Full Disclosure in ACBL BBO

[glen]

Opponents are using the BBO Advanced "full disclosure" convention card.

 

Responder has:

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakht64dat9872c32]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

opposite Opener's:

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakht64dat9872c32]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Bidding is 1♣-1♥-Double-3♦(Bergen, constructive)-Double-3♥-4♦-Pass-5♦

 

When 1♥ is doubled, full disclosure tells us that the double shows exactly 4♠s.

 

When opener shows up with 4♠s and responder with only 2 I call the director.

 

Tournament Director tells me "his hand is such that he really can double showing a bigger hand."

 

I point out they are using "full disclosure" and that two way negative doubles require an alert

 

TD tells me that "his cc says value showing"

 

I point out that the "full disclosure" cc said responder had exactly 4♠s

 

TD says "don't think anyone knows how to use those cards yet."

 

When I ask opponents why cards did not match their cc, TD says "glen play instead of teaching pls"

 

After tournament is over opponent tells me: "we are trying to use new system"

 

Not sure if they meant new bridge system or trying to use the Full Disclosure system.

 

If nobody knows how to use Full Disclosure, can BBO please provide the ACBL BBO tournaments the option to turn these off for the complete tournament? Otherwise can the ACBL BBO TDs please help out in situations where the cc does not match what is happening at the table?

[inquiry]

Well. this is the problem isn't it.

 

If users choose to use one of the standard FD cards, we hope they will modify it where the card doesn't fit what they play. Anyone loading a "standard card" probably doesn't play all that is on that card.

 

One has to expect that this pairs Double denied biddable spades (what i play btw), making the double of 3D and raise of diamonds clear. They need to modify the Standard FD card or create one of their own from scratch.

 

I doubt anyone is surprised by this. But since they can see the FD alerts themselves, is should be easy for them to enter the right alert by clicking on their bid, and open FD and modify that bid right then and there, and save it under a new name... shortly they would have a perfect card.

[david_c]

I think the TD is wrong. The player can see that FD has misexplained his bid and should correct it when it happens. If they don't do that, then they've given misinformation.

 

A bigger problem is when a pair has no agreement, but the FD file claims that they do. Because of this, I think that it is important not to make the "basic" standard FD files too detailed. However a system with detailed notes like BBO-Advanced is a different matter; I do not think that this is the cause of the problem here.

[glen]

Sometimes trying to get assistance from a TD is like this:

 

Monty Python's Flying Circus - "Cheese Shop"

 

Player: Bidder said he had 4♠s but did not

TD: He had extra values

Player: But his partner had 4♠s but did not bid them

TD: Didn't have enough values

Player: But their cc says double shows 4♠s

TD: Nobody uses those cc's

Player: But we defended as if they had what they told us

TD: Yes, but their other cc said all their doubles show values

Player: So can you look at this?

TD: Normally, sir, yes. Today the van broke down.

[csdenmark]

Well. this is the problem isn't it.

 

If users choose to use one of the standard FD cards, we hope they will modify it where the card doesn't fit what they play. Anyone loading a "standard card" probably doesn't play all that is on that card.

 

One has to expect that this pairs Double denied biddable spades (what i play btw), making the double of 3D and raise of diamonds clear. They need to modify the Standard FD card  or create one  of their own from scratch.

 

I doubt anyone is surprised by this. But since they can see the FD alerts themselves, is should be easy for them to enter the right alert by clicking on their bid, and open FD and modify that bid right then and there, and save it under a new name... shortly they would have a  perfect card.

Except for a psyche - right Ben?

 

I think I have heard that psyches are prohibited in ACBL tournaments - but my question is in general.

[glen]

I think I have heard that psyches are prohibited in ACBL tournaments - but my question is in general.

Psyches are not prohibited in ACBL tournaments - however a new ACBL policy, when enforced, has the net result of forcing established partnerships not to psych, since once several pyschs are recorded they are deemed to have an agreement to pysch, which is then deemed to be illegal, although this is not following the bridge laws (I'm using the ACBL spelling of psychs, and not psyches).

 

In the hand in question, responder is free to make a negative double psych. However opener would then have to answer why there was no support of spades.

