[mrdct]

There is nothing in the Laws of Bridge that gives a player the right to force a kibitzer to leave the table. Provided the kibitzer remains compliant with Law 76 (basically be inconspicuous to the players at the table) I believe it would be most inappropriate for players in a tournament to have a right to eject a kibitzer who is just minding his own business.

I am aware that some NCBOs (e.g. the ACBL) have in specific tournament regulations a right for players to remove one kibitzer without reason - but I believe such regulations are manifestly inappropriate.

Kibitzing good players is an ideal way to improve one's game and there should be no obstacle to it.

If a software modification is made to BBO to allow players to eject an unwanted kibitzer, the capability to do it should only be active if the kibitzer has breached Law 76 by contributing to the chat in the room.

[Flame]

I think you are wrong here. This got nothing to do with bridge laws. Its a human being law that a person shouldnt be forced to sit next to the same table with someone he doesnt want to do that with. If the other person is a player then a techniocal lose can be set (trust me as someone from israel which is being baned by many arab cuntries at sports event, i dont like this, but if someone hate someone else enough then a technical lost is the least bad option) when someone is only kibitzing there is no resson to alow it if the player suffer from it.
I agree that if someone just dont like to be kibitzed then he is XXXX but i still think he should be given this privilage even though its a close call for me, yet if someone have a problem with a specific person and doesnt want this specific person to watch him, i dont even think its should be a question, he should be allowed to avoid the kibitz.

[Free]

In f2f bridge, kibs can give signals to other players (deliberate or not), so I could understand if some people in f2f bridge don't want to be kibbed. I don't know if there are laws about it, and actually I don't really care, because it's some kind of honour if people want to kib you imo...

In online bridge, kibs can't give undeliberate signals, but they can be placed there to cheat. If you suspect someone from cheating that way, I think you should get the benifit of doubt (especially in tourneys), and be able to kick a kib. I remember a tourney were I was playing against 2 players of a same country, and we had 1 kib, also form that country, and their country is known to contain lots of cheaters. They made a few weirdo bids, a good play, and defended well. I don't know if they were just good, or lucky cowboys, or if that kib was telling what they should do, or something else, but if I suspect the kib from giving info to my opps, I should be able to kick him, even if he's not. There are enough tables with good players (even with better players than at our table) to kibitz, but there's only 1 table I'm playing at...

[mrdct]

If you think your opponents are communicating with a kibitzer to cheat against you (which I must say sounds extremely far-fetched) then the major problem is the people you are playing against, not the kibitzer.

As for the situation of disliking the kibitzer (or the kibitzer's nationality) - live with it. There is far too much hate and prejudice in the world already - we don't need it at the bridge table. If the kibitzer obeys Law 76 you wont notice that they are there and if they breach Law 76, you have cause to have them removed.

If I was convening an event where one country refused to play against another country, I would simply kick that team out of the event.

I continue to believe that the BBO environment should remain as kibitzer friendly as possible.

[uday]

It is important to us to keep BBO spec-friendly. that is why we dont restrict specs to viewing one hand, make it easy for specs to whisper to players (host option..).

The only calls I've had for a spec-removal function have been because the spec is an 'enemy' of the player. But the spec has rights too - there are 3 other players at the table.

Maybe down the road we should take a poll of the players at the table when someone tries to boot a spec.

[mishovnbg]

Spoiler

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

Hi all!

Spoiler

------

I am proud, when somebody like to kibitz me ! Comments/remarks/jokes even rudeness can't hurt me, except it was from people I respect or from my friends, in which case I probably deserve it. As professional kibitzer I am against any restrictions vs them, except normal one by BBO rules. It is true, that better half of humanity - females are more emotional and can be affected by irrational factors, inaccessible for simple male logic . But if they want to play logic games like Bridge at high level, they need to train their resistance to extraneous factors, include unwanted kibitzers!

Spoiler

-------

I really don't care about cheating, it is even more interesting for me to play against, if cheating don't lead to unexplainable actions. It is like to play against super experts, who don't make mistakes. Of course you can't win against same magic and if tournament hosts/directors like to have fair competition, like in abalucy club, they can try to prevent cheating or at least lower level of it. The main problem is while hunting ghosts is to not burn innocent but lucky people and to not strip of rights to enjoy bridge and friends all people, with "police proclamations" during the tourney. Same regular remeinder about "threat of cheating" can influence people to be suspicious and unfriendly to winers, nevermind they won by shooting/luck/inspiration....

Spoiler

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

Misho

[uday]

I think that citing gender differences in that fashion is unlikely to attract any females to your tables to spec. And if they show up, they'll be armed

[doofik]

I don't think there's a right or a wrong answer here. However, I'm a proponent of pleasant BBO experience and if a given kib is there just to aggravate a player by their presence alone then it's my personal feeling that the player should have an option of removing that kib. What I'm describing is on a personal level and not a matter of cheating, disturbing, talking or anything else; it's a matter of a player's comfort.

There are hundreds of tables at any given time where any spec can go and I can assure you that the level of play will be much higher than what I can offer. But I am playing at only one table. So what are my choices?

Jola

[lexica]

doofik, on Apr 2 2004, 04:02 PM, said:

There are hundreds of tables at any given time where any spec can go and I can assure you that the level of play will be much higher than what I can offer.  But I am playing at only one table.  So what are my choices?

