Not looking at opps cc is a problem?

[glen]

ACBL tourney, opponents bid 2♣-2♥-3NT, no alerts.

 

When dummy comes down, it becomes clear that 2♥ was meant as a super bust, not natural. TD is called in case of damage. TD determines that 2♥ was a super bust and opponent should have alerted. We do not ask for adjustment, as no sign we were damaged by the non-alert.

 

TD notes that "they should have alerted ... it is on their Convention Card ... you should also check their CC ... you are also culpable if you do not take the time to review the CC".

 

I note that checking every bid on their CC would slow down game too much, and as long as everybody follows ACBL online procedure everything will be okay.

 

TD notes "I expect you to look at the opps CC - if you refuse to do this I will have little sympathy for any problems you have".

 

I disagree with this, and believe that we are not obligated to look at the opps CC to protect them from their failure to alert. If possible I would like BBO to establish a clear policy here.

 

What are the viewpoints on this issue?

[pbleighton]

"I disagree with this, and believe that we are not obligated to look at the opps CC to protect them from their failure to alert."

 

I agree 100%. Hoewever, as far as non-alertable and non-pre-alertable bids go, we certainly have no recourse if we fail to look at the opps' cc.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

The ACBL alert chart clearly indicates that a 2♥ double negative response to a strong, artificial, and forcing 2♣ opening is alertable. (A 2♦ negative or waiting response is not alertable, but all other conventional response are)

[csdenmark]

ACBL tourney, opponents bid 2♣-2♥-3NT, no alerts.

 

When dummy comes down, it becomes clear that 2♥ was meant as a super bust, not natural.  TD is called in case of damage.  TD determines that 2♥ was a super bust and opponent should have alerted.  We do not ask for adjustment, as no sign we were damaged by the non-alert.

 

TD notes that "they should have alerted ... it is on their Convention Card ... you should also check their CC ... you are also culpable if you do not take the time to review the CC".

 

I note that checking every bid on their CC would slow down game too much, and as long as everybody follows ACBL online procedure everything will be okay.

 

TD notes "I expect you to look at the opps CC - if you refuse to do this I will have little sympathy for any problems you have".

 

I disagree with this, and believe that we are not obligated to look at the opps CC to protect them from their failure to alert.  If possible I would like BBO to establish a clear policy here.

 

What are the viewpoints on this issue?

My position is that I agree with TD here. Neither I have any sympathy with persons who dont care about what they are up against. Opps.' mistakes cannot justify your own failure.

 

It is a great shame that the excellent tool FD still after 1 year available is nearly not used at all. I dont understand why it is still not possible to enforce use of FD for alerts. Then your problems would never arise. But I think we are only a little handful of persons who seems to be serious about bridge and how to handle. Most seems only to wake up when the problems are hitting themselves.

 

I think you ought to act according to this:

 

"Whenever in doubt - ALERT"

"Whenever in doubt - ASK"

 

Then life will be much easier - and especially according to rules and good standards.

[pbleighton]

Claus:

 

You obviously fundamentally misunderstand alerting requirements. A player is required to alert any conventional bid, except for those rare exceptions a jurisdiction has deemed to be the norm (Stayman, Blackwood, and 2C strong and artificial in the ACBL).

 

2C-2H as artificial and weak is not one of those exceptions. The TD is either lazy, incompetent, or both.

 

Peter

[csdenmark]

Claus:

 

You obviously fundamentally misunderstand alerting requirements.  A player is required to alert any conventional bid, except for those rare exceptions a jurisdiction has deemed to be the norm (Stayman, Blackwood, and 2C strong and artificial in the ACBL).

 

2C-2H as artificial and weak is not one of those exceptions.  The TD is either lazy, incompetent, or both.

 

Peter

No I am not Peter. I think the player here is the lazy one. It is good he did not ask for score modification - such would have been ridicoulos.

 

I think time is for ACBL and others to put pressure on Fred to see to have this enforcement option for FD installed. Cannot be quick enough.

[helene_t]

I agree with Peter.

