Who could see FD explanation?

[Sigi_BC84]

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

Then you are what Sigi?

If I actively conceal agreements while claiming that I am disclosing everything to the opponents, surely that would be a way of cheating. I have said that in another paragraph of the post you have quoted. Nobody will argue against that.

 

If I do not submit a CC (e.g. because I don't have one ready), I am not failing to do so in order to conceal my agreements with partner (which would make me a cheater). You are just way too fanatic about this issue.

 

Like Richard said, people will stop taking you and your postings seriously if you continue to make oversimplified statements like "not posting a CC is cheating". You are free to do that, but don't be surprised if nobody will listen or you will make people angry.

 

--Sigi

[hrothgar]

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.

The problem that you note is definitely real. Unfortunately, I don't see any good way to dodge the bullet. For better or worse, we're playing in a large international field with radically levels of play... Equally significant, BBO has a wide variety of different sponsoring organizations with different disclosure standards and different regulatory structures. Finally, as I've noted in the past, the FD application is very much a work in progress with a large number of rough edges.

 

From my perspective, your best course of action is to narrow your field of vision. More specifically, I think that you need to focus on a small number of individual sponsoring organization and work with them to find a reason fit between their regulatory regime and your requirements as a player. I suspect that most of the major online clubs are still developing their policies in this area. I suspect that you'd be able to provide some useful input in how things might develop.

 

With this said and done, ultimately, I don't think that this is an issue with the FD application, but rather with the tournament director system. There are existing regulations in place to deal with misinformation. Regretfully, most TDs don't have the necessary background to apply these policies. Equally significant, the BBO application doesn't currently permit adjusted scores to be assigned. Personally, I think that this is the best point to apply leverage to the system.

 

With this said and done, I also think that there are some extensions that could be added to the FD application that would improve the situation.

 

1. Currently, the FD system permits either player to load whatever CC they wish. Long term, I think you need a system in which one player is able to load a CC and the other player needs to confirm this choice. (I'm not sure if this change will necessary impact players behaviour, but it does make it easier to establish partnership agreement)

 

2. I think that the FD cards need more modularity. Right now, a lot of the convention cards are "all or nothing" affairs. If you load the BBO Advanced card you're agreeing to an awful lot. A modular system in which players agree to a base system and customize this by adding a set of conventions will probably reduce problems. Regretfully, I don't think you'll see anything of this sort until you have a GUI.

[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?

If I actively conceal agreements while claiming that I am disclosing everything to the opponents, surely that would be a way of cheating. I have said that in another paragraph of the post you have quoted. Nobody will argue against that.

 

If I do not submit a CC (e.g. because I don't have one ready), I am not failing to do so in order to conceal my agreements with partner (which would make me a cheater). You are just way too fanatic about this issue.

 

Like Richard said, people will stop taking you and your postings seriously if you continue to make oversimplified statements like "not posting a CC is cheating". You are free to do that, but don't be surprised if nobody will listen or you will make people angry.

 

--Sigi

If I actively conceal agreements while claiming that I am disclosing everything to the opponents, surely that would be a way of cheating. I have said that in another paragraph of the post you have quoted. Nobody will argue against that.

I am pleased we now agree. Maybe depends a bit what mean by 'actively'. If you don't inform of canape' bidding it matters nothing whether you have forgotten or intentionally hold back the info. In both cases unacceptable and I assume illegally.

 

If I do not submit a CC (e.g. because I don't have one ready), I am not failing to do so in order to conceal my agreements with partner (which would make me a cheater).

If you think you play blindfolded without a system - then OK. If you have a system to apply your obligation is disclose your methods. I am very laizzes faire how you disclose as long it is done properly.

 

If I do not submit a CC (e.g. because I don't have one ready), I am not failing to do so in order to conceal my agreements with partner (which would make me a cheater).

Please quote the laws about such an exception.

 

Like Richard said, people will stop taking you and your postings seriously if you continue to make oversimplified statements like "not posting a CC is cheating". You are free to do that, but don't be surprised if nobody will listen or you will make people angry.

