Resistance to "Full Disclosure"

[DrTodd13]

At least 2 or 3 times a week, I run into some new person who is vehemently against hovering their mouse over an alerted bid to see the FD description in the corner. Some even go so far to accuse me of being unethical because I use FD and don't type the explanation in the regular alert box. Some people are just ignorant and when you tell them about FD and that they need to hover over the bid and look in the corner then they are fine. A sufficiently large number of people are thusly ignorant and so it gets pretty annoying explaining this all the time.

 

So, in terms of suggestions. First, could we have a system message that you get when you login every couple of weeks that tells people what FD is and how to see the alerts. Second, when a regular alert is made, the description of the bid is temporarily displayed above the bid. With FD, you just see the bid alerted but have to hover to see the description I believe. Can you temporarily display the FD description in the corner (or even better directly over the bid) in a similar manner. Third, when the bid is automatically alerted with FD, can you put something in the regular alert field that shows up in the user's native language that directs them to hover there and look for the explanation in the corner?

[awm]

People sometimes object when partner and I alert (using the regular alert procedure) complaining that we are telling each other what our bids mean. They seem to be unaware that we are unable to see partner's alerts and explanations.

 

With Full Disclosure, you actually can see partner's alerts and explanations...

 

There are also issues in that people using FD often fail to alert, and the opponents then don't realize they are supposed to look for the FD explanation of a highly artificial call.

 

There is also an issue that some people have inaccurate FD files, creating a situation where both opponents can receive MI while neither player on the bidding side is at all confused about the meaning of their own calls.

[helene_t]

Using Flash I can't see the FD alerts. Not sure if this is so for all flash users or if it's only me.

[Guest Jlall]

Yes I still don't like FD becuase your partner can see your alerts...not sure what game that is but it's not bridge to me.

[DrTodd13]

So long as it is possible to consult your own convention card while the bidding is active, whether the software makes it easy (way it is now) or difficult (makes you manually trace the bidding sequence in the FD editor) doesn't seem to change the basic nature of the game. I think you should have the same problem with all online bridge because it is possible to talk on the phone or consult notes while playing. Personally, I think the laws should be changed so that bridge is less a game of memorization and more about spending offline-time to devise good and thorough systems. Again, I personally think that understanding what makes a good system and understanding the fundamentals of system creation is something that should be more valued. As it is, most people just memorize a bunch of rules, consider it done and then concentrate on judgement, declarer play, and defense. I think this triad is missing a 4th major member that you can't really focus on so long as everything has to be memorized. The game shouldn't slow down too much though so you'd still have to memorize quite a bit but you would get to use notes for rare sequences and defense against unusual conventions. This would go a long way towards alleviating all the "you can't use that convention because people aren't prepared for it" cop-out.

[DrTodd13]

By the way, hiding the auto-FD alerts from partners would only increase the cases where FD says one thing and partners mean something else. It is a tradeoff. You can be accurate and thorough in FD and so that is a benefit to opponents. The downside is the occasional case where the meaning of a bid has changed and is not reflected in FD. Making people type explanations every time results in people taking shortcuts and you end up with half-assed disclosure.

[hotShot]

Yes I still don't like FD becuase your partner can see your alerts...not sure what game that is but it's not bridge to me.

How do you call the game, where your pickup opps can't remember/never knew their system?

[matmat]

How do you call the game, where your pickup opps can't remember/never knew their system?

barrelfish shooting (aka unplayable).

 

playing against random opponents is not bridge even when they claim to know the system.

[jtfanclub]

FD bugs the hell out of me. I've never gotten an adjustment here yet when FD says shortness but both opps know that a bid shows length.

 

Frankly, I'd rather have no alerts at all than have alerts which are wrong a considerable portion of the time (even when playing a standard system) and then having the players get pissy with me when I ask.

[Echognome]

So long as it is possible to consult your own convention card while the bidding is active, whether the software makes it easy (way it is now) or difficult (makes you manually trace the bidding sequence in the FD editor) doesn't seem to change the basic nature of the game. I think you should have the same problem with all online bridge because it is possible to talk on the phone or consult notes while playing. Personally, I think the laws should be changed so that bridge is less a game of memorization and more about spending offline-time to devise good and thorough systems. Again, I personally think that understanding what makes a good system and understanding the fundamentals of system creation is something that should be more valued. As it is, most people just memorize a bunch of rules, consider it done and then concentrate on judgement, declarer play, and defense. I think this triad is missing a 4th major member that you can't really focus on so long as everything has to be memorized. The game shouldn't slow down too much though so you'd still have to memorize quite a bit but you would get to use notes for rare sequences and defense against unusual conventions. This would go a long way towards alleviating all the "you can't use that convention because people aren't prepared for it" cop-out.

