Use of Full Disclosure in ACBL tournaments

[1eyedjack]

"random carding"

 

If I'm not mistaken, "random carding" is an illegal agreement in ACBL events. :)

Is there a difference between an agreement to card randomly and not have an agreement regarding carding methods? I think it would be hard to legislate against the latter.

[hrothgar]

most online partnerships don't spend any time creating a convention card

Assuming your quote above is true, this means most online partnerships are playing with a default cc. Given many players seem to make some on-the-go adjustments at the start ("play your profile", "capp" etc. often heard at start of tourneys) the cc's they are playing with are not 100% correct. This matches our experience in these tourneys.

 

Since many cc's will be inaccurate, whether old or new style, it is imperative that partnerships self-alert and self-explain alertable bids, so one will not be confused by the less-than-100% correct cc's. While there is a fraction of partnerships with accurate cc's., and these may be annoyed by having to retype stuff, that is the price of living with all these inaccurate cc's in widespread use.

 

For us, one problem with the widespread inaccurate cc's is they cannot be trusted to reveal carding agreements. Thus I believe the Okbridge practise (could be former practise, as have not played on their site in 2006 or this year) of the mandatory carding methods summary announcement at the start of the round could assist a lot here. Something like "updca, 3/5" or "random carding".

No one is forcing people to use an FD type convention card.

It takes a conscious decision to go and load a CC.

 

The Laws provide remedies for folks who don't accurately describe their agreements. There are multiple ways to deal with this issue: If someone is damaged by misinformation, you can adjust the score. If there is no damage, there is still the option (or should be the option) to issue a proceedural penalty.

 

However, it doesn't make sense to prevent people from using the FD tool in a responsible maner.

[glen]

Doesn't seem like an enormous number to me. :)

While the types of bids to be announced are not an enormous number, the number of bids to be announced are considerable. However the annoucements themselves are quite short. For examples, sometimes we just see f for forcing.

[awm]

One issue is that the types of director call FD tends to generate are the "misinformation/unuathorized information" type calls that are the most difficult for a director to deal with. Directors in BBO tournaments often have a rather large number of tables (40-50 is not atypical) and have to deal with disconnects and requests for substitution (which face to face directors generally don't have to deal with) as well as occasionally having to deal with a language barrier. The "MI/UI" type calls are quite complex, leading to a lot of appeals and committees in face to face play -- even the best directors will sometimes get a table ruling wrong. Making the right decisions in these cases often requires a poll to determine logical alternatives, which is hard to perform in a pressed-for-time online event (where showing a player a hand diagram is also somewhat troublesome due to interface issues).

 

In any case, allowing FD as an alternative to alerting and explaining will substantially increase this type of director call. While in principle this can be handled, in practice it's going to lead to a lot more work for directors, a lot more questionable calls, and a lot more complaining about the directing.

[keylime]

Adam, I agree wholeheartedly.

 

I think FD should be a supplement and not the primary tool of "full disclosure".

[DrTodd13]

I think we need to be careful and not be too hard on those who are at least trying to fully disclose their methods by using FD. I think there is this tendency for people to complain if someone's hand does not match exactly what it says in FD. Conversely, people who use no CC or are forced to use the default CC can do all kinds of things that aren't SAYC and then people will get upset if you try to complain about this. Generally, in f2f bridge, if you can provide system notes that document your agreement then those notes are believed. A FD file is the equivalent of system notes and if a bid disagrees with the notes then you should have to prove that they consistently deviate from their agreements before any penalty is imposed. An infrequent deviation is protected by law 40.

[barmar]

The difference is that system notes are normally written by the players themselves. It's unlikely that a pair will agree "Let's play MeckWell's system notes". But FD cards are not normally written by the players themselves -- there's a handful of prewritten cards that most players choose from.

 

I don't normally use FD, but yesterday I played in a tourney with Hrothgar and agreed to use the BBO Advanced CC. As a result, I needed a quick primer in Bergen Raises, which I don't normally play, and had to agree to use Drury, which I know but don't particularly care for, because they're on the card and it would have been too much work to revise it in the short time before the tourney started.

 

Players who aren't as anal as myself are more likely to agree to make exceptions to what's on the card, but they still won't revise the card because that's too hard. As a result, you're very likely to end up with people playing systems that don't precisely match the CC. Until it becomes easier to edit FD cards, we need to be understanding of this -- FD is practically useless if you stringently enforce that people play exactly the card they have loaded.