It is not me who have a problem. My policy is clear. Those who have problems are all those who must apply to rules but instead violates them day after day.

[csdenmark]

1. Currently, the FD system permits either player to load whatever CC they wish. Long term, I think you need a system in which one player is able to load a CC and the other player needs to confirm this choice. (I'm not sure if this change will necessary impact players behaviour, but it does make it easier to establish partnership agreement)

Certainly Richard - that's the way to do so. I assume Fred is in think-tank about the whole issue of convention cards. I think it is not so easy to decide to make mandatory solutions which will be the correct ones.

 

But how to make the necessary compromize? If Fred looks into a thread like this he will mostly see demands for purity.

[hrothgar]

But how to make the necessary compromize? If Fred looks into a thread like this he will mostly see demands for purity.

I suspect that there will need to be some tradeoffs back and forth.

 

From my perspective, there are two ways in which the FD application can be used:

 

Informal play - pickup games, teaching tables, and the like

Structured play - formal tournaments, serious team matches, and the like

 

In all honesty, nothing that we are discussing matters jack ***** outside of structured play. There are no stakes, there are no adjustments, there are no penalties for failing to comply with alerting or convetnion card requirements. It just doesn't matter.

 

If we restrict ourselves to looking at structured play, I suspect that the feature set will eventually be based on requirements from the major sponsoring organizations.

[Sigi_BC84]

If I do not submit a CC (e.g. because I don't have one ready), I am not failing to do so in order to conceal my agreements with partner (which would make me a cheater).

Please quote the laws about such an exception.

Nah, no more quoting of laws etc. End of discussion. Not giving comprehensive system information to your opponents is bad bridge, if not against the rules. We agree on that and there's nothing to argue about here.

 

Calling people cheaters because they don't disclose out of laziness or because they are in a pickup partnership with no clear agreements is against the rules as well. I'm sure you know that. These people might be guilty of bad conduct or be called unpolite, but they are not cheaters.

 

Cheaters are the likes who are talking on the phone to play the hands double dummy etc. That is where I draw the line. So please don't throw them all into the same bucket.

 

--Sigi

[csdenmark]

If I do not submit a CC (e.g. because I don't have one ready), I am not failing to do so in order to conceal my agreements with partner (which would make me a cheater).

Please quote the laws about such an exception.

Nah, no more quoting of laws etc. End of discussion. Not giving comprehensive system information to your opponents is bad bridge, if not against the rules. We agree on that and there's nothing to argue about here.

 

Calling people cheaters because they don't disclose out of laziness or because they are in a pickup partnership with no clear agreements is against the rules as well. I'm sure you know that. These people might be guilty of bad conduct or be called unpolite, but they are not cheaters.

 

Cheaters are the likes who are talking on the phone to play the hands double dummy etc. That is where I draw the line. So please don't throw them all into the same bucket.

 

--Sigi

Sigi the laws are completely clear and not at all open for interpretation regarding such. In fact I think you have noticed my position is exactly the same as they have for ACBL-tournaments on BBO.

 

You are welcome with a convention card but not without. In less than a year I predict software will be able to enforce use of convention cards - then the problem will be over. All tournament organizers will adopt the policy of ACBL I think.

 

 

Nah, no more quoting of laws etc. End of discussion. Not giving comprehensive system information to your opponents is bad bridge, if not against the rules. We agree on that and there's nothing to argue about here.

It is not bad bridge - it is illegal bridge.

[Blofeld]

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.

That's reasonable, I suppose. Not my preference, but I can hardly enforce my preference on the world. :P

 

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". :)

 

This is nothing but rhetoric, as I suspect you know. Knowing what partner's bids mean is not the same as knowing partner's hand. :)

 

(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).

Even if there is a large agreement between a pair's agreements and the FD card, there is potential for slight discrepency, which can be picked up upon if one can see one's own auto-alerts.

