Unwanted kibs

[doofik]

I'm back to my pet peeve about unwanted kibs. There's a certain individual who goes from table to table and comments nonstop. I've been a kib with this person and I've seen it. Lo and behold, the individual appeared at my table. When requested to leave this individual did so. Not sure whether it was because I asked or because a director showed up as well. I still maintain that we should have some control over who kibs us.

 

With best regards,

Jola

[Deanrover]

Hi Doofik,

 

in the Main Bridge Club you have the option to set up a table with "Kibitzers required to ask permission", and you have the option to enter Tournaments with Kibitzers disallowed. If you decide to sit at any other kind of table then you have to accept the kibitzers. If this particular user's comments are offensive, then email abuse@

 

Dean

[doofik]

Dear Dean,

 

I appreciate your response, but my feeling is that it is unfair to the players. When you reserve seats, when you don't admit all kibs, your life as a player is hell. Why?

 

Jola

[uday]

You think that it would be useful to allow a player (the host? any player?) to ban specs ? this raises some awkward issues.

 

-- should any player be allowed to do this or just the host?

-- should it be active (ie, player has to expressly ban a spec) vs passive (ie, specs are prevented from joining)?

-- what if it is a tourney table ?

 

Why isnt the 'mark-as-enemy and squelch-chat' combination good enough?

 

ui

[mrdct]

If the kibitzer hasn't breached Law 76, he or she has every right to watch proceedings at your table. If a "remove kibitzer" button is introduced, it should only be enabled once the software has observed that the kibitzer has made a comment to either the table or a player at the table in breach of Law 76. I play quite a lot on BBO and can't recall ever having a serious problem with kibitzers. On the two or three occasions that I was finding the amount of kibitzer chat annoying, I simply messaged the table asking that kibitzers please keep quite or talk amongst themselves only. That seemed to have the desired effect. Whilst I've never observed or suspected my opponents cheating through having kibitzers tell them what's going on, if my opponents want to win that way - good luck to them and hopefully I can benefit from getting declarer play practice against double-dummy defences and defensive practice against my opps beings in the optimal contract. Kibitzing is a great way for new-comers to the game to learn and BBO should be a kibitzer-friendly site. I refuse to play in any tourney or at any table that bans kibitzers.

[jikl]

I cannot agree more MrT

 

Sean

[HeartA]

Agree with mrdct.

[Gerardo]

Well, this kib has clearly breached 76A4.

Jola, ask him to stop, then call a yellow.

[jillybean]

Kibitzing is a great way for new-comers to the game to learn and BBO should be a kibitzer-friendly site. I refuse to play in any tourney or at any table that bans kibitzers.

:D :)

This information should automatically be added to the tournament description - kibitzers yes/no

[sceptic]

what is law 76 please?

[doofik]

Thank you for all responses, they are illuminating. None of what I've said in my post even remotely indicated any suspicion of cheating, so please don't even go there.

 

My annoyance with this person is on a personal level. So the way I understand it my choices are: don't play in tourneys with kibs, don't play at tables with kibs or accept this individual at my table. Did I get this right? Or I can call a yellow?

 

Jillybean2 - I'll be the first to agree with you that through kibbing the game level improves, and probably, that person's also. I'm a novice, the individual is an expert, tell me what he's learning at my table?

 

Uday - I feel that somewhere, somehow, players should have some rights. I'm not quite sure how to resolve it, but my feeling is that when you've got kibs who are ironic, who deride players then players should have a way of removing this kib without having to cry 'Mommy' to the yellows.

 

Jola

[jillybean]

Hi Jola,

 

I don’t know what an expert is learning from watching a B/I play but in this game I am sure there are new things to learn in each hand, regardless of who’s playing it.

 

This sounds more like an issue of personal harassment rather than a need to zap kibitzers – talk to a yellow, that’s what they are here for and they’ll do their best to sort it out. If you don’t want to involve a yellow, write to abuse.

 

jillybean

[uday]

We left out another choice, J -- we can set "Do not allow specs to chat to players".

 

Mind, if you think that the "bad" spec is up there making fun of you, that isnt a good thng. In the past, we've stepped in to stop that sort of thing.

 

Both the specs and the players have "rights", but I think the right of the players is greater in this particular instance. I don't know what law 76 is, but why do we have to follow it in a MBC table ? Our philosophy is that the host gets to set the rules at his table, for the most part.

 

 

There are many existing solutions, but the issue seems to be that you dont like XXX for some personal reason, and don't want him "near" you. Seems to me that

 

a) If you are the host you can do this by blocking specs, or making specs require permission to enter

:D if you are not the host, you can ask the host to do this, or not play unless you are the host,

c) in an environment where you don't control the table ( tourney? vugraph ) you might have to grin and bear it, but marking someone as an enemy makes it painless.

