[johnu]

 mathboy, on 2016-July-10, 02:47, said:

Use a cellphone to kibitize as a stranger,and you got an ID
zzzz_numbers.That is the way to kibitize yourself.

You can just open up a new tab in your browser, or a new instance of a browser and you can log into BBO as an anonymous user in addition to your existing ID.

[billw55]

 johnu, on 2016-July-11, 16:41, said:

You can just open up a new tab in your browser, or a new instance of a browser and you can log into BBO as an anonymous user in addition to your existing ID.

Yes, but this results in matching IP addresses and hence is easy to detect. Connecting from a smartphone will give a different IP (although perhaps identifiable to the same geographic area).

[johnu]

 billw55, on 2016-July-12, 14:43, said:

Yes, but this results in matching IP addresses and hence is easy to detect. Connecting from a smartphone will give a different IP (although perhaps identifiable to the same geographic area).

Only if BBO is looking which would only happen if somebody complains and BBO goes through their login records. There are also various ways to hide your actual IP address. Anyways, BBO has frequently said that they can't control people who are banned from creating new ID's.

Also, if your phone is using wi-fi from the same network that your computer is on, I think you will show the same IP address. Easy enough to turn off wi-fi and use celluar data.

[661_Pete]

 1eyedjack, on 2016-July-11, 06:23, said:

Personally I tend to veer away from sitting at "pick-up" tables that blanket deny kibitzers in a social setting.

Interesting that you should say that. Perhaps others feel as you do. Indeed I have doubts about my current preference, I'll have a think about this.

It's a bit unfair to criticise all players for slow play - though I do agree it can be irritating! Some may have an innocent excuse such as answering the phone or going to the toilet. Using "BRB" in the chat helps. And some are beginners, going through the learning process (yes I know: not all beginners put "beginner" on their profile!). Give them a chance!

And for BBO to institute a policy of blocking two players sharing the same IP address: that could penalise couples in the same household playing as partners - perfectly legally.

Moreover, before I registered with BBO I spent some time kibitzing as a "ZZZZ....". It would be a pity to deny potential new BBO members a chance to see how it goes before signing up.

[1eyedjack]

 661_Pete, on 2016-July-13, 02:48, said:

Interesting that you should say that. Perhaps others feel as you do. Indeed I have doubts about my current preference, I'll have a think about this.

It is a purely personal view. No idea if anyone else does the same. I would find it statistically surprising if I were unique, given the numbers, but I would not be surprised if I were rare.

But I think the main point is that there IS an option in the settings to allow kibbers subject to host's permission on a case by case basis, so you can still keep out the pond life.

[baraka]

Talking of cheating… Here’s a good one, but I don’t know if anything can be done about it.

♠AQ83
♥6
♦KJ985
♣T32

♠K75
♥A32
♦AQ42
♣AK8

West leads ♠J, East shows out and declarer takes the K. It’s clear that West has T9642 left and that 2 spade finesses will give you 12 tricks and that is that. But being the last hand of a speedball round with plenty of time left, why would declarer play all the diamond tricks first, ending in dummy, slowwwly, 1 trick every 10-15 seconds ? Clearly to let the time run out ! Better yet, why not claim, explaining the obvious finesses or still do the finesses first ? This is clearly a case of a declarer that has absolutely no clue as to how to fulfill that contract. Time runs out, obviously, before the hand is done and the director declares the contract as fulfilled without regard to the fact that it was declarer that stalled the play. It seems to me as a clear case of cheating. ‘I don’t know how to do it but if it can be done, director, with his superior knowledge, will figure it out, and if it can be done, he will give it to me’. It’s all very fine that the director declares a contract a success or a failure when time runs out, but shouldn’t he look a little more closely at the obvious stalling by both declarers or defenders ?

BBO should be able to do better about that ! It’s infuriating when this happens !

[661_Pete]

 baraka, on 2016-July-13, 20:09, said:

Talking of cheating… Here’s a good one, but I don’t know if anything can be done about it.

You forgot to say what the contract is, but I'm guessing 6NT. Or was it 7NT - which would give declarer a motive....?

[baraka]

 661_Pete, on 2016-July-14, 06:11, said:

You forgot to say what the contract is, but I'm guessing 6NT. Or was it 7NT - which would give declarer a motive....?

Sorry... 6NT

[billw55]

 baraka, on 2016-July-13, 20:09, said:

♠AQ83
♥6
♦KJ985
♣T32

♠K75
♥A32
♦AQ42
♣AK8

Hah! On lead against 6NT, and the only way to let it through is to lead from JT9xxx. Funny story.

[baraka]

 billw55, on 2016-July-14, 10:11, said:

Hah! On lead against 6NT, and the only way to let it through is to lead from JT9xxx. Funny story.

And what is your point in saying it's a funny story ? What constructive comment do you mean to add ?

[barmar]

 baraka, on 2016-July-14, 19:00, said:

And what is your point in saying it's a funny story ? What constructive comment do you mean to add ?

I think the point is that it's ironic that he made the only lead that would allow the slam to make, then complains that the player used nefarious means to achieve it.

[billw55]

 barmar, on 2016-July-15, 08:20, said:

I think the point is that it's ironic that he made the only lead that would allow the slam to make, then complains that the player used nefarious means to achieve it.

This was only a minority consideration. Mostly I was just amused that such a safe looking lead is actually the worst.

[baraka]

Since some are courious, here's the leader's hand...

♠JT9642
♥KJT8
♦-
♣J75

It is in fact the only lead that give's the contract away, but I'm not going to put the boxing gloves on and pick a fight with my partner. I would have lead the same thing.


But I still think that the declarer was clueless and that the director could'nt have cared less ! I think it's the second part that annoys me the most.

[barmar]

 baraka, on 2016-July-15, 11:46, said:

It is in fact the only lead that give's the contract away, but I'm not going to put the boxing gloves on and pick a fight with my partner. I would have lead the same thing.

Yep, I'll bet it was very common.

[Vampyr]

 baraka, on 2016-July-15, 11:46, said:

I would have lead the same thing.

I would even have led it.

[1eyedjack]

 Vampyr, on 2016-July-16, 17:27, said:

I would even have led it.

Plumbing the depths, now, are we?

[baraka]

Now the funny part ...

1 4♥N-5 250 100.00%
1 7NN-2 100 96.43%
1 6♦N-1 50 89.29%
2 6NN-1 50 89.29%
1 PASS 0 82.14%
1 4♥xE-1 -200 78.57%
6 3NN+2 -460 66.07%
10 3NN+3 -490 35.71%
1 5NN+1 -490 35.71%
1 3NN+4 -520 14.29%
1 3♦E-7 -700 10.71%
1 6♦N= -920 7.14%
2 6NN= -990 1.79%

Ya ! That's it ! Dead last !!! For all practical purposes, those in slam don't make it, those not do !!! What a funny world !!!

[billw55]

Heh, I am not sure which is funnier between

1 4♥N-5 250 100.00%
1 PASS 0 82.14%
1 3♦E-7 -700 10.71%

[Vampyr]

 1eyedjack, on 2016-July-17, 02:01, said:

Plumbing the depths, now, are we?

I really find it irritating; surely it is not just a typo every time.

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2016-July-18, 07:42, said:

I really find it irritating; surely it is not just a typo every time.

Of cause its not a typo. No reason to get irita... annoiyi... p.o.'d.

Ric