Who could see FD explanation?

[andych]

I like FD in the current form very much. If there were any change in the FD area, please keep in mind that there are many causal players who enjoy easy/friendly games. I seldom object my opps to discuss their methods during bidding. I may do that sometimes, but only to make the game faster/more enjoyable.

 

My FD CC would be far from 'complete/concise' in view of the serious players. I have no intention to make the CC 'complete/concise' to that extent. I would be happy to improve my FD CC over time when I like, but not to do that to fulfill any rules.

 

Personally very serious tournament bridge is not what I am looking for in BBO. I like good/friendly bridge in an easy atmosphere, which BBO is offering.

 

Cheating has never occured as frequent as described in many other threads. If I suspect cheating, I may walk away to another table. I may equally likely be interested to stay at the table to see what happens next .....

 

;) :P B)

[Blofeld]

Interesting.

 

I have never seen anything ethically wrong with referring to system notes[1]. I suppose that this is because memorising things doesn't really seem an interesting part of the game. Things are much more interesting if one has agreements[2]: these can be arrived at and memorised, or one can use the fabulous method of remembering things outside of your head that usually gets called 'writing'. Sure, memorising things isn't very hard, but just because something is easy doesn't mean that we should force everyone to do it.

 

So I suppose my vote falls for continued use of FD: we get the large advantage of seeing what opponents' bids mean, and I see knowing what one's own bids mean as not really an issue (and sometimes an advantage: helps provide a decent game of bridge, and may help with teaching).

 

[1] It is of course legally wrong, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish. And (for various reasons) I agree that letting people refer to system notes during live play would be a bad idea (though not a terrible one).

[2] Actually if opponents have agreements: I get very little satisfaction out of good boards that come about because opponents couldn't remember/agree on what they were playing ; things are interesting when trying to dig oneself out of a hole. So my vote is really for the opponents to be able to see what their bids mean, but not me and partner. But this is asymmetric. So I'm not sure which is the lesser of evils.

[Sigi_BC84]

I have never seen anything ethically wrong with referring to system notes[1]. I suppose that this is because memorising things doesn't really seem an interesting part of the game. Things are much more interesting if one has agreements[2]: these can be arrived at and memorised, or one can use the fabulous method of remembering things outside of your head that usually gets called 'writing'. Sure, memorising things isn't very hard, but just because something is easy doesn't mean that we should force everyone to do it.

Some systems are very powerful but at the price that they tax memory a lot. This also applies to simpler systems if you add too many agreements.

 

This element of the game (or bidding) is eliminated if you freely allow the usage of notes (or computer assistance, as in this case). I'm not saying that it's a bad idea or unethical, only that you remove yourself quite a bit from "real bridge" that way.

 

[2] Actually if opponents have agreements: I get very little satisfaction out of good boards that come about because opponents couldn't remember/agree on what they were playing ; things are interesting when trying to dig oneself out of a hole. So my vote is really for the opponents to be able to see what their bids mean, but not me and partner. But this is asymmetric. So I'm not sure which is the lesser of evils.

This is an interesting, while off-beat, suggestion, but it's totally out of scope of the argument that is taking place here.

 

All that we (that is e.g. Justin, Adam, me) want is a mechanism to disallow self- and partner-disclosure of the system -- mainly for tournament play to avoid arguments and to get closer to real life bridge, where you are not allowed to use notes or computer assistance.

 

This is not a discussion about the value of FD for training, pickup games, indies or general quality of the tool. It's only about adding a tiny bit of functionality to the BBO client (which wouldn't influence the rest of the system in any way, BTW).

 

--Sigi

[fred]

There are several aspects of online bridge that are different from live bridge. Some of these differences are practical necessities (like playing out hands after claims are rejected) and some of these are actually desirable but only logistically possible in an online environment (self-alerts for example).

 

Players' ability to look at their own convention cards (which is not legal in live bridge) does not really fall cleanly into either of these categories. However, given that the vast majority of partnerships who play on BBO are not "serious regular partners", in my opinion the online bridge experience is more pleasant if players are allowed to look at their own convention cards. It is not fun to play bridge when you have no idea what your partner's bids mean, nor is it fun to play against people who have no idea what they are doing.

 

The decision to allow people to see their own partnership's FD-generated explanations is an extension of this principle. FD is much more powerful than a traditional convention card, but its basic purpose is the same. To the best of my knowledge, all major online bridge sites have always allowed players to look at their own convention cards. I think this is how it should be.

 

This is not an example of "facilitating cheating" (as allowing private chat to your partner would be). It is an example of the rules of online bridge being different from the rules of live bridge.

