mishovnbg Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 As a tournament director who now bans kibitzers until the final rounds when most are already finished, I want to ask those who demand the right to kibitz their favorite experts this question: Why is it so important to kibitz live when the myhands page allows you to see everything with the added advantage that you can slow down the pace to figure out why the expert made an unusual bid/play? Let me be clear here: I hate having to ban kibitzers from my tourneys just because a few may misuse the privilege, but a look at some of the unusual results people alert me to has convinced me I must. I just wonder if kibitzers know that you can follow players on myhands if you are interested in learning from them. I will join the protest and will ask all my friends and stars I know to not play at your tournaments more, with reasonable argument they will not enjoy there - can't earn money and people can't admire their play... ------------------------------------------------ Misho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 I will join the protest and will ask all my friends and stars I know to not play at your tournaments more, with reasonable argument they will not enjoy there - can't earn money and people can't admire their play... ------------------------------------------------ Misho Well.. Misho, that goes much further than I advocate... I am simply asking that no ONE KIBITZ... play is ok, but in protest of not allowing kibitizers, I think we should all avoid kibitizing, until he sees the light. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpefritz Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 I think kibs should be allowed in general. When there is a group of kibbers, it is nice to have interaction between them discussing the hands while they are being played. Kibs not being allowed to chat to players should be fine. In fact, I just realized a real easy way to cheat. Be a slow player in an unclocked tourney, have a friend be a fast player and have him e-mail me the hands. I often immediately save a movie to my desktop, and use deep finesse to help me analyze it on the spot. Nothing to stop me from sending it on to someone else (oh yeah, except something called ethics, and the overwhelming guilt of destroying the game). If McBruce feels his core players prefer not to have kibs, then fine. He must balance the "allow all kibs" faction and the "kibs might help cheat so ban them" faction. I think someone can register as a sub and still kib. They just have to honest with the bidding and play of the hand if they saw one or two hands before they got called in. I have kibbed and subbed in and called the director on myself to verify that I was making calls that were appropriate. fritz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 I will join the protest and will ask all my friends and stars I know to not play at your tournaments more, with reasonable argument they will not enjoy there - can't earn money and people can't admire their play... ------------------------------------------------ Misho Well.. Misho, that goes much further than I advocate... I am simply asking that no ONE KIBITZ... play is ok, but in protest of not allowing kibitizers, I think we should all avoid kibitizing, until he sees the light. Ben Not allowing kibbitzers goes against the whole spirit and concept of bbo imho. The ability to be able to kibb good players in "real time" is one of the joys of this site. Its a pity that some wish to spoil this aspect. Ron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhutobello Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 Agree on all account when it comes to kibbitz :( I think talking about cheating...don't allow kibbitzer because you are afreid of cheating. and so on..just have on big drawback "You destroy the fun of the game" I don't belive there are THAT much cheating...but if we all talk all the time about it, our BRAIN and our EGO will se it every time we make our own dumb mistakes. Take the fun back...play BRIDGE and accept that someone are a bit more lucky then you B) Have a nice dayEdvin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helium Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 I will join the protest and will ask all my friends and stars I know to not play at your tournaments more, with reasonable argument they will not enjoy there - can't earn money and people can't admire their play... ------------------------------------------------ Misho Well.. Misho, that goes much further than I advocate... I am simply asking that no ONE KIBITZ... play is ok, but in protest of not allowing kibitizers, I think we should all avoid kibitizing, until he sees the light. Ben Not allowing kibbitzers goes against the whole spirit and concept of bbo imho. The ability to be able to kibb good players in "real time" is one of the joys of this site. Its a pity that some wish to spoil this aspect. Ron agrre ron kenneth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irdoz Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 The intent of both the laws and the policies of most NBAs is to encouraging kibitzing. As a regular kibitzer there is simply no comparison between watching 'Live' and traipsing through old hand records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwingo Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 Not allowing kibbitzers goes against the whole spirit and concept of bbo imho. The ability to be able to kibb good players in "real time" is one of the joys of this site. Its a pity that some wish to spoil this aspect. There are a whole lot of good players and STARS playing in the Main Bridge Club, where kibitzers are freely allowed. Please feel free to kibitz here. It is not as though BBO is putting a blanket ban on kibitzing. Going after a TD who bans kibitzers in his tourneys and rallying support not to play in his tourney, is likely to split this Forum into 2 distinct groups. Lets put this in perspective 