Who could see FD explanation?

[andych]

I have a FD CC and load it when playing. But opps still click on my bids for explanation. Are they seeing the explanation or only my side see the explanation?

 

;) :P

[fred]

Everyone at the table can see these explanations unless they have turned them off through the Options command on the CONV menu.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Guest Jlall]

Does the player who actually makes the bid get to see his definition of what the bid means? Does his partner? If so, is there any way to disable this during more serious sessions of bridge?

[Elianna]

Does the player who actually makes the bid get to see his definition of what the bid means? Does his partner? If so, is there any way to disable this during more serious sessions of bridge?

Yes, a player and his/her partner get to see the FD explanation.

 

And it would be VERY nice if that were disabled, except for maybe the player getting to see the FD explanation AFTER he/she bids (that way he/she can tell the opps if FD misexplained something).

 

But getting to see the explanation of partner's bidding is just not a good thing at most tables. (I can see it being a really good thing at beginning tables).

[uday]

Much of the eventual value of FD, imo, will be that P can see the explanations.

 

For pickup games this will allow players to focus on the game, not on their guess as to what kookiness P is up to this time.

[Sigi_BC84]

Everyone at the table can see these explanations unless they have turned them off through the Options command on the CONV menu.

I suggest that

• in tourneys disclosure is only given to opps
  
• ditto in team matches
  
• in individual tourneys all 4 players get disclosure
  
• at private tables the host should be able to set constraints who can see what
  

The host of the event (TD or table host) should be able to specifiy what's possible or not in any case. I was expecting there was such an option already, if not my suggestion is to add this feature next ;-).

 

Otherwise having FD files is getting pretty close to cheating in my eyes (well, I could have my system notes in front of me without anybody noticing, but the barrier is a good bit lower with FD; plus opps might get suspicious and start whining etc. etc.).

 

--Sigi

[Sigi_BC84]

Much of the eventual value of FD, imo, will be that P can see the explanations.

 

For pickup games this will allow players to focus on the game, not on their guess as to what kookiness P is up to this time.

We understand the value and motivation of FD for pickup games, but still it is imperative that disclosure to self and partner can be suppressed for tournament play and serious sessions.

--Sigi

[uday]

imperative that disclosure to self and partner can be suppressed

 

I disagree, if only mildly. However, once FD is adopted more widely, I anticipate that the client might choose to supress this if the table/tourney options request it.

 

 

A session is only as serious as the will of the participants. A "serious" player practicing for a real life event online might still want to refer to his notes while playing. And if he does, none of our options will stop him.

[csdenmark]

Does the player who actually makes the bid get to see his definition of what the bid means? Does his partner? If so, is there any way to disable this during more serious sessions of bridge?

You play without convention card Justin?

[Sigi_BC84]

A session is only as serious as the will of the participants.  A "serious" player practicing for a real life event online might still want to refer to his notes while playing. And if he does, none of our options will stop him.

I think BBO should steer consistently into one direction here: Either keep the barriers for cheating as high as possible (although this ultimately won't work I am in favour of this) -- or make the software as convenient as possible while relying on the honesty of the players.

 

Why disallow chat to players in a tournament? Let the serious players decide for themselves if they want to chat while in a tourney.

 

On a similar line, why not allow self-alerts (the old fashioned ones) to be seen by partner as well. This would help in indies and the serious pairs will simply turn it off.

 

Both things won't happen? I agree. But then why include FD without a simple option to turn it off? I don't think that "this can wait until FD gets used more". I see the possibility that FD will get a bad name as "cheating device" because of the information passed to partner, and I foresee serious trouble in tournaments because the TD cannot check if you have the FD messages of your partner turned off on your client.

 

This has not yet raised any fuss for the only reason that FD is used by hardly any pair at this moment.

 

Of course you can have a similar degree of UI by using system notes at the computer, but firstly using FD is much simpler and secondly (and more importantly) your opps see what is going on and they might not like it at all. I've gotten complaints for using the self-alert feature because opp was clueless enough to think that partner can see the alerts. Now imagine what will happen if many people start to use a tool where this is actually the case!

 

--Sigi

[awm]

Wow, I always assumed that once FD was more established, the FD "alerts" would be invisible to the side using them. Without this, use of FD creates serious ethical issues in an established partnership, especially one playing complex methods.