 

So in this case it is about misinformation, and how TDs should follow up on it.

 

Unlike the cheese dialogue (btw you can click on the cheese link to get the Monty script) most of the discussion should take place between the TD and the players who may have misinformed their opponents, and likely did so not on purpose.

 

Player: Opponent said they had 4♠ in bidding but only had 2

TD: Will check and get back to you

TD->Opp: You made a negative double but did not have 4♠s and did not alert - what was your double?

Opponent: <Explains double and method>

TD->Opp: Your new style cc is set and it says double shows 4♠s - could you set your cc to reflect your agreements?

Opponent: <Explains how they will have a cc to reflect agreements at some point>

TD->Both Opps: You may have [inadvertently] misinformed your opponents - I'll look at the hand and determine if the result was fair given this misinformation

TD->Table: I've looked at the hand involving the negative double without 4♠s - first, please ensure your bids conform to your cc as our tournament rules state - second, there was misinformation [,but it was inadvertent]. Third, looking at the hands I don't see a strong reason to adjust the board. However if there is such a reason please let me know and I'll study it some more.

 

In short, if operating a cheese shop have a little cheese in stock, especially since the ACBL is expanding their online games to two more sites.

[inquiry]

Responder has:

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakht64dat9872c32]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

opposite Opener's:

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakht64dat9872c32]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Bidding is 1♣-1♥-Double-3♦(Bergen, constructive)-Double-3♥-4♦-Pass-5♦

TD->Table: I've looked at the hand involving the negative double without 4♠s - first, please ensure your bids conform to your cc as our tournament rules state - second, there was misinformation [,but it was inadvertent]. Third, looking at the hands I don't see a strong reason to adjust the board. However if there is such a reason please let me know and I'll study it some more.

 

The director gave you a correct ruling, and his answer and response was correct.

 

First, mis-information occurred. He instructed your opponents to change their ways, and way. But after studying the hand, he saw no reason to change the result. Clearly this is correct. Once they get to 5♦, they are in their top spot, winning 5♦, 2♣, 3♠ and a heart ruff, or 2 heart ruffs, and losing one of their other sure winners.

 

I have to admit, I would have given EXACTLY the same ruling.

 

Ben

[glen]

The dialogue you quoted did NOT occur, but something like it should have. So I'm glad that my pretend TD did give the correct ruling.

[uday]

Psyches in ACBL tournaments.

Take them up with memphis, please. we're trying to run a club game here. If you want to change ACBL policy, start at the top.

 

Rulings:

We run several hundred tournaments every day, each about 8-12 boards long.

Some rulings are going to be incorrect.

 

FD:

The FD thing is very new. IMO, each pair should be responsible for the quality/accuracy of its own convention card. But IMO, the FD software should be easier to use. So the customer who uses FD is caught, as is the TD. We'll sort it all out over time. The laws of bridge never envisioned a "talking convention card" driven by a database. Who is responsible when a complex third-party database labeled 'STANDARD' assigns an odd meaning to a sequence?

 

Overall:

Relax. No need to scream-and-leap every time someone does something that is imperfect. We're pushing cards around, not calibrating micrometers.

[glen]

"Take them up with memphis, please. we're trying to run a club game here. If you want to change ACBL policy, start at the top. "

 

Will do so - still a shame to follow this policy

 

"We run several hundred tournaments every day, each about 8-12 boards long. Some rulings are going to be incorrect. "

 

The point of this thread was not to correct this particular ruling - I could care less about the actual result - the point is to decrease the number of incorrect rulings over time, or at least not see them rise. At this time there is no process for improvement. Ignoring problems is not the right way to handle this. Paid TDs need to know how to handle possible misinformation cases.

 

"The FD thing is very new. IMO, each pair should be responsible for the quality/accuracy of its own convention card. But IMO, the FD software should be easier to use. So the customer who uses FD is caught, as is the TD. We'll sort it all out over time. The laws of bridge never envisioned a "talking convention card" driven by a database. Who is responsible when a complex third-party database labeled 'STANDARD' assigns an odd meaning to a sequence?"

 

At this time, nobody has told me that the FD software is easier to use. Personally I fought with it for several hours before parking it. I see little adopting in tournaments. However it is still early.