1. POLITELY ask them to leave; I don't think you owe the kibs any reason to do so but it might be a good idea to inform p and opps since the kibs might be wanting to kib the opps and not you.
2. If the kib refuses to do so, stop playing and POLITELY repeat your request making it clear that you refuse to play until they do so.
3. If it doesn't help - leave immediately. I would leave after the hand. Start a kib disallowed table. Report to yellows. But it's not an end-of-the-world top-of-the-message-board kind of problem I think...

P.S. Edited the typos

[Rhutobello]

In a way I can understand the unconf feelings when an "enemy" kib ones table.

But if you have no options, why not try it another way.

Welcome your guest..give him/her... smiles and polite chat., even if you sits red in the face and it steams from your head.What do you think will happen? I am sure if they don't like you...they will vanish, but maybe they start thinking that they have done you wrong and start to like you....maybe all was "dumb" feelings and pride that somehow darken your relations...

This is given in a common way and must not be taken as the only solution, but it might work, an in my opinion, "PRIDE" is one of the greatest fault we have:)

Have a nice day.
Edvin

[lexica]

Rhutobello, on Apr 2 2004, 04:33 PM, said:

In a way I can understand the unconf feelings when an "enemy" kib ones table.
This is given in a common way and must not be taken as the only solution, but it might work, an in my opinion, "PRIDE" is one of the greatest fault we have:)

Thumbs up to your suggestion! But it refers to a normal situation. Unless I misunderstood, doofik is referring to people she describes in the "Unwanted kibz" thread. I am not sure I agree with her methods (see the other thread) but without knowing any further details, I think polite blackmail is the way to go.
Just 2 cents.

[irdoz]

I've played at an online bridge site where for a time players had the right to ban kibitzers or some kibitzers during tournaments. Here's what happened:-

i) The request to remove particular kibitzers became a metaphor for a cheating accusation - and both the kibitzer and the opponents felt aggrieved

ii) If one pair banned someones kibitzers the opponents 'revenge banned' kibitzers following the banning pair

It got silly and ugly and the whole impact was to discourage any kibitzing at all and to hurt the feeling of a whole lot of kibitzers who were the unintended targets of a bad policy. The right to ban kibitzers with discrimination (ie not ban all kibitzers) turned effectively into 'ban all kibitizers'.

The policy was changed and no-one had the right to ban kibitzers from their table in tournament play.

I realize if you have an enemy who for example, you perceive to be stalking you you dont want them kibbing you in a tournament. However tough cases do not make good policy....and a discriminatory right, encoded in the software, to ban particular kibitzers will be abused way beyond the original intention of the policy.

Don't go down this slippery slope...It's ugly. For tough cases make other procedures...dont effectively penalize all kibitzers.

[Rain]

Online bridge at BBO :

If a host doesn't want a kibitzer, he/she need not allow that person in the 1st place. I don't see the need to consult with other 3 players at table. If the other 3 players don't like host action, they are free to leave. Maybe a disagreeable host will then realise something is wrong when he can't fill his seats...


Rain

[the hog]

With all due respects, I fail to see how the presence of a kibbitzer can be construed as an aggravation. You cannot see their comments, just ignore them. There are some people in ftf bridge who aggravate me as I regard them as unethical, yet if you are drawn them in a match you have little option but to play.
Your comment, Flame: "Its a human being law that a person shouldnt be forced to sit next to the same table with someone he doesnt want to do that with." does not hold water; life is not like that.

BBO would lose a great deal of its fun if kibbitzers were able to be banned. In fact there is one well known identity who thrives on having numerous kibbers, most of whom make derogatory comments re the bidding and the play.

Ron

[Trpltrbl]

I agree with Ron, if you have people watching you and you don't like it, ignore it.
If people want to cheat, good for them, I'll just like to win with regular bridge. Feels much better that way

Mike

[joker_gib]

Free, on Apr 1 2004, 08:28 PM, said:

I remember a tourney were I was playing against 2 players of a same country, and we had 1 kib, also form that country, and their country is known to contain lots of cheaters.

Hi all,

I fully agree with Ron and Mike !

and quoting Free : how can you write things like that !!

every country in the world has its cheaters and honest bridge players I think !

Alain

[Free]

Lets just give you an example of 2 country's, and you tell me which country is known 'the most' for cheating, and I certainly DON'T say that EVERYONE in any of these country's is playing fair or if they're cheating, just that in one of the country's there are more known FACTS of cheaters:

1) Poland
2) Spain

Djeez, if you'd just be able to put away your horseglasses and watch around instead of 1 direction, you wouldn't quote THAT sentence of me...

[the hog]

This is a really offensive post, Free.

[Free]

I know, but if someone starts to reply without a little bit of comprehension how things are in the real world, these things happen. Btw, I didn't say which country is known to be more cheating than the other, but I think we all know which one it is...

[mrdct]

I don't fully appreciate the link between kibitzers and cheating. If a pair are going to cheat, surely there are more efficient and less overt means of doing so than having kibitzers planted to convey information to them.

I think it is most unfair to tarnish kibitzers with implied allegations of involvement in cheating.

As to the so-called countries known to have a high prevalence of cheating. I'm with Ron on this one, I think the suggestion is quite offensive. Could it be that one of the two countries "Free" mentioned just happens to have a very high participation level at BBO and contains a lot of bloody good bridge players that can and do find the "miracle" plays with greater frequency than us mere mortals?