1. McBruce , using his TD rights and his circle of influence, is trying to curb/minimise the cheating aspect in his tourney. Nothing wrong with that.Atleast he is taking a positive step to make it difficult for the cheats.2. There are more than enough tournaments where "Kibitzers are allowed". "Kibitzers not allowed " tournaments are in a minority currently.3. As with other things, TD's should be given the option of choosing "Kibitzers not allowed". The flexible options in the various tournaments makes BBO a great site. In fact, I just realized a real easy way to cheat. Be a slow player in an unclocked tourney, have a friend be a fast player and have him e-mail me the hands. I often immediately save a movie to my desktop, and use deep finesse to help me analyze it on the spot. Nothing to stop me from sending it on to someone else (oh yeah, except something called ethics, and the overwhelming guilt of destroying the game). I am quoting fritz. This is all the more reason to ban kibitzers in unclocked tournaments. Why should the poor cheat made to work so hard in the current hand that he is playing and analysing a hand that he is going to play. The kibitzer can make it easy for the cheat by doing the analysis on Deep finesse and e-mail the results to his slow playing cheating friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 HEY, my comment to McBruce about refusing to kibitz his tournments until he allowed kibitizers was a joke, as well as rectuit others to refuse to kibitz them. I mean, HE DOESN"T ALLOW kibitzers, so by refusing to kibitzing waht harm can be done. If a director chooses to disallow kbitzers, so be it. That option is a feature to allow a director to do just that, should he want to. All that I ask is that the director make the no kibizers clear in the tournmnet write up. I happen to think that thre is a place for both events that allow and that ban tournments. However, I am like misho, I prefer to support tevents that allow kibitizers. What sets the BBO appart from other on line bridge sites, it that it is an educational-based site, that helps new and intermediate players. Kibitizing is just one way it does this. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 We realised you made a joke Ben, doh. I may be Australian but I don't think upside down - just walk upside down. :D No one is recruiting anyone not to kibbitz or not to play in a kibbitzer free tournament zone. No one is "going after" anybody, but it is fair and reasonable to comment on a TD who publicly comes out and makes the statement that he bans kibitzers in the first few rounds of a tournament. The problem with McBruce's attitude is the following. McBruce's actions create a precedent. No one denies the right of a TD to set whatever conditions he/she wishes to have for his tournament. However, McBruce's actions DO create a precedent. Other TDs can use the very argument "X has already done this, so why can't I?" Or "This is a method that X uses to combat cheating, I guess it works. I'll try it", and so the rot spreads. What you do not want happening is that this action eventually becomes the catalyst for a large number of Bbo TDs adopting such policies. Sure not all will take such an action, but even if some do, it does spoil the opportunity to kib. The fact that I have never kibbitzed anyone in any of McBruce's tournaments is totally irrelevant. And I am not just talking about kibbing stars or "good" players here. I occasionally kib you as well, Ben. Seriously, I do enjoy kibbitzing friends such as Richard, Misho and yourself when you play in a tournament. Furthermore I was not joking when I said that one of the joys of this site is to kibbitz top players. The argument that you can look up hands in "my hands" is a poor one. As Luis and others have stated, nothing beats actually kibbitzing in real time, seeing the bids and plays made. I doubt whether too many would use other options to follow the plays. The other question I would ask, is "what good does banning kibbitzers actually do?" If you want to cheat, there are far more effective ways of doing so rather than the relatively obvious one of having a kibbitzer follow from table to table relaying hands. So, "yes", it IS important to let TDs and others know how many of us feel about this issue. Cheers Ron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishovnbg Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------Hi all! ------- While Ben made a joke, I AM VERY SERIOUS!!! I am very rare angry and have near zero ambitions, but I am afraid that theese directors who ban kibitzers will make angry enough people to ban their tourneys instead of kibitzers. I am too busy to menage tournaments, but to defend such noble cаuse like kibitzing I hope to find time and powers. ------- About cheating and kibitzers. Why heed to have kibitzer for cheating, when you may have another player for same reason? Even better, I can play with myself, hehe! I can even make a party of several "me" and at imp tourney with pickup partner will be with at least 50 imp ahead... I think even TD's can understand, what else can be done by messengers, simple phone.... ------ Last time I kibitz finals of some tourney I notice that one pair did very unusual lead in bidded suit KJxx, while in unbid suit holding was QJxx in unbid major was 1098. I quickly checked leads on other tables at final and found 1 more pair, by the way I am sorry to say Frederick is may be right. I also don't like cheaters in tournaments, so I think how to catch them. My last and probably realy good idea is to add several predealt boards as traps for cheaters only. It is really not hard to do that - very unusual leads, play, slams... Other boards can be randomly predealt or selected, how TD like. One board can be lucky, 2 boards can be lucky day, 3 boards can lead do conclusion... By the way the main method of police against corruption is similar :D . -------------------------------------------------------------- Misho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBruce Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 