 

"Relax. No need to scream-and-leap every time someone does something that is imperfect. We're pushing cards around, not calibrating micrometers.

 

There is no scream-and-leap every time here - if I reported every possible incorrect ruling and problem in tournaments there would be a zillion more threads - I post only selected ones trying to obtain improvements over time. Yes, you are pushing cards around, and yes, you are not calibrating micrometers, but you do need to have process improvement in how the game is run. Pushing cards is not enough for paid TDs - can't these workers be given the right information to do their job better for all of us?

[luke warm]

At this time, nobody has told me that the FD software is easier to use. Personally I fought with it for several hours before parking it. I see little adopting in tournaments. However it is still early.

i think it's the best thing since sliced bread (in a bridge context)... but yeah, it does take a lot of work... once the core system is in place, then you have to go in and deselect 'constructive' for any special bids (say runouts if you play weak nt), put in leads, carding, etc

 

it's just going to take some time, and the avg player is not going to take that time, imo... so in acbl tourneys, i think the default FD card has to be in play at some point, unless a functional one is loaded for a certain pair

[hrothgar]

Two separate issues need to considered here:

 

The first centers arround this specific incident. As Ben has already noted, there was clearly misinformatio. The convention card did not reflect the players actual understanding. Furthermore, the convention card provided you with inaccurate information. However, adjustments require damage. You need to demonstrate that you would have been able to achieve a better score if you had not received incorrect information. I've seen nothing in your discussion that suggests this.

 

The second issue is much more complicated: The Laws of Bridge aren't evolving nearly as quickly as the technologies being leverage in the electronic playing environment. Worse yet, the individuals responsible for writing the Laws seem almost supremely dis-interested in this aspect of the game. (I suspect that many of them are happier pretending that electronic is not bridge)

 

From my perspective, the incident at hand is NOT specific to the use of the "Full Disclosure" application. Consider what would have happened if FD had not been in use: The opponents would have made a negative double. You would have assumed that there were 4 Spades. Nothing would have changed. However, you ire would be directed at the opponents failure to alert rather than the FD application.

 

Regardless, the Online Bridge world is ripe with examples of misinformation. (See the "Double Alert" thread for an interesting parallel discussion). I believe that these issues are primarily a function of the ephemeral nature of most online partnerships. An awful lot of online play is feature short term partnerships where players are thrown together for 6-12 boards. Thrown in the fact that these are low stakes games and life starts to get complicated. (we're not playing 10 cents a point and there are no card fees). Add in the internation flavour of the site and you have a recipe for trouble.

[glen]

"You need to demonstrate that you would have been able to achieve a better score if you had not received incorrect information. I've seen nothing in your discussion that suggests this."

 

I don't need to demonstrate I would have been able to achieve a better score, since I'm not appealing the actual result - tournament was over and done with when it was over. The point of the thread was two-fold:

 

1) Point out that FD can actually increase mis-information chances, when used without checking the whole darn database. To help spot these our pre-alert now includes this:

 

if your partnership is using a new style cc, please self-alert and self-explain any bids that have a different meaning than what we see on the screen

 

2) Try to obtain improvements in how BBO ACBL TDs are handling possible misinformation cases. At this time their overall track record is below the local club directors, and miles away from the OKb TDs. However some ACBL BBO TDs are quite excellent so it seems to me if all the TDs could be given the correct information, then the excellent TDs would remain excellent while the less-than-local-club-directors could improve a little.

[yoder]

Relax. No need to scream-and-leap every time someone does something that is imperfect. We're pushing cards around, not calibrating micrometers.

You are mistaken about this. I don't 'push cards around' or shovel dirt into ditches in my free time. I use my free time to enjoy a GAME with RULES, and it is only fair for others to follow those rules too.

 

If you think bridge is about 'pushing cards around', then you are missing a very important, nay vital, reason for being here in the first place. Bridge is a way to ENJOY one's discretionary time, not a way to kill it.

[luis]

Isn't this a simple case of missinformation without damage?

Maybe I'm missing something but looks quite automatic to me to start posting strange ides about rules, demonstrations, psyches, the acbl. If this keeps going maybe we can blame Gerber (not Gerben!) for something related to this incident.