 

Artificial calls must be alerted and the the fact that opps were too lazy to look at your cc doesn't change that.

 

Maybe it could be argued that the auction is a little unusual if 2♥ were natural.

 

As for FD, you can't force everyone to play a system for which an FD file has been developed. Nor can you force everyone to use an English-based alert system when the language they have in common with opps is not English.

 

Anyway, alert procedures are for the sponsoring organization to determine. BBO does not dictate a particular alert procedure.

[inquiry]

Having a filled out convention card does not remove the necessity to alert an ALERTABLE bid. I suspect if you have 2H on your CC as "super bust" a simple ALERT the bid with no explaination is probably a reasonable start.

 

Let's face reality.

 

1) Most people on BBO have no idea that there is EVEN A CC on the site

2) Even if they knew a CC was available, when they click on it, they would have no idea how to find the RESPONSES to a 2C opening bid (is that little box with ... in it really that clear to click "here" for meaning of the responses?

3) So few pairs even have a cc this is sort of silly suggestion. I have played in tournes where a default cc was loaded only to have opponents not change it and not play it. Checking it was, well, misleading.

 

The director had a minor point... you should check the cc. But, to allow the CC to substitute for an required and necessary alert is clearly wrong.

[hrothgar]

It is a great shame that the excellent tool FD still after 1 year available is nearly not used at all. I dont understand why it is still not possible to enforce use of FD for alerts. Then your problems would never arise.

Claus, you need to get over this obsession with forcing people to behave they way you think they should. I'm sympathetic to your end. I want the Full Disclosure application to be widely adopted on BBO. However, I find your posting on the subject offensive. Think how folks who are a bit more skeptical about the application will feel when you try to shove this down their throats...

 

From my perspective, three major things will need to happen before the FD application takes off.

 

1. The FD application needs to get integrated into different education programs. In turn, this will requires targetting the folks who are running the BIL, the ACBL's education programs, and the like. This small group of decision makers is the key leverage point in the whole system.

 

2. You need some mechanism by which professional authors who are promoting bidding systems can generate a revenue stream selling FD files. For example: The Bridge World might decide that it wants to create an FD file that can only be accessed by current subscriber's to the Birdge World. In a similar fashion the EBL might want to document Standard English. Steve Robinson might want to create a definitive document describing Washington Standard.

 

3. The FD application is very obviously a 1.0 release. Don't get me wrong. This is a wonderful program. Its lightyears ahead of anything else out there. However, it needs to be made much easier before folks are going to use it. In particular, I suspect that the system is going to need a GUI of some kind. Long term, I suspect that you're going to want to create one or more graphical convention cards. For example, the ACBL card would look a lot like

 

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:M-6iBQM3r8w-EM:http://biomass.to/mycroft/bridge/Kontrast/K2.png

 

Individuals could customize their convenion card by clicking on radio buttons to add or subtract conventions from a given core.

 

Right now, the FD applicaiton is primarily used by a fairly small and technically savy group of players. I think that these changes would accelerate the diffusion of the technology into the core of the user base. However, even if you make these changes, its going to be a lengthy process...

[mycroft]

1) This is an ACBL tourney, unlike in most, *everyone* has a CC. If you don't post one, they post SAYC for you, and you'd better like it. So the TD has a point.

2) However, It's an alertable bid (as is 2D *when 2H is a superbust*. In the ACBL, "waiting" is not Alertable, but "Waiting, but GF" is). If it isn't Alerted, you should be able to assume it's not Alertable.

3) The ACBL has the "experts should protect themselves from FtA in common situations" rule, and maybe this is one of them, I don't know. I do know that that regulation causes me a pain when I don't play transfers, because they aren't allowed to believe us when we don't Alert. I am assuming that that's what this ACBL TD was saying when he said you should check.

4) As OP says, if there was no damage, there's going to be no penalty for failure to Alert (except for the Procedural Penalty-Warning).

 

Michael.

