Resistance to "Full Disclosure"

[jdonn]

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.

Memory is not "bridge knowledge", it is "bridge ability". Are you trying to make the argument that aspects of bridge which pertain only to bridge are more important to the game than aspects of bridge that pertain to many other things in life, like memory? If so I don't agree. It sounds like you would also want to get rid of running from all sports except running, so that they could focus on shooting at basketball, hitting at baseball, etc. and become amazing at those specific things. Every part of the game has a part, even if the game could possibly function without them.

[effervesce]

There is an option in FD such that you CANNOT see what your partner's bids mean. Me and my partner use this option so we don't get any advantage from using it - the gain is to the opps, who get quickly and efficiently the meaning of a given bid.

 

Perhaps the default setting for the FD card should be set it so you and partner cannot see what each other's bid - and being able to see partner's bids optional, for when you and partner are learning a new system.

[uday]

Every day tens of thousands of seats are filled by people who click the "Help Me Find A Game" link. We need a way for these guys to play and enjoy themselves w/o a huge fuss. I think an FD-style approach is the answer to that issue.

[jillybean]

Why not send everyone who clicks 'help me find a game' to the "relaxed bridge club" where FD is turned on so you can see what your partners bid means.

It is probably useful turned on in the BIL too.

 

Leave it off in the Main Lounge, Teams and Tourneys for those who want to play bridge.

[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.

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

why? i find it a lot more enjoyable when i can talk to one person in english, another in russian, another in broken spanish and a fourth in polish...

[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?

why? i find it a lot more enjoyable when i can talk to one person in english, another in russian, another in broken spanish and a fourth in polish...

I misunderstood your first post but now that I re-read it I still don't know what point you were trying to make.

[DrTodd13]

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.

Memory is not "bridge knowledge", it is "bridge ability". Are you trying to make the argument that aspects of bridge which pertain only to bridge are more important to the game than aspects of bridge that pertain to many other things in life, like memory? If so I don't agree. It sounds like you would also want to get rid of running from all sports except running, so that they could focus on shooting at basketball, hitting at baseball, etc. and become amazing at those specific things. Every part of the game has a part, even if the game could possibly function without them.

I'm not trying to make a general argument. I'm saying that there are aspects of bridge knowledge that people are not able to use to differentiate themselves because memory space is limited. I consider this sort of acquired judgement to be more important than the ability to memorize. You and others may not agree and that's fine.

[jdonn]

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.

Memory is not "bridge knowledge", it is "bridge ability". Are you trying to make the argument that aspects of bridge which pertain only to bridge are more important to the game than aspects of bridge that pertain to many other things in life, like memory? If so I don't agree. It sounds like you would also want to get rid of running from all sports except running, so that they could focus on shooting at basketball, hitting at baseball, etc. and become amazing at those specific things. Every part of the game has a part, even if the game could possibly function without them.

I'm not trying to make a general argument. I'm saying that there are aspects of bridge knowledge that people are not able to use to differentiate themselves because memory space is limited. I consider this sort of acquired judgement to be more important than the ability to memorize. You and others may not agree and that's fine.

I understand it's merely an opinion. I also think it's unfair that I can't dunk since the height I can jump is limited, so jumping should be eliminated from basketball.

[matmat]

I understand it's merely an opinion. I also think it's unfair that I can't dunk since the height I can jump is limited, so jumping should be eliminated from basketball.

are you sure you wouldn't prefer that they'd allow you to use a footstool?

[Echognome]

I understand it's merely an opinion. I also think it's unfair that I can't dunk since the height I can jump is limited, so jumping should be eliminated from basketball.

Just play at the elementary schools. Although the teachers might get upset when you posterize the kids.

[Finch]

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.

sorry there's some snipping here, but I would say that although at the moment I am not 'rewarded' for knowing that a superior method exists, I am rewarded for something else which you would take away from me:

 

my regular partnerships make conscious decisions about how complex a system to play, and where it repays having detailed agreements and where general principles suffice. It's not as simple as saying 'let's play something inferior for the sake of easing memory load', it's more a matter of saying 'there is a limit to the amount of complexity we can cope with/remember/define, what is the best way of allocating that to the space of possible agreements?'

 

We have taken a deliberate decision to 'spend' more of our agreement allocation on defensive carding & competitive auctions and less of it on sophisticated uncontested auction bidding tools. We think that gives us a competitive advantage (of course we might be wrong).

 

In actual fact our total agreement allocation space is limited more by time to define it than it is by our memory skills at the moment, so the suggested change would actually make close to zero difference for us, but that will change when I unexpectedly win £100 mln* and we retire to a lifetime of skiing and bridge.

 

 

*I get loads of emails each day telling me I've won vast amounts in various lotteries but somehow the money never seems to arrive.

[Finch]

I'm not trying to make a general argument. I'm saying that there are aspects of bridge knowledge that people are not able to use to differentiate themselves because memory space is limited. I consider this sort of acquired judgement to be more important than the ability to memorize. You and others may not agree and that's fine.

I don't know if I agree or not.