[pigpenz]

how much information is needed?

The acbl tourneys are ripe with misinformation all over the place. About all you can do is just keep calling the TD....too many times the bids arent even alerted until 2-3 other bids have occured and its pretty hard to always have equity after that.

 

As far as the new FD convention cards they are just a new toy being tested by the players....there are quite a few players who dont even understand how to use the old convention cards little alone the new FD working cards. Only time will see if they get used more and more in the ACBL games.....i personally like them because you can set up an exact bidding structure with a partner, but then i have had alot of trouble getting people to even want to use FD. :(

[glen]

The acbl tourneys are ripe with misinformation all over the place.

It’s like the wild west out there. All this from just yesterday:

 

2NT-Pass-3♣(Alert, no explain)-Pass-3NT(nothing)

 

Get the explain that 3♣ is asking for a 4 or 5 card major (good that didn’t just use convention name). Decide to assume that 3NT shows no four or five card major and go with that. Don’t call the TD since not a big deal.

 

Later I open 1♠. Bidding goes 1♠-Double-Pass-3♣ all pass. Takeout doubler has ♠AKTxx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣xxx. Maybe this is one of those pairs who double with any opening bid. Who knows, but let’s not bother the TD.

 

Next it goes 1♠-Pass-1NT-2♥(me)-Double-Pass-3NT. Double is explained as “pen”, and the “pen” 1♠ bidder has a 5-3-3-2 18 count with Kx of hearts. Responder who did not pass the penalty double has Axx of hearts. Perhaps responder assumed the double was takeout. Who knows. Not worth calling the TD even though I assume the wrong things and make the wrong lead, since the double could be meant as penalty even if holding just a doubleton.

 

In the tournament lobby yesterday a player before or after each tournament is complaining about the online couples “sitting side by side” and always taking the longest to play. Nobody says anything, and the tournament lobby doesn't seem to be concerned about zero tolerance. Paranoia seems to be growing, and nobody has started another round of worrying about the “Instant Message” pairs. Since there are no overall awards for these tournaments the amounts of masterpoints are negligible, but players are competitive and paying $, so there is a prevailing feeling that things are not fair at all.

 

A player asks me about the ACBL games going on two other sites (January ACBL bulletin, page 9). No idea, and likely will not have the same back-to-back schedule that the BBO ACBL has. Still you know what they are thinking.

 

In short, based on just yesterday, there is much misinformation and a shortage of enjoyment.

[glen]

Here’s a cute one, and its recent but sadly I can’t say it was yesterday. The bidding goes 1NT(14-17 by me)-Pass-2♣-Double-2♥-Pass-2NT-All Pass

 

The lead is a ♥ and both dummy and I have nice ♣s so what’s going on. Just to be safe, I ask RHO privately what their double was. No answer. Ask, no answer, and we are on the clock. Finally call TD. Ask TD if they could find out what the double was intended to show. TD reports that double is for the other suits. Later in the play I find out that "other suits" was a 5-5-2-1 hand. Not sure if I would describe that as the “other suits” but perhaps that is what RHO told the TD, who then told me. Who knows. Should I have not bothered the TD, assumed the double was lead directional of ♣s and then tried to get a ruling at the end. Who knows, but this was the last board and trying to get a ruling on the last board when it is over is next to impossible. Should we have been told what the double was when it was made, so we could perhaps double them in a 5-2 fit. Who knows, but certainly the TD didn't follow up on that (but to be fair we didn't ask either). Oh well, on to the next tourney. The wild wild NESWs.

[Gerardo]

... but this was the last board and trying to get a ruling on the last board when it is over is next to impossible.

Boards can be adjusted after play is over, as long as tourney is still listed

[glen]

... but this was the last board and trying to get a ruling on the last board when it is over is next to impossible.

Boards can be adjusted after play is over, as long as tourney is still listed

The problem is the opposing players will usually leave once the tournament results window pops up, so it can be quite hard for the TD to follow up on anything. At this time (I believe that) BBO does not provide a feature for TDs to review all chat and bidding/alerts as they occured on a board, so they have to sort things out by asking a bunch of questions. Sometimes the only time you realize you may have been "fixed" is when the whole deal shows up, and then its usually too late. If you realize there might be a problem before the hand is over, you can stop playing and call for the TD, but the clock is running, the TD is often busy, and you might not get the board in.