 

That being said, I agree that it would be reasonable to give the person who creates a table, tourney, or team match the ability to prevent people from seeing their own (and/or their partner's) FD-generated explanations in case he wants the conditions to be as close to "serious live bridge" as possible.

 

I will give this some more thought and discuss with Uday. Perhaps we will add options to support this in a future version.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

Sigi you are completely missing the point.

 

The point is simply that playing without convention card you may have 3 reasons - and 3 only.

 

1. You play family card game - using basic structures of natural bridge systems

 

2. You intentionally want to cheat playing arbitrarian features and handle, fooling opps

 

3. You don't know basic of bridge

 

You constantly refer to remains of off-line features. Those are not at all relevant using computers.

 

Regarding notes such are impossible to use in off-line bridge as it will mostly consist of books, at least for serious systems. Yours and others advocating of playing simple bridge is your very good right. No doubt. The result of your efforts you se every day on BBO - poor performance from all the many who think they can play bridge because they can play cards.

 

Bridge is a language. A language consisting of 35 commands. The way you prefer to organize the thousands of combinations is your system. That you are obliged to inform of. Failing to do so is cheating.

[csdenmark]

There are several aspects of online bridge that are different from live bridge. Some of these differences are practical necessities (like playing out hands after claims are rejected) and some of these are actually desirable but only logistically possible in an online environment (self-alerts for example).

 

Players' ability to look at their own convention cards (which is not legal in live bridge) does not really fall cleanly into either of these categories. However, given that the vast majority of partnerships who play on BBO are not "serious regular partners", in my opinion the online bridge experience is more pleasant if players are allowed to look at their own convention cards. It is not fun to play bridge when you have no idea what your partner's bids mean, nor is it fun to play against people who have no idea what they are doing.

 

The decision to allow people to see their own partnership's FD-generated explanations is an extension of this principle. FD is much more powerful than a traditional convention card, but its basic purpose is the same. To the best of my knowledge, all major online bridge sites have always allowed players to look at their own convention cards. I think this is how it should be.

 

This is not an example of "facilitating cheating" (as allowing private chat to your partner would be). It is an example of the rules of online bridge being different from the rules of live bridge.

 

That being said, I agree that it would be reasonable to give the person who creates a table, tourney, or team match the ability to prevent people from seeing their own (and/or their partner's) FD-generated explanations in case he wants the conditions to be as close to "serious live bridge" as possible.

 

I will give this some more thought and discuss with Uday. Perhaps we will add options to support this in a future version.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

To the best of my knowledge, all major online bridge sites have always allowed players to look at their own convention cards. I think this is how it should be.

So it also has been on BBO. The old convention card feature also allows to see as well your own as opps.' card. No change here and right so.

[hrothgar]

Sigi you are completely missing the point.

 

The point is simply that playing without convention card you may have 3 reasons - and 3 only.

 

1. You play family card game - using basic structures of natural bridge systems

 

2. You intentionally want to cheat playing arbitrarian features and handle, fooling opps

 

3. You don't know basic of bridge

 

You constantly refer to remains of off-line features. Those are not at all relevant using computers.

 

Regarding notes such are impossible to use in off-line bridge as it will mostly consist of books, at least for serious systems. Yours and others advocating of playing simple bridge is your very good right. No doubt. The result of your efforts you se every day on BBO - poor performance from all the many who think they can play bridge because they can play cards.

 

Bridge is a language. A language consisting of 35 commands. The way you prefer to organize the thousands of combinations is your system. That you are obliged to inform of. Failing to do so is cheating.

Claus, there is a 4th possibility:

 

You are wrong

 

Given the frequency with which this occurs, you really should be more familiar with this basic principle.

 

No one is perfect. Everyone on these forums, myself included, is often guilty of making the occasion mistake. However, you combine an ideosyncratic - if not down right deranged - worldview with an authoritarian streak that attempts to dictate other players behavior. The combination is VERY annoying.

 

In this case, you really might want to familiarize yourself with Law 40.B of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge

 

40 B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited

 

A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation.

 

Mechanism for disclosure are delegated to the sponsoring organization. Some - but not all - of these organizations have regulations that require the use of a convention card. Other organizations prefer to fulfill this obligation by madating that everyone play the same system. Some ignore it altogether.

[csdenmark]

Sigi you are completely missing the point.

 

The point is simply that playing without convention card you may have 3 reasons - and 3 only.

