Kibitzing tournaments

[McBruce]

I've been asked to be "more realistic" so here goes:

 

If you want to see more tourneys that allow kibitzers, it seems to me that there are two ways to accomplish this:

 

1. Complain in the forums about TDs who bar kibitzers. Ridicule them when they try to justify their stance on the issue. Criticize their online nicknames! Vow not to compete in tournaments where nobody can watch you. Perhaps we could have organized protests in the lobby, complete with messages letting everyone know which are the Machiavellian TDs that won't let you see the results as they happen.

 

2. Ask Uday to let you, and those who agree with you about kibitzers, run tournaments and run them, as many as you can handle, whether this is three a day or one a month. If you are right and we kibitzer barring TDs are so wrong, your tournaments will attract dozens of tables while ours will dwindle to nothing.

 

If you want to change MY mind, #2 is the way to go. The more I see of #1, the more I like my choice.

[Chamaco]

1. Complain in the forums about TDs who bar kibitzers. Ridicule them when they try to justify their stance on the issue. Criticize their online nicknames! Vow not to compete in tournaments where nobody can watch you. Perhaps we could have organized protests in the lobby, complete with messages letting everyone know which are the Machiavellian TDs that won't let you see the results as they happen.

 

2. Ask Uday to let you, and those who agree with you about kibitzers, run tournaments and run them, as many as you can handle, whether this is three a day or one a month. If you are right and we kibitzer barring TDs are so wrong, your tournaments will attract dozens of tables while ours will dwindle to nothing.

 

If you want to change MY mind, #2 is the way to go. The more I see of #1, the more I like my choice

Mc Bruce,

who are you referring to ?

 

On my behalf you probably have only seen the manifestation of my great disappointment for this kind of choices, and the explanation of my reasons, never being disrespectful towards any TD nor player.

 

As an aside, I am old enough to have lost much confidence about "changing other people's mind", but I still believe it is right to express one's own disagreement without having to be regarded as destructive or offensive, so there.

[xx1943]

Hi Ben, hi all

One of the great thing about BBO is the ablility to kibitz your friends, your students, your mentors, and your (um) betters.

100% aggreed.

But BBO is a free community and everybody is allowed to do what he wants to do except being rude or unpolite. This is one of the things, why BBO is the greatest bridge-site in the net.

There are many tournaments with kibs, and many without, there are many paid tournaments and many not paid, there are many tournaments I like to play and a few I don't like...............................................

If TD thinks he has good arguments to not allow kibs, so let him do, don't critisize and watch another tournament. :(

 

Cheers

 

Al

[the hog]

1. Complain in the forums about TDs who bar kibitzers. Ridicule them when they try to justify their stance on the issue. Criticize their online nicknames! Vow not to compete in tournaments where nobody can watch you. Perhaps we could have organized protests in the lobby, complete with messages letting everyone know which are the Machiavellian TDs that won't let you see the results as they happen.

 

2. Ask Uday to let you, and those who agree with you about kibitzers, run tournaments and run them, as many as you can handle, whether this is three a day or one a month. If you are right and we kibitzer barring TDs are so wrong, your tournaments will attract dozens of tables while ours will dwindle to nothing.

 

If you want to change MY mind, #2 is the way to go. The more I see of #1, the more I like my choice

Mc Bruce,

who are you referring to ?

 

On my behalf you probably have only seen the manifestation of my great disappointment for this kind of choices, and the explanation of my reasons, never being disrespectful towards any TD nor player.

 

As an aside, I am old enough to have lost much confidence about "changing other people's mind", but I still believe it is right to express one's own disagreement without having to be regarded as destructive or offensive, so there.

I totally agree with Mauro here. No one I know who posts here would behave as you have intimated. The suggestion is actually insulting.

[inquiry]

I totally agree with Mauro here. No one I know who posts here would behave as you have intimated. The suggestion is actually insulting.

Well, let's see if we can address some of this...

 

Ron, you did say

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

 

That certainly could be interpreted as what McBruce says as "riticize their online nicknames. You, I, and in other threads several people including my favorite partner has said that we will not play in tournments that bar kibitizers, that is exactly what McBruce means when he says Vow not to compete in tournaments where nobody can watch you. This and several other threads about directors who ban kibitzers (yes this isn;'t the first, seocond or even thrid thread on this subject), might at least be reasonable considered as "ridicule" of a TD who decides to do this.