 

You're not supposed to look at system notes, or your own convention card, during play. Now we've all probably violated this at times, especially with pickup partnerships in non-serious play. But letting me see my own side's FD alerts makes it awfully easy to play a complex relay method (one of the big downsides of which is the huge amount of necessary memory work).

 

This revelation about how FD will be used will mark the end of my use of FD files outside of bidding practice. Unfortunate really, because a lot of work has been put in to some of these FD files, and using them would save partner and me from a lot of typing alerts. But I have no interest in being labeled as one of these people who plays in established partnerships with system notes in front of me all the time -- this is basically cheating as far as I'm concerned.

 

Sure, I can just "not look" at the FD explanations, but having them there in the first place seems to expose me to allegations of cheating. I'd rather not go there.

[MickyB]

In CONV, Options... you are able to turn on and off explanations

 

Of bids you might make

Of bids you have made

Of bids your partner has made

Of bids your opponents have made

Of bids made when you are kibitzing

 

I agree that there needs to be a way to know whether the opponents can see their own explanations, and a way to prevent them to do so if the table/tournament host desires.

[hrothgar]

Couple comments here:

 

For what its worth, I agree with Adam and Sigi that there should be a mechanism by which a table server or tournament host can control the set of individuals that receive information from the FD application. Personally, I'd like to see an option that matches that used during a "real/formal" bridge event: FD information is automatically provided to the opponents and to spectators, but not to the players making the bid. This "limitation" would apply both to the alerts generated when a bid is made as well as the "cheat sheet" capabilities when a player is considering their next bid. Personally, I have no problem if TDs want to run events that make "unfettered" use of FD, however, I believe that the more restrictive option is highly desirable.

 

With this said and done, we're very early in the adoption cycle for FD. We're still learning a lot about the application. I'm sure that as we reach informed opinions, Fred will make appropriate changes to the FD application:

 

Case in point: Lets considered suggested defenses to unusual methods like a multi 2♦ opening. This is an example where the "cheat sheet" functionality needs to be made available to players even during a very formal playing environment. In short, I'm not going to get too bent out of shape over this one...

[Sigi_BC84]

With this said and done, we're very early in the adoption cycle for FD.  We're still learning a lot about the application.  I'm sure that as we reach informed opinions, Fred will make appropriate changes to the FD application:

Alright, I really don't want to sound like somebody who keeps picking destructively on the work of others. After all, FD in itself is a great piece of functionality. But don't you think that they missed an obvious point when not adding the possibilty of enforced restrictions concerning FD? Actually when I saw the display options (which are really nicely finegrained) I was assuming automatically that there "must" be an option to enforce them during tournament play. That this is not possible comes as quite a surprise to me at the moment (apparently to a few others, such as Adam, as well :-).

 

Case in point:  Lets considered suggested defenses to unusual methods like a multi 2♦ opening.  This is an example where the "cheat sheet" functionality needs to be made available to players even during a very formal playing environment.  In short, I'm not going to get too bent out of shape over this one...

While disagreeing about Multi being unusual :-), I think this is an excellent suggestion, but would certainly require a significant extension of FD in its present form -- because you'd have to be able to submit a suggested defense to your opps, they'd have to be able to either accept or reject it, and then FD would require the added possibility of handling those in the editor. So I don't see this feature coming along our way in the near future...

 

--Sigi

[csdenmark]

I really don't understand these dreadly comments coming up here. We are many each day suffering from players claiming high skill levels but failing not to use basic instrument for bridge - convention card. I often meet opps. playing simple bridge with many misunderstandings, leaving table because their pick-up partner plays simple bridge in other ways than they prefer themselves. Much rude behavior on BBO is simply based on such.

 

That the ordinary alert is invisible to partner I assume is nothing but a simple hangover from offline bridge. Has never made sense online.

 

We all ought to welcome very much FD. That's the tool we have asked for for years. We now have a big job to convince all the players who think they are able to walk on water that they have to apply to basic rules for decent behavior - full disclosure.

 

All good players always plays according to their convention card

[Guest Jlall]

Much of the eventual value of FD, imo, will be that P can see the explanations.

 

For pickup games this will allow players to focus on the game, not on their guess as to what kookiness P is up to this time.

