the result of self-taught bridge.

 

I'm fixed, next hand.

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

I know of one person (who reads the forums, so they'll post their name if they wish) who, when they see something suspicious repeatedly from the same person, will go through their history, and check for 'off' successful things that happen for the person and the overall result (somebody who repeatedly does strange successful things but even more often does strange unsuccessful things is just going anti-field). I've seen the evidence, and I am convinced, but we're still talking only a handful of people.

 

I don't think that banning kibbitzing will even slow these people down. Their most popular method seems to be Messenger, or something equivalent.