[Brandal]

A tourney just now

6 tables.......9 star/world class players.

Maybe I'll kibitz,it will be almost like vugraph....

But oooohhhhh nooooooo......disallowed


I don't really know what to say,I just dislike not
being able to kib the "creme de la creme".

[Walddk]

Let me add that I have turned down invitations to play in those tourneys on several occasions - just because of that. It's disrespectful to 99.99% of the members. If people really want to cheat, they don't need messengers in spec mode.

"It's of course ok if you spec", the message is. That is not good enough. It must be open to everyone.

It's the certain death of those pay tourneys if they maintain this "kibitzers disallowed" policy.

Roland

[uday]

Disabling specs cuts down on at least one form of cheating.

[luke warm]

Quote

Disabling specs cuts down on at least one form of cheating

maybe, but at what cost? i'm glad roland has taken a stand on this, i just wish more good players would

[jillybean]

uday, on Mar 12 2005, 07:53 PM, said:

Disabling specs cuts down on at least one form of cheating.

I disagree, there are surely more sophisticated ways of cheating than using a kibitzer to relay information and if in fact the cheaters are using a kibitzer they will find another method.

Is cheating a real problem on BBO? I don’t actually see or hear of cases so a kibitzer ban appears more like a knee jerk reaction than a workable solution to anything.

Jillybean2

ps come play in my tourneys Roland, kibitzers are welcome.

[uday]

Self-speccing is a (relatively) common form of cheating, and does not require that partner also cheat. Collaboration is impossible to block, but solo efforts can be made more difficult by blocking specs.

Not that I care one way or another (except that cheating accusations are annoying to deal with, and our poor abuse@ has to deal with most of them).

The TDs collectively host about 140-150 tourneys per day on BBO, fwiw.

[Brandal]

Walddk, on Mar 12 2005, 04:47 PM, said:

Let me add that I have turned down invitations to play in those tourneys on several occasions - just because of that. It's disrespectful to 99.99% of the members. If people really want to cheat, they don't need messengers in spec mode.

"It's of course ok if you spec", the message is. That is not good enough. It must be open to everyone.

It's the certain death of those pay tourneys if they maintain this "kibitzers disallowed" policy.

Roland

It wasn't even a pay tourney,I've noticed it's
spreading widely among the free ones too.

[epeeist]

Just to be clear, I prefer kibitzer-allowed tournaments, but let me play devil's advocate:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I enjoy kibitzing, and hope it continues to be available, why should my "right" to observe govern? Especially when I'm not paying anything for the privilege (the only money BBO gets from me directly is from my entering pay tournaments, and indirectly, I'll probably buy some of the company's CD products this year, but that's irrelevant to the point).

Reducing the potential for cheating is one reason for barring kibitzers, but it's only one reason. "Just because I feel like it" is perfectly fine. I might not like it, would seek to persuade otherwise, etc. but it's fine.

Some players might very well want a break from being watched. I know that feeling from when I'm playing atrociously at the last table to finish in a tournament with dozens of kibitzers... Some partnerships, especially (genuine) expert partnerships, might be practising new systems or conventions, or what have you, and not appreciate being watched while they make mistakes hashing them out.

There are private clubs, private tables, whatever, and it seems that only when stars are involved do people complain -- because they can't watch them for free.

If you've ever set a table to disallow kibitzers (or require permission to kibitz), or knowingly joined such, or joined a private club, you've denied others the "right" to watch you. Shouldn't everyone, regardless of his or her expertise, have that same right of privacy?

If there's such a demand for kibitzing, would you pay for the privilege? Many experts are professionals, who charge for their teaching time. If watching them is such a privilege, perhaps they should receive $BBO from kibitzers. But again, only if they are willing to be watched.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[the hog]

You have some valid points Eepeist. My take on the matter is that I just don't play or even sub for any event that doesn't allow kibs. So I guess thats my choice.

[Brandal]

epeeist, on Mar 13 2005, 09:14 PM, said:

Just to be clear, I prefer kibitzer-allowed tournaments, but let me play devil's advocate:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I enjoy kibitzing, and hope it continues to be available, why should my "right" to observe govern? Especially when I'm not paying anything for the privilege (the only money BBO gets from me directly is from my entering pay tournaments, and indirectly, I'll probably buy some of the company's CD products this year, but that's irrelevant to the point).