 

1. You play family card game - using basic structures of natural bridge systems

 

2. You intentionally want to cheat playing arbitrarian features and handle, fooling opps

 

3. You don't know basic of bridge

 

You constantly refer to remains of off-line features. Those are not at all relevant using computers.

 

Regarding notes such are impossible to use in off-line bridge as it will mostly consist of books, at least for serious systems. Yours and others advocating of playing simple bridge is your very good right. No doubt. The result of your efforts you se every day on BBO - poor performance from all the many who think they can play bridge because they can play cards.

 

Bridge is a language. A language consisting of 35 commands. The way you prefer to organize the thousands of combinations is your system. That you are obliged to inform of. Failing to do so is cheating.

Claus, there is a 4th possibility:

 

You are wrong

 

Given the frequency with which this occurs, you really should be more familiar with this basic principle.

 

No one is perfect. Everyone on these forums, myself included, is often guilty of making the occasion mistake. However, you combine an ideosyncratic - if not down right deranged - worldview with an authoritarian streak that attempts to dictate other players behavior. The combination is VERY annoying.

 

In this case, you really might want to familiarize yourself with Law 40.B of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge

 

40 B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited

 

A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation.

 

Mechanism for disclosure are delegated to the sponsoring organization. Some - but not all - of these organizations have regulations that require the use of a convention card. Other organizations prefer to fulfill this obligation by madating that everyone play the same system. Some ignore it altogether.

40 B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited

I am pleased to see we agree Richard. I am unable to see any disagreement in your statement.

 

I am very sad I in this thread for the first time ever have accused anybody for cheating. I think there have been so grave contributions in this thread that it is right to strike back regarding cheating.

 

It has always been strange to me to see the many contributions to various threads in this Forum assuming Tournaments are serious - only because they are named Tournaments. They have no chance to be serious unless applying to 40B is secured. This means that it will be mandatory to use convention card with no option to play without.

 

In Main Club it will be right to have using convention card as default but with an option to not to.

 

I can be wrong of course too Richard - occasionally. But not here and your quote of 40B confirms.

[Sigi_BC84]

Sigi you are completely missing the point.

Claus, I see myself unfit of replying to your postings unless I am willing to grow a substantial amount of additional grey hair with every message (yes, I've already got some).

 

Your bigotry and unwillingness to leave your own trail of thought to even consider the subject at hand (let alone the view of others) apparently prevents you from making sensible contributions to this thread (and quite a few others).

 

I'm starting to get offended by suggestions from your side that I have no clue what I'm talking about or that I'm unable to draw sensible conclusions, and believe me that I can usually cope well with opposition.

 

--Sigi

[benlessard]

I can see no intelligent reason not to be able to enable and disable FD.

 

Learning a new system its very useful on while practicing and for serious match practice i would like to turn it off .

 

 

Private game well... is private and i see no reason why it coulnt be on or off. Could even be on for NS and off for EW.

 

Individual tournament it might be good to leave it on but its TD choice.

 

 

Myself playing against weaker opposition i prefer them to see what they are doing then defending ridiculous contract.

 

 

As for running a 2nd FD running lets just say that its cheating and nothing we can really do about cheater we are on-line.

 

 

 

internet=

 

Young mens are mens (not so young)

 

Young womens are mens.

 

Young girls are FBI agents.

[pigpenz]

A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation.

Even some things that we think we know arent always so :)

How many opps say we play unidisciplined weak twos??

[andych]

I am sick of many players who mention/complain online cheating here and there.

 

I do not consider seeing own CC in online as cheating. It is difference between online bridge and live bridge, as explained in posts by others.

 

For online cheating in originally forms (ICQ/MSN/etc), it is not as frequent to me. When suffering at bridge,

1. You are simply having a bad day. Or your opps are having a good day.

2. You are not as good as you think.

3. How often you suspect cheating when you are winning.

 

 

:) ;) :lol:

[barmar]

Sigi you are completely missing the point.

 

The point is simply that playing without convention card you may have 3 reasons - and 3 only.

We're not talking about playing without a CC. Just whether the player should be shown his own CC automatically.

 

Looking at your own CC is a direct violation of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge:

 

40.F.2 During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or play, but not to his own.

 

which has an associated footnote:

 

A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. However, sponsoring organizations may designate unusual methods and allow written defenses against opponents' unusual methods to be referred to at the table.

 

Players are expected to have a CC, and bid and play according to it. But the rules of the game say that they're supposed to know it by memory, not by referring to it.

