4-Way Self-Alerts

[smiffy]

A frequent problem that occurs when playing with random - intermediate - partners is a lack of understanding whether a given bid is meant in a conventional or in a natural way.

This occurs often with the likes of splinter bids or Jacoby 2NT. Often i simply do not make these bids for the fear of p raising me or passing out. A workaround might be to give a short explanation in the chat box but quite a few people, opps and partners alike, do not feel all to comfortable with that.

 

So how about making it possible to make self-alerts visible to all players instead of just the opponents? What I have in mind is an option under the table preferences which is turned off by default but can be activated by the host. Tables making use of that might then be colour coded in the overview if needed. I don't see a need for this but maybe some do?

 

I actually can see no downside to this but many advantages, especially for beginners and intermediates. Comments or criticism?

[jdonn]

There is a huge downside. Beginners already think that if I alert, my partner can see it. This has several times in the past caused either people to complain and leave, or call me a cheater, or called the director on me in a tournament. Of course that's not true, but if this option was available it would reinforce that notion and make people believe that it's always the case when their opponent alerts. You would think it's easy to just tell them partners can't see each other's alerts, but it's not...

 

Why not just talk to the table and tell them what the bids mean? That's more convenient than using the little alert box anyway.

[smiffy]

There is a huge downside. Beginners already think that if I alert, my partner can see it. This has several times in the past caused either people to complain and leave, or call me a cheater, or called the director on me in a tournament.

This is one of those things that make me want to go :blink:.

Nonetheless I think just because there are people who have a wrong idea of or attitude towards this practice this same practice should not be devalued. The same might just account for "4-Way alerts".

 

There is this one thing that might be bothersome: The practice of self-alerts is a compromise, as far as i can tell, owing to the fact that alerts by one's partner are extremely impractical in online bridge. By this BBO already oversteps a line. Any further softening of established rules then might be considered of pushing it too far? It certainly would change the face of BBO to a certain degree.

 

Anyway, I see this huge upside of not only cancelling out bidding misunderstandings once and for all - if one so wishes - but also, for beginners and intermediates like me, being able to use different conventions in practice. The inhibition threshold that people experience in using them will vanish much more quickly when they have been forced upon them often enough.

 

Why not just talk to the table and tell them what the bids mean? That's more convenient than using the little alert box anyway.

It is more convenient but i fear there are more people who consider that to be cheating than there are when the alert box is used.

It also happens to simply be overlooked.

[jillybean]

Use FD, everyone at the table can then see the meaning of the bid.

[Echognome]

There is this one thing that might be bothersome: The practice of self-alerts is a compromise, as far as i can tell, owing to the fact that alerts by one's partner are extremely impractical in online bridge. By this BBO already oversteps a line. Any further softening of established rules then might be considered of pushing it too far? It certainly would change the face of BBO to a certain degree.

I think you have this quite wrong. Self-alerts are impractical in face-to-face bridge, although I'm sure they would be preferred if not for the unauthorized information they convey. Note that the top-level of competitions uses screens, so as to limit the unauthorized information. In that situation, both the player making the bid and his partner alert the bid (since one of the opponents is on the other side of a screen!). However, in online bridge, we have the ability to have the player self alert with the explanation shown to both opponents and not to partner. That seems like no compromise to me.

[smiffy]

Use FD, everyone at the table can then see the meaning of the bid.

What, please, is FD?

I think you have this quite wrong.  Self-alerts are impractical in face-to-face bridge, although I'm sure they would be preferred if not for the unauthorized information they convey. (...)

However, in online bridge, we have the ability to have the player self alert with the explanation shown to both opponents and not to partner.  That seems like no compromise to me.

Might be the language barrier. Sorry, but i do not understand. If there are to be alerts, what can be more practical than a self-alert? Not only that the person who uses the alert best knows what he wants to convey (ahem...) but also he is much more sure not to forget to alert.

 

Yes, there is no compromise. It's quite late here and things are getting mixed up in my head. :blink:

[matmat]

It is more convenient but i fear there are more people who consider that to be cheating than there are when the alert box is used.

That is ridiculous.

 

if they consider you telling your p what your bid means in chat cheating, why wouldn't they think that you telling your p what your bid means using the alert box cheating?

[jillybean]

Use FD, everyone at the table can then see the meaning of the bid.

What, please, is FD?

Full Disclosure, BBO's convention card program, this is what is used when you click the CONV. button when you are at a table.

I dont use FD so cant offer anymore help than that, other forum members are FD users if you need more help.

[smiffy]

That is ridiculous.

 

if they consider you telling your p what your bid means in chat cheating, why wouldn't they think that you telling your p what your bid means using the alert box cheating?

Because the one thing is an official feature by BBO, implemented for that purpose, while the other is not?

 

Full Disclosure, BBO's convention card program, this is what is used when you click the CONV. button when you are at a table.

I dont use FD so cant offer anymore help than that, other forum members are FD users if you need more help.

Oh, thank you very much :). I haven't really looked at that program yet (due to a lack of conventions :blink: ), but sure will now.

