CONVENTIONCARD

[marila]

Friends: what do you think about CC? , I don´t like and I tell you why. Opps can see what you and your partner play, but.. your partnet too and is very useful when 1 or both forget something. Are you agree? thx

[awm]

There are two different convention cards available on BBO.

 

One is the "old-style" convention card. It looks more or less like an ACBL-style paper convention card. If you are playing in a tournament I think it's nice to have this card filled out (some tourneys will require it if you are playing non-standard methods).

 

The other is the "full-disclosure" convention card, where explanations of your bids pop up on the screen (visible to all). I agree with your complaints about this card; there are several serious issues with it and I strongly prefer not to use it.

[Sadie3]

ACBL Law 40 says that a player is not entitled to use anything to aid his memory, calculation or technique during the auction or the play. In face to face club games, I have seen many novice players write down the opening lead on their personal score sheets and I advise them that this particular club may allow that memory aid but that it is not acceptable at any tournament level game. In addition, one is allowed to review written defenses to an opponents Mid-Chart or SuperChart methods at any time during the bidding and play. The way I interpret this is that if one is exposed to a method they are not familiar with that is above gen chart, they may consult aids to assist them in their bidding and defense against that method. This does not apply to online ACBL sanctioned games at BBO because only general chart conventions are allowed.

 

IMO, the issue of consulting one's own convention card during the bidding and play needs to be looked at from the point of being online vs playing face to face. In a face to face contest, looking at your convention card is a clear indication to one's partner that an "unusual" bidding sequence may be forthcoming and a "wake up" call has been initiated. (unauthorized information) Online, this condition is not a factor. So, IMO, the real question is... Why is one barred from consulting one's own convention card? In online situations, often one is playing with a new partner This can happen in a face to face environment as well, but is usually not the case. I can cite one instance at a regional tournament where I was asked to fill in at the last second in a side game with a TD that was off duty to avoid a sitout. The TD borrowed my favorite convention card and referenced it throughout the whole session. So, first we broke the rule of having two identical cards filled out and the rule of not consulting the card during auction and play. The world didn't shatter and the other contestents didn't have a problem with us, either. IMO online play is classed as club play and therefore, I believe that this issue of whether or not to be able to look is not my decision to make by the manager of the games. I am sure that software can be designed to allow looking at opps card and denying access to one's own card during the biddng and play.

[helene_t]

I you don't like the FD (new-style convention cards) alerts, you can write in the table label (or in the tourney rules, if you organize a tourney) that FD is not allowed.

 

Some people like FD, some don't.

[Sadie3]

I believe that this issue of whether or not to be able to look is not my decision to make by the manager of the games. 

I meant to say, "I believe that this issue of whether or not to be able to look is not my decision to make but is a decision for the manager of the games.

[1eyedjack]

ACBL Law 40 says that a player is not entitled to use anything to aid his memory, calculation or technique during the auction or the play.

This is not an ACBL law. It is part of the international laws that bind all sponsoring organisations. That said, the quotation as above is incomplete, and the full text of the relevant paragraph reads

A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. However, sponsoring organisations may designate unusual methods and allow written defences against opponents' unusual methods to be referred to at the table

As you acknowledge later in the post, the ACBL has invoked that let-out in relation to Mid-Chart or higher conventions, but it is more helpful to the readers I think to quote the relevant law in full at the outset in order to provide a balanced view free of any possible accusation of bias. Your refence to ACBL regulations may be of value by way of example, but I see nothing in the OP to suggest that the poster is concerned with matters limited to ACBL sanctioned games.

 

In face to face club games, I have seen many novice players write down the opening lead on their personal score sheets and I advise them that this particular club may allow that memory aid but that it is not acceptable at any tournament level game.