 

But I do know that if I agreed, I wouldn't make bidding special. I would either have 'assisted' bridge or unassisted bridge. Assisted bridge allows you to refer to your notes (or whatever) for the auction, and to use other electronic tools to help you with the card play, and to look at your notes for your long and complex list of carding agreements - just think of the encrypted signals you could play!

 

What's more assisted bridge would have no system regulation.

[1eyedjack]

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.

There is a subtle difference between having access to system notes and having those notes thrust in your face. In the former case, you may think (in error) that you have remembered the system and choose to continue without consulting said notes. In the latter case you have no hope of overlooking your mistake. It is only subtle, but I think that it one of the fundamental features of FD compared with other methods.

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.

Taking this ideal to extremes, perhaps we should leave exposed all cards played, to overcome the irritation of having to memorise them. Personally I think that memory is a skill worthy of reward. System design is also a skill worthy of reward, as is assessing the optimal trade-off between system and memory, and other judgement, declarer play, defensive play and concentration issues.

 

The biggest contributor to the thwarting system design has nothing to do with reliance on memory, and certainly nothing to do with FD software, but has everything to do with licensing regulations. That is a matter for separate debate. Relax licensing restrictions and you will I am sure see system development take off without requiring the removal of a reward for another valuable skill.

[helene_t]

I think memorization is part of what makes a good bridge player, but at its current level FD does not take away that part of the game. I still have to rely on my bridge knowledge to find out what a double or cuebid means in some convoluted auction.

 

What FD does is it tells me if transfers are part of "English Acol" (suppose I am familiar with Scotish Acol and my pick-up p is familiar with NZ Acol and we agreed to play English Acol because that is the only Acol that is available as FD file). Those kinds of elementary things. I think for social bridge, FD makes the game more enjoyable. And for serious bridge it doesn't matter since it only covers stuff that nobody would forget anyway.

 

A different issue is whether FD should be encouraged in BIL tourneys. Maybe if beginners get used to FD they will fail to learn to memorize their opening bids, notrump structure etc. Similar to the discussion about allowing spelling control and calculators at primary school.

[toast1]

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?

I'd like to get back to the original question on this thread. I've spent some time creating a detailed FD card with a regular partner, but many people still seem unaware of how to see the explanations, which greatly diminishes FD's benefit. We click the Alert button now on unusual bids, and sometimes people will then click on the bid expectantly... how do I say, politely, "look over there in the corner of the screen and read the detailed description of my call!"

 

Any chance of the suggestions below being implemented? They are good ideas. Another suggestion I've heard is to be able to send a pre-Alert message at the start of a tourney round, or a session, requiring opponents to click OK to acknowledge it. Then they'll know to enable FD.

 

The debate about the ethics of FD is really separate. Since FD exists, it should be easier for players to access the information that FD provides them. Currently some feel at a disadvantage vs. an FD pair, which is the opposite of what was intended.

[jillybean]

Not knowing how to access the information is a direct result of there being no indication (highlight, audible warning) that the bid is artificial. If an alert were provided people would mouse over the bid and get the information.

 

On the other hand it is easy for the FD pair to check their agreement for each bid as they are familiar with and know they are using FD.

[DrTodd13]

Most people do OK with getting FD information but like I said, it isn't uncommon to find people who do the following. They join my table and I send a message telling them we use FD and to see alerts hover over the bid and look in the corner. Then, we alert our alertable bids. They will then click on the bid to ask for an explanation. Many times I'll answer "hover here" or "put mouse here" with the idea if they put their mouse there they'll see the explanation in the corner. Some real obstinant people say "I'm not going to read the explanation from the corner, you type it again in the normal alert field."

 

I'm not sure I like the idea of forcing people to click every time they sit against FD. Perhaps forcing people to click the very first time they face it would be ok. The rest of the time when they sit against FD, in the user's native language make an announcement like "Your opponents are using FD to alert their bids. Click here to find out how to see FD alerts." The text you would get by clicking there could be displayed automatically the first time they have faced FD. The only problem is if people treat this like a EULA and just click ok but never actually read it then they could retain their ignorance. Of course, it wouldn't do much for the obstinant except perhaps reinforce this is a BBO approved way of alerting, if it wasn't it would have been implemented.

[CSGibson]

Jdonn is right, taking the memory aspect of bridge is taking an important part of the game away. It sounds like Dr Todd is of a scientific bent, because I know that scientists often hate memorizing stuff "because if they need it they could always look it up later." It is like when schoolchildren say they shouldn't be forced to learn mathematics because there are always calculators and computers around to do their calculations. What is missing here is that memorization is integral to understanding.

 

Memorizing the bidding system is an important part of understanding the bidding system and thus designing and re-designing the bidding system. You have to be able to understand not only what the correct bid is, but also why it is correct in order to deal with new situations that are not written into your system. Removing the memorization of a bidding system will hurt the development of bridge players and the quality of the game because it lessens the impetus to understand the underlying fundamentals of bidding.