[uday]

If you don't get a satisfactory reply, the best thing to do is call the TD.

 

A number of cultures and skill levels and languages are squished together at any table at BBO. It is normal and perhaps correctible that some explanations wont be up to par.

 

You do have to call the TD, tho. That is the first step. Don't worry about the TDs time and the clock. That is the TDs problem.

[pigpenz]

auction:

1♠ pass 2NT* alerted as forcing spade raise

 

numerous msg from one opp as to what the bid meant

i kept saying forcing spade raise

they theyn said is it jacoby

now if i had said jacoby would they have said then what is that. ;)

 

some people hit the alert button but dont type anything in, so you have to keep hitting the explain button till they finally say what it is, maybe the bid button shouldnt be allowed to work till you finally type something in

[glen]

some people hit the alert button but dont type anything in, so you have to keep hitting the explain button till they finally say what it is, maybe the bid button shouldnt be allowed to work till you finally type something in

Love this idea - in tournaments (not in regular games) if you alert then you can't bid without typing something in the little white box - a little info-commercial should appear if you try to bid (okay, a popup-window) requesting that the little box be completed.

 

Don't worry about the TDs time and the clock. That is the TDs problem.

Do you play in these?

 

It is normal and perhaps correctible that some explanations wont be up to par.

Agreed - just the same way we know there will be bad drivers on the roads. What we hope for is that the TDs know how to the police. If they can not recognize a clear misinformation case (whether it had resulting damage or not), they need some support for improvement.

 

For process improvement, we could have:

 

1) ACBL tournament rules include announcement that to make suggestions or follow-up with concerns, email acbl@bridgebase.com

 

2) Emails get an immediate auto reply which includes a statement like - "sorry, we can't do any score adjustment at this point - however we are always looking for ways to improve the game, and add to the enjoyment."

 

3) Emails get a later reply indicating what, if anything, was done about it - if a mistake was made admit it and then say "we will try to do better the next time" - the "we" here is a collective we - the email replier likely had nothing to do with making the mistake.

 

4) Keep a spreadsheet to track types of problem, person involved, TD involved, and resolution type. This way you can see who's kickin' n' screamin' and which TDs deserve a big raise, and what's the big problem for the customer base. If some problems are frequent, develop a FAQ and include that in the auto reply sent.

 

This customer service approach may not see results immediately, but over time it certainly will, and when threads like this appear on the forum, everybody will say "email acbl@bridgebase.com!!!".

[Elianna]

auction:

1♠ pass 2NT* alerted as forcing spade raise

 

numerous msg from one opp as to what the bid meant

i kept saying forcing spade raise

they theyn said is it jacoby

now if i had said jacoby would they have said then what is that. ;)

Maybe the opponents should articulate this, but when asked for further explanation, maybe you should specify what kind of hands you can have for this forcing spade raise. For example, does it specify a certain length in spades? Does it eliminate certain shapes (no singletons or voids)? Is it game forcing or one round forcing?

 

You see, "forcing spade raise" is not quite a full answer. If I were defending (likely after the auction, I wouldn't need the info before) I would definitely ask for more info than that.

[DrTodd13]

I think I once ran by a similar issue with some ACBL directors. You sit down to play and your opps card says "Standard American." Four boards in you realize that these people have absolutely no clue what standard american is. They're bypassing 6 card majors, doubles have random meanings, other things that just make you go "huh? THAT is standard american?" I made some inquiries and petitions to try to get such people from being banned from writing "we play standard american." I lobbied to get their CC to say "we are clueless and bid pseudo-randomly." I don't care what your verbal agreements are, if there is something on the CC it takes precedence. If you claim to play something via a regular CC or an FD CC then that is your agreement. If you deviate from that, it is misinformation. These people have to learn somehow and if they are continually let to slide then they'll never learn. Obviously though, my lobbying got nowhere because the consequences would have been too shameful for the people who would be told that they are too clueless to claim to play standard american. We can't enforce the rules because we'd lose too much revenue.