I take offence at the above comment. The implication (which I refute) is that the only reason why one might note the opening lead on the score sheet is to provide a memory aid during the play. I usually note the opening lead on my personal score sheet. If the score sheet is appropriately designed (and they vary) I will attempt to write down the entire auction. In neither case is the purpose to provide a memory aid during play, nor do I refer to it in practice during the play but rather the purpose is to provide a memory aid after play has concluded. I know of several players who are not novices who record the opening lead for the same reason. I have even seen some pre-printed personal score sheets that contain a box designed for just that purpose.

 

As to the rest, there is nothing that can be done to deter online players who are determined to play outside the rules. If they keep a manual cribsheet there is nothing that you can do to stop them from referring to it nor can you detect such activity in an opponent. All you can do is have some trust in their integrity and on your own part do your best to play within the rules. In that regard I agree that it would be helpful if there were built into the software at least a possibility of avoiding having your own CC thrust in your own face during the auction and play. Indeed there may be a configuration option in FD to do that. I wouldn't know, having had enough bad experiences trying to create FD files several months ago and given up in disgust I just can't remember. But it would not surprise me if there is such an option, in which case perhaps it should be enabled by default.

[Sadie3]

My apology to you for making you think I was suggesting you were a novice, 1eye. No offense to novices or others was intended. Many persons write notes including the opening lead..... after the play of the hand has completed. To write it down before the playhas completed is a "memory aid" and IMO is unethical. Thank you for looking up the exact quote from the ACBL rule book. I was just paraphrasing and it is always better to use an exact quote.

[kenberg]

It seems to me there is a clear difference between "In online bridge there may be some players who unethically use memory aids" and "We are providing the FD card and fully expect players will be using it as a memory aid".

 

I never use the FD card. However I find the old style cc to be very limited. Time for a new one with more room to fill in conventions. I only play the "usual ones" (Drury, rkc, neg doubles etc) but even then it gets tight for space.

[matmat]

This entire discussion is moot, IMHO.

 

If someone is playing with an unknown partner, having a CC available to refer to is reasonable. I am not a big fan of playing against two people who have no agreements and then either getting fixed by this or receiving a string of good scores because opps routinely misunderstand one another.

 

If someone is playing with a steady partner, it should make no difference as to whether this tool is available online or not. If, as in most cases, they want to be ethical, they will simply ignore it, if not, then they will look at it, but in that case they could have just as easily refer to paper or elsewhere online copies of a convention card.

[Elianna]

My apology to you for making you think I was suggesting you were a novice, 1eye. No offense to novices or others was intended. Many persons write notes including the opening lead..... after the play of the hand has completed. To write it down before the playhas completed is a "memory aid" and IMO is unethical. Thank you for looking up the exact quote from the ACBL rule book. I was just paraphrasing and it is always better to use an exact quote.

It's perfectly legal to write down the opening lead as it's being made.

 

It's also legal to jot down the auction in your score card as you're writing the contract.

 

It's just illegal to look at it after you've played to the first trick.

 

The ACT of writing this stuff down is not a memory aid, REFERRING TO IT is the memory aid.

[crazy4hoop]

My apology to you for making you think I was suggesting you were a novice, 1eye.    No offense to novices or others was intended.  Many persons write notes including the opening lead..... after the play of the hand has completed.  To write it down before the playhas completed is a "memory aid" and IMO is unethical.  Thank you for looking up the exact quote from the ACBL rule book.  I was just paraphrasing and it is always better to use an exact quote.

It's perfectly legal to write down the opening lead as it's being made.

 

It's also legal to jot down the auction in your score card as you're writing the contract.

 

It's just illegal to look at it after you've played to the first trick.

 

The ACT of writing this stuff down is not a memory aid, REFERRING TO IT is the memory aid.

I agree. If it's illegal to write down the opening lead before the play begins, wouldn't it also then be illegal to even just write down the contract before play begins? It is just the reference after playing to trick one that is prohibited (already stated, I know). More players, probably newer players, often look at their scorecards as a simple reminder of what the contract is and I don't often see the cops being called for this. As far as online bridge goes, how bad can refering to one's own methods to remember them be, considering that anyone can get a review of the auction well after trick one with the entire auction in the upper right hand corner?