Reducing the potential for cheating is one reason for barring kibitzers, but it's only one reason. "Just because I feel like it" is perfectly fine. I might not like it, would seek to persuade otherwise, etc. but it's fine.

Some players might very well want a break from being watched. I know that feeling from when I'm playing atrociously at the last table to finish in a tournament with dozens of kibitzers... Some partnerships, especially (genuine) expert partnerships, might be practising new systems or conventions, or what have you, and not appreciate being watched while they make mistakes hashing them out.

There are private clubs, private tables, whatever, and it seems that only when stars are involved do people complain -- because they can't watch them for free.

If you've ever set a table to disallow kibitzers (or require permission to kibitz), or knowingly joined such, or joined a private club, you've denied others the "right" to watch you. Shouldn't everyone, regardless of his or her expertise, have that same right of privacy?

If there's such a demand for kibitzing, would you pay for the privilege? Many experts are professionals, who charge for their teaching time. If watching them is such a privilege, perhaps they should receive $BBO from kibitzers. But again, only if they are willing to be watched.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firstly,I don't consider it a "right" to be able to kibitz.

Secondly,I don't ever ask to kibitz tables in MBC or
teachingtables,practicingtables where disallowed.

Thirdly,would I pay to kibitz a tourney?
Probably not,I don't learn anything without the
ability to ask or the player explaining thoroughly.
It's still an enjoyable privilege,so far....

Teaching tables are another matter,I never
expect something for nothing,when teaching is
involved.

[ellie26]

I agree with Brandal.

I too, like to kib. Kibitzers are the best detectives for sniffing out cheaters that BBO has. That's one reason that kibitzers should be encouraged to report any suspicious findings. However, I doubt if you will find cheating from the " BIG STARS". They don't have to cheat to win.

Personally, I feel that there should be more emphasis put on fair play by the tournament directors. I have never yet noticed a TD mention before the game that it is imperative to play ethically and that cheating will not be tolerated. Until I see some effort on this issue, I refuse to put any more BBO $$ in my account for playing fees.

ellie

[jillybean]

epeeist, on Mar 13 2005, 07:14 PM, said:

Some players might very well want a break from being watched. I know that feeling from when I'm playing atrociously at the last table to finish in a tournament with dozens of kibitzers... 

Keep your mouse where it should be then , you wont notice the kibitzers

[pclayton]

uday, on Mar 12 2005, 06:53 PM, said:

Disabling specs cuts down on at least one form of cheating.

Sort of like locking the windows while the front door is open blocks one form of burglary.

[uday]

Quote

Until I see some effort on this issue

It is my experience that telling cheaters not to cheat does not have a huge impact on behaviour.

Real life club games don't start with an announcement about cheating. Naturally not.


We spends dozens of hours each week dealing with cheating allegations. These (and rude behaviour) occupy far more time that we find reasonable.


On the one hand specs may be, as you say, the best detectives. They are also the source of problems (self-speccing, false accusations).

So I'm neutral about whether specs should be allowed or not.

Going back to your issue: I'm open to suggestions as to how we can demonstrate that we are indeed burning hours on these cheating accusations. If you live in the US, bear in mind that publicly identifying accused or proven cheaters is out of the question.

[ellie26]

There is no doubt that kibitzers are your " private eye". Most kibbies can be identified. The few who arrive with a blank profile do look a little suspicious, but they are few. Most of the cheating is done by messengers with mic, etc. Only a few bridge players are going to the trouble of using another computer to get a good score, although I hear it does happen.

Making announcements that cheating is not acceptable behavior should make the cheater a little more uncomfortable. If cheating becomes acceptable behavior, then there will be some who will do it for the " lark".

I spend more time on BBO than I care to admit, and I do not remember an incident of abuse that I couldn't look after myself. I don't know if you are referring to abuse of TD or of players. There is that little feature of " Ignore Enemies" that will work wonders and if someone has a problem with a player, perhaps they should use that rather than complaining to abuse.

ellie

[inquiry]

ellie26, on Mar 14 2005, 09:43 PM, said:

There is no doubt that kibitzers are your " private eye". Most kibbies can be identified. The few who arrive with a blank profile do look a little suspicious, but they are few. Most of the cheating is done by messengers with mic, etc. Only a few bridge players are going to the trouble of using another computer to get a good score, although I hear it does happen.

