Using full disclosure CC can damage opponents

[jdonn]

Fair comments, but in the context of this thread and my post (in it's entirety), it should be impossible to think that I intended to mean manually inputted alerts

You keep calling the FD explanations "alerts" which is why there is confusion. They are not alerts, they are explanations. BBO doesn't allow you to see partner's alerts.

 

I think FD is a fine idea. It's just an option, turn it off if you don't want it, otherwise it's a good tool.

[Old York]

You keep calling the FD explanations "alerts" which is why there is confusion. They are not alerts, they are explanations

Most BBO players who use FD actually believe that there is no need to alert their bids, this has been discussed in another thread recently. This means that the FD "explanation" is actually being used as an "alert", so there is no confusion on that point

 

You cannot force your opponents to switch off their display options for "explanations", maybe this is OP's reason for opening this thread

 

In a perfect world, Bidders should always alert their bids with no explanation being visible until an opponent clicks on the bid, then, and only then, would the FD Explanation be made visible, and only to the opponent who clicked

 

Nevertheless, FD is better than receiving "no information" or "no agreement" when you ask for an explanation, this outweighs many arguments

 

Tony

[csdenmark]

Tony - maybe time for you to think over why the rule you refer to is there.

[helene_t]

Nevertheless, FD is better than receiving "no information" or "no agreement" when you ask for an explanation, this outweighs many arguments

I suppose "no agreement" is the answer you get in some situation which the opponents haven't discussed. If they haven't discussed it they probably wouldn't have put it in their FD file either! Actually, there is an option to define a call as "no agreement" in the FD file format, I sometimes use it to highlight elements of the system that still need to be discussed. For example, if a 2♣ response to a 1NT overcall is left undefined, some may assume that it is Stayman while others may assume it is natural. If it is explicitly "no agreement", then it is clear that it is something we need to discuss.

 

But maybe if opps are a pick-up partnership that just agreed to play "SAYC" (whatever that means), there will be some basic auctions which are actually covered in the SAYC FD file but which the pair in question would not be sure about. Then FD wakes them up, but at least opps will know what is going on, too.

 

I think FD is fine for pick-up partnerships. Also fine for kibbitzers when it shows the meaning of calls which players don't bother to alert because opps already know what system they play, but kibbitzers may not know. Maybe it shouldn't be allowed in "serious" tournaments, I would prefer hosts to decide on that. And personally I would prefer it not to be used in most educational events, but again, it should be for the host to decide.

[csdenmark]

I think FD is fine for pick-up partnerships. Also fine for kibbitzers when it shows the meaning of calls which players don't bother to alert because opps already know what system they play, but kibbitzers may not know. Maybe it shouldn't be allowed in "serious" tournaments, I would prefer hosts to decide on that. And personally I would prefer it not to be used in most educational events, but again, it should be for the host to decide.

I think you have a problem Helene. What is a 'serious tournament'?

 

Certainly a nice plus word. Is there any meaning in it or is it only an empty statement?

 

I understand that using FD discredit tournaments not to be serious. Can you think of a tournament without convention card to be serious?

 

As you may have deducted from my former statements I think the non-serious ones are the bridge organizations which still allow 80 years old fundamentals to be here in modern times of information technology. It is quite scandalous that their lawmakers have not been fired for incompetence.

[Old York]

Surely this can't be fair to opponents. At least with the alerting system only the opponents can see the explanation JJ

I think it ironic that, when using FD, the only thing that is not disclosed is the manner in which it is being used

 

There was a recent example in an Acol Club Team Match, where only one side were using FD

The non-fd side had a tiny bidding mishap, which could never have happened using FD. The FD team had a "perfect" bidding sequence on a different difficult hand and landed on a pinhead into the only making contract

 

The FD side were victorious, but it was a hollow victory. All the kibs were left with a bad taste in their mouth. Later, I learned that the non-fd side were not aware that the fd team could see explanations of every bid, The Team Captain said that they would have objected to fd usage, had they known this in advance

 

Tony

[csdenmark]

The FD side were victorious, but it was a hollow victory. All the kibs were left with a bad taste in their mouth. Later, I learned that the non-fd side were not aware that the fd team could see explanations of every bid, The Team Captain said that they would have objected to fd usage, had they known this in advance

 

Tony

And what to learn from that Tony?

 

Looks like they need a team captain who understand the world of today.

[Old York]

And what to learn from that Tony?

 

Looks like they need a team captain who understand the world of today.

I will allow my BBO Forum signature to answer on my behalf :unsure:

[csdenmark]

And what to learn from that Tony?

 

Looks like they need a team captain who understand the world of today.

I will allow my BBO Forum signature to answer on my behalf :unsure:

Sorry Tony I think I am too old to be able to understand Pink Floyds cryptical message.

[barmar]

I think it ironic that, when using FD, the only thing that is not disclosed is the manner in which it is being used

I think there's a pop-up on the screen that says "NS are using a new convention card". I'm not totally sure about this, but I think "new" means FD. However, I admit that this meaning is not likely to be obvious to the opponents.