 

On the otherhand, I don;t know anyone advertizing in the lobby trying to organize protest and calling TD's by name... but then, who knows, maybe it does go on.

 

To xx1943, who said

If TD thinks he has good arguments to not allow kibs, so let him do, don't critisize and watch another tournament.

 

One has no choice but to watch another tournment, since you can't watch those with banned kibitzers, and

 

But BBO is a free community and everybody is allowed to do what he wants to do except being rude or unpolite.

 

I think, to a large degree, this is what is going on here. Ron expressed a concept that he wasn't going to play in such tournments, and McBruce suggested he is going to keep running them. Both can have fun during just that, and neither will suffer by the action of the other. Choice in action. Now, perhaps you took Ron;s comment about "name" as being rude. I am not sure. There is a thread somewhere around here where someone was mentioning that people who didn't list their name in their profile was rude. I don't think it was McBruce who said that, but maybe it was, or maybe Ron thought it was, or maybe McBruce defended that issue. However, what I think Ron meant was that he (Ron) quoting and addressing McBruce thought calling him "McBruce" sounded "awfully rude and formal". In otherwords, when i address "the_hog", i say "ron". i think what Ron wanted to do was address "mcbruce" by his first name, so as not to sound so "formal". i don't think Ron meant any think offensive by the comment, but can see how it was misread.

 

Ben

[paulhar]

This and several other threads about directors who ban kibitzers (yes this isn;'t the first, second or even third thread on this subject)

Good point! Anyone who is deeply interested in this thread would do well to do a keyword search and find the other pertinent threads. Chances are that what you want to say plus what everybody else is saying has been said before.

 

Unfortunately, you get newbies on the board (like me) that don't realize this and everybody has to say the same thing again for the benefit of the people that weren't on the forum before. And the newbies feel like they have to say their piece, even though it's been pointed out several times before.

 

Any of you that have been on the board could simply mention that this discussion has already been beaten to death (search for keyword: (pertinent keyword) in forum (pertinent forum)) so that people can see what's already been said before they beat the same horse to death.

 

Putting the link to the previous forum is great - how do you do that? While I'm asking, how do people put those quotes from other posts in the middle of their posts? I seem to only be able to quote ONE post and put the quote at the top. Clearly I need to be educated. A beginner's guide to the BBO forum :lol: ?

 

Naturally, one could search for every topic but it would be time-wasting because I assume that most topics are new.

[paulhar]

1. These tournament directors do a heck of a job for nothing and deserve nothing but our thanks. Please don't alienate them. Although I'm less likely to want to play in a tournament after having seen this thread and the others before it on the same subject, there are others that want to and if our tournament directors decide that their time is better spent elsewhere, BBO and all its members lose. While we might disagree with their position on something, we must not make a thankless job seem even more thankless.

 

2. That having been said, everyone has to realize that if you post on BBO, you should be prepared to get a good ribbing if your position isn't popular. There's a lot of people with a good (?) sense of humor on this board and it makes the posts much more fun to read. If you happen to be the butt of their humor this time, suck it up. We've all been there. If you think you've been unmercifully flogged, it probably means you either misinterpreted the post, or it was somebody's misguided sense of humor.

 

3. As Ben has said before, cheating at tournaments has been discussed a lot already. This thread was started out (I assume) because Rona was concerned that her ability to kibitz competitive bridge would be taken away. Chamaco has vehemently expressed this concern also. While I personally could care less about the right, I strongly support their view that they should be able to watch good bridge. Instead of having the same argument for at least the fourth time, perhaps we should figure out a way to make that happen. Because people interested in making that happen probably aren't reading this thread anymore, I'm going to start a new thread devoted to that. This thread will be in 'General BBO discussion' since tournaments themselves may play less of a role in this whole discussion.

[inquiry]

I might add, there are lots of players who PREFER to play in tournments where kibitzing isn't allowed. This is because they don't want people watching them play and/or they are very concerned about outline cheating and think (rightly or wrongly) that blocking kibitzing eliminates or reduces it. So having kibitzerless events are good for those who prefer that type of game.

 

Others feel the opposite, and perhaps the vast major do not care one way or the other. There is plenty of room for both types.

 

Ben

[xx1943]

Putting the link to the previous forum is great - how do you do that?

1. Copy the URl you want refer to on the clipboard (e.g. CTRL+C)

2. Put the cursor in yout text, where you want the URL to be inserted.

3. Click on the grey button "http://" above the editor-window.

4. Oaste the URL.

5. Type in any description for the link, that you like.

 

While I'm asking, how do people put those quotes from other posts in the middle of their posts?