 

I may be remembering the same incident as David here: we sat down opposite each other, having not played together much. We agreed WJ05 (with a couple of changes, such as Keri, which we would of course alert when they came up), and loaded Gerben's FD file for this. We had a sequence (1♦ : 1♥ , 2♥ ?) where FD alerted the final bid as showing 4+ card support for partner. David and I both noticed this and separately let the opponents know that we thought it might sometimes only be 3 cards. As it happened it was 4 cards, but it is this sort of thing that one wants to be able to catch. It seems unreasonable to say that we can't use the CC in the first place because we haven't checked that we agree with the definition of every single call: we were after all playing methods pretty close to those defined on the card.

 

---

 

Claus, it's perfectly possible to provide full disclosure to opponents just through sufficient self-alerting. Before FD, this is what I mostly did (not enough room on the little CC to cover all the situations that come up).

[csdenmark]

Claus, it's perfectly possible to provide full disclosure to opponents just through sufficient self-alerting. Before FD, this is what I mostly did (not enough room on the little CC to cover all the situations that come up).

Exactly correct - thats why my position as stated earlier is: If you have a system to apply your obligation is disclose your methods. I am very laizzes faire how you disclose as long it is done properly.

But they don't do so. And then we come to the subsequent rules. The sponsoring organization have the right to choose the methods.

 

For Bermuda Bowl they have to submit a file in pdf-format. On BBO it is most likely it will be bss-format to be the mandatory tool. For now I think ACBL accepts as well txt-format as bss-format. By ACBL you must load a convention card.

[Sigi_BC84]

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.

That's reasonable, I suppose. Not my preference, but I can hardly enforce my preference on the world. :o

It's not my preference either. I prefer to stay as close to real life bridge as possible. Real life bridge disallows the use of memory aids (somebody else has already quoted the Laws in this regard), therefore I don't want to allow (or encourage the use of) memory aids in online bridge, unless for specific reasons such as teaching etc.

 

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.

Even if there is a large agreement between a pair's agreements and the FD card, there is potential for slight discrepency, which can be picked up upon if one can see one's own auto-alerts.

I may be remembering the same incident as David here: [...]

This should not happen if you play with a regular partner where you both really know the system; in that case you will usually play with a custom-made FD card of your own, so misinformation going unnoticed won't be the issue.

In all other cases I guess it should be OK to have self-disclosure anyway.

 

Also there would be the option to show the meaning of the bid you just made after you have submitted the call. That will help you spot mistakes in the FD cards (and in your bidding), but at least you won't have the memory aid beforehand. So in a way a compromise between the two approaches being discussed here.

 

Hopefully the GUI will get better over time so it will be easier to get a grasp of the entire system in a few minutes, that way you could spot and correct discrepancies in time before playing with a new partner.

 

--Sigi

[Dwingo]

Also there would be the option to show the meaning of the bid you just made after you have submitted the call.  That will help you spot mistakes in the FD cards (and in your bidding), but at least you won't have the memory aid beforehand.  So in a way a compromise between the two approaches being discussed here.

 

Sigi, this is already there. At any point of point of time, after you make the bid, you feel that the FD explanation is wrong, you can always Click on Alert button and give the corect explanation. Also inform by private chat to Opps that the Explanation in the Alerted bid is the correct one and not the one shown by FD, so that Opps are fully aware of the correct meaning of the bid.

 

For this reason, I prefer that I see the meaning of the bid, before I make the bid, especially when you pd loads the FD CC and you are not fully aware of all the treatments there.

 

for eg, you may post the BBO Advance FD CC where Serious NT is part of it . You and your pd may not be playing Serious 3NT. If the FD explanation will give a wrong explantion, you have time to alert before you can make the bid, so that you do not mislead the Opps.

[Sigi_BC84]

Also there would be the option to show the meaning of the bid you just made after you have submitted the call.  That will help you spot mistakes in the FD cards (and in your bidding), but at least you won't have the memory aid beforehand.  So in a way a compromise between the two approaches being discussed here.