[csdenmark]

The difference is that system notes are normally written by the players themselves.  It's unlikely that a pair will agree "Let's play MeckWell's system notes".  But FD cards are not normally written by the players themselves -- there's a handful of prewritten cards that most players choose from.

 

I don't normally use FD, but yesterday I played in a tourney with Hrothgar and agreed to use the BBO Advanced CC.  As a result, I needed a quick primer in Bergen Raises, which I don't normally play, and had to agree to use Drury, which I know but don't particularly care for, because they're on the card and it would have been too much work to revise it in the short time before the tourney started.

 

Players who aren't as anal as myself are more likely to agree to make exceptions to what's on the card, but they still won't revise the card because that's too hard.  As a result, you're very likely to end up with people playing systems that don't precisely match the CC.  Until it becomes easier to edit FD cards, we need to be understanding of this -- FD is practically useless if you stringently enforce that people play exactly the card they have loaded.

No it is not useless - in fact it is so that players are informed of and has an opportunity to learn better the system they thought they knew. OK I know there are a few bugs in default cards - I dont understand why they are not corrected.

 

In general just load your FD - alert and explain where there are differences. But please remember FD discloses your agreements and not your actual holding.

 

It would be nice to have software modified in that way that if a bid is alerted and explained manually - then that explanation would take priority to general explanation of FD. Thats the way it works on ZONE.

[Guest Jlall]

I don't understand how FD can be legal in ACBL tourneys. YOU GET TO SEE WHAT YOUR PARTNERS BIDS MEAN!!! AS WELL AS WHAT PARTNER WILL THINK YOUR BIDS MEAN!!!

 

I don't know of any ACBL tournament in real life where if I made a bid and said "17 points, 3 spades, 5 hearts, 2 diamonds, 3 clubs" out loud to the table that this would not cause me to get barred from the event. I have real issues with the fact that people can see what their partners bids mean. If they play a system and they can't remember it, they should be forced to suffer the consequence. The fact that with FD I can play TOSR without even knowing TOSR is very amusing to me. I have a hard time believing that something such as FD can be allowed in these tournaments.

 

BTW I think FD would be a great application if only the opponents could see the alerts.

[DrTodd13]

Partner could always keep FD open and track each bid manually if the explanation wasn't shown automatically. The result would be that things would just be slower. There is no way to stop people from consulting notes while playing online and so in my opinion you shouldn't even try.

 

What should bridge be about? Should it be about memorization or should it be about using your brain to figure out the best meanings for bids in each and every possible situation? The requirement to memorize (which isn't a total requirement because you can consult defensive notes for mid-chart+ conventions) is likely one to speed the pace of the game. Having a huge book of notes at the table and trying to leaf through it would be pretty slow. On a computer though, this objection largely goes away.

[Guest Jlall]

I don't think it's to stop cheating. I personally would never look at notes during an auction but I can't help it when FD just pops up. I don't even want to look. Sure if I'm playing for fun with some friends in an unknown partnership, but not in a tournament.

[hrothgar]

What should bridge be about? Should it be about memorization or should it be about using your brain to figure out the best meanings for bids in each and every possible situation? The requirement to memorize (which isn't a total requirement because you can consult defensive notes for mid-chart+ conventions) is likely one to speed the pace of the game. Having a huge book of notes at the table and trying to leaf through it would be pretty slow. On a computer though, this objection largely goes away.

As everyone knows, I'm a systems geek. I think that people should be allowed to play (pretty much) whatever systems they want. Furthermore, I have no problem if folks want to use a wide variety of cheat sheets when they're playing informally.

 

However, I think that tournaments are different. Law 40E2 famously contains the following 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."

 

One of the fundamental laws that define the game of bridge states that you can't use crib notes. In much the same fashion, you don't get to bring a double dummy solver to the table and use it during a match. Furthermore, I don't think that this rule has anything to do with the time required to access the information. Rather, the fundamental dimension on which we're competing is how well our brains work without cheat sheets, computers, or copies of the Dictionary of Card Combinations.

 

There's nothing wrong if you want to deal with issues like bidding system design in the abstract. However, I'd argue that the computer bridge championships are probably a better venue for you...