1. Copy the piece you want to quote in clipboard (e.g. by typing CTRL+C)

2. Put the cursor in your text, where you want the quote to be inserted.

3. Click on the grey button QUOTE above the editor-window.

4. Paste the piece.

5. Click ok or type RETURN.

 

A beginner's guide to the BBO forum :lol: ?

I had the same questions and problems you have now a few week b4.

I was looking for a beginners guide or FAQ, but I found out people in this forum are very nice and patient with rookies. I got answers to all my questions in very short time. If nobody can help you, ask Ben (INQUIRY). He knows everything about this forum.

 

cheers

 

Al

[paulhar]

Thank you xx1943!

[1eyedjack]

I think that the decision to disallow kibbitzers is misguided.

I do not think it will cut down on cheating (however prevalent - which I think is not very).

I do think it will cut down on the enjoyment of BBO.

I do think that it casts the tournament host in a poor light, ie as one who is naturally suspicious.

 

I shall do my tiny bit in protest: Make myself available as sub only for tourneys that do not bar kibbitzers, and only play in tourneys that do not bar kibbitzers.

 

Incidentally, is there any way of telling, when entering a tourney, whether or not kibbitzers will be disallowed?

[aisha759]

:lol: such a shame to disallow kibbitzers!! it would help to categorize them as observer/spectator, but still wouldnt solve the "cheating" which is causing such distress ....

 

It is very enjoyable to kibb one's friends, and be kibbed in return.... this is a social site, and many are taking the fun out of it, so sad :(

 

I know, i know, you are going to say, if we want to socialize we can go to the main bridge club and kibb there! But we want our kibb rights for turneys!!! Give them back to us!!!! :) pulleeeeeeeaaase

 

Aisha

[1eyedjack]

I also think it is wrong for the software to ban chat to someone playing in a tourney. The same reasons apply: Any pair of individuals prepared to cheat can do so by ICQ or similar messenger. All you are doing by barring the chat is to prevent non-cheaters sending messages to players in tourney, which simply reduces the functionality of the site and creates irritation.

 

You could allow the tourney host to allow or disallow private chat to players, and the more enlightened hosts could then choose to allow it.

 

You could also allow individual players to block incoming messages when playing in tourneys, which they may want to do in order to preserve concentration. (That setting could be set as a default in the personal settings).

 

At least if you include these options in the software, if a message is blocked it is because of a decision by a human rather than a blanket decision by the software.

 

Just my 10 cents' worth. Probably the point has been made before.

[McBruce]

inquiry wrote:

However, what I think Ron meant was that he (Ron) quoting and addressing McBruce thought calling him "McBruce" sounded "awfully rude and formal". In otherwords, when i address "the_hog", i say "ron". i think what Ron wanted to do was address "mcbruce" by his first name, so as not to sound so "formal".

 

I accept that I misinterpreted "PS whats your first name? McBruce sounds awfully rude and formal." as a critique of my screen name. I spend enough time on BBO that a mouse hover over my screen name there will reveal me as Bruce McIntyre. I've had the nickname McBruce for almost 20 years, so clearly I don't see it as rude and formal. We have nicknames of all sorts on these forums and few posters feel uncomfortable using them. If you want my real name, ask nicely and I'll be happy to tell you. But at the end of a critical post in which The_Hog wrote "I will categorically refuse to play in any tournament that bars kibbitzers, and I encourage people who post here to do the same," how surprising is it that I missed the meaning? How difficult would it have been to rephrase to "McBruce, I'd like to address you less formally -- your screen name seems too formal to me," instead of dragging in the loaded word 'rude'?

 

I must say that, as with the last time this came up, I am tired of the bickering and pointless repetitive arguing. The thread started with a complaint that three of four tournaments running at 6:50 AM Pacific time on July 8, disallowed kibitzing. As I write one of two does so. This will not change, it is an option that belongs to the individual TDs. BBO does not include the automatic right to kibitz; you do not have the right to demand that a TD run his game your way. A poll will not give you that right no matter how slim a minority I am in.

 

If you want to see more kibitzer-allowed tournaments, I really do think you will have more success by banding together and making sure kibitzer tournaments are run. Grumbling about the no-kibs events doesn't solve anything. Vowing not to play in them is your right. Trying to encourage others not to is sour grapes.