[Frosty]

Given the opportunity to contribute “forum fodder”, I would normally pass, but I really cannot resist taking the bait on this one :rolleyes:

 

Question: Was the issue of reviewing convention cards a factor in the TD answering/assessing/addressing Glen’s call?

Answer: No

 

Question: Did the issue of reviewing convention cards take place before, during or after the call was addressed?

Answer: After

 

Question: How did the issue of reviewing convention cards become a topic of conversation after the call had already been completed?

Answer: TD – “I asked bidder to alert in the future”

Glen – “thanks - we would be unable to know if bid is not alerted”

TD – “it is on their Convention Card”

Glen – “we should not have to look at cc for every bid”

 

Question: Did the TD suggest that the opponents CC be reviewed for every bid?

Answer: No. However, the TD does expect that responsible bridge players - especially those of Glen’s caliber - should and would review the opponent’s CC as a matter of practice. This is certainly taught to all bridge players when they are learning to play duplicate, and is unquestionably one of the ways to discover if a bid has not been alerted.

 

Question: Given Glen’s competency level (as posted on his Player Profile), if his opponents had made a call in contradiction to their posted CC, is it likely that Glen would have perusde the CC and be able to place a call to the TD to report this infraction?

Answer: What do you think? I’d bet yes.

 

Question: Did Glen have any difficulty getting support from the TD for this call or in later rounds?

Answer: No, Glen’s call was answered promptly and correctly. In later rounds, Glen was busy making immediate use of silly TD’s generous contribution of dumb remarks to make a posting to the forums leaving him less time to make calls to the TD.

 

Question: Will the TD exchange additional chat with Glen after completing his calls in the future?

Answer: Duh! What do you think? J

 

In conclusion, it was wrong of me to imply that I would not answer, assess and address all calls on the basis of the facts and the law. My personal expectations and blonde moments aside, though relatively new to ACBL Directing, I am generally found to be fair and reasonable.

 

Tongue in cheek with Fond Regards :P ,

 

Frosty (the unsympathetic TD)

 

PS Rule 82D – It is the responsibility of the Director to be unsympathetic to highly skilled players who enjoy the game of “GOTCHA” as much as they do Bridge.

[csdenmark]

It is a great shame that the excellent tool FD still after 1 year available is nearly not used at all. I dont understand why it is still not possible to enforce use of FD for alerts. Then your problems would never arise.

Claus, you need to get over this obsession with forcing people to behave they way you think they should. I'm sympathetic to your end. I want the Full Disclosure application to be widely adopted on BBO. However, I find your posting on the subject offensive. Think how folks who are a bit more skeptical about the application will feel when you try to shove this down their throats...

 

From my perspective, three major things will need to happen before the FD application takes off.

 

1. The FD application needs to get integrated into different education programs. In turn, this will requires targetting the folks who are running the BIL, the ACBL's education programs, and the like. This small group of decision makers is the key leverage point in the whole system.

 

2. You need some mechanism by which professional authors who are promoting bidding systems can generate a revenue stream selling FD files. For example: The Bridge World might decide that it wants to create an FD file that can only be accessed by current subscriber's to the Birdge World. In a similar fashion the EBL might want to document Standard English. Steve Robinson might want to create a definitive document describing Washington Standard.

 

3. The FD application is very obviously a 1.0 release. Don't get me wrong. This is a wonderful program. Its lightyears ahead of anything else out there. However, it needs to be made much easier before folks are going to use it. In particular, I suspect that the system is going to need a GUI of some kind. Long term, I suspect that you're going to want to create one or more graphical convention cards. For example, the ACBL card would look a lot like

 

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:M-6iBQM3r8w-EM:http://biomass.to/mycroft/bridge/Kontrast/K2.png

 

Individuals could customize their convenion card by clicking on radio buttons to add or subtract conventions from a given core.

 

Right now, the FD applicaiton is primarily used by a fairly small and technically savy group of players. I think that these changes would accelerate the diffusion of the technology into the core of the user base. However, even if you make these changes, its going to be a lengthy process...

Richard have I said anything else that complimenting ACBL for running tournaments where convention card is mandatory? I think not.