I think this is a horrible idea, or at the very least, completely unworkable.

 

So I come up with my agreements for about 10,000 bidding sequences, document them and then either have to flip through my hefty volumes of notes, or maybe we could just have a computer to look up our agreements at the table? Then really, should we have to memorize all those pesky suit combinations? Maybe we can just reference one of encyclopedia's of bridge or heck, bring along suitplay.

 

Now, you did mention you could use notes for "rare sequences and defense against unusual conventions." So now we need to define what is a rare sequence and what conventions are unusual enough to consult our notes. Of course we have the latter part right now with the defense database. (side note: I don't like how that's used really at all. seems against the spirit of the game. I'd rather have them ban a few of my favorite conventions.) Just don't think it's a good idea at all to be allowed a memory aid.

 

Think of it this way Todd. Shouldn't a good system design take into account the tradeoffs between effectiveness of the system and ease on the memory? I know this is a tradeoff I consider all the time. "If a sequence is rare and the gains aren't great, then that convention is gone."

[DrTodd13]

I don't think you have to define rare or unusual. You just set a time limit and punish people who go over the limit. If you like, you can still have GCC and if you exceed the GCC then your opps get more time for bidding when you are in the auction. If they consulted a book with every bid then they would be too slow and would exceed their time allotment. The only way they wouldn't exceed their time allotment is if they used their notes relatively rarely, again against the rare or unusual.

 

I think you are arguing a bit in circles. The only reason a system now has to be a balance between effectiveness and memory ability is because you can't have notes. You can't then say you shouldn't have notes because a system should have such a balance. Keeping the game moving is a good argument for disallowing notes but striking a balance between effectiveness and memorization is not a good arbitrary goal for bridge players. It is a consequence of another rule. In F2F play, regulating bidding time right now would be more problematic. You could do it online. As offline and online bridge start to merge, you'll see more gadgets making their way to the table. There was a thread about the Cavendish using devices to record the scores. Eventually, you'll get tablets cheap enough to replace cards and bidding boxes and then allowing notes becomes possible there as well.

[Echognome]

Actually, I don't think I'm arguing in circles. I believe the game is a game of memory (not just my agreements, but cards played, what the bidding was, etc.) and I believe it should be a timed game. I understand that you're saying that as long as you enforce the time limits, then you can allow some leeway on the memory aids. I personally don't think that would work. What would happen is that a lot of unusual items would appear and people would take longer to bid. The TDs are then instructed to go in there and enforce time limits and people will be even more resistant to allowing anything unusual. Then if you allow more time for unusual agreements and less time otherwise, then the pace of the game is completely changed. You'll have tables where you allow 15 mins a round and tables where you allow, say 20. It just seems unworkable to me.

[DrTodd13]

Why do you believe that your agreements should be subject to an "in memory" constraint? I agree the game currently is a game of memory. That is why I'm suggesting a (potentially future) change in the laws. Forget what the laws say for a moment and answer _why_ it should be that way. If there were no time constraints, why should we as bridge players choose to value the ability to memorize versus valuing the ability to devise effective defenses against every system and convention out there, not to mention increasing the accuracy of your own system?

[Echognome]

Why do you believe that your agreements should be subject to an "in memory" constraint? I agree the game currently is a game of memory. That is why I'm suggesting a (potentially future) change in the laws. Forget what the laws say for a moment and answer _why_ it should be that way. If there were no time constraints, why should we as bridge players choose to value the ability to memorize versus valuing the ability to devise effective defenses against every system and convention out there, not to mention increasing the accuracy of your own system?

Simple answer: I think the game is just about right on the amount of time they give you to play, and my personal preference is that it's just a tad too slow. However, I'm a fast player and understand there should be a happy medium for everyone.

 

Note: I once played symmetric relay during midnight speedball (in the UK which is faster than in the US). We had a 14 bid auction in about 20 seconds. Was good fun.

[DrTodd13]

You didn't really answer my question. You just negated my hypothetical assumption. From your post though, I gather you value speed of game and your desire for memorization seems like it is really a means to the end of keeping the speed of the game up.