 

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge (76A) say that a spectator should only look at one of the concealed hands during the bidding and play. One might make the argument that kibitzing all hands during a tournament on BBO is contrary to the Laws.

 

In several other threads, I have argued my side of the case. I ban kibitzers for the first two-thirds of my unclocked tourneys, to make cheating more difficult. I open it up for the last third to allow those who have played to watch others who are not as fast. I believe if I get 1% of the cheaters to stop cheating in my tournaments by barring kibitzers, it is a victory for the players who play in them, worth the regrettable nuisance to honest kibitzers. Most of the arguments against banning kibitzers boil down to the view that it isn't a solution, since they can cheat in so many other ways. As I wrote several months ago in the first thread:

 

"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."

 

Same argument, same fallacy is my opinion. You have every right to yours.

[Chamaco]

If you want to see more kibitzer-allowed tournaments, I really do think you will have more success by banding together and making sure kibitzer tournaments are run.  Grumbling about the no-kibs events doesn't solve anything.

Mc Bruce,

your one is really a bad reaction, but unfortunately I see it is becoming widespread (see the thread on excluding advanced from BIL lounge).

 

1) there was no "grumbling". This forum is for the people to express their ideas, as long as they are polite.

It may sound strange for you, but they may express disappointment even about your actions. Or do you want everyone to agree with you ?

 

2) The fact that you are volunteer does not mean at all that everybody will like the way you handle things. I have been volunteer too and this is a fact that one should accept.

When volunteering, I have never-ever used this status as a shield from (polite) criticisms.

 

3) there are many ways a volunteer can face polite criticicisms:

a ) accept confrontations [edited ui] ; among these, you may view polite criticisms as feedback. Maybe you could even like to know how many people like the things you organize(or, more likely, you do not care of what people think).

For example, this policy has been used by Fred and Uday for their BBO software.

I cannot imagine how many crazy criticisms or suggestions they receive, but they respond politely, first explaining their reasons, and if the requirements are insisting, they just say that they have other priorities given the available resources.

This is answering like an adult

 

b ) [para edited ui] "I do what I do the way I like, and if you do not like, do it yourself your own way". This approach is not worth any further comments...

 

 

This does not mean you should run your tourn they way other people want.

It is obvious you run them as you like, you put the effort, you decide.

I simply wish to be able to express my disagreement without having to be called destructive.

This post may have been aggressive, but the previous ones weren't, they were only defending the right to say I do not like this policy, then do whatever you like.

 

If we can discuss nicely about one point, nice. But if the argument is like in the above "b" line, the discussion is not a discussion anymore, it just shows a lack of argument.

An argument like "I just do what I want", expressed in this form, is not bound to generate a nice discussion (e.g. an EXCHANGE of ideas).

I thought this was obvious, perhaps it is not.

[1eyedjack]

If you want to see more kibitzer-allowed tournaments, I really do think you will have more success by banding together and making sure kibitzer tournaments are run.  Grumbling about the no-kibs events doesn't solve anything.  Vowing not to play in them is your right.  Trying to encourage others not to is sour grapes.

Bull (the last sentence, that is). Would you call it sour grapes if players lobbied in favour of kib-barred tourneys? I think not. It is only sour grapes because they happen to disagree with you. As TD you have considerable power that is not available to the player. You can bar (or not bar) kibs without consultation. You are then subject to the whim of market forces - do the players want them or not? If players do not want them they can make their wishes known by a variety of means, one of which is to persuade others to their way of thinking. If they are successful then it would appear that their arguments are persuasive, and market forces will generate the kib-allowed tourneys. The players on the receiving end of lobbying activities are grown-ups. They can make up their own minds.

 

I would not deny you the right to bar kibs. But if the groundswell of opinion grows against that act I would suggest that it is you, not the players, who would be suffering from sour grapes if attendance falls.

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge (76A) say that a spectator should only look at one of the concealed hands during the bidding and play.  One might make the argument that kibitzing all hands during a tournament on BBO is contrary to the Laws.

I would accept that. I think it is a bad law, and I might lobby to change the law, but for as long as it is the law then it is a compelling argument.

I believe if I get 1% of the cheaters to stop cheating in my tournaments by barring kibitzers, it is a victory for the players who play in them, worth the regrettable nuisance to honest kibitzers.