[DrTodd13]

If I wanted to memorize stuff I'd go on Jeopardy. To be clear, I am suggesting that we strike the rule you cited from the law books. I don't believe that how well or how much can we memorize says or should say anything about our bridge abilities. I know what the law is. The question is why was the law introduced in the first place? It was certainly written in an era when there weren't many conventions. This is a new era and perhaps it is time to review this law. I'm not sure how much more bridge can develop with this memorization requirement. To me, off-line contemplation of whether convention A or B works better in a given situation is a better indicator of bridge ability. Inventing conventions to suit situations, choosing when to apply a convention...both of these are bridge abilities but memorization to me seems like an appeal to expediency rather to something that must inherently be a part of the game.

[blackshoe]

The laws (including this one) are reviewed every ten years. That review is going on as we type here. A revised edition of the laws is due out later this year - which probably means next year. :)

 

As to further development of bridge, it seems to me the banning of conventions is far more a detriment to that than any requirement to "memorize" your system.

[Wayne_LV]

   

[the hog]

I have spent litterally 100's of hours working with the FD editor to document different systems I like to play. Actually searching for a combination of bids I think will work in a simple enough structure for mere mortals to play.

 

What I think bridge needs as much as anything is a standard system.  SAYC was initially to be that standard system that you can agree to play and go to it without further discussion.

 

Like most good things, the "standard" SAYC system has been tinkered with so much that it is difficult to define what it really is.

 

I see FD is a fantastic tool that requires you to decide what bids mean when you open the bidding, when ops open the bidding, when ops interfere, when partner overcalls, etc, etc, etc.  It forces you to define your system ... not to the Nth degree, but pretty completely.  What I see missing is not the fault of FD.  What I see missing is the lack of a standard system that has basic bids clearly defined.  Such as single raise of a major = 3+ support and 6-9 dummy points ... sounds simple but the BBO Standard card says 3+ support and 6-10.  Which is standard?

How bout double raise of a major.  Does it show 4+ trumps, 3+ trumps, 10-11 pts, 11-12 pts, 10-12 pts?  A point here and a point there can make a big difference.

 

Filling out an FD card forces you to be a bidding system designer.  Sure there are places you can look up this bid and that bid, but many is the time you cannot find 2 websites that define a bid the same way.

 

The goal of a standard system (SAYC or whatever) should be a simple but workable system players can learn well and play without a bottle of rum handy.

 

I don't think splinter bids (major and minors) or Jacoby 2NT fit the bill of simple.

 

In the 'good old days", any bridge argument could be settled by using Goren's Bridge Complete and what that book said was final for most players.

 

Today, there is no one recongnized bridge authority whos word is law.  And I think the game is much worse for the lack of that authority.

 

I understand the game has changed. But has it changed for the better?  It is still the same game where high cards or trump cards win tricks and contracts most often must be fullfilled to get a decent score.

 

If the current trend continues players will open with 0 points and open in the suit in which they are void.  All natural bids will be outlawed.

 

I know most artificial bids must be alerted, but ops can alert and explain every bid they make, but unless you know the system they are playing it is of little value to know what a particular bid means.

 

How many systems do you need to know to play good bridge today?  More than the one you and partner play, for  sure.  You best know all the ones you are likely to face.  I think this is both a daunting and unreasonable task to impose on most players.

 

The vehicle requirements for an Indy driver are not the same as those of a little old lady that goes to the market once a week and chuch on Sunday.

 

Could we have a model A Ford please and let the pros drive the Ferraris?

I think you are trolling here. We have been through this discussion many times. Let me just point out again that Bridge is a game of bidding and then of playing cards. There is nothing in hte rules that says one should take precedence over the other.

 

Should you wish to argue for a form of the game in which a limitation is placed on X conventions, I think you could then also legitimately argue for a game which places limitations on endplays. One argument is as logical as the other, especially given that the standard of cardplay has improved immeasurably in the last 25 years or so.

 

Incidentally - "If the current trend continues players will open with 0 points and open in the suit in which they are void. All natural bids will be outlawed."

 

Been there....FP systems open with a fert, Delta has an opening to show a singleton/void.

[awm]

On the other hand, since bridge is a game of bidding as much as playing the cards, it seems like if we're going to allow players to look at their system notes (or convention cards, or FD displays) during the bidding, it would be only fair to also let them look at their encyclopedia of card combos during the play.......