[jdonn]

Why do you believe that your agreements should be subject to an "in memory" constraint? I agree the game currently is a game of memory. That is why I'm suggesting a (potentially future) change in the laws. Forget what the laws say for a moment and answer _why_ it should be that way. If there were no time constraints, why should we as bridge players choose to value the ability to memorize versus valuing the ability to devise effective defenses against every system and convention out there, not to mention increasing the accuracy of your own system?

There is no reason why except that's what bridge is. What you propose is a different game altogether, similar to bridge but with that one glaring difference. The game you propose would simply place the emphasis on some different skills, there is nothing wrong with that but most people seem to enjoy the game the way it is.

 

I really think you took the onus on this question in reverse. Why should an inherent part of bridge be removed in order to introduce a different part?

[Echognome]

You didn't really answer my question. You just negated my hypothetical assumption. From your post though, I gather you value speed of game and your desire for memorization seems like it is really a means to the end of keeping the speed of the game up.

No. I think bridge is interesting in part because of the memorization.

[awm]

I don't see any compelling reason that bidding system should be treated differently from play in this respect. It seems like for example:

 

(1) It helps to memorize suit combinations as declarer, and "mandatory" falsecard positions as a defender, and in principle you could have a booklet of these to look up.

 

(2) You could do some double dummy simulation to figure out the best lead from certain hand types against non-informative auctions and leaf through this data before making your lead.

 

(3) In principle you could even have a computer at the table running GIB that suggests lines of play to declarer.

 

Now there's no obvious reason that "computer assisted bridge" is a nonsensical concept. And you could apply this in other games too like chess or go. And you could have sports for people with performance enhancing drugs or cybernetic enhancements allowed. But yet I don't hear a lot of people clamoring for this kind of thing -- there is something pure about a game where you have only your own human abilities to rely upon without being able to leaf through pages of notes or computer advice at will.

[Guest Jlall]

So long as it is possible to consult your own convention card while the bidding is active, whether the software makes it easy (way it is now) or difficult (makes you manually trace the bidding sequence in the FD editor) doesn't seem to change the basic nature of the game.  I think you should have the same problem with all online bridge because it is possible to talk on the phone or consult notes while playing.  Personally, I think the laws should be changed so that bridge is less a game of memorization and more about spending offline-time to devise good and thorough systems.  Again, I personally think that understanding what makes a good system and understanding the fundamentals of system creation is something that should be more valued.  As it is, most people just memorize a bunch of rules, consider it done and then concentrate on judgement, declarer play, and defense.  I think this triad is missing a 4th major member that you can't really focus on so long as everything has to be memorized.  The game shouldn't slow down too much though so you'd still have to memorize quite a bit but you would get to use notes for rare sequences and defense against unusual conventions.  This would go a long way towards alleviating all the "you can't use that convention because people aren't prepared for it" cop-out.

Sure, people can cheat or w/e, but like I personally would never use FD because it would effectively force me to cheat. I never look at my CC while playing, and I play almost 100 % against people who I know and trust not to cheat. If I used FD I know I would never have a misunderstanding for something that was defined systemically that I or my partner might have forgotten, and I am not ok with that. I also really don't like playing against that, because regardless of how one feels the laws SHOULD be right now they include not being able to use memory aids. If you prefer to play with FD and your opps as well that's cool too, that's why BBO is good it gives everyone options. But I personally just prefer not to play with or against FD because I enjoy that game more.

[Guest Jlall]

Yes I still don't like FD becuase your partner can see your alerts...not sure what game that is but it's not bridge to me.

How do you call the game, where your pickup opps can't remember/never knew their system?

I never play this type of game on BBO either.

[DrTodd13]

Why do you believe that your agreements should be subject to an "in memory" constraint?  I agree the game currently is a game of memory.  That is why I'm suggesting a (potentially future) change in the laws.  Forget what the laws say for a moment and answer _why_ it should be that way.  If there were no time constraints, why should we as bridge players choose to value the ability to memorize versus valuing the ability to devise effective defenses against every system and convention out there, not to mention increasing the accuracy of your own system?

There is no reason why except that's what bridge is. What you propose is a different game altogether, similar to bridge but with that one glaring difference. The game you propose would simply place the emphasis on some different skills, there is nothing wrong with that but most people seem to enjoy the game the way it is.

 

I really think you took the onus on this question in reverse. Why should an inherent part of bridge be removed in order to introduce a different part?