 

The problem arise here because it must have been the old format of convention card which has been loaded simply because FD would have alerted properly. As I said - the problem would never be there if BBO had fully supported the intensions of ACBL. I have therefore asked in this thread for ACBL to contact Fred to see that immediate steps to be taken to enforce general use of convention. Some days ago I concluded I doubt it will be so until there will be a Premium Service option for which I think will be unthinkable without convention card, penalty cards etc.

 

Default convention cards for FD there are plenty of. I think BBO offers 7-8 for free, bridgeFILES offers 2 for free and 40 for sale. - So Richard there are no excuse for failures here.

 

We simply need to exclude players who are not interested to apply to bridge rules for good manners - in the same way as ACBL does.

[Finch]

It is a great shame that the excellent tool FD still after 1 year available is nearly not used at all. I dont understand why it is still not possible to enforce use of FD for alerts. Then your problems would never arise. But I think we are only a little handful of persons who seems to be serious about bridge and how to handle. Most seems only to wake up when the problems are hitting themselves.

Sorry to sound rude, but you are on a different planet.

 

FD may be a cute tool, but having taken a quick look at it, I estimate it would take me days of work to get my system into it properly and certainly hours of work to get the first couple of rounds of the auction in. I don't play a standard system, so I couldn't use a 'standard' FD file.

 

Against that, filling the BBO convention card is about 15 mins work at most, and that's when I'm taking it seriously.

 

So along comes the day when my regular partner & I decide to have fun for a few hours on BBO rather than plop along to our local club. We discover we can't play our usual methods, we either have to fill in this FD application or we have to play some standard system someone else has written. Well, the obvious answer to this is we aren't going to play.

 

And I promise you I am serious about bridge. I can also promise you that I know what's alertable (in fact, I know what's alertable in about 4 different jurisdictions world wide) and I'm prepared to alert things that I know other people may be surprised about even if they aren't technically alertable.

[hrothgar]

The problem arise here because it must have been the old format of convention card which has been loaded simply because FD would have alerted properly. As I said - the problem would never be there if BBO had fully supported the intensions of ACBL. I have therefore asked in this thread for ACBL to contact Fred to see that immediate steps to be taken to enforce general use of convention. Some days ago I concluded I doubt it will be so until there will be a Premium Service option for which I think will be unthinkable without convention card, penalty cards etc.

 

Default convention cards for FD there are plenty of. I think BBO offers 7-8 for free, bridgeFILES offers 2 for free and 40 for sale. - So Richard there are no excuse for failures here.

 

We simply need to exclude players who are not interested to apply to bridge rules for good manners - in the same way as ACBL does.

Having tournament sponsors load random convention cards, pretending that these document partnership agreements is not a solution to the disclosure problem.

 

Any system that you put in place is ultimately dependent on the players understanding the system that they claim to be using. In turn, that requires a comphrensive player education system, not arbitrary regulation.

 

As for all those canned "files" that are currently in existence: Care to estimate what percentage of the BBO user base is capable of editing one of those files? More importantly, even if they can eidt a file, will they bother to do so? I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that 99% of the players will ignore the convention card and /or FD completely and play whatever they damn well feel like, regardless of what you or the ACBL claim that they are are playing.

 

People are like water and electricity. They follow the path of least resistance. The key in introducing new tehcnologies is to make sure that its easier to use it than not... FD is great, but is just not there yet.

[Walddk]

It is a great shame that the excellent tool FD still after 1 year available is nearly not used at all. I dont understand why it is still not possible to enforce use of FD for alerts. Then your problems would never arise. But I think we are only a little handful of persons who seems to be serious about bridge and how to handle. Most seems only to wake up when the problems are hitting themselves.

Sorry to sound rude, but you are on a different planet.

Sorry, he is from the same planet as me if that planet is Denmark. I am not exactly thrilled. You will have to perform a search for several hours to find similar nonsense as expressed by my compatriot.

 

Rubbish, Claus, period.

