[ochinko]

I find it very strange when kibitzers are allowed at a tourney, then all of a sudden, they get thrown out. Is there any reason to change the kibitzers' status in a middle of a tourney?

I find this a bit frustrating, so please don't do it, or at least explain the reason before closing it. Thank you

Petko

[luis]

Directors disallow kibs to prevent cheating. Assuming they need such a drastic measure then it's logical to think they charge for the inscription. I think that BBO should charge a higher comission to TDs running tourneys without kibs because they are using BBO for a private income without leting the other BBO members enjoy the show while TDs running tourneys where the public is allowed should be charged a lesser percentage.
That's what I think and about 70% of my ideas are wrong but I need to be wrong many times to make the other 30% appear :-)

Luis

[asdfg2k]

I'd pay more to be in a tourney WITHOUT kibitzers. Can you see why?

[Walddk]

asdfg2k, on Aug 6 2005, 01:50 AM, said:

I'd pay more to be in a tourney WITHOUT kibitzers. Can you see why?

hmmmmm Let me guess. Could it be because your bidding, dummy play and defence do not bear close examination?

Roland

[the hog]

asdfg2k, on Aug 6 2005, 09:50 AM, said:

I'd pay more to be in a tourney WITHOUT kibitzers. Can you see why?

Surely you don't play that badly, do you?

[asdfg2k]

You guys are goooooooooooooood.

But, no.

[irincheto]

asdfg2k, on Aug 5 2005, 06:50 PM, said:

I'd pay more to be in a tourney WITHOUT kibitzers.  Can you see why?

No, I cannot see why. If some TDs are afraid of cheating, disallowing kibitzers will not help, I am afraid. Nevertheless, I agree when kibitzers are disallowed at the beginning of the tourney and nobody hopes to enjoy watching good bridge. I think you can learn a lot only by watching good players play the boards.

But I really feel very disappointed when I am thrown away as a kibitzer in the middle of a tourney without any explanation at least. Is that so much to ask?

Irina

[epeeist]

asdfg2k, on Aug 5 2005, 06:50 PM, said:

I'd pay more to be in a tourney WITHOUT kibitzers. Can you see why?

No, I can't see why.

Unless kibitzers are allowed -- then I can see why...

Seriously, I see it as totally a matter of TD and player (whether to enter or not) choice. Much as I might like to kibitz, if someone doesn't want to be "watched", why shouldn't they enter -- and TDs offer -- no-kibitzer tournaments? Mere personal preference is of course a sufficient reason.

If someone plays in a private club, or public club, or main bridge club, kibitzers can be allowed or disallowed. Why not run or enter tournaments likewise?

If one doesn't like a pay, or free, tournament disallowing kibitzers, then vote with your feet -- don't enter. Unless a pay tournament fails to disclose it is no-kibitzers (i.e. someone might pay to enter without knowing) or the like, I can't see how the choice should really be objectionable by anyone else.

[luke warm]

the old "if you don't like it, don't play" defense... even if true it's still tiresome... i thought luis' post made sense as to a reason to disallow disallowance of kibbers (i think i said that right)

[asdfg2k]

irincheto, on Aug 6 2005, 07:16 AM, said:

asdfg2k, on Aug 5 2005, 06:50 PM, said:

I'd pay more to be in a tourney WITHOUT kibitzers.  Can you see why?

If some TDs are afraid of cheating, disallowing kibitzers will not help, I am afraid.

Will not "help"? Seriously? Of course it will "help". Will it eliminate it? Of course not. But it will most assuredly "help".

To argue otherwise is disingenuous.

Besides, in f2f, an individual can always bar kibitzers. Why do you want to deny that right to BBO tourney participants?

[McBruce]

My solution to this issue in my tournament series (being a confirmed fence-sitter ) has been to keep kibitzers out until all players have played ten of the 15 boards. Because my tourneys are unclocked, this has the effect of allowing the fastest to come back and kibitz as they wait for the results.

In checking the results of the winners for unusual actions, as I do every time, I have not noticed a significant difference between the first ten boards and the last five. In the first few tournaments of the series I allowed kibitzers all the time and there were usually some strange actions that accompanied scores of 90%+ on any board. Now most extreme results are simple errors in bidding or play. Not a scientific finding, more just an impression.

[epeeist]

luke warm, on Aug 6 2005, 02:00 PM, said:

the old "if you don't like it, don't play" defense... even if true it's still tiresome... i thought luis' post made sense as to a reason to disallow disallowance of kibbers (i think i said that right)

the old "TDs please allow kibitzers" argument... even if meritorious it's still tiresome...

Seriously, luis' post suggested "solution" only addressed pay tourneys. Nothing to do with how to encourage or discourage kibitizers in free tourneys.

More importantly, pay tourneys provide some money to BBO. And those who enter pay tourneys thus indirectly help provide money to BBO.

Those who kibitz those entrants, do not.

The argument about allowing/not allowing others to "enjoy the show" would, in my view, be more persuasive if one paid a subscription fee to BBO or something. One might then argue that the fee should cover kibitzing of most tournaments. Since BBO is free, however, I can't understand why TDs running no-kibitzer tournaments should be charged more. A cost which would probably be passed on to the consumer -- $2 to enter a no-kibitzer tourney, $1 for a normal one? Ultimately the effect would be to discourage bridge players from entering more expensive no-kibitzer tourneys.

