New to BBO and BBO Tournaments

[mikehihz]

Hi folks,

 

I'm new to BBO and relatively new to bridge. I classify myself as a beginner and have been in the tournaments with a regular partner and tonight we were asked to fill out a convention card by a TD after we made a bid which was misinterpreted. Not a problem, however, my partner and I are still learning and we decided to start with the SAYC but take out stuff we didn't know how to do, or haven't encountered yet. We made the description "SAYC, simplified."

 

Will this be enough to satisfy TDs if they are called to the table? Should we disclose anything else to an op in the CC that would clue them in that we are still in the learning process and not to be annoyed if they don't understand what we are doing?

 

Thanks!

 

m

[blackshoe]

Heh. Several years ago, in face to face bridge, I was introduced to a woman as a potential partner. After the introductions, she proudly proclaimed "I play SAYC!". I said "good, that means you play Jacoby 2NT." She replied "what the heck is Jacoby 2NT?" :P We played together for 2 1/2 years. We never did add Jacoby 2NT to our card, and we never had an opponent find a problem with our disclosure.

 

Bottom line is that as long as your card is marked appropriately, and you alert when required and give good explanations of your partnership understandings, you should have no trouble.

 

Hm. I did have a problem once with a somewhat pedantic player who disliked our (not the same partner as above, a different one) writing "Modern American" on the card, as we were playing a 2/1 response as game forcing. The pedant insisted that we should mark the card as "2/1". So we changed it. No big deal.

 

You're going to find some players who will be annoyed when they don't understand what you're doing. Usually when they get a bad board — in spite of the fact that they can probably expect to get far more good boards than bad from you, over time. Assuming, of course, that they know what they are doing. B) I generally chalk it up to "stuff happens" and get on with the game, so long as they don't get nasty.

[jillybean]

Announce your system, alert and explain your agreements where needed but please dont use the convention card in tournaments, your partner is not entitled to this information.

[blackshoe]

Um, carefully, Kathryn, carefully, please. ;)

 

Players are not permitted to consult their own system cards during the auction and play, with one exception: players of the declaring side may consult their own system cards during the clarification period. See Law 40B2(:).

 

A player is entitled to know what's on his system card. He's just not allowed to refresh his memory with that card.

[Old York]

So long as you mark your profiles as "beginner" and display "basic sayc" on your profiles, you should be welcome in most tournaments

 

You should alert any special agreements you have made with your partner, including carding methods. If you have any problems with irate opponents, do not attempt to argue or explain, just call the tournament director

 

I would suggest that you ignore this td's request to fill out a convention card until such time as you realy need to.

 

If you use bbo convention cards then you should untick the option to display explanations of bids your partner has made. I strongly believe that this should be the default setting. You should never be able to see your partner's alerts

 

Tony

[helene_t]

A player is entitled to know what's on his system card. He's just not allowed to refresh his memory with that card.

I am sure you have no problems with pedantic opps :)

[blackshoe]

I would suggest that you ignore this td's request to fill out a convention card until such time as you realy need to.

A "request" from a TD is similar to one from an Admiral to someone of lower rank. It may be framed as a request, but it's really a directive. And then...

 

 

The following are examples of offenses subject to procedural penalty (but the offenses are not limited to these):

 

[snip]

 

8. failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the director.

[barmar]

Announce your system, alert and explain your agreements where needed but please dont use the convention card in tournaments, your partner is not entitled to this information.

Whenever I play in ACBL tourneys, they announce at the start that you MUST post a CC unless you're playing SAYC.

 

And when you create a CC and associate it with a partner, BBO Flash automatically loads it when you join a tourney with them.

 

All signs seem to point to the expectation that you'll load a CC in tourneys.

[jillybean]

Um, carefully, Kathryn, carefully, please.  :D

 

Players are not permitted to consult their own system cards during the auction and play, with one exception: players of the declaring side may consult their own system cards during the clarification period. See Law 40B2(;).

 

A player is entitled to know what's on his system card. He's just not allowed to refresh his memory with that card.