 

Part of the game is being able to remember things (or figure them out) under pressure. I think as soon as we start allowing outside memory aids we change the nature of bridge substantially.

[glen]

Filling out an FD card forces you to be a bidding system designer.

That explains FD's current popularity

[the hog]

On the other hand, since bridge is a game of bidding as much as playing the cards, it seems like if we're going to allow players to look at their system notes (or convention cards, or FD displays) during the bidding, it would be only fair to also let them look at their encyclopedia of card combos during the play.......

 

Part of the game is being able to remember things (or figure them out) under pressure. I think as soon as we start allowing outside memory aids we change the nature of bridge substantially.

Yes, I agree with this. I am totally against anyone looking at their own convention card. Any pair's CC should only be visible to the opps

[glen]

Yes, I agree with this. I am totally against anyone looking at their own convention card. Any pair's CC should only be visible to the opps

I believe players should have the option of whether their opponents can use the FD aid of seeing the meanings of their own bids, or not. We would not allow the players to see their FD meanings, as we do not consult our notes during play (albeit partly because our notes are a bit of a mess, since not in FD format). I don't mind players consulting their notes in casual play, but I believe tourney players should follow the bridge laws as they stand now.

 

As to the CC being visible, the top part (names/general approach) needs to be visible to all so one can check it is there.

[DrTodd13]

On the other hand, since bridge is a game of bidding as much as playing the cards, it seems like if we're going to allow players to look at their system notes (or convention cards, or FD displays) during the bidding, it would be only fair to also let them look at their encyclopedia of card combos during the play.......

 

Part of the game is being able to remember things (or figure them out) under pressure. I think as soon as we start allowing outside memory aids we change the nature of bridge substantially.

Yes, outside memory aides would change the nature of the game. The only question is whether this would be for the better or for the worse. People are already complaining that there are so many conventions that they can't remember them. Even in my very complicated systems I often choose to make parallel sequences to ease memory work even though I know said sequences are sub-optimal. Systems can only get so complicated before the memory load makes it unprofitable to add anything else. I just think that one avenue of bridge development might be to see what people could do if the memory limitation wasn't there. It might be less enjoyable but it also might be part of the solution to re-energize the game and reverse the trend of diminishing numbers.

 

Your point about card combos is well taken and at first the idea seemed ridiculous but honestly now that I've thought about it, I don't think the nature of the game would be changed that much by allowing card combos to be looked up. That is only a small part of playing the hand. Inferences from the bidding, planning of entries, endplays, squeezes, coups...these make a great card player. If somebody stood up and rattled off the best way to play some suit combination given 1, 2, 3, 4 entries would you think that person was a great card player? Personally, I would keep card play as it is because there is a fundamental difference between that and bidding. In bidding you have to deal with a partner and can't make stuff up on the fly. In card play, you can laboriously compute the best way to play a suit combination in isolation.

[csdenmark]

Here we are dealing with, as done several times before, with the basic indiscrepances of outdated bridge laws. WBF is to blame for that and nobody else. It would be wise to address that organization.

 

To rally the probably only tournament organizer on BBO with intensions to obey those laws makes no sense.

 

They have to deal with indescrepances between:

 

• Concealed partnership
  
• Mis-information
  
• Memory aid
  

The salomonic solution ACBL has chosen is to be soft on memory aid giving priority to the 2 other.

 

Please be free to argue for a different prioritation to the problem. Such will make sense but will not solve the problem.

 

If you want to do something about the problem you must address the persons responsible for the mess. Those are not online and have no knowledge of the real problem. Therefore they have no legitimazy.

 

Sad to say - even for offline bridge they seems unqualified. They need to come up with revisions for taking advantage of modern information technology.

[cherdano]

I don't understand how FD can be legal in ACBL tourneys. YOU GET TO SEE WHAT YOUR PARTNERS BIDS MEAN!!! AS WELL AS WHAT PARTNER WILL THINK YOUR BIDS MEAN!!!

 

I don't know of any ACBL tournament in real life where if I made a bid and said "17 points, 3 spades, 5 hearts, 2 diamonds, 3 clubs" out loud to the table that this would not cause me to get barred from the event. I have real issues with the fact that people can see what their partners bids mean. If they play a system and they can't remember it, they should be forced to suffer the consequence. The fact that with FD I can play TOSR without even knowing TOSR is very amusing to me. I have a hard time believing that something such as FD can be allowed in these tournaments.