[DrTodd13]

I think you have it a bit backwards CSGibson. At a minimum you are too optimistic. From your post, it sounds like you think it is important that people understand their bidding system and how to recognize and fill gaps in that system. I would agree with that but I believe that memorization does not accomplish this. Memorization if anything encourages the opposite. People memorize rules instead of the underlying principles and while they may recognize that they didn't have the tools to handle some situation that came up, they also may refuse to attempt to fix the problem because they wouldn't be able to remember their solution. In short, I see no reason to believe that memorization forces or allows people to understand "why" bidding systems are arranged the way they are. All of my experience tells me the opposite. Something as simple as responses to 1♣-1♥-1♠ gets people out of their memorized sequences and then they think it is acceptable to pass with an 8 or 9 count. Personally, I would like to reward those who truly understanding bidding rather than just memorizing rules they are taught. I think that allowing people to ponder their systems in more depth off-line and putting in serious efforts to develop a comprehensive system would be more likely to reward what we want to. Of course, the problem is that they could just copy someone else's notes and still have no system understanding. Do you really think that if people could develop 100 pages of system notes that they would have less understanding of bidding fundamentals than if they memorized something that would fit on just a few pages?

[CSGibson]

...Do you really think that if people could develop 100 pages of system notes that they would have less understanding of bidding fundamentals than if they memorized something that would fit on just a few pages?

I think it is possible. The good partnerships that I know that have short notes are those that focus on fundamentals instead of rote "if A then B" stuff, because they don't find a need to document every contingency; they are able to use overriding principles to make a proper bid.

 

I am not saying that, for example, Meckwell doesn't understand fundamental principles just because they are rumored to have 800 pages of system notes, of course. My point of view comes more from my experience teaching others to play bridge. I developed a set of learner cards (if you have this, then this, and responses up the line type of stuff) for a class I was teaching bridge, and I noticed that, while they were able to get into playing faster with the notes, the players would not progress in bidding as quickly as those players in another class that were taught the fundamentals.

[John in the Sun]

The Explanation box allows only a very short message. I know there's not enough room to type in "11-15 HCP. 3+ Dia unbalanced OR 2 Dia if 4-4 in Majors.".

 

I'm a strong believer in giving the opponents as much information as possible, and Full Disclosure makes this possible. Of course it's possible to chat this info to both opponents, but what's easier, scrolling back through all the chat (which is interspersed with "!!!!!!!! Experts+++++ Team Game Stars Only !!!!!!!!!!!"), or mousing over bids?

 

More information is a good thing.

[jillybean]

The Explanation box allows only a very short message. I know there's not enough room to type in "11-15 HCP. 3+ Dia unbalanced OR 2 Dia if 4-4 in Majors.".

 

I'm a strong believer in giving the opponents as much information as possible, and Full Disclosure makes this possible. Of course it's possible to chat this info to both opponents, but what's easier, scrolling back through all the chat (which is interspersed with "!!!!!!!! Experts+++++ Team Game Stars Only !!!!!!!!!!!"), or mousing over bids?

 

More information is a good thing.

I think you need to turn lobby chat off :(

[csdenmark]

It is very encouraging to see FD-convention card is gaining ground on BBO. I would welcome some pressure to speed up this process.

 

It is very encouraging to see BBO-flash is rapid on its way. This is the way for bridge to have a chance to catch up with other games attracting millions of new players. Tablet-PC, wireless internet and BBO-flash is the only way for bridge to go into a modern society of information technology.

 

It is appaling to read this thread where several of the persons who see themselves as shining stars for the future are advocating the black school restricting interesting bridge to those few who have an option to devote most of their life remembering odd bridge sequences. But they will fail of course and my tears will be dry ones.

[jtfanclub]

It is very encouraging to see FD-convention card is gaining ground on BBO. I would welcome some pressure to speed up this process.

.

.

.

It is appaling to read this thread where several of the persons who see themselves as shining stars for the future are advocating the black school restricting interesting bridge to those few who have an option to devote most of their life remembering odd bridge sequences. But they will fail of course and my tears will be dry ones.

That's wonderful logic.

 

Pretty soon, if I want to play a system that isn't An Official BBO System, I'll have to spend most of my life creating FD cards. But that's OK, because you won't have to remember weird esoteric sequences that you probably don't play the same as FD anyways.

 

When FD cards...

-Automatically alert alertable bids with the beep and highlight, and

-When you can edit the FD explanation before making a call, when you discover that FD's explanation of a bid doesn't fit yours

 

I might be more appreciative of it. Now, they're just an excuse not to alert bids. If the opponents don't mouse over every single bid to see if it's alertable, or if the FD explanation doesn't actually match what the pair is playing, Oh well! Tough luck to the opps.

 

Maybe at some point I'll pull out the rule book and get them banned from ACBL tourneys. Aids to memory, alert procedures, and all that.

[barmar]

It is very encouraging to see FD-convention card is gaining ground on BBO. I would welcome some pressure to speed up this process.

 

It is very encouraging to see BBO-flash is rapid on its way.

It's interesting that you consider both of these to be encouraging. As far as I can tell, you can't create or view FD cards with BBO Flash.