Let me get this straight, because it is an argument I have seen several times here and it still strikes me as completely illogical. mishovnbg: "About cheating and kibitzers. Why [do you n]eed to have kibitzer for cheating" The_Hog: "what good does banning kibbitzers actually do?" If you want to cheat, there are far more effective ways of doing so" If I had time on my hands and was not so busy spending time on a fairly successful tournament series, I would find more quotes in other threads that seem to support this argument: No action should ever be taken in an effort to REDUCE cheating unless it COMPLETELY ELIMINATES cheating. And I don't get this at all. The easiest way for one person alone to cheat is to use two BBO connections and play/kibitz at the same time. If I remove this and as a result 99 cheaters move to the second easiest method (whatever the hell that is), but a single cheater decides to forget it and just play bridge instead, this is a VICTORY in the struggle against cheating. It is a nuisance to those who just want to kibitz, but there are many other opportunities for that: I'm in this for those who want to play, I'm not spending my time to create a kibitzing environment. My choice is to do something for the players at a small inconvenience to the kibitzers. (By the way, I do allow kibitzers in the final 15-20 minutes of a tournament, once 12 boards of 15 are completed by all, after most of the fast players are done.) TDs reading this: a lot of you work harder than I do even. Do any kibitzers ever thank you for your work? There are countless ways BBO could set a middle ground here. The tourney software could be revised to allow tournament kibitzers to see only what the player they are kibitzing sees, not all four hands. Or tournament kibitzers could be forced to watch one table only regardless of who is playing at it. I'd reopen to kibitzers in a flash if that happened. 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. Does that make sense to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mink Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 hi McBruce, If I remove this and as a result 99 cheaters move to the second easiest method (whatever the hell that is), but a single cheater decides to forget it and just play bridge instead, this is a VICTORY in the struggle against cheating. I see this point and you are right about it. BUT: By disallowing kibitzers you have already allowed the cheaters to celebrate a victory over the the honest players! I am absolutely supporting the reduction of cheating, but the only way to do this is to ban cheaters, and before you ban them, you have to find out about them. Often a kibitzer is more likely to detect a possible cheat than the opps of the cheater. In fact, the only case where a possible cheat was detected in one of my tourneys was by a kibitzer. I am determined, whenever I see some evidence for a cheat, to investigate in myhands and then, if it looks like there is really cheating going on, report the case to abuse. If at least the readers of this forum do the same, it should be a miracle if cheaters survive longer than a few weeks. Of couse, if this generates too much work for Uday and Fred, a commitee that verifys cheating allegations would be fine - this has already been proposed in some other thread. Ok, maybe there are some expert cheaters who do the cheating so subtile and sometimes just avoid to cheat when they could so that it is hard to detect them. However, I doubt that cheating on expert level is much of a problem. I believe that cheaters are fairly foolish, because if they had the ability to win a tourney without cheating, why should they cheat then? Karl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helium Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 I think its really sad that some cheaters make us discouss if its best to dissalow kibitzing from tourneys on bbo,this is one of the best things bbo has to offer and we should never change this. its many things bbo could and are doing to prevent cheeters but this is not one of them i hope. kenneth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 That's the big problem with cheaters Helium. Even if they would read this topic, they still wouldn't care about it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doofik Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 It makes my blood boil when I see a topic of kibs being related to the frequency of cheating. Do we really have such a low opinion of players and kibs alike to bring this up like a bad meal? Some will point to my post re: kibs; different situation, that was personal. So please lighten up and stop with the paranoia, cause I assure you that out of 800 kibs you might find 1 who is logged in for another person to shine. And if I'm right, then let's get on with our lives and leave this topic alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irdoz Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 Imagine banning all the spectators from Wimbledon because a member of the crowd may be illegally coaching a player which under the rules of tennis would be cheating. People would regard it as a huge joke and a monstrous, illogical and inappropriate response to a problem that has other solutions. Because of my job Im often on call and cant commit to play an event so will often watch instead. Bridge authorities around the world have policies which attempt to encourage spectating. Look how popular BBO is when big events are on vugraph. There are other solutions to cheating that need to be implemented independent of a blanket ban on kibitzers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 Maybe there's a partial solution to this problem, not eberything is black or white. You can present the host/director an option to ban/forbid kibitzers using the same IP as a player playing. If someone wants to cheat it is very likely he will do it from the same IP