[matmat]

Because the one thing is an official feature by BBO, implemented for that purpose, while the other is not?

no. because if someone objects to the first method they will certainly object to the second. this has absolutely nothing to do with how the explanations are given and everything to do with the mindset of the opponents.

[jillybean]

Agree , FD has its uses perhaps when someone is learning a new system but it can’t be used for serious play.

[smiffy]

no. because if someone objects to the first method they will certainly object to the second.

See, for me it seems to be just the other way round. An officially implemented alert button is something altogether different from a chat box. One can always ask a question like: "What do you think this button is for? To enable cheating?"

I actually think this point so valid - and quite easy to see - that in fact only a tiny minority will suspect you of doing "something fishy". And such people, lacking not only an understanding of BBO mechanics but also a good deal of common sense, will object to anything, whether it's FD or self-alerts.

But it might just be that many people still living in the twilight zone of half-knowledge would feel much more secure seeing that it's installed and approved of by the makers of this site. This simply is not the case when people exchange the meaning of their bids via the text box.

Of course there will always be people who will mistrust you and call you a cheater, no matter how good your reasoning might be and how lacking theirs. But should this really be a reason to stop one from doing what one considers right?

 

Agree , FD has its uses perhaps when someone is learning a new system but it can’t be used for serious play.

Agree. That's why it could be turned off by default and only turned on when everybody agrees. Or there could be text messages informing the players. Or tables where it's turned on could be colour coded in the overview. Or this could be implemented only in the Relaxed Bridge Club. Also i think the vast majority of advanced players, experts and "experts" will have it turned off anyway...

 

I think it just has too many benefits - especially, maybe exclusively, for beginners - and only little, and rather neglectible, downsides.

But as you said, it might just be there already, in a way.

[Feegle]

I think FD can be turned off by each individual player.

Thus after FD has been activated you and your partner can (separately) turn it off leaving only the opponents to view the descriptions.

I have not tried this. Unless an automated message goes to the table saying 'south has cleared their view of FD' it would have to be taken on trust.

[Finch]

I also tend to agree that this is an unnecessary solution.

 

There are plenty of people around who would (should?) have no objection to playing at a table where you just use table chat to establish what basic methods you are playing as they comes up, as long as you make it clear that is how your table works. Most people want to have something vaguely resembling a game of bridge, not watch the auction start 1S P 2NT where no-one knows if 2NT is natural, jacoby, 16+ balanced or whatever.

 

As a side note, saying to the table "red suit transfers partner?" when he opens 1NT, or "3041" when you bid or respond to an obvious blackwood bid is sensible and (to my mind) unobjectionable. Telling partner you are playing a somewhat obscure convention or changing your opening two bids when something just happens to fit your hand, or explaining what bids mean in an auction where experienced partnerships might be unsure is not.

 

I would tend to go by if it's something you would have covered in a 15 minute system discussion before playing with a new f2f partner, then by all means discuss it in open chat at the table. Otherwise, guess. If other people object, then you don't want to play with them.

[vang]

that would be a huge improvment in bidding. imagine you'll be able to bid "4NT blackwood" and "4NT quantitative" or even "4NT takeout" ;-)

[smiffy]

I also tend to agree that this is an unnecessary solution.

 

There are plenty of people around who would (should?) have no objection to playing at a table where you just use table chat to establish what basic methods you are playing as they comes up, as long as you make it clear that is how your table works.  Most people want to have something vaguely resembling a game of bridge, not watch the auction start 1S P 2NT where no-one knows if 2NT is natural, jacoby, 16+ balanced or whatever.

 

As a side note, saying to the table "red suit transfers partner?" when he opens 1NT, or "3041" when you bid or respond to an obvious blackwood bid is sensible and (to my mind) unobjectionable.  Telling partner you are playing a somewhat obscure convention or changing your opening two bids when something just happens to fit your hand, or explaining what bids mean in an auction where experienced partnerships might be unsure is not.

 

I would tend to go by if it's something you would have covered in a 15 minute system discussion before playing with a new f2f partner, then by all means discuss it in open chat at the table.  Otherwise, guess.  If other people object, then you don't want to play with them.

Yes, i also consider it unnecessary. But i also consider it an improvement. Not a big one, but it would certainly help in some awkward situations that come up far too frequently in my opinion.

Anyway, you're surely right that it is far from necessary.

 

that would be a huge improvment in bidding. imagine you'll be able to bid "4NT blackwood" and "4NT quantitative" or even "4NT takeout" ;-)

 

You missed the point.

Vang, what exactly prevents you from doing the exact same thing in the chat box?

[jillybean]

See, for me it seems to be just the other way round. An officially implemented alert button is something altogether different from a chat box. One can always ask a question like: "What do you think this button is for? To enable cheating?"

I actually think this point so valid - and quite easy to see - that in fact only a tiny minority will suspect you of doing "something fishy". And such people, lacking not only an understanding of BBO mechanics but also a good deal of common sense, will object to anything, whether it's FD or self-alerts. 