[inquiry]

Protection for Kibitizers....

 

What I think the standard is, or should be....

 

1) No kibitzer "rights". If you want to kibitiz a table, you are a guest, and as a kibitizer have no say or influence over who else kibitzes at that table. This seems obvious, but there are conflicts in this area too.

 

2) A table host can ban all kibitizers, or use kibitizers must ask permission to join the table and host selects who can and who can not kibitz.

 

This brings us to two kibitzing issues raised today, one in this thread, one in the thread on a yellows action where a yellow stepped in due to stop a kibitizer.

 

Doofik wants the ability of any player from blocking any kibitzer. In a general sense that means if you where a pro and had your students kibitziing you, your opponent could block them. Or if your best friend wanted to watch you play, your opponent could block them. This could be used as a ploy to make you lose your cool, for technical advantage. So I am totally against this suggestion as a general state fo affairs. On the otherhand. it is possible some player may be being stalked by a crazy person, whose sole purpose in life is to make their life miserable. Or a kibitzer is violating the rules of bridge or general social norms. These would be reasons, of course, to ban a specific kibitzer.

 

This leads to a paradox. Should individual players have the right to ban specific kibitizers. Doofik thinks yes. Uday points out a second option, mark the person as "enemy" and check ignore chat from enemy. But if a kibitzer came to my table repeadly and attacked me as a player and said how aweful my post here on BBF were, etc, I wouldn't want them at my table. IF they were too harsh, I wouldn't want them on the BBO.. There are rules about behavior, and any boorish behanviro so bad that I would want to bar them from my table, probably would be sufficient to get some yellow to sanction them for violating rules of the site. But here is what I think the rule is currenlty....

 

3) If you don't want a specific kibitizer at the table, simply ask them to leave. In 80% of the cases this should solve the problem, as they will leave. But, I beleive that you have no right to ENFORCE them to leave without cause. So what this means, in general, is that players don't have much right to ban a specific kibitzer (think tourment here, specifically) except for cause.

 

This without cause issue is when a yellow may need to get involved. MAybe it is suspected law violations, or maybe it is something liek what doofik is talking about here in this thread. I assume I know the nickname of the kibizer that doofik's post is about. There was a person who was marked as expert that went to whereever doofik was playing for at least two days running. She complained to me about it. As I yellow, i tried to investigate. I asked for an explaination of why he choose to follow doofik, and explained his action was making her uncomfortable, and that if it was all the same to him, she would greatly prefer that he kibitz someone else. In reply to several such post this player never responded to me... but was clearly still following doofik. So I issued one of the "ememgency bans" with an explaination to abuse of why, along with my recommendation that the player be reinstated when he contacted abuse, the ban was just to get at least an acknowledges that doofik would prefer that he not kibitz at her table. Note, I did not advise abuse as to whether he should or should not be allowed to kibitz her, that was left up to abuse to determine whether or not there was cause to enforce a ban on his kibizing her. If this is the same fellow, and if abuse ruled that he should not kbitz doofik, then his continuing to do so would be grounds for a suspension from the site imho.

 

But everyone should realize that you can be stealth kibitzed. If you play on BBO in the main room or in tournamnets or in team games, the hands you play are on the myhand site. You can use this site to go look up your results, and others can use it to go gather information about your bidding system, your bidding style, your "quality of play."

 

In another thread there is a story of an anonomous yellow threatening to ban a player for kibiting not a player but a private club tournament. This seems on the surface outrageous to me. However, there may or may not be more to the story.... I am not suggesting this here, but less imagine I had an inquiry-club, and some kibitzer came in and was saying iquiry club is elitist and for pigs? I would want that fellow banned. I am sure THIS was not the case in the story from the other thread, but I am willing to let abuse investigate and deal with the issue fairly. However, if my friends (or my mentor) is a member of a private club, but is playing in a tournament in the open room sponsored by the club, I think I should be freely allowed to kibitiz in that event. In fact, many of the private clubs like Stars, Topflight, Abalucy, and juniorflight advertise promoting themselves to kibitzers to come and watch.

