Kibitzing tournaments

[rona_]

There are four tournaments going on as I write this, and three of them disallow kibitzing. Is this going to be the norm from now on? :)

[uday]

Lets hope not. BBO has no opinion (well, maybe we think specs should be allowed).

 

I can guess why some Ts do this.

 

- to see if it reduces accusations of cheating

- to increase the pool of subs

[jdulmage]

Yes, I for one encourage tournament directors to disallow kibitizers. People cheat all of the time, whether or not we see it is another thing and disallowing kibitizers makes it easier for us TDs to make sure fairness is played out.

[Cascade]

Yes, I for one encourage tournament directors to disallow kibitizers. People cheat all of the time, whether or not we see it is another thing and disallowing kibitizers makes it easier for us TDs to make sure fairness is played out.

I am not sure.

 

Cheats will cheat whether there are kibitzers or not.

[JRG]

For what it is worth, banning kibitzers from a tournament seems silly to me. The only exception I'd make would be for something like the BIL where there are novices and beginners who might feel intimidated by the presence of a lot of kibitzers.

 

If kibitzers cannot talk to players (via BBO), then what's the point? As pointed out elsewhere, people who want to cheat, will cheat regardless.

[the hog]

"Yes, I for one encourage tournament directors to disallow kibitizers. "

 

This is a really poor attitude. One of the pleasures of bbo is to kibbitz your friends. As has been pointed out by others - if you want to cheat you can always find a way. Surely no one is so concerned with winning a meaningless tournament that you would take people's pleasure away from them.

[spwdo]

hi,

 

Agree with cascade, however with disallowing kibitzers they dont have access to 52 cards when the bidding hasnt begun(using the friendly kibchaetingoption), at best now they exchange their cards and fill partner in how to play a hand when dummy, but chaeting is discouraged till certain degree, accusations a lot .

 

More ppl go offline in pairs after scoring bad(maybe coincidence) when u host without kibitzers, what i woud like to see is an option for tds to set , kibitz partner only when dummy so a dummy coudnt see opps hand, togheter with no kibs allowed we coud have fair tourneys without none chaeting allegations because there woud be no ground.

 

Lets not make this too much of a problem when kibitzers are off, remember we got an excellent webpage where u can look into whoever hands u want, i for one go there , look at 20 baords in ten minutes.

 

It got totally nothing to do with punisching the good for a few rotten apples, we taking here about tourneys with limited number of hands played wich again can be find seconds after tourny is over, so these baords are not lost .

 

I can name several pairs that dont play with kibs disallowed, while they play other tourneys i host where kibs are allowed.Also i can name pairs that score good with kibs allowed and score bad with kibs disallowed, some of these pairs avoid like i said the kibs off tourneys.

 

I noticed a dicrease in bluff/spyche bids ( mainly what i talk about is bidding Spades with no spades will opps sitting on a nine fit ) then they end up playing a savely haert game or below and opps stayed out of the bidding, i seen some spyche gone totally bad( personally i think it can go either way) in fact i gotten tired of only psyches gone good(must add to that when opps make spyche and it turns bad no one will inform a td i guess)

 

In the last 3 weeks tourneys over 4000 ppl played "bridge too far" so i think i have some ground to come forward with my opinion

 

i also think that a tourney is competition and main bridge club/teamgames are less competitieve for a large group of players so therefore the excuse of disallowing kibitzers in one of my tourneys.

 

Want to add here also i help out in several other tourneys where kibs are allowed with no problem whatsoever, im not asking/pushing/dictade what others shoud do, as always on BBo every one is allowed to do his own thing, lets keep it that way.

 

 

Marc

[paulhar]

- to increase the pool of subs

I'm surprised at this one. It's hard to believe that someone kibitzing in a tournament would want to sub in the same tournament.

 

First, I would assume that someone who is kibitzing is kibitzing a particular player or pair. That is how they wish to spend that block of time. If they really want to play in a tournament but feel like kibitzing a pair, tournaments are prevalent enough that they can kibitz until the next tournament whisks them away.

 

Somebody who is willing to sub wants to play bridge and might more likely be in the Main Bridge Club playing rather than kibitzing.

 

Kibitzers can always be on the sub list for the tourneys they're not subbing in. That's why I think barring them is short-sighted. Tournament directors can do each other a favor by allowing kibitzers because your kibitzer can be somebody else's sub. If all the TD's bar kibitzers, you might cut down on the total number of subs available for all tourneys.