Making announcements that cheating is not acceptable behavior should make the cheater a little more uncomfortable. If cheating becomes acceptable behavior, then there will be some who will do it for the " lark".

I spend more time on BBO than I care to admit, and I do not remember an incident of abuse that I couldn't look after myself. I don't know if you are referring to abuse of TD or of players. There is that little feature of " Ignore Enemies" that will work wonders and if someone has a problem with a player, perhaps they should use that rather than complaining to abuse.

ellie

You underestimate self-kibitzers in tounrnments. The self-kibitzer seldom sits at the same table with "themselves". In addition, they seldom have a blank profile. Their profile will list a different home country and different bidding systems than "themselves", and some have eight or nine or ten such identities and will kibitz only one or two hands as any one of the identities.

This doesn't mean they can not be caught, I assure you they are being caught, but any director who want to prevent this has an easy way. This type of kibitzing doesn't work so well in main room, as it is hard to find one of the other 15 tables where the hand is being played. So in the main room, the self kibitzer has to kibitiz at the table with "self".

I too am against blcoking kibitzers, but I accpet it. I can go to any tourney where ther are not blcoked (Topflight, most abalucy), or I can go find a great team match or a good foursome in the main room. The fact that a tourney blocks kibitzers is only a minor annoyance.

Ben

[Dwingo]

There are a few Pay Tourneys - Individual Tourneys where the you pay 1$ to get in and there is a prize money of 4$ for 1st place.

Now in Individual, if I am going to pay 1$ to take a shot at the 4$ pot, I must be reasonably sure that everyone is playing on a level playing field. The No kibitzers policy for such tourneys is a reasonable assurance to me that atleast the tourney has barred self kibitzers.

Compulsive Self Kibitzers , if they still want to cheat, will have to pay another 1$ to register on another ID. Atmost they can get a peek at another hand. Moreover they will have to play as well on both the machines. Too much work and not worth the reward. This is a reasonable safeguard against such people.


Godwin

[mrdct]

Brandal, on Mar 14 2005, 06:22 AM, said:

Firstly,I don't consider it a "right" to be able to kibitz.

The Laws of Bridge DO give kibitzers the right to kibitz.

[Walddk]

mrdct, on Mar 30 2005, 01:55 AM, said:

Brandal, on Mar 14 2005, 06:22 AM, said:

Firstly,I don't consider it a "right" to be able to kibitz.

The Laws of Bridge DO give kibitzers the right to kibitz.

Well, it's correct that spectators are not disallowed according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, but whether that is the same as they have the right to spec is a matter of interpretation. You may argue, of course, that if it's not specifically stated that spectators are not allowed, it must mean that they have this right. Judge for yourselves:

LAW 76 - SPECTATORS
A. Conduct during Bidding or Play
1. One Hand Only
A spectator should not look at the hand of more than one player, except by permission.
2. Personal Reaction
A spectator must not display any reaction to the bidding or play while a deal is in progress.
3. Mannerisms or Remarks
During the round, a spectator must refrain from mannerisms or remarks of any kind (including conversation with a player).
4. Consideration for Players
A spectator must not in any way disturb a player.


B. Spectator Participation
A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director.

....

Roland

[Brandal]

mrdct, on Mar 30 2005, 01:55 AM, said:

Brandal, on Mar 14 2005, 06:22 AM, said:

Firstly,I don't consider it a "right" to be able to kibitz.

The Laws of Bridge DO give kibitzers the right to kibitz.

My remark was aimed at tourneys disallowing kibitzers,
that's why I put right in " " and followed with to be ABLE
to kibitz.

In tourneys,now with the rightclick option to Follow this player
in tourney,how about the kibitzer doing so is only allowed
to see one hand,the hand of the player he wants to kibitz?

With no other way to enter a tourney as kib,but always
allowing to kib ONE of the hands,I would be fine with that
too