There is a big "if" that precedes that sentence. Whether you reduce cheating by 1% is speculative. The inconvenience that you cause to potential kibbitzers is a certainty. It is not an argument that persuades me, nor one that particularly interests me. Go ahead with your kib-barred tourneys and let me go my way, and let me persuade others who might be interested in listening, however I may go about it, as you can try the converse.

"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."

The primary function of screens is not to prevent cheating. It is to prevent the passing of UI, the vast majority of which is inadvertent. The receiver of UI is restricted in what he can do. If anything, screens protect the side that might otherwise inadvertently pass UI, more than they protect the other side from cheats.

[mink]

QUOTE (1eyedjack Posted on Jul 19 2004, 11:51 AM)]

QUOTE (McBruce @ Jul 19 2004, 03:43 AM)

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge (76A) say that a spectator should only look at one of the concealed hands during the bidding and play.  One might make the argument that kibitzing all hands during a tournament on BBO is contrary to the Laws.

I would accept that. I think it is a bad law, and I might lobby to change the law, but for as long as it is the law then it is a compelling argument.

This law has been created clearly with kiebitzers at table in mind. If applied the way McBruce suggests, there must not only be no kibs at online tourneys but also no online vugraphs and even no vugraphs at the tournament side like they had in Malmö. This is simply ridiculous.

 

My oppinion is that kibitzers should be allowed. First of all because if something like cheating is going on, the last thing I would accept is that these cheaters force us to make decisions that make the environment less enjoyable. This would be a victory for the cheaters.

 

However, I did co-direct in a tourney several times where kibitzers were not allowed. I asked the host about it and he explained that he knows the names of pairs who did not show up anymore since the time when he first disallowed kibitzers, and he had suspected them of cheatin before. Then, one day, the host was not able to direct the tourney himself, and somebody had allowed kibitzers for this tourney. My attention was drawn to a pair by their opps, and I looked at their boards after the tourney and found enough evidence that I reported that pair to abuse. I had not much time to kib this pair during the touney, but when I came to their table close to the end one time there was a kib present with no country and empty profile and with no records in myhands, as I found out later.

 

But even after having found this case I still believe that kibs should be allowed. I rather encourage others to look at the boards of suspected pairs and report them, too. This way we do not only get those cheaters who cheat with kibs, but potentially all of them, except maybe very cautious ones, but I doubt that very cautious cheaters exist.

 

And, as I said before, I would not enter the sublist of a tourney without kibs as there is no way to tell how many boards are left to be played. If all did the same these tourneys would be always out of subs.

 

Karl

[bearmum]

QUOTE (1eyedjack Posted on Jul 19 2004, 11:51 AM)]

QUOTE (McBruce @ Jul 19 2004, 03:43 AM)

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge (76A) say that a spectator should only look at one of the concealed hands during the bidding and play.  One might make the argument that kibitzing all hands during a tournament on BBO is contrary to the Laws.

I would accept that. I think it is a bad law, and I might lobby to change the law, but for as long as it is the law then it is a compelling argument.

This law has been created clearly with kiebitzers at table in mind. If applied the way McBruce suggests, there must not only be no kibs at online tourneys but also no online vugraphs and even no vugraphs at the tournament side like they had in Malmö. This is simply ridiculous.

 

My oppinion is that kibitzers should be allowed. First of all because if something like cheating is going on, the last thing I would accept is that these cheaters force us to make decisions that make the environment less enjoyable. This would be a victory for the cheaters.

 

However, I did co-direct in a tourney several times where kibitzers were not allowed. I asked the host about it and he explained that he knows the names of pairs who did not show up anymore since the time when he first disallowed kibitzers, and he had suspected them of cheatin before. Then, one day, the host was not able to direct the tourney himself, and somebody had allowed kibitzers for this tourney. My attention was drawn to a pair by their opps, and I looked at their boards after the tourney and found enough evidence that I reported that pair to abuse. I had not much time to kib this pair during the touney, but when I came to their table close to the end one time there was a kib present with no country and empty profile and with no records in myhands, as I found out later.

 

But even after having found this case I still believe that kibs should be allowed. I rather encourage others to look at the boards of suspected pairs and report them, too. This way we do not only get those cheaters who cheat with kibs, but potentially all of them, except maybe very cautious ones, but I doubt that very cautious cheaters exist.

 

And, as I said before, I would not enter the sublist of a tourney without kibs as there is no way to tell how many boards are left to be played. If all did the same these tourneys would be always out of subs.