 

Sure, it's the Prisoner's Dilemma where if others are barring kibitzers while you allow them, you're providing subs for them while they're doing you dirt. (The Prisoner's Dilemma is a situation where everybody has a choice and if everybody takes the choice that is worse for them personally, the whole population benefits, because the choice that is worse for you is better for others by a wider margin. A good example is recycling - it's a pain to do it but if everybody does it it's well worth it.)

 

So maybe if the TD's all make nice and allow kibitzers, there will be a lot more subs to go around - nobody has to feel guilty leaving a table to get called to a tournament if he is only kibitzing anyway.

[spwdo]

- to increase the pool of subs

I'm surprised at this one. It's hard to believe that someone kibitzing in a tournament would want to sub in the same tournament.

hi,

 

 

Dont be surprised, some add themselves to sublist, do a peek a boo and get subbed in, happens a lot when someone is missing that a player goes red and his partner gives u a name of a "willing sub" that happen to be watching.

 

Off course this is not what most do, very pleased that the majority isnt like that and plays it fair but it happens frequently, almost once in every tourney and i believe its not intenionally chaeting but its unethical to say the least.

 

This is the main reason we long ask since players coud find their own sub that it becomes impossible to sub a player in that is kibitzing that tourney, i think its active now(occupied players/kibs in same tourney nolonger get invitations send) correct me if im wrong Uday.

 

What players do now is ask td to do sub manually, so they give a name and unknowing td subs that player in...

 

spwdo

[bambi1]

Most of the tournaments I run, I allow kibitzing, but here are a couple of incidences that happened.......

 

One night while directing a kibitzer messaged me and told me that a pair was known for cheating (they were at table 1). The following round I kept my eye on the pair (and the kibitzers!). The next couple of rounds I changed the tournament to disable kibitzers. Whoa and behold the pair dropped from table 1 to table 17 in 2 rounds. Coincidence?

 

Another tournament I disallowed kibitzers, and a player messaged me and said, "could I leave please, I won't play without my kibitzer". Now, that was a first for me!

 

All, in all, I think kibitzers should be allowed. It is a great way for ALL of us to learn more.

 

Cheaters will cheat and there is not much we can do about it. What satisfaction comes from it? They know they didn't win legally? Does this boost an ego? And if so, I feel sorry for them.

[hrothgar]

Not sure if anyone cares, there's a good writeup on Prisioner's dilemma available at

 

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PRISDIL.html

 

Paul's explanation is pretty close, but misses a couple of salient points

[paulhar]

Another tournament I disallowed kibitzers, and a player messaged me and said, "could I leave please, I won't play without my kibitzer". Now, that was a first for me!

I'm sure most of you must think there is cheating here. There might be another quite plausible reason. The player is learning and the kibitzer is the player's pro who will later discuss the player's errors with him. Take away the kibitzer, and the player will wish to go play in the Main Bridge Room where his kibitzer can once again be there to collect hand records and watch the student play.

[hallway]

:( or it could be his Mother helping him to learn :( - remember that one Karl ! :D

[Dwayne]

Yes, I for one encourage tournament directors to disallow kibitizers.  People cheat all of the time, whether or not we see it is another thing and disallowing kibitizers makes it easier for us TDs to make sure fairness is played out.

 

...boring...

 

people people...can we get over this 'stop the cheaters at all costs' mentality.

 

It really gets up my nose when I can't kibbitz a tourney. Barring specs deters cheaters from using one methodology but if I had the time and inclination I bet I could list 100 other ways to cheat on BBO...for what it's worth.

 

Dwanye (formerly Noodles on TwoplusTwo.com)

[xx1943]

Hi Dwayne, hi all

 

people people...can we get over this 'stop the cheaters at all costs' mentality.

Very right

IMO there were much more people talking about cheating as there are cheaters.

Not every strange lucky bid is a cheat.

Besides cheating in BBO must be boring. We don't play for money, we don't play for Masterpoints, we don't play for qualifying the Bermuda-Bowl, we play just for fun and entertainment.

Imo cheating is the same reading a crime-story from the end.

 

It really gets up my nose when I can't kibbitz a tourney. Barring specs deters cheaters from using one methodology but if I had the time and inclination I bet I could list 100 other ways to cheat on BBO...for what it's worth.

100% agree.

 

Besides I learned after some bitter experience: Psychics maybe fun for you, but never for your partner. Psychics destroy partnerships confidence and faith.

I was a great psycher and had to learn: Psychs don't pay in a long run on a high level. I'm not talking about tactical bids, which could not confuse partner.