[Elianna]

Law41C:

 

Following this question period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins, and dummy's hand is spread. After it is too late to have previous calls restated (see B, above), declarer or either defender, at his own turn to play, is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled.

 

(I added the emphasis).

 

So one can always find out what the contract is, but can't find out the whole auction after you've played to the first trick.

 

But I agree with you completely about your observations about online bridge. We already have the venue set up that some of the laws are broken. Another example is that you can see the last trick played even if you play to the next trick. I don't see anyone posting complaining about that.

[jtfanclub]

It's perfectly legal to write down the opening lead as it's being made.

 

It's also legal to jot down the auction in your score card as you're writing the contract.

Source?

[1eyedjack]

It's perfectly legal to write down the opening lead as it's being made.

 

It's also legal to jot down the auction in your score card as you're writing the contract.

Source?

The laws generally prohibit rather than expressly permit. The more pertininent question, if you are in doubt, is what is the source for a suggested ban on the practice. There being none, it is permitted by default.

[Codo]

Offline bridge is no problem, anybody should have a CC and partner is not able to use it.

 

Online I like the full disclosure type of CCs. And if my opponents use their CC as a memory aid too, I have no problem. I would like them to do so.

 

1. If they want to use memory aids, then can simply ust their system notes at home if they are anything close to a regular partnership. They can use messenger, Skype, whatever. I cannot protect myself against any kind of cheating, so I better don't care.

2. What happens if they have no system notes and are not cheating? They will still become better opponents when they are allowed to use FD-Files of their standard system like sayc, 2/1 or wj2005. So you will be less successfull but maybe you will have more fun in defending reasonable contracts then you will have when the opps play in a splinter bid or in 2 Club + 5.

I will take these gifts at real tourneys with a smile, online it is just a waste of time to me. But I know that taste may differ.

[A2003]

I like full disclosure type convention card and I don't like old style convention card because it conveys very little information.

 

One of the goals of FD is to improve the overall level of bidding -- particularly among the large number of one-time partnerships -- by making uniform information available to everyone at the table.

 

BBO could have made the definitions visible only to the opponents and the bidder, but looks like it is done to deliberately choosen to set FD up this way.

 

We've all had the experience of reaching a disastrous contract, not because we did anything bad, but simply because we misunderstood partner.

Bridge results are meant to be a reflection of skill and judgment, and not dependent on how talented a mindreader you are.

 

If you and your partner want to practice without seeing the definitions displayed, you can easily do that. Either:

* Use one of the old-style convention cards

* Disable the display for your partner's bids. This can be done by clicking on the green CONV button in the bottom menu and selecting 'Options'.

 

It gives me the opportunity to play different conventions and systems.

There is not enough full disclosure type information in the old style convention card.

Basically it is the same information related to the partnership agreement.

Other phases of the game like declarer play defensive plays will improve.

 

There is no guarantee that you can win every time, because of the use of FD.

 

In all other sports, the rules and equipment are changing anyway.

[1eyedjack]

Clearly there are strong feelings on both sides. That being the case, a sensible solution that would satisfy both sides might be for the software to delegate that choice to the players within the configuration settings. The individual players could then set it up according to their preferences, with the table host or tourney host having override options in the table/tourney settings.

 

One benefit of displaying the meanings of bids to the partnership which made the bid is so that they have the opportunity to correct misexplanations that arise through coding errors within the CC, of which I have seen numerous examples. Even that could be constrained by having the explanation displayed only to the bidder, and not to his partner. That is not a perfect solution, as the bidder may have forgotten the system and be reminded by the displayed explanation. Not perfect, but an improvement, I think.

[Codo]

Another solution is to leave it like it is. People may or may not use FD in the way that they can see the explanation of their own and partners bids.