 

Roland Wald

Serious bridge player with no FD

[pigpenz]

Congratulations Frosty on being one of the first ever ACBL TD's to ever respond to a question about a ruling made in a BBO ACBL game. :P

 

There is a little bit of everything here on this one.

Glen is an experienced enough player that he should know to look and def knows how to look.

 

should people look? Yes

Do they have to look? no

 

so where does this leave us?

well until we are allowed to roll back auctions, nowhere

why?

cause probably more than 50% of the alerts come belatedly after the non offending side has already passed!! :P

So there is no option for the TD to ask would you have made a different call other than pass?

 

so we end up with the Table result or TD having to assign avg =+ -

[jillybean]

so where does this leave us?

well until we are allowed to roll back auctions, nowhere

why?

cause probably more than 50% of the alerts come belatedly after the non offending side has already passed!! :P

So there is no option for the TD to ask would you have made a different call other than pass?

 

so we end up with the Table result or TD having to assign avg =+ -

Where does it say we are not allowed to roll back the auction? The process is not ideal but it can be done.

It is also not true that we end up with the TD assigning A+- other than when its appropriate or when the td doesn’t know better.

 

jb

[glen]

Congratulations Frosty on being one of the first ever ACBL TD's to ever respond to a question about a ruling made in a BBO ACBL game.

It was very nice that Frosty replied, and I think this type of approach can be very helpful to improving the BBO ACBL tourney experience.

 

One item I should note is that I was not on lead, so whether I had checked their cc or not might not have mattered. Certainly I've given up clicking on the '...' on the BBO cc, since the sub-parts (responses to opening bids) are too rarely filled in or, can be inaccurate. The damage, if any, would have occurred by the opening leader selecting the wrong lead, and only after seeing dummy, then finding out that the dummy had failed to self-alert and self-explain. Thus it is not my skill level which is important (and which is marked private on the profile) but the skill and experience levels of my partner.

 

Also I did first ask the TD "can i post this to the bbo forums for further discussion" and upon receiving no reply to this, stated it as "i will post this the bbo forums for further discussion - link to follow shortly". If a TD says no, then I would not (and have not previously in other situation) posted the concern for discussion. However I believe we are better served by a transparent approach to fairly running the games, and this includes this type of discussion.

 

Finally note there was no damage to us and the result did not hurt us - I raised this issue to sort out the duties of players in these tournies. I appreciate all the viewpoints, especially seeing the TD getting involved here and presenting what was happening.

[awm]

Let me explain why I'm opposed to using FD. As far as I can tell, a convention card serves four basic purposes:

 

1. To act as a "catch" in case people forget to alert.

2. To reduce the need to slow down the game and/or transmit UI by asking questions about people's bids in common auctions.

3. To give a "quick summary" of general approach.

4. To act as "proof of agreement" to directors or committees in case there is some question as to what the actual agreements are.

 

I don't think FD serves particularly well in any of these roles. Let me try to summarize why:

 

1. People playing unusual methods rarely forget to alert in low-level sequences unless they are using FD. People using FD often "let the program alert for them." However, it's not infrequent that the FD file fails to load properly, in which case artificial bids just go unalerted and undisclosed.

 

2. FD files are frequently incorrect. It seems to be quite difficult to fill out an accurate one. I know my own FD files, even after many hours of work are not 100% accurate. The people I've played against who use FD have a lot of inaccuracies in their files as well. And it's a lot easier to ask for disclosure when you've been given no explanation than to ask for correct disclosure when you've been given an incorrect explanation. In any case the UI issues are greatly reduced when you can private chat to opponents.

 

3. I'm not aware of any way to really "look at" a full FD file in a summary form. Instead, you have to navigate level after level of tree structure to figure out what's going on (or just wait for the bid to come up). The old-style "ACBL" convention card serves this purpose better.

 

4. The combination of inaccuracies in the FD file, the near impossibility of having it go deep into all sequences, and the difficulty of reading such a file anyway, reduce its usefulness here. The fact that FD effectively serves as a memory aid for the players using it is also problematic.

