"Undo" suggested change in software

[Abadaba]

I would like to suggest that undo requests only be seen by the opps and not be seen by the partner of the requestor.

 

If the undo is not allowed it would prevent giving information to the partner of the one asking.

[hrothgar]

Like this idea...

[uday]

Won't help when the undo is accepted, since the partner of the requestor will see the cards roll back.

[JRG]

Won't help when the undo is accepted, since the partner of the requestor will see the cards roll back.

The whole point is if it is NOT allowed. If it is allowed, then the whole world knows (and presumably can live with it since the opponent(s) of whom it was requested allowed it); HOWEVER, if it is not allowed, the partner of the person who made the request (in the current implementation) KNOWS his partner wanted to change a call or play.

 

As suggested, this is definitely unauthorized information.

[fred]

This software already behaves this way (same for

redeals and claims).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[1eyedjack]

It is an interesting point, but I am not convinced about the idea.

 

In an ideal world an undo will never be rejected, because in an ideal world it will only be requested when the player is entitled under the laws to retract, namely a misclick (at least in the bidding - law 25A) immediately retracted without pause for thought (there are also limited poweres to change without penalty following a play of the cards, ie laws 47C and 47E2(a)). If the circumstances fit his entitlement then the opponents should not have the power to reject.

 

If the opponents reject an undo request then they are exercising a judgement call that the undo request does not fulfil the conditions of entitlement under the laws. They may or may not be correct in making that judgement call, but certainly they are in principle no more perfect in making that judgement than is the player making the request.

 

In the extreme, therefore, you could end up with a situation in which an undo request is reasonably made, within his entitlement under the laws, unreasonably rejected by opponents, and IN ADDITION, the opponents then have an advantage in the subsequent bidding and play that is denied to the partner of the undo requester. I do not think that is a fair outcome. Indeed, if the undo requester is a novice untrained in the laws and makes a valid undo request, his partner who may be well versed in the laws is not in a position to stand up for the rights of the partnership if he is kept in ignorance of what is going on.

 

It is not a major issue, because once an undo request is rejected the table will break up fairly shortly after. Each pair will mark his opponents as enemies and they will hopefully never meet again.

 

It is perhaps different in a tourney (at least in a tourney where undos are not prohibited ... another breach of the primary laws by the way). The suggestion may be a useful feature in a tourney but, to provide a system of "checks and balances", perhaps a rejected undo should automatically send a message to TD.

[spwdo]

It is an interesting point, but I am not convinced about the idea.

 

In an ideal world an undo will never be rejected

 

 

It is not a major issue, because once an undo request is rejected the table will break up fairly shortly after. Each pair will mark his opponents as enemies and they will hopefully never meet again.

 

It is perhaps different in a tourney (at least in a tourney where undos are not prohibited ... another breach of the primary laws by the way).

hi,

 

yes , agree with this.However in tourneys after a request is rejected we see huge fights going on.Today the requester , after not receiving his undo opend bidding next hand with 7nt and left the tourney, return after one minute(hoping he was subbed at the time), refused to play futher.

 

I call yellow, he took note , i adjusted , subbed player out , made him black till he apoligies to me.But you see world isnt perfect :unsure: some ppl still want to gain in ways outside the table.

 

Another negatieve sideeffect of allowing undos is that tournament chat is open for all, u see after pairs have completed they start comenting their last hand when others are still bidding it, i wish the undo and tournament chat were seperated options so tds coud choose one or the other or both or none.

 

 

spwdo

[1eyedjack]

spwdo's use of "however" appears to circumscribe his otherwise supportive comments in response to my post. And yet his particular example cited appears to support my suggestion that the undo request should be visible to all at the table.

 

In a face to face game, a contested undo request will be referred to a TD. The TD will take all practical measures to determine whether the circumstances of the request fall within those prescribed in the laws as permitting the undo, possibly (but not necessarily) with associated UI regulations biting.

 

Sometimes it may not be possible for the TD to ascertain which of the facts in dispute are the truth (he will have to make a subjective decision based on the balance of probabiliites), and I suspect that in an online environment (unless the software were adapted to record such matters as delays between packet transfers) this may be intrinsically more difficult than in face to face.

 

But to take an example, if the undo request is relying on law 25A then a relevant question of fact is whether the request was made "without pause for thought" following the call in question. This question of fact may be in dispute and may be the root cause of the initial denial by opponents. Whilst I do not suggest that players will deliberately misrepresent the facts (as they perceive them) in order to obtain advantage, it does seem to me to be in the interests of equity that the number of players able to give evidence on this question should be fairly balanced as between parties who have an interest in the outcome. To permit (as suggested) two players from one side to give evidence but only one from the other does not further that end, and allowing all at the table the ability to see the undo request restores that balance.

[Gweny]

:) Unfortunately Jack, since both Spwdo and me direct clocked events we is constrain by time, and unfortunately allowing undos is constant source of irratation, conflict, and time delays resulting in players leaving, making rude bids, and howling loudly to unfortunate director who must then mediate.

 

As rules of bbo say - any player has right to reject - claims, or undos. While I prefer nice honourable opps who do grant undos for obvious bad clicks what do you do when some person do 2-3 undos in one game? is this abuse or is it bad/dirty mouse, or perhaps it is bad day for Parkinsons sufferer. And what of delays someone with this disease experience?

 

If you like try it then please attach you arm to rapidly vibrating object then place you hand on mouse and see how much success you get at hitting "moving target"

 

Is this with in you rules also?

 

I honestly wish we allow undos in Fishys. We consider making this move many times and maybe within next month we try it and see how bad /or good it work.

[1eyedjack]

Point taken Gweny. As with other breaches of the laws, there is I think no serious damage done if the conditions of contest, published in advance of the start, make it clear.

 

However this thread is not really about whether undos should be allowed or not. It is about whether the request should be visible to all at the table in those events where they ARE allowed. If you do not allow undos at all then this thread is broadly irrelevant to you.

[spwdo]

Point taken Gweny. As with other breaches of the laws, there is I think no serious damage done if the conditions of contest, published in advance of the start, make it clear.

 

However this thread is not really about whether undos should be allowed or not. It is about whether the request should be visible to all at the table in those events where they ARE allowed. If you do not allow undos at all then this thread is broadly irrelevant to you.

hi,

 

 

let me give u some insight how i handled this, undos were off in my tourneys till i got a private request from someone that made a misclick(only bidding , not for play), then i went to the table, modiefied the tourney, let "miscliker" ask an undo(ppl never rejected cause td was there) , they went back and started over again.

 

Same i did when ppl complaint when bidding was still going and someone made a to late explanation, example 2C presision when opps thought it was strong and when bidding was almost over the explanation came(smart huh) director can never rule after because he only sees the explanation not the time point when it was made.

 

 

What happen couple of days ago was me same as gweny testing with "allowing undo" in full.Sad to say some ppl do not understand this and think when its allowed it shoud always be granted(for the record i always accept undo and i feel all shoud do the same but who am i to judge this?).Its in BBO rules somewhere and my rules where to be seen as an special adding to those rules , so on top of BBO rules there where mine