I clearly wasnt clear :) When people say "use/load a convention card" they are refering to the electronic convention card on BBO which pops up with an explanation of the bid for all to see. I think it is wrong for tournament play but its apparent the majority would rather play this way.

 

If I'd been using this CC in my other thread(s) I would never have bid ♦'s! B)

[blackshoe]

;)

 

One of these days, I'm going to have to actually play a game or two on BBO.

B)

[jdonn]

I have to admit I never knew declarer could look at his card between the auction ending and the lead being faced. It does make some sense, so he can assure giving correct explanations to any questions.

[TimG]

And when you create a CC and associate it with a partner, BBO Flash automatically loads it when you join a tourney with them.

This also happens in the Windows version.

[mycroft]

One more thing: SAYC == Standard American - Yellow Card. A (n almost) static document. You can't play "simplified SAYC" or "basic SAYC" or ... (even though everybody does). You could play "SAYC except..." but why?

 

You can also play "SA" - Standard American. That's a class of systems based around what is common in North America, without 2/1 Game Forcing. Thousands do - but nobody online :-). I even played "gadgety SA with 11+-14 NTs" (I guess we could have called it Gadgety Acol + 5cM) for three years. If you do play the variant of SA that is written out on a Yellow Card...

 

</mode="pedant">

 

In answer to the opening poster, I would simply label the card "basic SA", do the explanation in the card, and you're safe.

[shintaro]

 

I would suggest that you ignore this td's request to fill out a convention card until such time as you realy need to.

 

 

 

Tony

mmm

 

dont do it with me around tony :)

[shintaro]

 

And when you create a CC and associate it with a partner, BBO Flash automatically loads it when you join a tourney with them.

 

All signs seem to point to the expectation that you'll load a CC in tourneys.

:)

 

yup it would seem that BBO prefer you to load your convention card which as Blackshoe says does not happen in the 'Real' world,

 

However Online you CAN NEVER REVOKE or DO an INSIFFICIENT BID either

 

:ph34r:

[Old York]

The expectation that you should use a convention card only occurs in ACBL Tournies. This expectation refers to the old-fashioned cc, and not to FD (Full Disclosure) and only if not using Sayc. If using Sayc, then the cc is filled in automatically

 

Needless to say, the old fashioned card only gives scant information on opening bids and carding methods, and would not have helped at all in the situation reported by op.

 

As far as I am aware, online TDs never ask that FD be used, except for unusual methods (Prec, WJ, etc). It is foolish for any TD to expect a novice pair to fill in an FD system card. If this pair have failed to correctly explain a bid etc, then TD should have taken other action and explained why.

 

Full Disclosure cards are being mis-used by many regular partnerships because they use them as mnemonic aids + alerts are visible to BOTH members of the partnership. I would appreciate if someone could supply the exact WBF laws being broken by this mis-use.

 

If BBO intended that all alerts could be seen by all players, then alerts which are manually imputted would also be visible?

 

Tony

[blackshoe]

I would appreciate if someone could supply the exact WBF laws being broken by this mis-use.

Easy:

...a player may not consult his own system card...

...a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique.

Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays.

1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

2. the gravest possible offense is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws.

[Old York]

Thx Blackshoe

 

So...

 

When you click [CONV.] > Options...

 

Automatically display expanations:-

 

1/ Of bids you might make

2/ Of bids you have made

3/ Of bids your partner has made

 

....are all these options unlawful under WBF rules?

 

see also

http://www.bridgebase.com/help/3/common/te....html?fdoptions

 

If so (and I strongly suspect it is so), then all these options should be removed as a matter of urgency, and (perhaps) only allowed in partnership bidding rooms or teaching tables

 

Tony

[paulg]

Full Disclosure cards are being mis-used by many regular partnerships because they use them as mnemonic aids + alerts are visible to BOTH members of the partnership. I would appreciate if someone could supply the exact WBF laws being broken by this mis-use.

 

If BBO intended that all alerts could be seen by all players, then alerts which are manually imputted would also be visible?

 

Tony

BBO provided the FD facility that alerts all players, so it is intentional.