[csdenmark]

I think it ironic that, when using FD, the only thing that is not disclosed is the manner in which it is being used

I think there's a pop-up on the screen that says "NS are using a new convention card". I'm not totally sure about this, but I think "new" means FD. However, I admit that this meaning is not likely to be obvious to the opponents.

It is correct - they receive the message as you describe.

 

If they dont understand the meaning of the message - they certainly have a problem. It is ridiculous to blame those doing their homework for faults by others only to be lazy and all too much used to play non-serious bridge.

[barmar]

I think it ironic that, when using FD, the only thing that is not disclosed is the manner in which it is being used

I think there's a pop-up on the screen that says "NS are using a new convention card". I'm not totally sure about this, but I think "new" means FD. However, I admit that this meaning is not likely to be obvious to the opponents.

It is correct - they receive the message as you describe.

 

If they dont understand the meaning of the message - they certainly have a problem. It is ridiculous to blame those doing their homework for faults by others only to be lazy and all too much used to play non-serious bridge.

Harsh! Is there somewhere that the meaning of this message is explained, that they should have found when "doing their homework"? Does everyone (or even anyone) read all the BBO documentation before they start playing here?

 

The first few times I saw that message I didn't realize the meaning. I thought it just meant that they changed CCs, (like when you buy new clothes or a new car, they aren't fundamentally different from your old clothes or car). I haven't used BBOWin in a while, but I think it was slightly clearer, saying "new-style convention card". But eventually I noticed that whenever I saw that message I also saw the ideosyncratic style of FD's explanations, and made the connection.

[fred]

I think it ironic that, when using FD, the only thing that is not disclosed is the manner in which it is being used

I think there's a pop-up on the screen that says "NS are using a new convention card". I'm not totally sure about this, but I think "new" means FD. However, I admit that this meaning is not likely to be obvious to the opponents.

It is correct - they receive the message as you describe.

 

If they dont understand the meaning of the message - they certainly have a problem. It is ridiculous to blame those doing their homework for faults by others only to be lazy and all too much used to play non-serious bridge.

Harsh! Is there somewhere that the meaning of this message is explained, that they should have found when "doing their homework"? Does everyone (or even anyone) read all the BBO documentation before they start playing here?

 

The first few times I saw that message I didn't realize the meaning. I thought it just meant that they changed CCs, (like when you buy new clothes or a new car, they aren't fundamentally different from your old clothes or car). I haven't used BBOWin in a while, but I think it was slightly clearer, saying "new-style convention card". But eventually I noticed that whenever I saw that message I also saw the ideosyncratic style of FD's explanations, and made the connection.

I am pretty sure that this message is now displayed regardless of the type of convention card that a given pair has started using.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

The first few times I saw that message I didn't realize the meaning.  I thought it just meant that they changed CCs, (like when you buy new clothes or a new car, they aren't fundamentally different from your old clothes or car).  I haven't used BBOWin in a while, but I think it was slightly clearer, saying "new-style convention card".  But eventually I noticed that whenever I saw that message I also saw the ideosyncratic style of FD's explanations, and made the connection.

That is exactly the meaning.

 

It is a poor habit only to be interested in what others are doing when you assume they might be harmful to you. To be curious is an important part of life.

 

All who have done their homework carefully have noticed how features are working for themselves and therefore they know.

[A2003]

There was a recent example in an Acol Club Team Match, where only one side were using FD

The non-fd side had a tiny bidding mishap, which could never have happened using FD. The FD team had a "perfect" bidding sequence on a different difficult hand and landed on a pinhead into the only making contract.

 

The FD side were victorious, but it was a hollow victory.

 

Tony

Mishaps happens even when you are using FD.

You will have to start using FD to see the consequences.

Disasters strike whether you use or not.

Some bids cannot be explained for some layout of the cards.

Even in FD, you will have two or more choices to select the bid and you may choose the wrong one.

 

FD eliminates the silly bidding errors and make the game more competitive.

[Echognome]

Using FD as a memory aide in a "competitive" match is silly. Using it as a training exercise is fine.

 

I'm not too bothered however, since we are generally talking about "friendly" games on BBO.

[shintaro]

;)

 

Can I wade into the fray here; As one who always uses FD cards when playing with 'regular' partnerships online, I always send any and all oponents a standard message to the effect that we are using a FDC and that it will be displayed in the Top Right hand of screen, I continue with If you wish to know the meaning of any bid you can hover your cursor over that bid and it will tell you but feel free to ask any questions you like

 

:D

[barmar]

;)

 

Can I wade into the fray here; As one who always uses FD cards when playing with 'regular' partnerships online, I always send any and all oponents a standard message to the effect that we are using a FDC and that it will be displayed in the Top Right hand of screen, I continue with If you wish to know the meaning of any bid you can hover your cursor over that bid and it will tell you but feel free to ask any questions you like

 

:D

But do you also remind them that the meanings are shown to you and your partner as well? That's what people are complaining about.