Sigi, this is already there. At any point of point of time, after you make the bid, you feel that the FD explanation is wrong, you can always Click on Alert

I wasn't overly clear in my original post. What I meant was that you don't get to see the meaning of the bid you are about to make in advance, before having submitted the call. Then you see the explanation. If it's not correct you then have the possibility to step in and inform the opps.

 

--Sigi

[Dwingo]

I wasn't overly clear in my original post.  What I meant was that you don't get to see the meaning of the bid you are about to make in advance, before having submitted the call.  Then you see the explanation.  If it's not correct you then have the possibility to step in and inform the opps.

 

--Sigi

Off course you can see the meaning of your bid you are about to make ( as long as you select under Automatic display options - Of bids you might make ), just mouse over the bid that you are about to make, and you will see it.

 

Say you want to know the meaning of a 2D bid that you are about to make, click on 2 and then before clicking on D, you can mouse over C, D, H, S. NT and see the meaning of 2C, 2D, 2H, 2S and 3NT.

[Sigi_BC84]

I wasn't overly clear in my original post.  What I meant was that you don't get to see the meaning of the bid you are about to make in advance, before having submitted the call.  Then you see the explanation.  If it's not correct you then have the possibility to step in and inform the opps.

 

--Sigi

Off course you can see the meaning of your bid you are about to make ( as long as you select under Automatic display options - Of bids you might make ), just mouse over the bid that you are about to make, and you will see it.

 

Say you want to know the meaning of a 2D bid that you are about to make, click on 2 and then before clicking on D, you can mouse over C, D, H, S. NT and see the meaning of 2C, 2D, 2H, 2S and 3NT.

Sigh. Maybe you should read through the thread again before replying. This is not a discussion about what you can or can't do with FD at the moment, it's a discussion about what should be possible in the future and what not -- and which parts should be restrictable by table hosts.

 

So what I was suggesting is to add a function to disable the bidder to see what his or her own bid means in advance.

 

--Sigi

[barmar]

(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).

The problem is that it's really hard to tell if an FD CC matches what you're playing. Do you really expect players to examine the whole bidding tree, looking for places where the explanations don't match your agreements?

 

I'd like to use FD for my regular partnerships, but I can't find a suitable starting card. I play 2/1, but the BBO Advanced card has a number of conventions I don't use (like Bergen raises).

[Sigi_BC84]

I'd like to use FD for my regular partnerships, but I can't find a suitable starting card.  I play 2/1, but the BBO Advanced card has a number of conventions I don't use (like Bergen raises).

Your only option is to modify that card then. I don't think you should play with a card that, while being similar to your system, differs in substantial points from your agreements. If you play BBO Advanced but without Bergen Raises you must edit the file and remove Bergen raises first (while adding your own agreement for these bids). Yes, this takes time but you only have to do it once for a regular partnership.

 

And yes, I do expect somebody who is planning to use a pre-made FD card to actually inspect the entire thing before using it. If that is too difficult, it is first and foremost a shortcoming of the software (which is badly lacking a "tree" view of the system).

 

That would be like picking another pair's similar CC for your own partnership because you don't have your own ready. I assume you wouldn't think of doing that in a f2f tournament, would you?

 

--Sigi

[barmar]

That would be like picking another pair's similar CC for your own partnership because you don't have your own ready. I assume you wouldn't think of doing that in a f2f tournament, would you?

I've not used another pair's card, but in a new partnership we'll often start with a card that one of us plays with another partner, and change things that one of us doesn't like.

 

With normal f2f CC's it's easy to scan for these things -- check-boxes stand out nicely. With FD, you have to examine dozens (hundreds?) of paths through the tree. I don't see how anyone can be expected to do this.

 

Consider how you would tell whether you play Lebensohl in the two methods. With ACBL CC's it's check-boxes in the NT and takeout double areas, with FD you have to scan way down in several competitive bidding trees.

[csdenmark]

That would be like picking another pair's similar CC for your own partnership because you don't have your own ready.  I assume you wouldn't think of doing that in a f2f tournament, would you?

I've not used another pair's card, but in a new partnership we'll often start with a card that one of us plays with another partner, and change things that one of us doesn't like.