 

Al

[McBruce]

I've argued this before in other threads, and I seem to be an odd sort of bridge player because watching others in real time doesn't excite me as much as actually playing in real time. So, with respect to those who feel differently...

 

No TD who bars kibitzers will argue that it stops all cheating. What it does do is it makes it harder to cheat. Those of us who bar kibitzers think that players who choose to play in our tournaments deserve that cheating not be as simple as connecting with your desktop and laptop at once and watching yourself double-dummy. Of course there are other ways to drop singleton honours offside and bid to miracle slams. But the other ways are harder.

 

It's not unreasonable to take a small action against something that is wrong (like online cheating) even if your action will not completely prevent it. People participate in protest rallies all the time with a very low chance of actually changing anything. What would the Olympics be like if officials decided that 'we can't keep pace with performance-enhancing drugs, so to hell with it, let them use whatever they want?' You cannot criticize those who bar kibitzers because doing so doesn't stop cheating completely. That's not why we do it. We do it because it reduces cheating.

 

BTW, any pro worth the money he is paid will happily go through 12 or 15 boards in less than half the time it took to actually play them and find a client's errors. Not only that, it will probably benefit the client more to read such a report than it will to have the pro kibitz and let the client know after each hand what could have been done better. "I won't play without my kibitzer" is to me extremely suspicious and I would start checking that player's results.

[Chamaco]

Almost everything has been said on excluding kibs from tourneys.

 

If this is a sort of poll, add my vote against excluding kibs: I would be really sad if allowed to kib onbly in the main lobby, where players tend to play less competitively (hence less instructive), I like to learn from kibitzing real competitive games

[the hog]

"I won't play without my kibitzer" is to me extremely suspicious and I would start checking that player's results.

 

McBruce, lets be a little realistic here. If someone was actually cheating, do you think they would make this comment? Maybe you think this is the classic "double double cross". No thats too hard. I am sure there is a reasonable explanation.

 

Actually I am forming a policy now: I will categorically refuse to play in any tournament that bars kibbitzers, and I encourage people who post here to do the same.

 

PS whats your first name? McBruce sounds awfully rude and formal.

[paulhar]

If this is a sort of poll, add my vote against excluding kibs: I would be really sad if allowed to kib onbly in the main lobby, where players tend to play less competitively (hence less instructive), I like to learn from kibitzing real competitive games

Maybe I'm the exception, but from what I've seen in the main bridge lobby as opposed to tournaments, I think otherwise.

 

I think you would see a much higher level of bridge watching four decent players in the Main Bridge Club. The reasons are simple and motivated by the desire to win.

 

When playing in the Main Bridge Club with a good partner against competent opponents, by best strategy for winning is to play my best possible bridge. A shaky double may cost double digit IMPs if it helps the declarer make the hand, and against good competition, these will be difficult to make up.

 

A tournament is another thing altogether. If the opponents make a shaky game against you in a 6 board cross-IMP tournament, you are virtually out of the tournament so you might as well double because if you set it two or more, you have greatly enhanced your chances of placing near the top. (The same is true to a lesser extent even in a 12 board cross IMPs tourney, especially if the first few boards have been uneventful.)

 

Matchpoint tournaments rate to be a little closer to true form, but here too, in a short tourney, a smart player will make the assumption that his opponents have done the wrong thing, because if that assumption is wrong, he can't win the tournament.

 

I've noticed that other people play wilder in the tourneys than in the Main Bridge club too. If I want a learning experience for either me or partner, I will head straight for the Main Bridge Club and try to find a decent table.

[paulhar]

PS whats your first name? (last name deleted) sounds awfully rude and formal.

Yes, I was suprised to click my own handle and not find my full name in my profile. I didn't see a spot for it. Maybe a suggestion for the software?

[Chamaco]

Maybe I'm the exception, but from what I've seen in the main bridge lobby as opposed to tournaments, I think otherwise.

 

I think you would see a much higher level of bridge watching four decent players in the Main Bridge Club.  The reasons are simple and motivated by the desire to win.

I disagree.

 

I know a bunch of italian good players ranging from expert to top teachers in italy.

Most of them have told me that they play in the lobby just for fun.

The like to chat during games and make silly mistakes;

they chat a lot sometimes not even watching cards "who cares?" after all, this is no tourney...

 

Not all experts do this, but many do: so I REALLY want to see how the big guys play in a competition not in the lobby.