But it might just be that many people still living in the twilight zone of half-knowledge would feel much more secure seeing that it's installed and approved of by the makers of this site. This simply is not the case when people exchange the meaning of their bids via the text box.

Of course there will always be people who will mistrust you and call you a cheater, no matter how good your reasoning might be and how lacking theirs. But should this really be a reason to stop one from doing what one considers right?

 

What are you talking about here?

The complaint with FD is the unauthorized information passed to your partner. Conveying the information via the "installed and approved method" does not make it authorized any more than passing information verbally, written, by body language or smoke signals.

 

Go back and read matmat's post :)

 

No one is objecting if 4 consenting adults want to exchange information and use FD to do this but I don’t expect it in a serious game.

[smiffy]

See, for me it seems to be just the other way round. An officially implemented alert button is something altogether different from a chat box. One can always ask a question like: "What do you think this button is for? To enable cheating?"

I actually think this point so valid - and quite easy to see - that in fact only a tiny minority will suspect you of doing "something fishy". And such people, lacking not only an understanding of BBO mechanics but also a good deal of common sense, will object to anything, whether it's FD or self-alerts. 

But it might just be that many people still living in the twilight zone of half-knowledge would feel much more secure seeing that it's installed and approved of by the makers of this site. This simply is not the case when people exchange the meaning of their bids via the text box.

Of course there will always be people who will mistrust you and call you a cheater, no matter how good your reasoning might be and how lacking theirs. But should this really be a reason to stop one from doing what one considers right?

 

What are you talking about here?

The complaint with FD is the unauthorized information passed to your partner. Conveying the information via the "installed and approved method" does not make it authorized any more than passing information verbally, written, by body language or smoke signals.

 

Go back and read matmat's post :blink:

 

No one is objecting if 4 consenting adults want to exchange information and use FD to do this but I don’t expect it in a serious game.

I give up. I think i have come up with quite a few points here which speak for an "installed and approved" FD. But i have not seen as of yet anything which speaks against it. And it is really not that I am unwilling to let myself be convinced that the idea is a bad one.

 

The danger of UI is just the same as with the chat log, jillybean. Or just please tell me in which way it might be abused more easily. Beause I have no idea, else i would not have come up with it.

 

Of course you do not want it in a serious game, whatever that is. You might want to read one of the two posts in which i amongst other stuff suggest FD to be turned on only if desired and turned off by default.

 

Edit: I have reread matmat's post(s). He just made a statement and said nothing about why he thinks the way he thinks. In the post you quoted i have tried to bring across my point of view. Is my english really that bad?

[matmat]

Of course you do not want it in a serious game, whatever that is. You might want to read one of the two posts in which i amongst other stuff suggest FD to be turned on only if desired and turned off by default.

you are suggesting a change which is completely unnecessary and, pretty much, pointless. I'll repeat what i said earlier...

 

in a relaxed game you can explain bids in the chat window and noone will care. It is easier to use the chat window and it has more space for explanations than the limited bid alert box.

 

in a serious game people will object to using the chat window for explanations. they will also object if your partner can see the bid box alerts.

 

your suggestions bring nothing new or useful and there already is enough functionality in the software to help people improve their game by discussing methods as they come up.

[jillybean]

in a relaxed game you can explain bids in the chat window and noone will care. It is easier to use the chat window and it has more space for explanations than the limited bid alert box.

 

in a serious game people will object to using the chat window for explanations. they will also object if your partner can see the bid box alerts.

 

The bid alert box and the BBO Convention Card (what I call FD) are 2 different things. The bid alert box is used when self alerting, your partner does not see the explanation.

 

The BBO Convention Card/FD automatically provides information with the (alertable) bid, but warning it does not 'alert' the bid. Everyone at the table can see this information. The benefit here is there is no delay or misinformation as long as your agreements match what is defined in the CC. The other 2 differences are. 1. You can see what your bid should mean and correct it if it is wrong. 2. Your partner can see the explanation.

[smiffy]

you are suggesting a change which is completely unnecessary and, pretty much, pointless. I'll repeat what i said earlier...

 

in a relaxed game you can explain bids in the chat window and noone will care. It is easier to use the chat window and it has more space for explanations than the limited bid alert box.

 

in a serious game people will object to using the chat window for explanations. they will also object if your partner can see the bid box alerts.

 

your suggestions bring nothing new or useful and there already is enough functionality in the software to help people improve their game by discussing methods as they come up.

It is simply not true that noone will care.

It is also not necessary to keep talking about "serious games". As i have said three times by now: FD could be (and of course would be) turned off by default. End of story.

And i do wonder how you can say that it is not useful. Of course you have more space in the chat box. But (as i have also said earlier) it might be overlooked. And it might lead certain opps to the opinion that you are abusing it. And it might be very useful for not so experienced players. I'll keep repeating myself meeting serious opposition without any real arguments. Sorry, unless that happens this was my last post on this topic. :blink:

 

@ jillybean: Yes, yes and yes. I have just dubbed it FD. The "official" FD is something different altogether, i know.