 

Fred correctly pointed out that we're generally pretty lax about this in online bridge. His reasons are good, and there's another one: it's virtually impossible to detect and prevent. But in a serious game with a regular partner, I expect ethical players to avoid referring to their own CC (I admit I've stumbled occasionally). FD's default behavior of automatically showing it to the player and partner makes it harder to be ethical in this way.

 

It seems like this is a step backwards. Online bridge has long had the tradition of self-alerts that are not seen by partner, which avoids UI. FD's automatic displays are the opposite of this.

[csdenmark]

Barmar what I say is that the most persons playing are everyday cheaters. They

never dream of fulfilling their obligations according to rule 40B. I have never met a single pair doing so. Even the shining stars on BBO who ought to be a good example fails not to fulfil their obligations. They know exactly they would never be able to win any serious tourney without.

 

As long the everyday cheaters haven't done their homework properly they have nothing to say. As long they only play simple bridge I accept them as opps. without - but if they aspire to play solid bridge they must load a convention card - or other form of fulfilling their obligations - else they have to leave table.

 

Like Andy I am sick and tired too of those who are unable to see they have much work to do. The day that is done - let's talk about your small details. They can be settled very easily I am sure. You have a very big task to convince the majority of players of how to behave according to basic rules.

 

Online bridge has long had the tradition of self-alerts that are not seen by partner, which avoids UI. FD's automatic displays are the opposite of this. Wrong - Fred said the opposite and he is right. And so it has been for years on BBO too.

To the best of my knowledge, all major online bridge sites have always allowed players to look at their own convention cards. I think this is how it should be.

 

This is not an example of "facilitating cheating" (as allowing private chat to your partner would be). It is an example of the rules of online bridge being different from the rules of live bridge.

[barmar]

I can't figure out why we're disagreeing.

 

You want to reduce cheating. According to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, looking at your own CC is not allowed, so doing it on purpose is cheating.

 

Of course we should require players to load a CC. But how do you think displaying the explanations to the partner will reduce cheating?

 

If you're going to display every bid's meaning to partner, why bother with bidding systems? Just talk in English: "I have 6 spades and 14 HCP". :)

 

And if these people are cheaters, why do you expect their CC to be correct?

[awm]

There is actually a more serious issue that I've noticed with Full Disclosure. Before FD, it was true that:

 

(1) Often people don't have a convention card.

(2) Often people don't alert bids which should be alerted.

 

Now that we have FD, since most people don't use it, these two things haven't changed a whole lot. However, I have started to notice something which didn't happen before FD:

 

(3) FD gives an explanation of the bid which does not match the players' actual agreements. Neither of the players involved bothers to alert or correct the FD explanation.

 

This is in fact a much more serious problem. In the first two cases, it is often (though not always) a case where I can tell that there's a possibility something should have been alerted and ask questions. These questions usually get me a correct answer. But when I've already seen an alert and explanation for the call, it is much less likely to occur to me that I should ask if the explanation is really a correct one.

[david_c]

(3) FD gives an explanation of the bid which does not match the players' actual agreements. Neither of the players involved bothers to alert or correct the FD explanation.

Agree that this is a problem. It is also a good argument for being able to see your own alerts: if you can't see what the explanation is, then you will not be able to correct it if it's wrong.

[Sigi_BC84]

(3) FD gives an explanation of the bid which does not match the players' actual agreements. Neither of the players involved bothers to alert or correct the FD explanation.

Agree that this is a problem. It is also a good argument for being able to see your own alerts: if you can't see what the explanation is, then you will not be able to correct it if it's wrong.

This is not that big of a dilemma as you make it seem to be.

 

People should not use an FD file out-of-the-box without having a look first that it actually reflects the methods they are playing. This applies to regular partnerships. If they want to use FD they have to make sure their CC is correct. If they don't that constitutes false disclosure which doesn't confirm to the rules (Claus, this should finally make you happy).

 

For pickup-partnerships this does not apply, but the fact that players can see what their own bids are supposed to mean is not a problem in this case. I have no problem in an Indy or when playing against a random partnership if they are saying "we are using BBO basic FD with self-disclosure, is that ok?". I'd prefer that over getting gift-after-gift from these opps because they keep messing up BW responses, NT defense, SJS vs WJS and so on.

 

If the TD of a given event decides that self-disclosure is not a problem at all for him and allows it that's fine for me too. I can decide not to play in that event in this case. Only currently a TD who does want to prevent regular partnerships to "practice their system" while playing in his tournament has no means to do so apart from making a tourney rule that disallows FD completely. Not very benificial towards increasing use of Full Disclosure...