I agree with this, and welcome it, but would prefer if there were also an option to disable the side that is bidding from seeing the explanations. Glad to hear that as it becomes more established this might be an option.

[hrothgar]

Alright, I really don't want to sound like somebody who keeps picking destructively on the work of others. After all, FD in itself is a great piece of functionality. But don't you think that they missed an obvious point when not adding the possibilty of enforced restrictions concerning FD? Actually when I saw the display options (which are really nicely finegrained) I was assuming automatically that there "must" be an option to enforce them during tournament play. That this is not possible comes as quite a surprise to me at the moment (apparently to a few others, such as Adam, as well :-).

The issue is a lot more complex than you portray...

 

Full Disclosure exists as a stand-alone application. Regardless of what settings a TD might chose, players always have the option of firing up FD on the side and using this as a cheatsheet. There ain't nothing you can do to stop this.

 

I agree that allowing table servers and TDs to control FD would be nice, but its (essentially) a cosmetic feature which has NO impact on functionality. I have no idea how complex it would be to allow third parties to control the FD application. I'm willing to bet that it was easier to ignore this and eliminating this function would allow the app to be released earlier.

 

In short, I don't think that the answer to this question is in any way obvious.

[Guest Jlall]

I really don't understand these dreadly comments coming up here. We are many each day suffering from players claiming high skill levels but failing not to use basic instrument for bridge - convention card. I often meet opps. playing simple bridge with many misunderstandings, leaving table because their pick-up partner plays simple bridge in other ways than they prefer themselves. Much rude behavior on BBO is simply based on such.

 

That the ordinary alert is invisible to partner I assume is nothing but a simple hangover from offline bridge. Has never made sense online. 

 

We all ought to welcome very much FD. That's the tool we have asked for for years. We now have a big job to convince all the players who think they are able to walk on water that they have to apply to basic rules for decent behavior - full disclosure.

 

All good players always plays according to their convention card

Yes, if I am practicing with a regular partner (drg, my dad, or arigreen) I do not look at system notes or a convention cards. Not that I think this is wrong, but imo it defeats the point of practicing. When in battle it is imperative to be able to remember what you play. If you've always had a crutch in your practice matches, you will have a harder time remembering when you need to. I also think part of bridge is knowing how to avoid accidents in uncharted territories. This is one of my strengths, and I think it is important since every partnership will have situations come up where they don't know what they're doing.

 

I think you do not understand what full disclosure means. It means you must fully disclose your agreements to YOUR OPPONENTS. The issue at hand is that the bidding side can also see these alerts. If you are trying to play a serious match, a tournament, or practice this does not make sense at all. Misunderstandings and lack of agreements in situations are part of the game.

 

As for your big-lettered statement, it makes no sense. All good players attempt to do this, but all good players face situations that are undiscussed. All good players sometimes forget what is on their convention cards.

[csdenmark]

I really don't understand these dreadly comments coming up here. We are many each day suffering from players claiming high skill levels but failing not to use basic instrument for bridge - convention card. I often meet opps. playing simple bridge with many misunderstandings, leaving table because their pick-up partner plays simple bridge in other ways than they prefer themselves. Much rude behavior on BBO is simply based on such.

 

That the ordinary alert is invisible to partner I assume is nothing but a simple hangover from offline bridge. Has never made sense online. 

 

We all ought to welcome very much FD. That's the tool we have asked for for years. We now have a big job to convince all the players who think they are able to walk on water that they have to apply to basic rules for decent behavior - full disclosure.

 

All good players always plays according to their convention card

Yes, if I am practicing with a regular partner (drg, my dad, or arigreen) I do not look at system notes or a convention cards. Not that I think this is wrong, but imo it defeats the point of practicing. When in battle it is imperative to be able to remember what you play. If you've always had a crutch in your practice matches, you will have a harder time remembering when you need to. I also think part of bridge is knowing how to avoid accidents in uncharted territories. This is one of my strengths, and I think it is important since every partnership will have situations come up where they don't know what they're doing.

 

I think you do not understand what full disclosure means. It means you must fully disclose your agreements to YOUR OPPONENTS. The issue at hand is that the bidding side can also see these alerts. If you are trying to play a serious match, a tournament, or practice this does not make sense at all. Misunderstandings and lack of agreements in situations are part of the game.