 

BTW I think FD would be a great application if only the opponents could see the alerts.

Actually I think there is one reasonable exception to this: Individual tournaments with a prescribed system.

 

I keep meaning to run a BBO adv-only individual tournament.

[csdenmark]

I have spent litterally 100's of hours working with the FD editor to document different systems I like to play. Actually searching for a combination of bids I think will work in a simple enough structure for mere mortals to play.

 

What I think bridge needs as much as anything is a standard system.  SAYC was initially to be that standard system that you can agree to play and go to it without further discussion.

 

Like most good things, the "standard" SAYC system has been tinkered with so much that it is difficult to define what it really is.

 

I see FD is a fantastic tool that requires you to decide what bids mean when you open the bidding, when ops open the bidding, when ops interfere, when partner overcalls, etc, etc, etc.  It forces you to define your system ... not to the Nth degree, but pretty completely.  What I see missing is not the fault of FD.  What I see missing is the lack of a standard system that has basic bids clearly defined.  Such as single raise of a major = 3+ support and 6-9 dummy points ... sounds simple but the BBO Standard card says 3+ support and 6-10.  Which is standard?

How bout double raise of a major.  Does it show 4+ trumps, 3+ trumps, 10-11 pts, 11-12 pts, 10-12 pts?  A point here and a point there can make a big difference.

 

Filling out an FD card forces you to be a bidding system designer.  Sure there are places you can look up this bid and that bid, but many is the time you cannot find 2 websites that define a bid the same way.

 

The goal of a standard system (SAYC or whatever) should be a simple but workable system players can learn well and play without a bottle of rum handy.

 

I don't think splinter bids (major and minors) or Jacoby 2NT fit the bill of simple.

 

In the 'good old days", any bridge argument could be settled by using Goren's Bridge Complete and what that book said was final for most players.

 

Today, there is no one recongnized bridge authority whos word is law.  And I think the game is much worse for the lack of that authority.

 

I understand the game has changed. But has it changed for the better?  It is still the same game where high cards or trump cards win tricks and contracts most often must be fullfilled to get a decent score.

 

If the current trend continues players will open with 0 points and open in the suit in which they are void.  All natural bids will be outlawed.

 

I know most artificial bids must be alerted, but ops can alert and explain every bid they make, but unless you know the system they are playing it is of little value to know what a particular bid means.

 

How many systems do you need to know to play good bridge today?  More than the one you and partner play, for  sure.  You best know all the ones you are likely to face.  I think this is both a daunting and unreasonable task to impose on most players.

 

The vehicle requirements for an Indy driver are not the same as those of a little old lady that goes to the market once a week and chuch on Sunday.

 

Could we have a model A Ford please and let the pros drive the Ferraris?

I am very pleased to read your post Wayne. Sorry I didnt read it first time I saw because - oh you know!

 

I think your comments nails something important - that standard systems must be rather simple, consistent and easy to use - aimed for all interested in solid social bridge without problems and misunderstandings. I would welcome BBO default cards to be modified in that way.

 

Another important thing you point to is the ability to have an overview - a general understanding - of a system. FD does not pay much attention to that - in fact the space for that has recently been reduced. I think it is a high priority topic and I would be much in favour of some sophisticated performance regarding this.

 

I would like to comment your last phrase Could we have a model A Ford please and let the pros drive the Ferraris? This is not and will never be my intensions. I want to drive a Ferrari because I think it is the best tool available. If the Professionals also want to take advantage from the best tools available - my choice looks like to be able to go for something. I have no interest in handicapping myself.

[barmar]

I don't think it's to stop cheating. I personally would never look at notes during an auction but I can't help it when FD just pops up. I don't even want to look. Sure if I'm playing for fun with some friends in an unknown partnership, but not in a tournament.

Justin, I believe there's a checkbox in the Convention Card options that controls whether you see the explanations of your partner's bids. So if you don't want to be tempted, turn off the option.

 

I believe the justification for turning it on by default is that most players are not familiar with FD or the systems on the default cards. During this introductory period we're erring on the side of UI to avoid MI.