 

Moreover, in the lobby you are bound to see many more occasional ptships (which often results in more misunderstandings and lower quality of play), in tourneys this is much less frequent.

[paulhar]

(Later in post: team games)

 

Hard to believe that someone would waste the rare opportunity to play with four decent players in the Main Bridge Lobby and then screw around. Maybe they know each other and can do this all the time. But when I find a roomful of decent players (some would say that room couldn't include me :D ), I am ecstatic to have the opportunity to play high-level bridge without egregious mistakes on every hand. It seems that the other players must be in the same boat, because I've played some pretty tough games in the Main Bridge Club. And if one of them does screw around and our partnership jumps out to a 15 IMP lead, the bridge gets a lot tougher, because, by golly, it's embarrassing to be down 15 IMPs to me!

 

Granted, you can't tell in advance which tables to watch because the tables marked 'experts only' seem to be popluated with less-than-expert players.

 

However, you can mark the people worth kibitzing as 'champions' or 'friends' or whatever and when you see four of them at a table, and they're not your Italian champs screwing around, then it's a table worth watching.

 

Of course, the rating system would have come in handy here, but I've already lost that battle, so I'll give up.

 

BB has many team games. These tend to be a higher level of play than the Main Bridge Club. You get to see the same four players play several hands together. Clearly it will be obvious after a couple of hands whether the table is worth watching or not. Again, if they're worth watching, mark 'em as champs or friends with a comment that they're worth kibitzing, as they'll probably be playing many more team games. These are probably also regular partnerships.

 

I wouldn't be afraid of asking some of these people privately whether they are planning on playing in any team games that you can watch. My guess is that they'll be flattered. I wouldn't be surprised if you got replies if you posted a query on the Forum asking when the top players intended to play team matches.

 

Also, in one of the 2-table team games (also in the tournament room), the winning strategy is once again to play good bridge. Nobody wants to lose one of these, so the bridge will probably match the calibre of the players.

 

The one downside is that these people might be playing a system you don't understand. Best of all is to be able to kibitz pairs playing a system similar to the one you play.

 

I find that I learn more by playing than by watching. After watching a single team match, it's probably time to take your newfound knowledge and play. After all, we learn from our mistakes and if you're watching, you can't make any.

[inquiry]

Actually I am forming a policy now: I will categorically refuse to play in any tournament that bars kibbitzers, and I encourage people who post here to do the same.

I have had this policy for sometime... see, for instance... kibitzers

 

One of the great thing about BBO is the ablility to kibitz your friends, your students, your mentors, and your (um) betters. Stopping kibitzers stops that and really does very little to stop the serious cheaters.

 

Ben

[paulhar]

Many thanks to Ben who has pointed out that this has all been discussed three months ago. Serious followers of this thread would do well to read that thread also. It brings up a point not mentioned yet in this thread about players playing form the same IP. It would be a shame if I could get my favorite partner (that I'm married to) to play a tournament online, and then be accused of cheating for winning a tournament from the same IP. A lot of couples play together on BBO and in this day of networks, most of them are on the same IP and yet most of them do not cheat. Maybe a couple of them might say 'What do we play in this situation?' once in a while but I would guess that these would be in the minority. And allowing these couples raises the level of bridge being played, because couples tend to have firmer understandings than the average pair you'll encounter on BBO.

 

There was also mention of catching cheaters by sticking in a few 'test hands' where unusual actions would enhance the cheater's score but enough of them would mark him as a cheater. The problem is that once someone is barred for suspicious behavior, the guy gets a new Userid and the cheater is back. Perhaps an enhancement to the software is that instead of barring said cheater, you just make it so his version of Bridge Base is 'buggy' - intentional bugs that nobody knows about - eventually he'll grumble that the software is no good and go somewhere else which gets the desired effect.

 

But hey - we've got a lot of great minds working together on this Forum and some good ideas are going to come out. Certainly there must be a way that these serious students of the game can watch good high-level bridge without the participants clowning around, without increasing the potential for cheating. I've got a few ideas but I'd like to see others discuss it.

[Chamaco]

I find that I learn more by playing than by watching.  After watching a single team match, it's probably time to take your newfound knowledge and play.  After all, we learn from our mistakes and if you're watching, you can't make any.

Sure thing, I think we are stating the obvious(playing better than watching).

I also like to play and to learn from my mistakes.

 

However, I want to say again loud that I really wish to be able to see the good players when they "fight for blood" rather than just in the lobby.

Inhibiting this is a serious damage in my opinion.

Please do not take this away from me.