 

Personally I'd much rather rely on my opponents to be ethical and alert+explain their bids, rather than rely on some likely-inaccurate file that purports to represent their agreements. And again, I'd much rather receive an incomplete explanation than an inaccurate explanation. My experience has been that FD greatly increases the frequency of the latter.

[csdenmark]

People using FD often "let the program alert for them." However, it's not infrequent that the FD file fails to load properly, in which case artificial bids just go unalerted and undisclosed.

There is no point in pressing alert button for all bids but I think if you prefer such your opps. will gladly please you doing so.

 

Right there are sometimes problems with FD to load. A re-load handles this problem immediately.

 

 

Personally I'd much rather rely on my opponents to be ethical and alert+explain their bids, rather than rely on some likely-inaccurate file that purports to represent their agreements. And again, I'd much rather receive an incomplete explanation than an inaccurate explanation. My experience has been that FD greatly increases the frequency of the latter.

A very interesting approach to the topic 'providing false information'. I am not expert in quoting the laws but I assume Richard has the relevant sequences present.

[david_c]

Glen is an experienced enough player that he should know to look and def knows how to look.

 

should people look? Yes

Do they have to look? no

I actually disagree with the answer to the first question. When there is no alert in a sequence like 2♣ - 2♥, there is no reason to look at the CC at all, since you know it is natural. In fact, if I did look at the CC and found 2♥ was shown as a double-negative, I would think it was more likely that the CC was wrong than they forgot to alert.

[hrothgar]

A very interesting approach to the topic 'providing false information'. I am not expert in quoting the laws but I assume Richard has the relevant sequences present.

I wasn't sure about the right way to rule in these sorts of cases, so I sent a hypothetical off to the Bridge Laws mailing list. This generated a fairly long thread which is still ongoing. As is often the ways with these sorts of discussions, the trhead has wandered a bit, however, folks might still find it useful

 

http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...ber/030017.html

[hrothgar]

Let me explain why I'm opposed to using FD. As far as I can tell, a convention card serves four basic purposes:

 

1. To act as a "catch" in case people forget to alert.

2. To reduce the need to slow down the game and/or transmit UI by asking questions about people's bids in common auctions.

3. To give a "quick summary" of general approach.

4. To act as "proof of agreement" to directors or committees in case there is some question as to what the actual agreements are.

 

I don't think FD serves particularly well in any of these roles.

Marshall McLuhan famously observed that the "medium is the message". I think that it is a mistake to consider an Full Disclosure file to be a 1:1 replacement for traditional convention cards. A computerized system, leveraging hypertext, unlimited storage, and complex graphics should not strive to emulate a single page of flat text that is designed to be scanned in 15 seconds.

 

Note: I very much agree that an FD file should strive to improve on a plain, flat text convention card... However, I argue that it does so successfully. I also believe that the existing FD implementation needs to be viewed as a work in progress. Many of the criticisms that you raise can be addressed with relatively simple enhancements to the user interface (or, alternatively, more experienced end users). Let me seize on one obvious example: You claim the the FD tree structure is to complicated for players seeking to get a quick summary of the system. My answer is that the FD tree isn't intended for that use... Full Disclosure includes a field labeled "Convention Card Summary" which serves that same purpose. For example, the CC Summary for MOSCITO reads:

 

MOSCITO = Strong Club, 4 card majors, and transfer openings. 1♦ = Hearts, 1♥ = Spades, 1♠ = unbalanced with 4+ Diamonds.

 

1NT = 11+ - 14. 2/1 = Natural and non-forcing. Frequent use of Relays

Assumed Fit preempts

 

In my mind, this provides a pretty reasonable summary. Could it be better? Of course. In fact, I also have argued that FD needs to be extended to include a GUI. Ideally, this GUI can be used both to create new conventions and also to provide a graphical summary describing standard systems. In time, I suspect that this will happen. (Short term, I think that there are some nasty issues that need to be worked out regarding feedback between different modules)

 

As to your more general criticisms: Personally, I don't think that FD creates new problems. However, I do believe that FD makes existing problems much more explicit. Almost all the issues that you point out with the FD application are lurking in the background all the time. The fundamental problem is that many players don't understand the bidding systems that they claim to be using. They agree to play 2/1 game force, but they don't realize that a 2NT response to a 1M opening is a strong raise of parter's suit...