 

--Sigi

[csdenmark]

I can't figure out why we're disagreeing.

 

You want to reduce cheating.  According to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, looking at your own CC is not allowed, so doing it on purpose is cheating.

 

Of course we should require players to load a CC.  But how do you think displaying the explanations to the partner will reduce cheating?

 

If you're going to display every bid's meaning to partner, why bother with bidding systems?  Just talk in English: "I have 6 spades and 14 HCP". :D

 

And if these people are cheaters, why do you expect their CC to be correct?

Those playing without convention card are all cheaters. Simple as that.

 

For serious persons using a convention card - or other form of disclosure features -we might discuss approbable methods.

 

 

The rules are in this way:

 

A

Aa

Ab

Ac

 

Those failing not to apply to A(99% of the players) are not relevant partners for a discussion. They are disqualified.

[csdenmark]

There is actually a more serious issue that I've noticed with Full Disclosure. Before FD, it was true that:

 

(1) Often people don't have a convention card.

(2) Often people don't alert bids which should be alerted.

 

Now that we have FD, since most people don't use it, these two things haven't changed a whole lot. However, I have started to notice something which didn't happen before FD:

 

(3) FD gives an explanation of the bid which does not match the players' actual agreements. Neither of the players involved bothers to alert or correct the FD explanation.

 

This is in fact a much more serious problem. In the first two cases, it is often (though not always) a case where I can tell that there's a possibility something should have been alerted and ask questions. These questions usually get me a correct answer. But when I've already seen an alert and explanation for the call, it is much less likely to occur to me that I should ask if the explanation is really a correct one.

No change here. Exactly the same for old format and any other kind of formats.

 

In such cases it is either a psyche, a misunderstanding or disorderly conduct. Regarding disorderly conduct I mean you load a card you have no real intensions to apply to.

 

In fact FD has made it more visible to all that private systems often will handicap yourself - but that is an old story.

[Sigi_BC84]

Those playing without convention card are all cheaters. Simple as that.

Could you, for a change, prove this statement by referring to the Laws of Bridge?

 

I'd like to see the rules concerning "cheating" (i.e. deliberately giving and using unauthorized information) and "disclosure of agreements" be connected in a meaningful way that proves your statement.

 

Failing to do so might disqualify you for participating in further discussion about this issue.

 

--Sigi

[csdenmark]

Those playing without convention card are all cheaters. Simple as that.

Could you, for a change, prove this statement by referring to the Laws of Bridge?

 

I'd like to see the rules concerning "cheating" (i.e. deliberately giving and using unauthorized information) and "disclosure of agreements" be connected in a meaningful way that proves your statement.

 

Failing to do so might disqualify you for participating in further discussion about this issue.

 

--Sigi

40 B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited

[Sigi_BC84]

I'd like to see the rules concerning "cheating" (i.e. deliberately giving and using unauthorized information) and "disclosure of agreements" be connected in a meaningful way that proves your statement.

40 B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited

Thanks for the comprehensive analysis.

 

So if I conceal agreements I'm not following the Laws, but that doesn't make me a "cheater".

 

Claiming that my entire system has been disclosed while having additional agreements with partner that I deliberately did not disclose, that would make me a cheater. Please note the emphasis on "deliberately".

 

Simply having no CC at all might be impolite or not in accordance with the sponsoring organization's/host's regulations, but it's not a form of cheating. This is for the simple reason that you are not claiming that you have no agreements at all with your partner by not submitting a CC. Therefore, you are not actively concealing anything. Therefore, you are not cheating.

 

I think you are not very objective concerning this issue, Claus. Let's start calling you a "thief" because you keep stealing from mother nature on a daily basis, depriving our children from their future...

 

--Sigi

[hrothgar]

Those playing without convention card are all cheaters. Simple as that.

Most jurisdiction that I've played in treat false accusations of cheating as an extremely serious offense. Your little crusade clearly qualifies.

[csdenmark]

So if I conceal agreements I'm not following the Laws, but that doesn't make me a "cheater".

Then you are what Sigi?

 

I am not the one who introduced cheating or cheater to this thread. I normally use this term as I used at the beginnig of this thread too: All good players always plays according to convention card.

 

I have informed you Sigi I try to modify my language in a way so it try to match what I am up to. As I remember it was 'awm' who introduced the word cheating to this thread - then I raise my level too.

 

You may prefer another term - the good guys and the bad guys. Sad to say - 99% of the players are violating binding prescriptions for them - paragraph 40B. To me no prescriptions from bridge organizations are binding. I am normally the only one who obey the laws.