[zibuyu]

It may be fairer to disallow kibitzers in the weekly BBO IMP/MP Final. Just a suggestion.

[Free]

Is there any particular reason WHY you would want this? In another thread there's already some similar discussion about kicking kibitzers, and in general people are against it. You'll need to be more convincing than this imho...

[Chamaco]

Just my opinion, for what it's worth (very little.. ).

1) I think BBO is above all a place to *play* (e.g. in the true sense of the word, = playful), rather than *compete*

2) also, it is a place where mediocre players can kibitz the good players.

Creating rules that disallow kibitzing in tourneys is something I would hate with all my hearts.
Th "No kibs" request could be of course requested specifically by one of the players at the table, but setting it up by default is something I do not like.

ciao !

Mauro

[zibuyu]

Chamaco, on Apr 6 2004, 04:38 AM, said:

Just my opinion, for what it's worth (very little.. ).

1) I think BBO is above all a place to *play* (e.g. in the true sense of the word, = playful), rather than *compete*

2) also, it is a place where mediocre players can kibitz the good players.

Creating rules that disallow kibitzing in tourneys is something I would hate with all my hearts.
。。。。。
Mauro

I agree yours opinion that we want to kibitz the good players in "play" tourneys. Almost all tourneys are for playing at BBO. However, the weekly BBO MP/IMP Finals are for "compete", which will give the champions STAR and the qualification for the anual Final.

[mrdct]

I would refuse to play in any tournament that disallows kibitzers. Any self-respecting player should do the same. Everything possible should be done to encourage kibitzers.

[jillybean]

I agree with mrdct, kibitzing is an important feature of BBO. Being able to watch all level of players and systems is entertaining and a great learning tool.
If it is not noted in the description, can you tell when you register for a tournament if kibitzing is disallowed?

Perhaps the ability to run “no kibitzers” tournaments should only be allowed in private clubs, lets keep BBO kibitzer friendly.

[Gerardo]

Couple of notes:

1) Those tourneys, despite the name, are NOT run by BBO. BBO runs NO tourneys.

2) NO stars are given in online tourneys. Fred assigns them based on his personal criteria, which are not published

[vincenzo]

I always admit kibitzers on my tourneys, but since there is this option, I respect opinions of other directors that prefer to start tourneys disallowing kibitzers.
My opinion is this:

There are many tourneys on BBO and every player can choose not only the type of tourney he prefers, but also the directors he likes !!

So ... lets' the torney directors use the options they prefer !!

Vincenzo

[mrdct]

The problem is that this is just the thin edge of the wedge. Once we start eroding kibitzer rights who knows where it is going to stop?

Also, it isn't immediately apparent when looking at the list of upcoming tournament which ones will ban kibitzers. What happens if I ask around, find a partner, go to register and then find that kibitzers aren't allowed? - I just wasted my time and the time of the person I have organised to play with.

Or even worse, what happens if I enter a tournament without realising that kibitzers have been banned and need to leave that tournament on moral grounds? - Will I then be tagged as a tournament deserter?

Someone needs to take a stand against small-minded paranoid tournament directors who are ruining BBO by banning kibitzers in explicit contravention of the Laws of Bridge.

Banning kibitzers should not be an option anywhere at BBO.

[the hog]

Calm down Dave!
It so happens that I agree with you as do the vast majority of contributors to this forum. Misho has gone so far as to advocate the boycott of any tournament that bans kibbitzers. The problem is that you would probably not want to play in those tournaments anyway, (eg limited to sayc only etc). Hopefully it is a case of "if enough people ignore them they will go away".

[Dwingo]

I wonder if the right to kibitz is the same as the right to bring your kibitzers along when you play a tourney

[Rhutobello]

I shall not start a long thesis whay we shall allow kibitzers, because that is alredy done , on the other hand I will ask like Free, "why must we close a board for kib?"
Give us a good reason, then maybe we can understand such a stand. But when you do don't just throw out popular statement like cheating and chatting. Give us in the same statement the prof how often have you catched a cheater, how often must you ban a "talker" and so on.
When you give us this proof, and we might all see that most of your turnys become destroyed from cheaters and talkers and then we might understand the call for banning kib from your turnys

Have a nice day

Edvin

[mr1303]

I would be very strongly against any move to ban kibitzers. However, whilst directing I have noticed a problem with kibitzers talking to the table, particularly in the later rounds, when players who have finished watch other tables. Hence all my tournaments are now kibitzer silent, whereby they are free to watch, but cannot talk to the players playing.