 

With normal f2f CC's it's easy to scan for these things -- check-boxes stand out nicely. With FD, you have to examine dozens (hundreds?) of paths through the tree. I don't see how anyone can be expected to do this.

 

Consider how you would tell whether you play Lebensohl in the two methods. With ACBL CC's it's check-boxes in the NT and takeout double areas, with FD you have to scan way down in several competitive bidding trees.

With FD, you have to examine dozens (hundreds?) of paths through the tree.

Certainly not. Just find the place from where you dont like it and delete all the rest of tree structure from there. Only one click with your delete button on keyboard. Very simple Barmar.

[barmar]

Consider how you would tell whether you play Lebensohl in the two methods.  With ACBL CC's it's check-boxes in the NT and takeout double areas, with FD you have to scan way down in several competitive bidding trees.

With FD, you have to examine dozens (hundreds?) of paths through the tree.

Certainly not. Just find the place from where you dont like it and delete all the rest of tree structure from there. Only one click with your delete button on keyboard. Very simple Barmar.

How do you know you don't like it if you don't know it's there? You have to read every branch of the tree to see whether there's something you don't like. Are you assuming that the summary page accurately lists all the conventions that are included? So if it doesn't say Lebensohl there, you don't have to search the tree for Lebensohl responses?

 

For a simple thing like Lebensohl over weak 2's, you'd have to look for and delete it in 6 places: (2♦)-X, (2♥)-X, (2♠)-X, (2♦)-P-P-X, (2♥)-P-P-X, (2♠)-P-P-X.

[csdenmark]

Consider how you would tell whether you play Lebensohl in the two methods.  With ACBL CC's it's check-boxes in the NT and takeout double areas, with FD you have to scan way down in several competitive bidding trees.

With FD, you have to examine dozens (hundreds?) of paths through the tree.

Certainly not. Just find the place from where you dont like it and delete all the rest of tree structure from there. Only one click with your delete button on keyboard. Very simple Barmar.

How do you know you don't like it if you don't know it's there? You have to read every branch of the tree to see whether there's something you don't like. Are you assuming that the summary page accurately lists all the conventions that are included? So if it doesn't say Lebensohl there, you don't have to search the tree for Lebensohl responses?

 

For a simple thing like Lebensohl over weak 2's, you'd have to look for and delete it in 6 places: (2♦)-X, (2♥)-X, (2♠)-X, (2♦)-P-P-X, (2♥)-P-P-X, (2♠)-P-P-X.

First you copy the tree structure from one location of Lebensohl. Then you delete all other possible options for Lebensohl - Now you paste the former copied Lebensohl tree. Then it will be exactly where you want it and nowhere else.

[luke warm]

alternatively, start a new FD file.. click 'defensive bidding' then 'editor'.. now put the opps weak 2 bids in and a double by you or pard.. now save as whatever (rubensohl?)

 

do the same for your 1nt bids and for reverses (i'd save 2 different new files).. now you have leb over reverses and leb after 1nt inteference.. so many ways to do this, but you'll need to be careful if some of your opps use different meanings for 2D/H/S (unless you want to play leb after an intermedite or strong 2 bid)

[andych]

When using a FD conv card, are opps able to see a full card? i.e. when they clcik conv, there is a show NS/EW and a FD CC pops up, they could then click Show offensive bidding/etc to view the CC.

Or they could only see the explanation of various bid in the bidding pad?

 

:lol: :) :ph34r:

[csdenmark]

When using a FD conv card, are opps able to see a full card?  i.e. when they clcik conv, there is a show NS/EW and a FD CC pops up, they could then click Show offensive bidding/etc to view the CC.

Or they could only see the explanation of various bid in the bidding pad?

 

  :lol:  :)  :ph34r:

Anybody have the options to read anything in your FD-file. When clicking the option to see it will open on that page computer is reading exactly now displaying all the options bidder have right now. Then you can navigate yourself in the normal way. So for opps. as well as kibitzers.