 

There are rumors that yellows have banned player for kibitzing other players. Well, I did so in the story I related above, but the ban was not for kibitzing, it was to get the attention of the player so that the story could be passed on to abuse. IF he had answered me, I would have taken his answer, doofik's complaint, and given them to abuse to decide. But since I couldn't get the information from him directly to pass to abuse, I used my yellow power to at least force him to contact abuse so that abuse could make a ruling (BTW, I don't know what abuse ruled in this case). But to ban players for kibitzing, especially quiet kibizing, seems uncalled for, and I would hope this NEVER HAPPENS, without getting ABUSE involved and a very good reason provided (cheating would be a very good reason). There was a few cases where vindictive, mean players have been banned for publically humiliating players while kibitzing, but that was only after repeated, and prolonged warnings, and it was the acts WHILE kibitizing rather the kibitzing per se that caused those problems.

 

In final analysis, kibiting is a great way to learn, a wonderful social opportunity, and is, is greatly supported by players on the BBO. These "oh my god" so and so has the nerve to kbitiz me seem relatively few and far in between, and often are petty (I am not saying doofik's concerns over being stalked here are petty). Having said that, there is one player who asked me not to kibitz his table, and I thus do not kibitz whereever he is playing unless called in for some yellow function. After all at any given time, their has to be a HOST OF WONDERFUL tables anyone could kibiz.. being blocked from any one specific table is a very trivial issue other than the emotional impact someone not liking you might have on you. Howevre, if the player who preferes I not kibitz him happens to join a table I am already kibitzing, I do not feel the need to leave.. even if he was to ask me again to do so. Just as I can kibitz somewhere else, if I bother him so much, he could have played somewhere else. My own sense of "fair play" I guess..

 

Mostly, in the words of Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?" Being yellow would be so much EASIER if we did.

 

Ben

[EarlPurple]

Maybe doofik and this kibitzer often end up kibbing the same table because they happen to be using the same criteria when choosing who to kibitz, i.e. they both happen to like to watch the same star player?

Or that, perhaps, they are attracted to a table that has lots of other kibitzers?

 

There is, on MSN, a "hide cards from kibitzers" option, and perhaps you could have an option here. While it won't prevent kibitzers, it will mean those players have option of not having kibitzers watching them with double-dummy information.

 

I am pretty certain, however, that doofik's problem is that the kibitzer in question likes to discuss the hands with other kibitzers (not with the players). But in this case there is the option of putting them on the enemy list and blocking the chat so you don't see it.

[inquiry]

Maybe doofik and this kibitzer often end up kibbing the same table because they happen to be using the same criteria when choosing who to kibitz, i.e. they both happen to like to watch the same star player?

I hope you didn't take this view from what I said. Doofik is PLAYING and doesn't want a specific kibitzer at her table. This is not about two people not wanting to kbitiz at the same table... I simply brought that up early to get it out of the way, as that is a general problem that comes up, and is no way realted to doofik's post.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

Hey All

 

I seem to recall that the Laws of Bridge have regulations designed to address this issue.

As I recall, players legally have the right to bar kibitzers, however, there is a limited number of kibitzers that can be excluded from watching at a time.

 

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find the reference I was looking for. Its possible that this was an ACBL regulation rather than an actual law.

[sceptic]

BBO has a great function, remove a player. it would be nice to have remove a kibber function also. There is nothing worse than playing bridge and having some one you dont like sitting over your shoulder.

 

I probably would only ever use the function once or twice (that is not true, we had that function in yahoo and I loved using it) it is a great function and one I am sure a lot of people would like it.

 

you ask some one to shut up or politely ask them to refrain from making comments, they ignore you and BINGO you can boot them, yup we need that function here.

 

May be even if they are blacked out, they cant sit at your table, that would solve doof's problem.

 

 

I vote listen to Doofik,

 

If you dont like someone or they make you feel uncomfortable, why have them at your table

[inquiry]

BBO has a great function, remove a player. ... snip.... why have them at your table

You are talking about "your table".. so let me clear up a few issues...

 

Do you advocate ALL players being able to chunk kibitzers, or only the table host?

 

You do know that in tournaments, no player has a "remove player function".

 

IF this is jsut a host issue, as host, you can make announcement that all kibitzers will be removed for a second, please come back. Ban all kibitzers, then switch to permission required for kibitzers, getting effectively the same result.

 

Ben

[jillybean]

There is, on MSN, a "hide cards from kibitzers" option, and perhaps you could have an option here.

That would be a sad, sad day :)

 

Aren't we throwing the baby out with the bath water? This surely isn't a common problem, it needs to be addressed but we don't need any more tools to prevent kibitzers than we already have.

 

jillybean

[EarlPurple]

Here you are referring to playing in a tourney and restricting who kibitzes you, even though kibitzers cannot be heard by players. You are just worried about what they might say about your play behind your back?

[inquiry]

Here you are referring to playing in a tourney and restricting who kibitzes you, even though kibitzers cannot be heard by players. You are just worried about what they might say about your play behind your back?