I prefer to think that even those with whom I disagree (I prefer kibitzers except when I'm playing really, really badly... ) can find the type of tournament they prefer. Unless they're an "enemy", then they can just [fill in the blank]

[the hog]

Wev'e been throught this before. Those who feel as I do that kibbitzers should be allowed should simply boycott tournaments where non are allowed. Many of us do this already anyway. If enough people boycott these , then tds will change their minds.

[pigpenz]

maybe it should be like you have at the table, you are allowed to kibitz one player (see his hand) and then see dummy when it is layed down...in real life we dont get to look at all four hands at the same time.


I have seen too many weird results that I can see why kibbers are dissallowed. This might help a little, at least it would someone have to go out and hook up four computers at the same time to monitor the whole table

[jillybean]

The_Hog, on Aug 6 2005, 04:45 PM, said:

Wev'e been throught this before. Those who feel as I do that kibbitzers should be allowed should simply boycott tournaments where non are allowed. Many of us do this already anyway. If enough people boycott these , then tds will change their minds.

I agree completely. At the moment there is no way to tell when you signup to play or sub in a tournament if kibitzers are allowed, this and other information would be helpful if it was displayed with tournament information.

[McBruce]

jillybean2, on Aug 6 2005, 08:55 PM, said:

At the moment there is no way to tell when you signup to play or sub in a tournament if kibitzers are allowed, this and other information would be helpful if it was displayed with tournament information.

Some TDs do make it public in their CoCs whether kibitzers are allowed or not. All you need to do is read them. The ones that don't; well, you could always ask. Most of us actually show up before the game starts.

Furthermore, as a prospective sub once the tournament starts, can you not see immediately from looking at the tables in play? If it says 'Disallowed;' well, what might that mean? If it says '2 Kibitzers;' hey, that might be a clue as well.

If all this sounds sarcastic, well, I'm sorry, but you cross the decency line when you urge a boycott in a public forum. Don't play in a tournament if it doesn't suit you, but writing about boycotting one type of tourney "until TDs change their minds" because you don't agree with the TD's decision is just plain wrong. Those of us who do considerable work in organizing these events will not change our minds in the unlikely event that such a boycott works. We will quit; for who knows what decision we'll be forced into next.

I do agree that it is incomprehensible why a TD would suddenly bar kibitzers. A player is getting huge scores every hand and has the same kibitzer? There is no way a TD could even verify that during the event.

[the hog]

We had the same discussion a year ago and you made the same comment. I am not the only one boycotting these. If players don't play because of the non kibbitzing rule, tds WILL change their minds. Incidentally I think I am perfectly within my rights to encourage other not to play in tournaments that eg disallow kibbitzers or psyches for example. If you don't like the posts then don't reply.

[irincheto]

McBruce, on Aug 7 2005, 01:58 AM, said:

I do agree that it is incomprehensible why a TD would suddenly bar kibitzers.  A player is getting huge scores every hand and has the same kibitzer?  There is no way a TD could even verify that during the event.

That is what I was talking about. I agree that after all it is a matter of TDs' choice whether do allow or disallow kibitzers, no matter that I am against disallowing in general. But the TD is the person in charge of the tornament and he/she decides what he/she prefers.

I was objecting against throwing away kibitzers in the middle of a tourney. And it happened to me again yesterday, the tourney was exactly in the middle - 6 boards out of 12 when all of a sudden all kibitzers were out. It was like the TD enjoyed some cruel pleasure of doing so . I do not really believe that was the case, but I felt helpless and disappointed.

[jillybean]

McBruce, on Aug 6 2005, 11:58 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Aug 6 2005, 08:55 PM, said:

At the moment there is no way to tell when you signup to play or sub in a tournament if kibitzers are allowed, this and other information would be helpful if it was displayed with tournament information.

Some TDs do make it public in their CoCs whether kibitzers are allowed or not. All you need to do is read them. The ones that don't; well, you could always ask. Most of us actually show up before the game starts.

Furthermore, as a prospective sub once the tournament starts, can you not see immediately from looking at the tables in play? If it says 'Disallowed;' well, what might that mean? If it says '2 Kibitzers;' hey, that might be a clue as well.

sarcasm = ridicule that wounds

I hadn't noticed that if you are signing up as a sub you can now tell if kibitzers are banned - thanks

[Dwingo]

The_Hog, on Aug 7 2005, 01:18 PM, said:

We had the same discussion a year ago and you made the same comment. I am not the only one boycotting these. If players don't play because of the non kibbitzing rule, tds WILL change their minds. Incidentally I think I am perfectly within my rights to encourage other not to play in tournaments that eg disallow kibbitzers or psyches for example. If you don't like the posts then don't reply.

This happened a couple of weeks ago, when I had not read this thread.

Just before my tourney start, someone asked me if kibitzers are allowed in my tourney. I was wondering why he was asking me that question and the 1st thing that struck me was this person was not going to waste his time playing a tourney which bars kibitzers , if he is not going to be in a position to cheat.

After reading this thread, I will probably have to give him the benefit of doubt that he was probably enquiring to see if he needs to boycott my tourney, if I bar subs.

So, beware of the wrong signals that you send, when you ask such questions to TD.

Kibitzers are freely welcome in my tourney.

But if I were hosting a Pay tourney which gives BBO$ as prizes, that is the 1st loophole that I will shut.

Godwin