 

Karl

MAYBE the direcftor SHOULD have reported the suspect pair AFTER the did not play in tourneys AFTER he disallowed kibitzers :D

[uday]

( Nonyellow voice:)

 

Online cheating is real. I happen to think it is wrong to try to shout down someone who is trying to solve the problem, even if you happen to think that his cure is worse than the disease.

 

 

(Yellow voice:)

Whatever your opinions, though, pls. remember to be nice. If your post appears to be overly hostile, it will likely be moderated.

[dogsbreath]

hi

I also deprecate the recent tendency to bar kibbers AND am also annoyed by the flood of ACBL tourneys. Please put these 2 tourney types on a separate sub-menu.. they are of no interest to anyone except those who play in them and are undermining the spirit of BBO

Rgds Dog

 

furnulum pani nolo

[McBruce]

The "spirit of BBO?" Is there something I missed reading?

 

I expect one objective of BBO is to allow anyone to play online bridge in as many ways as possible without charging a fee.

 

I do not expect that one objective of BBO would be to belittle the tournaments that annoy you by putting them on a separate sub-menu. In fact, once again I must suspect that you simply want these tournaments to be harder to find so they will have more trouble attracting players.

 

It all sounds like this is BBO's Roe v. Wade. An angry mob wants the authorities to crack down on tournaments that bar kibitzing. TDs like me say "where do you get off telling me what to do with my tournament?" The authorities refuse to budge, so the pro-kibitzer life mob reacts with public criticism of pro-choice TDs, a public campaign against the practice that emerges every few weeks in these forums, and now we're up to an attempt to hide the no-kibs tourneys in a sub-menu because it's so annoying to be told that you can't always get what you want. Where will it all end?

[the hog]

"TDs like me say "where do you get off telling me what to do with my tournament?"

 

An equally valid argument is "where do you get off by telling us that discouraging players from playing in tournaments which bar kibbitzers is sour grapes?" Really you can do what you like in tournaments you run, but don't expect people who feel strongly about this issue to either play in them or do anything to support them.

[epeeist]

hi

I also deprecate the recent tendency to bar kibbers AND am also annoyed by the flood of ACBL tourneys.  Please put these 2 tourney types on a separate sub-menu.. they are  of no interest to anyone except those who play in them and are undermining the spirit of BBO

Rgds Dog

 

furnulum pani nolo

Hmm, you suggest that ACBL tournaments -- which are open to ALL, whether ACBL members or not -- should be put on a special sub-menu because you find their existence annoying?

 

Well, what if I find tournaments that require membership in a particular club, or a particular level of skill (I know it can be reset, but I consider it deceptive to change my skill level to "advanced" until I think I'm actually that good... :( ), or a particular nationality (again can be reset, but I consider it deceptive) annoying, or think that they're undermining the spirit of BBO? Should all of these have their own sub-menus? Some people hate sayc, let's put all those sayc-only tournaments in their own area also...NOT!

 

It's fine as it is, everything in chronological order and those with restrictions/entry fees clearly marked. There aren't so many tournaments as to be confusing, it's not like I've ever seen more than a handful of tournaments starting within the next few minutes at any particular time.

 

I note also, with only one exception of which I am aware (confirmed cheating during a particular tournament), the ACBL tournaments allow kibitzers, and e.g. Fred Gitelman will occasionally play in one. So people who enjoy kibitzing expert players should applaud the ACBL tournaments :D

[the hog]

The problem with these is that they are rather meaningless for non ACBL members. I might play in one but the aquisition or otherwise of masterpoints is meaningless for me.

 

One major problem is that pd and I could not play our normal ordinary everyday system in these events as they are at the moment, as the GCC is so ridiculously restrictive. So what is the point of our playing? If superchart events are played it would be a different story - I can't see that happening.

[1eyedjack]

It is all about "neat filing", and nothing more than that.

As one who probably will not play in an ACBL tournament it would be *FOR ME* more convenient if they were tucked away somewhere.

I am very pleased that the ACBL tourneys are there. Anything that works symbiotically with BBO and enhances BBO is great. I only wish some of the other NCBOs would get on the bandwagon. EBU seems to have gone down a blind alley with the other site, it seems to me.

 

The answer, I think, lies in granting the end user more power over how tourneys etc are displayed on their personal machines. If I as a personal user could group the ACBL tourneys together and expand/contract the tree at will then I would personalise it to my preference, without having any impact on anyone else.

 

As things stand I think they are best muddled in with the other tourneys, so that you can easily see which tourneys clash time slots.