This should surely be a suitable solution. Whilst cheating is still possible (via MSN messenger, ICQ etc.) this issue has already been discussed in another thread, and so I will not go in to it here

Mark

[mrdct]

I have nothing against making kibitzers silent, indeed I think that should be their default state. Perhaps the feature that exists in vugraph for the operator to "gag" or "ungag" specific kibitzers should be made available to table hosts or tournament directors (possibly even any player at the table). That way, if a kibitzer is generally there to watch but might want to engage in the occasional conversation with a player in between hands and isn't upsetting anyone, let them be.

With regards to Dwingo's reference to "the right to bring your kibitzers along when you play a tourney". Of course players have that right. When I first learnt to play bridge some 20 years ago, my teacher routinely had half-a-dozen of his students watching him in local tournaments, and I was usually one of them.

[JRG]

Gerardo, on Apr 18 2004, 04:56 PM, said:

2) NO stars are given in online tourneys. Fred assigns them based on his personal criteria, which are not published

Actually, Fred did publish his criteria. I'm too lazy to search for them However, I believe the sole criterion is approximately:

A player must have represented his or her country in international competition after having survived a qualifying event.

I believe this means that a player must have been on a team that won a team trials-type of event for his or her country before being allowed to represent the country in an international event (such as the Bermuda Bowl).

Now clearly this is not an absolute guarantee of being expert (I suspect I could be on a winning team for my country), though it must be pretty close.

Fred used to give players he thought were "worth watching" a star, but I believe he abandoned doing so in favour of a better defined criterion. When he changed the criterion, he did not revoke stars he had already awarded. This means there are some players whose stardom people question. There are undoubtedly others who are questioned for exactly the reason I would be questioned if I had a star for representing Costa Rica.

[hallway]

and then there are the Kibs that use the 'other' section of their profiles to 'chat' to a player in a tourney .

As they say 'where there is a will they will always find a way " !!

[patrobo]

Disallowing Kibtzers

I fully support those against this

Imagine Bridge without KIBTZERS!
It detracts from the game of Bridge
It takes away learning opportunities
Is this a new Bridge Law?
There appears no indication when such a t/ment will end
If one wants to play another t/ment with a partner who is playing in one of these t/ments, there is no way of knowing when p will be free
One would presume that it is to prevent cheating! - at what cost?

Patrobo

[Fluffy]

Hi pat! nice to see you here

Disallow kibitzers give no advantage at all, what do you gain doing it?

Nothing: if they want to cheat they will cheat using extern chat or even phone, you stop nothing (or nearly nothing) by banning kibitzers.

[dogsbreath]

I see little point in barring kibbers.. however I am pleased to notice that the 'thin end of the wedge' surfaced again in this thread .. does no-one ever use the 'thick' end ..indeed does such a thing exist? ..maybe it belongs to that group of objects that have only one side ..like football nets.. if a player shoots and scores ..the ball 'hits the back of the net' .. if it narrowly misses, and hits the goal from behind , that is also the 'back of the net'
Rgds Dog

[aisha759]

JRG, i believe your post is in the wrong area
this thread is about allowing kibbers or NOTTTTT! he he

The only reason why a host would not allow kibbs in a tourney is for one reason only..... suspicion of cheating!!!!!! Other than that, kibbers are usually silent and are disabled from talking to the table.

I just don't see the problem of allowing kibbers except for the above mentioned..

All tourneys allow kibbers (i have personally only encountered very few which did not) ..

Not allowing kibbers in a tourney is the Host's choice, of course; just dont take away the kibbing privileges for those of us who want to learn and improve....

Thanks

aisha