 

But again, what is your problem with opponents who know their system?

[1eyedjack]

Another solution is to leave it like it is.

In so far as it does not actually solve the concerns raised in this and similar previous threads, you can call it a "solution" if you like.

 

People may or may not use FD in the way that they can see the explanation of their own and partners bids.

True. They can choose either to use or not to use FD. If they don't like this feature of FD they can exercise their choice not to use it. That is, as you say, an alternative solution, and one that I have in fact adopted, although for a combination of reasons of which this does not feature as particularly important.

 

But again, what is your problem with opponents who know their system?

None whatsoever. Indeed such individuals would receive no benefit from having their system repeatedly thrust in front of their eyes, and to them any change would be otiose. Likewise, I have no problem with opponents who can remember what cards were played to a previous trick. Even so I applaud the decision of software designers to leave the completed tricks face down.

[hotShot]

But again, what is your problem with opponents who know their system?

None whatsoever. Indeed such individuals would receive no benefit from having their system repeatedly thrust in front of their eyes, and to them any change would be otiose. Likewise, I have no problem with opponents who can remember what cards were played to a previous trick. Even so I applaud the decision of software designers to leave the completed tricks face down.

But you should not close your eye about the fact that playing online, your opponents (and even your pickup partner) can write down each trick as they are played or check his printed system notes during bidding.

 

So if they want to use memory aids, they can do that.

If they don't want to do that they will ignore or switch off FD.

[1eyedjack]

But you should not close your eye about the fact that playing online, your opponents (and even your pickup partner) can write down each trick as they are played or check his printed system notes during bidding.

 

So if they want to use memory aids, they can do that.

If they don't want to do that they will ignore or switch off FD.

I agree with this 100%. It just seems a shame that if you don't want the memory aid then you have to switch off FD altogether, when there would otherwise be some tangible benefits to FD (assuming you can get it to "behave" of course)

[Codo]

Another solution is to leave it like it is.

In so far as it does not actually solve the concerns raised in this and similar previous threads, you can call it a "solution" if you like.

But for "solving the concerns" of some members you make the game worse for others, who enjoy to have their system notes of an otherwise unfamiliar system, or who wants to have opponents which do not play in ridicoulus contracts. You cannot serve them all.

[helene_t]

You cannot serve them all.

Why not? Let the table host decide whether FD all alerts, FD alerts only, or no alerts are visible to partner. To each his own.

[Codo]

Where is the progress in this?

 

If I want to play with FD to my partner and my opps don't want us to use it, we both better part and search for new opponents. This is easy.

 

So it comes down to what is used in a tourney: I think that it will be a good idea to have the tourney host to allow or forbid Partner to see my FD and to make this clear BEFORE the tourney starts . But maybe this point is not at top of Udays priority list.

[kenberg]

If I understand Codo correctly he is suggesting that we really do not need to get too worked up over this and i agree. But with the subject on the table I will list a cou;e of my objections.

 

I. Some stuff is hidden in plain sight. I mean: rho opens 1S. I look at the FD and see that this shows an opening hand and spades. After a while I may forget to look when I encounter a natural sounding bid. My error, no doubt. But in bridge as I am used to it when someone opens, say, 2D and it shows, say hearts and spades there is an alert. W/O the alert I assume it shows diamonds and I do not consult their card.

 

 

II. Part of bridge, as I see it, is to work through agreements with your partner, hope you have resolved ambiguities, and then try to keep your memory alive. Even at the highest levels, this sometimes fails. With the FD, someone can hand you the card and then at your turn to bid you browse around and see what you should do. To me, this is a different game than what I call bridge.

 

 

I have other things to worry about and I don't go ballistic over this, but I prefer bridge without the cheat-sheets. They remind me of the perhaps imaginary old ladies "I bid 2C. Now you remember what that bid means, don't you dear?"