Yes this is exactly what doofik is talking about, except also extend to open room when she is not the host as well....

[pclayton]

Some 'meta'; questions and comments:

 

1. Some players kibitz certain players with kib chat disabled. A table is opened up at OKB or a group chat on Yahoo so that they can chat with others. Is this a problem? Does it represent an invasion of privacy for the table host that specified 'kib chat disabled'? I dont think BBO should bury its collective head in the sand and say, as long as it doesn't happen in our medium, we don't care. Using an outside medium to obviate 'barriers' on BBO doesn't accomplish any goals. Yet its possible.

 

2. What if you could make your enemies completely invisible; not just disabling chat from them, but not even knowing of their existence? If an enemy played at a table, there name would show up as "xxxxx". Or, the table WOULD NOT EVEN BE DISPLAYED.

 

3. If two people choose each other as 'enemies', I would think we could go even further. Perhaps a warning could be displayed if you tried to kib a table where one of your mutual enemies was also kibbing at. Two people that chose each other as enemies would certainly not be able to kib the other. Perhaps in cases of the dogs and cats, yellows could institute 'mandatory' labeling of enemies, so that enemies would be 'blind' of the others existence.

 

4. Similarly, I would think that some enhanced features could be implemented if two people chose each other as friends. For instance, I liked it at OKB when a friend of yours moved tables (or maybe it was just entering the lobby). This was cool, since you would know instantly when someone was available to play, without constantly checking their status.

 

BBO can be a digital utopia if we choose it to be. As a user, why can't we blot out the literal 'existence' of another user, as if they didn't even exist? And lets look at ways to better keep track of our friends.

 

As far as dogs and cats, if they all chose each other as mutual enemies, I can see a situation where both groups can co-exist peacefully because all parties won't even be aware of the others existence on BBO. It would be as it one was playing on MSN Games and the other on Swanbridge. Same internet; same game; different venues.

 

Uday and Fred have done a fantastic job creating this world for us. I am amazed at how it continues to evolved into a model medium so that our collective love of this great game is enhanced. Because of this service, others will be drawn to this mind sport. Lets look at ways to constantly improve the rules of our 'bridge village' to reduce conflicts and foster goodwill.

[inquiry]

Some 'meta'; questions and comments:

No fair, phil. A thoughtful, well explained and rationale post. What are we going to do with you? Things like this might do some good and spoil the good clean fun of compalining about every small slight, imagined or not. :) :P

 

Ben

[inquiry]

There is, on MSN, a "hide cards from kibitzers" option, and perhaps you could have an option here. While it won't prevent kibitzers, it will mean those players have option of not having kibitzers watching them with double-dummy information.

hide the card from kibitzers is an aweful solution. What we are talking about here is not cheating, but simply boarish behavior. Seeing all the cards, or just on hand will in no way address the issue being discussed, and will reduce teh enjoyment of many (those who WANT to kibitz just one hand can do so with a selection in software, adn I kibitz this way often).

 

WE are a large community, we have good guys, we tried to get rid of evil doers, but we still have a lot of people who lack common sense or the ability to follow common behavioral norms. These people, someitmes think they are being extremely funny, when they are not, and this causes problems they can't understand. These people sometimes think they are being very clever when they are not, or they are being "very helpful" pointing out what someone did worng on a hand, but there activity not only is unwanted, it is a source of aggrevation for players at the table. Sometimes this might be due to the cultural differences between our members, but often it is just becasue some of our members are way to self-centered to see the effect their actions have. This, is the route of 90% of all problems on the bbo that we yellows deal with.

 

We can't solve this, but I fear two things.. 1) giving everybody the abilty to one button kick any kibiter, and 2) hiding software function in response to cheaters.

 

In the first case, I will boot your kibitizer, you will boot mine, and we both will make enemies. people booted from kibiting will be angry and complain to me and other yellows, and a hostile gaming area will quickly evolve. Don't want that, sorry doofik, sorry sceptic, sorry other supporters... just mark them enemy and get on with it.. if you ignore them, eventually they will go away.

 

And changing the software? I am agianst blcoking kibitzer from tourneys (long ago threads on this), and now against the idea of blcoking kibitaer from seeing but one hand. Then we will have people complaining that someone has multiple kibitzers, one in each other compass position, all reporting to whoever the player in question is. This is madness... this is a place to play bridge and have fun. IT is an educational site, and little is as educational as kibitzing. Let's keep it going without burying ourselves in red tape.

 

As always, these are my personal views, and are not vetted by the BBO... I am just a volunteer with "big fingers" (as oppposed to bid mouth) willing to share my views.

 

Ben