Any change in the rules would technically result in a different game.

 

Why is memorization of agreements an inherent part of the game? Because the rules say so? Fair enough but can't we look deeper and ask why the rules were written that way? Was memorization of agreements considered to be an inherent/integral part of the game even before the rules were codified or was memorization a means by which to keep the game from being too slow?

 

So, you think the way the game is now is optimal for enjoyment? You don't think a vast number of players would be happy to use notes to refresh their memory when rare sequences come up, assuming doing so were legal and didn't slow the game down too much? The situation I see now is regrettable. People memorize rules but many never understand the principles by which those rules were derived. If you don't get down to the principles I think you're an incomplete bridge player. If you've ever played transfer openings, you'd be surprised how many people will bid the suit you are showing naturally or X to show the 3 unbid suits versus the 3 "unshown" suits.

 

-------------------

 

Post 1000!

[jdonn]

Why is memorization of agreements an inherent part of the game? Because the rules say so?  Fair enough but can't we look deeper and ask why the rules were written that way?  Was memorization of agreements considered to be an inherent/integral part of the game even before the rules were codified or was memorization a means by which to keep the game from being too slow?

 

So, you think the way the game is now is optimal for enjoyment? You don't think a vast number of players would be happy to use notes to refresh their memory when rare sequences come up, assuming doing so were legal and didn't slow the game down too much?  The situation I see now is regrettable.  People memorize rules but many never understand the principles by which those rules were derived.  If you don't get down to the principles I think you're an incomplete bridge player.  If you've ever played transfer openings, you'd be surprised how many people will bid the suit you are showing naturally or X to show the 3 unbid suits versus the 3 "unshown" suits.

 

You never answered, you just asked a bunch more questions. Maybe because memorization is an interesting and difficult skill? I know I enjoy that aspect. To be honest I don't even know why I just took a stab since my real answer is 'who cares'. There is no reason of necessity that there are 4 suits either, or that the player on lead is to declarer's left, or we can't look at our opponents' hands during the auction. That is just what makes bridge bridge. Sorry if that's not mentally pure enough for you or whatever, but I am happy with the random forces that have collided over time to make bridge what it is. I bet if this rule change ever came about I for one would still be happy, probably less so but that is just a guess on my part and I really have no idea. All I am saying is I have no desire to see such a change, so being the one who wants a change it should be up to you to say why it should happen, other than to say that technology has nullified the reason such a rule existed (as far as you know anyway) in the first place. Sorry but it's kind of dumb that your argument seems to amount to challenging people to say why something should NOT change.

 

If you think there would be great popular support for this change, I would say technically but not really. What I mean by that is sure tons of bridge players would like to peak at their convention cards to see what type of blackwood they are playing. I bet that almost none of them would enjoy playing against a pair playing absurdly complicated transfer oriented forcing pass whatever that they have to examine a book of notes in order to play. In fact I think most of your support for this rule change would come from the same players who are overcalling naturally over your transfer opening, despite your contention that they are incomplete bridge players (who among us isn't?)

[matmat]

I work with a lot of people whose native tongue is different than mine. I find it a lot more enjoyable to be able to either talk to them in their language or have them talk to me in mine, rather than have to leaf through a dictionary or speak through a pocket translator.

[DrTodd13]

What question didn't I answer, whether memorization is inherent? To be clear, I don't think the people who made the game sat down and said, let's make a memorization game. Who knows for sure...maybe there's a journal somewhere with the thinking process they used but I suspect that memorizing agreements was just a way to save time.

 

I'm not saying people have to prove why the rule should stay. I think there is room for two variations, one where memory aides are allowed and another where they aren't. I just try to make the argument that the memory rule decreases differentiation amongst players based on bridge knowledge. If you got rid of the memory rule, then those with better bridge knowledge could expand their agreements and improve them and presumably improved agreements would result in improved results which would reward this work and superior bridge knowledge. If you've ever chosen to play an inferior method that everyone else plays for the sake of easing memory load then I can state that you deserve to be rewarded for knowing that a superior method exists. At the moment, something that I think should differentiate you as a better player is totally worthless to you.

[DrTodd13]

I work with a lot of people whose native tongue is different than mine. I find it a lot more enjoyable to be able to either talk to them in their language or have them talk to me in mine, rather than have to leaf through a dictionary or speak through a pocket translator.

Isn't this an argument for forcing everyone to play the exact same system, same style of carding?