 

As for your big-lettered statement, it makes no sense. All good players attempt to do this, but all good players face situations that are undiscussed. All good players sometimes forget what is on their convention cards.

All good players sometimes forget what is on their convention cards. Certainly correct and no problem. I think as well partner as opps. accept that and experienced such themselves - too often perhaps.

 

Misunderstandings and lack of agreements in situations are part of the gameObviously correct - else we all played like Meckwell

 

I think you do not understand what full disclosure means. It means you must fully disclose your agreements to YOUR OPPONENTS. The issue at hand is that the bidding side can also see these alerts. If you are trying to play a serious match, a tournament, or practice this does not make sense at all. Misunderstandings and lack of agreements in situations are part of the gameWrong. I know quite well - but those claiming high skill levels seems not to know basic in bridge - that's the problem. I understand from your answer that we are of really different opinion of what is serious bridge and serious persons.

[han]

I agree that FD (as it is now) is not suitable for serious games. Being able to see your own, as well as your partner's alerts makes the game entirely different.

 

btw, I agree that this is a desirable change for 99% of the tables on BBO, so I think the FD project is great.

[Free]

Oh come on, if you disable the FD explanations to the partnership using FD, then they can still open it in a different window and doublecheck their actions... Quite useless imo.

[awm]

Oh come on, if you disable the FD explanations to the partnership using FD, then they can still open it in a different window and doublecheck their actions...  Quite useless imo.

Sure, and people can discuss the meaning of their actions on IM, so why not make partner's alerts of her calls visible too?

 

In fact, people could type their exact hands into an IM window, so why not just make partner's cards visible during the bidding and play?

 

The point here is to make it easy to be ethical, and make cheating require a little work. If we go the other way by showing people extraneous information they shouldn't have access to, then it makes it hard to be ethical (you have to constantly disregard unauthorized information, or bend over backward not to take advantage of it) whereas cheating is easy.

 

At some point design decisions to this effect were made. One of the most obvious is hiding partner's self-alerts. I'm sure it'd have been easier to program if self-alerts were always visible to the whole table, but Fred purposely didn't do this. Another example is disabling private chat to partner while playing. In each case the decision was made to make it harder to cheat and easier to be ethical, even though it's obviously still possible to cheat anyway (using IM, ICQ, the phone, or other third-party communication methods). It seems strange that the opposite decision has been made with regard to Full Disclosure.

[csdenmark]

This thread still looks like turning things upside-down.

 

Those who are cheating are all those many playing with no convention card and who have done so for years now. They have suppressed my rights and are still doing so. They seems not to be ashamed despite they still claim good skill levels. If we some day will have the pleasure to be able to enforce using convention cards I assume most of them will face hard trials.

 

My admiration for those who think they mainly rely on routine in playing cards and not try to explore their options and develop their skills can be at a very little room by me.

[Sigi_BC84]

Full Disclosure exists as a stand-alone application. Regardless of what settings a TD might chose, players always have the option of firing up FD on the side and using this as a cheatsheet. There ain't nothing you can do to stop this.

That is not the point!

 

The point is that is it extremely easy to use FD as a kind of "cheating". While in most cases this will simply not the intention of any pair using it (they might have turned off their displays after all), it will be perceived by many opps in such a way.

 

Every avid BBO player knows that their opps might be on the phone, or in the same room, or constantly checking their system notes while playing. But it's not something thats happening on their screen right now. Entirely different with FD.

 

You can't technically eliminate cheating from online bridge. It's inherently impossible and every sensible person understands that. But you should try not to give the impression that now there is the ideal "misunderstanding insurance policy" in effect.

 

--Sigi

[Sigi_BC84]

At some point design decisions to this effect were made. One of the most obvious is hiding partner's self-alerts. I'm sure it'd have been easier to program if self-alerts were always visible to the whole table, but Fred purposely didn't do this. Another example is disabling private chat to partner while playing. In each case the decision was made to make it harder to cheat and easier to be ethical, even though it's obviously still possible to cheat anyway (using IM, ICQ, the phone, or other third-party communication methods). It seems strange that the opposite decision has been made with regard to Full Disclosure.

This is very very well put and I thoroughly second that.

 

Sorry for the noise but I had to say this.

 

--Sigi