 

The FD convention card was an early experiment in the search for a solution to the problem of full disclosure. Those who have invested significant time in developing a large FD card will have done so from system notes, so which they are using as an aide-memoire is largely irrelevant as far as I can see.

 

In serious tournaments I agree that its use is undesirable.

 

In less serious tournaments, and the general play areas, I think it is helpful. It saves retyping and provides more information than the alert area allows. It speeds up the game.

 

Paul

 

(FD file, 313KB)

[paulg]

Thx Blackshoe

 

So...

 

When you click [CONV.] > Options...

 

Automatically display expanations:-

 

1/ Of bids you might make

2/ Of bids you have made

3/ Of bids your partner has made

 

....are all these options unlawful under WBF rules?

 

see also

        http://www.bridgebase.com/help/3/common/te....html?fdoptions

 

If so (and I strongly suspect it is so), then all these options should be removed as a matter of urgency, and (perhaps) only allowed in partnership bidding rooms or teaching tables

 

Tony

I don't think this is how it works on BBO. It is a broad church:

• If tournament directors wish to prohibit the use of FD cards, that is acceptable
  
• If you dislike the opponent's use of FD at your table, then you can ask them to stop (or ask them to leave)
  
• If you dislike the opponent's use of FD at their table, then you can move to another table
  

It is the same as no-psyche tournaments. These are not lawful, but a large number of people seem to be happy with them.

 

There is choice, embrace it.

[Old York]

Hi cardsharp

 

Perhaps you are assuming that I dislike FD cards. I do not.

 

The correct usage of FD cards is a substantial improvement on manually imputting alerts. Many players open 2♦ and alert as "multi" which is inadequate

 

I recently played in a tournament where opener made a reverse bid, which I clicked on, and was given an inadequate explanation. It later transpired that this regular, advanced partnership had deliberately concealed their partnership agreement that a reverse did not show extra strength or distribution. This could never have happened if they were using FD

 

I do, however, strongly believe that the automatic displays of FD on BBO is not 100% legal.

 

The only legitimate reason for using FD is to disclose to opponents the full meaning of your bids:-

 

Automatically display explanations:-

 

4/ Of bids your opponents have made

5/ Of bids made when you are kibitzing

 

..any other use must be highly unethical at any competitive table

 

Tony (so sorry if this is veering off-topic)

[paulg]

I'm not disputing your beliefs, I'm just surprised you care so much. This is so low on my list of things for Fred and the team to work on.

 

p

[jillybean]

[*]If tournament directors wish to prohibit the use of FD cards, that is acceptable

Easier said than done :) The TD needs to visit each table to see if any pairs are using the CC

[TimG]

Thx Blackshoe

 

So...

 

When you click [CONV.] > Options...

 

Automatically display expanations:-

 

1/ Of bids you might make

2/ Of bids you have made

3/ Of bids your partner has made

 

....are all these options unlawful under WBF rules?

 

see also

http://www.bridgebase.com/help/3/common/te....html?fdoptions

 

If so (and I strongly suspect it is so), then all these options should be removed as a matter of urgency, and (perhaps) only allowed in partnership bidding rooms or teaching tables

 

Tony

I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to expect that play in the main bridge club of BBO is going to adhere to WBF rules any more than expecting the same of a home game.

 

Even in the context of an ACBL sanctioned online club game, I think it is reasonable to expect that the rules will be somewhat different from a face-to-face game.

 

If you think such aids should be barred, consider that having it as an option is little different from someone having the option of printing out their convention card and referring to it during online play or of having a set of system notes handy.

 

Anyway, I would suggest that removing this option is not close to a matter of urgency.

[jillybean]

If you think such aids should be barred, consider that having it as an option is little different from someone having the option of printing out their convention card and referring to it during online play or of having a set of system notes handy.

And if the pair does not have an accurate CC loaded it must be acceptable for one player to ask or explain what the bid means via chat to the table.

 

I would expect a high degree of misinformation as pairs are forced to load a CC and subsequently has the CC is loaded automatically.

 

This reminds me of the players who have their convention card open on their lap and take objection when asked to put it on the table. :)