 

Ignorance is going to cause problems, plain and simple. However, here once again, I'm taking a glass half full approach to FD... From my perspective, FD has the making of a phenomenal educational tool. In the long term, this is the only real solution to these sorts of issues.

[csdenmark]

A very interesting approach to the topic 'providing false information'. I am not expert in quoting the laws but I assume Richard has the relevant sequences present.

I wasn't sure about the right way to rule in these sorts of cases, so I sent a hypothetical off to the Bridge Laws mailing list. This generated a fairly long thread which is still ongoing. As is often the ways with these sorts of discussions, the trhead has wandered a bit, however, folks might still find it useful

 

http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...ber/030017.html

I have been reading much of the info from this interesting thread. I dont know where it ends, I am not used to this interface and dont know what blml-online bridge is. I have no idea in what capacity the participants rules.

 

I understand the rules are not exactly clear and that L40 is about concealed agreements and L75 about misinformation. I understand it is difficult to separate and that plans are to modify rules merging L75 and L40.

 

I understand from the discussion that only a few of the persons knows FD where info is pupping up. If so then there seems to be no doubt of culpa. In that respect it seems like the participants agree that FD intensions is a major step forward.

 

I noticed that one participant assumed it would be rather simple to build bridge rules into an online tool. Maybe so - very interesting.

 

I was very pleased to see the frank language correct naming violations of L40 and L75 as cheating.

 

In general I wonder the intensions of all those persons discrediting the most advanced bridge tool on internet! Do you really think negative attitudes are encouraging for Fred to improve free top-level service to you?

[awm]

The issue is that FD increases the frequency of a certain kind of infraction. Additionally, this kind of infraction often requires a complicated director call to sort out (note that the directors on the Bridge Laws mailing list seem to disagree). In online play, directors are often unavailable or poorly trained, and giving them more complicated scenarios to sort out is a bad idea.

 

To compare, let's take an example from one of hrothgar's favorite systems:

 

1♦! - P - 2♣

 

The 1♦ bid is alerted and explained as 4+♥, 9-14 hcp, maybe longer side suit. Now 2♣ is bid. Without FD, it's possible that the 2♣ bidder forgets to alert. But with a rudimentary understanding of Moscito, I know that it's reasonable to ask the meaning of 2♣. An ethical RHO (forget or no forget) will now explain whether 2♣ shows clubs, whether it's forcing, various inferences about values and/or heart length, and so forth.

 

But now suppose these opponents are using FD. We see the same auction, but FD may announce that 2♣ shows "5+♣, 0-2♥, less than 11 hcp, NF." Unfortunately this is one of the things that seems to change in different versions of Moscito, and there's a fair chance the real agreement is different than this. Unsuspecting, I pass... but opponents' real agreement is to play 2♣ transfer to diamonds, and opener bids 2♦ (explained by FD as a natural suit without club tolerance) and everyone passes. Note that here, I don't realize what has happened until dummy is faced. At this point it's too late to ask questions or get an undo (say I wanted to bid clubs over a transfer 2♣ but pass throughout given RHO has clubs). Now I need a director, who has to understand the situation and figure out what "would've happened" if I'd been correctly informed -- not an easy task when the director is handling dozens of tables and impossible in most team games.

 

Without FD, wrong explanations are much less common. When they do occur, often it means that opponents didn't have a clear agreement and weren't on the same page in which case often a director isn't needed (they're headed for trouble anyway). Only with FD is it possible that opponents have an agreement, and both know the agreement, but yet opponents are still misinformed.

 

I agree that FD is useful in working out your methods and improving your system. I'm just not convinced that it's useful as a substitute for alerting and posting a CC in serious play.