[shintaro]

But do you also remind them that the meanings are shown to you and your partner as well? That's what people are complaining about.

;)

 

Would/do the same people complain under ACBL where I understand that Self Abuse (oopps sorry Self alerting) is mandatory If that is not an 'aid memoir to Wake up partner I dont know what is

 

:D

[barmar]

But do you also remind them that the meanings are shown to you and your partner as well?  That's what people are complaining about.

;)

 

Would/do the same people complain under ACBL where I understand that Self Abuse (oopps sorry Self alerting) is mandatory If that is not an 'aid memoir to Wake up partner I dont know what is

 

:rolleyes:

In f2f games, partner alerting is the norm, not self alerting, except when screens are in use.

 

It's understood that this can pass UI, but we live with it because it's hard to fix. But BBO is under no such limitation. There's no reason why FD has to display its meanings to all the players, it was a decision made by Fred et al.

[csdenmark]

In f2f games, partner alerting is the norm, not self alerting, except when screens are in use.

 

It's understood that this can pass UI, but we live with it because it's hard to fix.  But BBO is under no such limitation. There's no reason why FD has to display its meanings to all the players, it was a decision made by Fred et al.

But BBO is under no such limitation

Therefore BBO has decided to comply with modern standards for information technology.

 

There's no reason why FD has to display its meanings to all the players, it was a decision made by Fred

And good so, Fred is a man who can brainwork

[Elianna]

But do you also remind them that the meanings are shown to you and your partner as well?  That's what people are complaining about.

;)

 

Would/do the same people complain under ACBL where I understand that Self Abuse (oopps sorry Self alerting) is mandatory If that is not an 'aid memoir to Wake up partner I dont know what is

 

:P

Partner can't see your alerts. But he CAN see the FD explanation of your bid.

[barmar]

In f2f games, partner alerting is the norm, not self alerting, except when screens are in use.

 

It's understood that this can pass UI, but we live with it because it's hard to fix.  But BBO is under no such limitation. There's no reason why FD has to display its meanings to all the players, it was a decision made by Fred et al.

But BBO is under no such limitation

Therefore BBO has decided to comply with modern standards for information technology.

 

There's no reason why FD has to display its meanings to all the players, it was a decision made by Fred

And good so, Fred is a man who can brainwork

I still don't understand why you think this is so great. Don't you think that the skill of remembering your agreements is an important part of the game? Bridge is a mind sport, and this is a test of your mind. One of the things that sets Meckwell apart from the rest of us is that not only do they have hundreds of pages of system notes, but they remember most of them.

 

Just because the computer CAN tell you what your bids mean doesn't mean it SHOULD.

 

BBO is inconsistent about this philosophy. It shows your partner FD explanations, but NOT hand-typed explanations. So it seems like Fred hasn't made up his mind whether players should or shouldn't be able to see explanations of their partner's bids.

 

I think Fred has explained that FD works this way because it was new and experimental. I don't think it's because he disagrees with the Law prohibiting consulting your own CC. Also, he acknowledged that players routinely ignore that Law on BBO anyway, so this isn't letting them do anything they weren't doing already.

 

The difference, as I see it, is that players can at least try to be ethical in the old system, by controlling their urge to look at their CC. But when the program automatically displays explanations on the screen, it's hard to avoid reading them.

[shintaro]

[

Partner can't see your alerts. But he CAN see the FD explanation of your bid.

:(

 

Whilst I agree partner can see description of bids made with FDC it is no worse than f2f where you are having to self alert your own bids surely

 

:P

 

Online I would much rather that ALL information regarding your system is available to opponents than not

[csdenmark]

I still don't understand why you think this is so great.  Don't you think that the skill of remembering your agreements is an important part of the game?  Bridge is a mind sport, and this is a test of your mind.  One of the things that sets Meckwell apart from the rest of us is that not only do they have hundreds of pages of system notes, but they remember most of them.

No I dont think so. I think time is long overdue to be realistic.

 

The rule about skills of remembering has lead to simple and unsolid bridge. Maybe professionels who can devote their whole life for such crab can do the trick. Ordinary persons who needs to care about their daily life, and especially need to use their ability to remember for their job dont have the option to play interesting bridge using your axiom.

 

The rule about remembering is therefore in important part, maybe the most important, for why bridge is becoming still more unattractive.

 

The lawmakers have tried to deal with the problem by several kind of rules, midchart and brownsticker are just some examples. This has caused a mess about regulation which many suffers from. The only one who dont suffer are those who just play family bridge, and thats approxmately 80-90% of the players.

 

The rule dates back to the time when there was not so much to remember. The conventions were not yet invented and bridge was only marginally more complex than whist. Whether the rule by that time made sense or not I dont know. But I think it made very little difference then.

 

Today it makes a huge difference and the argument is nowadays mostly used to try to legitimate lazy and unsolid behavior.