sharing the internet connection at his home/office, wherever. This will cause trouble in some innocent situations, for example here at a local club we have some computers sharing the same IP and players play/kibitz from different rooms using the same connection. Some housband-wife pairs play from different rooms in a perfectly legal situation, etc. But it won't cause a problem to all the kibitzers or make a TD forbid all the kibitzers. As many of you said forbidding kibitzers kills a lot of the magic of online bridge. If a director/player allows all kibitzers then kibs using the same IP as a player should be marked in red or in some way. So if strange things happen AND there is a suspect kibitzer a host/director can take measures. Luis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 Maybe there's a partial solution to this problem, not eberything is black or white. You can present the host/director an option to ban/forbid kibitzers using the same IP as a player playing. If someone wants to cheat it is very likely he will do it from the same IP sharing the internet connection at his home/office, wherever. This will cause trouble in some innocent situations, for example here at a local club we have some computers sharing the same IP and players play/kibitz from different rooms using the same connection. Some housband-wife pairs play from different rooms in a perfectly legal situation, etc. But it won't cause a problem to all the kibitzers or make a TD forbid all the kibitzers. As many of you said forbidding kibitzers kills a lot of the magic of online bridge. If a director/player allows all kibitzers then kibs using the same IP as a player should be marked in red or in some way. So if strange things happen AND there is a suspect kibitzer a host/director can take measures. Luis Luis, as nearly always, is a voice of reason. But as a general rule, two log in's from the same IP address are not allowed (uday has to approve it I believe), and sadly there are technical ways around using same IP address from the same computer anyway, as illustrated to me by one of my partners who choose to use one such trick. I believe he emailed uday on that one, but that trick can not be eaisily stopped. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uday Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 We do not prohibit multiple logins from the same IP address ( Internet cafes, home networks, AOL all use one IP address for more than one user). We attempt to block one PC from logging in more than once. We allow it for some users who have a need for the ability. What I'm not getting from all this is two things a) I don't understand why people are sounding irritated at McBruce. He is working around some perceived limitations of the software as best he can.It is only by experimentation that we learn. I am sure that his customers who worry about cheating (or of being falsely accused of cheating each time they make a good lead) appreciate the small comfort of knowing there are no specs. :lol: If I were concerned about cheating in one of my tourneys, I would almost certainly bar specs as well. c) It would be good if the software could help a a little. Right now the only option we offer is to bar specs or open it up completely to specs. What options do we see? - restricting specs to one hand - boring for the honest specs, and a bad apple will spec his "special friend's" partner. - Forcing spec to stay at table - boring for honest specs ,and a bad apple will be able to xmit info about the (same) hand to his "special friend" - Allow TD to specify who is allowed to spec and who is not. Seems ok to me. Allow TDs to see more info about the specs applying to watch ( same IP as someone else in the tourney? etc) Over time we'll come up with something. I think that when we run tourneys with something tangible at stake we'll need even more in the way of precautions than disallowing specs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 We do not prohibit multiple logins from the same IP address ( Internet cafes, home networks, AOL all use one IP address for more than one user). We attempt to block one PC from logging in more than once. We allow it for some users who have a need for the ability. What I'm not getting from all this is two things a) I don't understand why people are sounding irritated at McBruce. He is working around some perceived limitations of the software as best he can.It is only by experimentation that we learn. I am sure that his customers who worry about cheating (or of being falsely accused of cheating each time they make a good lead) appreciate the small comfort of knowing there are no specs. :lol: If I were concerned about cheating in one of my tourneys, I would almost certainly bar specs as well. c) It would be good if the software could help a a little. Right now the only option we offer is to bar specs or open it up completely to specs. What options do we see? - restricting specs to one hand - boring for the honest specs, and a bad apple will spec his "special friend's" partner. - Forcing spec to stay at table - boring for honest specs ,and a bad apple will be able to xmit info about the (same) hand to his "special friend" - Allow TD to specify who is allowed to spec and who is not. Seems ok to me. Allow TDs to see more info about the specs applying to watch ( same IP as someone else in the tourney? etc) Over time we'll come up with something. I think that when we run tourneys with something tangible at stake we'll need even more in the way of precautions than disallowing specs. Uday,What about marking in red specs with the same IP as a player playing? What about letting the TD forbid kibitzers with the same IP as a player? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uday Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 That would block 2 AOLers from playing with each other. However, the server can certainly make an educated guess that two players are "close" to each other and offer this information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhutobello Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 Maybe I shot some overhead here, but I will agein try to give my feelings :lol: 1) how many players attend BBO each hours of the day? from 750 - 4000 2) How many cheaters do you think there are logged on? how great odds is't to run into a cheater? 3) If you play with a cheater and loose, how much must you pay, or what do you not recive? Is this loss enough for you to ban kib, when you know that you then also ban yourself? 4) When do we play with a "cheater"? In my opinion if you play ageinst Op that never can learn you anything, but still win over you all the time.If you play ageinst such O, mark him, and make comments "can't learn me anything, just a vaste of time, no fun either :angry: " Now when you have mark him, how great odds is to get a new one in the near future? :huh: I think the way to go is not to ban Kib...we all know there are shop lifters, but we don't close our shop in order to get rid of that. On the other hand, if you start to ban kib because of cheating, you make the problem much bigger, because we will belive that it is a real problem with BBO, and many will leave because there are so many cheatres there. I have also start to notice that more and more tables are locked for kib in main brigdeclub. Normaly I would never kib them, but now the suddently are more interesting :P What do you feel? We must all have an eye on the "small problem". Mark it yourself, but never accuse one before you are 150% secure that you are right. Hopfully Uday and Fred still improve the programs abillity to catch cheaters, in the meantime have fun :) :) Have a nice day :lol: Edvin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irdoz Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 Good post Edvin I'm certainly aware that 2 logons from the same physical location is a way of cheating. I know numbers of people banned for this method of cheating from the site I play tournaments. They were banned because the evidence was collected. There have been a number of people banned at this site for using some form of illegal communication. The telltale sign with this method of cheating is often 'telling pauses'. The most frequent ways this was identified was by people kibtzing. Unsurprisingly some of these people who were subsequently banned were the most vociferous in support of a no kibitzers policy (this is not to say most people who want to ban all kibtzers or some kibtzers dont have good intentions). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishovnbg Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 We do not prohibit multiple logins from the same IP address ( Internet cafes, home networks, AOL all use one IP address for more than one user). We attempt to block one PC from logging in more than once. We allow it for some users who have a need for the ability. What I'm not getting from all this is two things a) I don't understand why people are sounding irritated at McBruce. He is working around some perceived limitations of the software as best he can.It is only by experimentation that we learn. I am sure that his customers who worry about cheating (or of being falsely accused of cheating each time they make a good lead) appreciate the small comfort of knowing there are no specs. :) If I were concerned about cheating in one of my tourneys, I would almost certainly bar specs as well. c) It would be good if the software could help a a little. Right now the only option we offer is to bar specs or open it up completely to specs. What options do we see? - restricting specs to one hand - boring for the honest specs, and a bad apple will spec his "special friend's" partner. - Forcing spec to stay at table - boring for honest specs ,and a bad apple will be able to xmit info about the (same) hand to his "special friend" - Allow TD to specify who is allowed to spec and who is not. Seems ok to me. Allow TDs to see more info about the specs applying to watch ( same IP as someone else in the tourney? etc) Over time we'll come up with something. I think that when we run tourneys with something tangible at stake we'll need even more in the way of precautions than disallowing specs. ---------------------------------------------- Hi Uday! ------- I really don't like what I will do, because I had bad experience and was punished many time and probably is time to learn something... I didn't meet yet people, who like criticism and if you do it with the Boss, like you in BBO, it can lead to very unwanted effects for that person, in this particular case - me. But I really like BBO and people here and will try to help them, despite my bad experience with tries to say "bad news" to Boss ;) . ------- Uday, are you programmer who works to improve BBO software or you are also BBO community menager? If you are menager, have you need education&experience how to menage large mass of people? Leader of how many people you was and did you enjoy of success there? -------I am really sorry about above questions, but need to know I will really try to prevent any future cat&dog stories with only weapon I have - words. I am really worried, if you can't see what can follow, if people like some of TD's who participate here will be allowed to continue... The directors are volunteers in BBO, but they can have different reasons to do this job... I will quote here some of arguments that I really don't like and same position can lead to unwanted by me situations in my beloved BBO, thank you for your great work Uday! Quotes: "I'm not spending my time to create a kibitzing environment." -> Because of such people existing, will pass many time before we can ever dream about money for bridge, at least like theese for chess... "TDs reading this: a lot of you work harder than I do even. Do any kibitzers ever thank you for your work?" ->Warning! Cats and dogs, dogs and cats... ----------------------------------------------------- Misho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.