Using full disclosure CC can damage opponents

[barmar]

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

Since when do you self-alert in f2f bridge? Only when screens are in use, and then partner doesn't see your alerts. Normally in f2f bridge you alert your partner's bids, not your own.

 

And while partner may hear your alerts, he only hears the explanation if the opponents ask for it. They can often look at your convention card instead.

 

And just because something happens in f2f bridge, doesn't mean we have to emulate it in online bridge. Revokes, bidding and playing out of turn, insufficient bids are all parts of f2f bridge that are impossible in online bridge. Should the program be "fixed" to allow them as well? f2f bridge has to put up with these things because it's impractical to prevent them, but online bridge makes it practical.

 

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

Yes to the opponents, not to your own side. Again, online bridge makes it practical to disclose to one side without the other side hearing it. Preventing partner from seeing explanations of your bids is an improvement, just like preventing revokes is.

[barmar]

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.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

I don't want a pop-up telling me what my partner's bid means. IMHO, much of the fun of the game is in trying to work things like this out. Is that 4♣ Gerber or natural? Are transfers on in a particular competitive auction? Was that bid forcing? Are we playing Drury?

[csdenmark]

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.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

I don't want a pop-up telling me what my partner's bid means. IMHO, much of the fun of the game is in trying to work things like this out. Is that 4♣ Gerber or natural? Are transfers on in a particular competitive auction? Was that bid forcing? Are we playing Drury?

Certainly we dont need to agree. As it is now on BBO we both have the freedom to choose our ways. You may use the old style convention card and I use FD. I like it to be that way and and I want regulations to discover that this is modern world.

 

Are we playing Drury?

Yes this could be important, especially whether we play Drury or reverse Drury and which is what. I doubt many are quite sure about that.

 

But it is fact not here the problems are. The problems are deeper, in the continuations. It is in the continuations the mess comes and the only ways to avoid such problems are to play simple or make a lot of mistakes.

 

To me it makes no difference which way FD displays. I use my notes invisible to you.

[Old York]

OK, so some of us prefer to hide these explanations from partner, and some of you prefer to have them visible. I did not expect us all to agree. np.

 

The way bbo is set up, we all have the CHOICE. My only argument was whether or not these explanations should be displayed by default

 

The options are already there on CONV button, but should the default setting be on or off?

 

The vast majority of players would never expect to see these explanations, so why not switch them off by default? Players can then CHOOSE to switch them on if needed. Seems like a reasonable question

 

Tony

[helene_t]

Agree with Tony.

[csdenmark]

The vast majority of players would never expect to see these explanations, so why not switch them off by default? Players can then CHOOSE to switch them on if needed. Seems like a reasonable question

 

Tony

No the vast majority don't care. They play simple bridge if bridge at all.

 

You are right Tony they don't expect to see anything and in fact they don't need the information.

 

Where it is needed there are other ways and it is exactly here the regulations are completely outdated. They stay in late 1920's. That you find such relevant I think looks like a sad fact.

[A2003]

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.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

I don't want a pop-up telling me what my partner's bid means. IMHO, much of the fun of the game is in trying to work things like this out. Is that 4♣ Gerber or natural? Are transfers on in a particular competitive auction? Was that bid forcing? Are we playing Drury?

Is it the best way to win just because opponents cannot remember the convention?

Many experienced players will not enjoy winning this way.

 

Also, opponents can mess up the convention due to lack of memory and disturb the auction. There is no penalty.

 

Other parts of the game like declarer play, defense are suffering. No practice for that.

[fred]

Claus,

 

It seems that you think it is appropriate to insult anyone who disagrees with your completely radical positions on these matters (ie everyone). I seem to be just about the only person you have not insulted yet. In fact, you complimented my "brainwork" (thanks!). But I fear I am about to enter the ranks for those you insult...

 

In my strong opinion (actually I am certain but I am trying to show you that it is not very difficult to phrase one's objections in a way as to not give the impression that one thinks that one knows everything and that anyone who disagrees is living in the 1920s), FD-like devices will never be part of any serious bridge event and that is a very good thing.

 

IMO in the world you would like to live in, serious bridge would become a complete joke. If any specific organizer of a serious tournament happened to agree with you (not that this will ever happen), I would have no interest in playing in such tournaments. I strongly suspect (ie I am certain) that the same would be true of virtually all leading players.

 

If you really think that all these people (not to mention all the people who disagree with you in this thread) are living in the 1920s, that is your right. But given that so far you have not been able to get a single person to agree with you, perhaps you should consider showing a little more humility in the way you express your opinions.

 

This is what your posts sound like: I am the only person who is right and every single other person is an idiot.

 

Aside from the obvious rudeness of this attitude, it is not a very effective way to try to convince others of your position. Probably there are plenty of people on Forums who don't even bother reading your posts anymore.

 

I know English is not your first language, but to me it is very clear that this is not about language.

 

As I have tried to explain, the motivation behind FD was to try to take a glaring flaw in online bridge (that we can't stop players from referring to their own system notes or convention cards) and turn it into a positive thing.

 

FD was not an attempt by me to make bridge itself a better game.

 

FD is useful as an educational device. FD is useful for helping to minimize the number of absurd bidding misunderstandings in pickup partnerships.

 

But that's all - there is no place for FD or anything like FD in "serious bridge". If a serious partnership needs FD then they are not ready to play in a serious event.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

Fred those who disagree with me here, and this is not the first time people are doing so, I have really tried not to insult, namecalling or anything bad as far I understand your language. I think they live in an ancient world most of us know best from a bad history of wars and economic hardship. Regarding bridge there were not much substance. Therefore rules were simple and mattered very little. Today it is all much more complex but the rules are basically the same ones.

 

I am not the only one who think as have explained. But even if I was that prove not I am wrong. A majority proves nothing else than they are the most persons. Sometimes such matters much sometimes it matters very little, but it proves nothing about correctness. You cannot wote the length of 1 meter. Everything has to start somewhere. Online bridge is after 10 years still a minority but that says nothing about whether it is the future and it is the right way.

 

To me it makes no sense to refer to rules which have no authority. Rules are only binding prescriptions to members of a community. Outside the community there are no such rules. There are only the minimum set of rules constituting the game, I call those family bridge.

 

Bridge rules are not a priori rules.

 

I dont think I need to comment your position about serious bridge. I disagree as I have explained earlier and I will be ready to elaborate about that if you will be interested.

[Old York]

To me it makes no sense to refer to rules which have no authority. Rules are only binding prescriptions to members of a community. Outside the community there are no such rules. There are only the minimum set of rules constituting the game, I call those family bridge.

 

Bridge rules are not a priori rules.

This is were your logic leaves me cold. Bridge players are a community

I am certain that respected authors and tournament directors disagree with every word you say, although there is some merit in your attack on lawmakers, we have no alternative but to obey these laws, correctly and justly enforced by TDs.

This creates a level playing field for all

Otherwise it simply isn't cricket, old boy

 

Tony

[csdenmark]

To me it makes no sense to refer to rules which have no authority. Rules are only binding prescriptions to members of a community. Outside the community there are no such rules. There are only the minimum set of rules constituting the game, I call those family bridge.

 

Bridge rules are not a priori rules.

This is were your logic leaves me cold. Bridge players are a community

I am certain that respected authors and tournament directors disagree with every word you say, although there is some merit in your attack on lawmakers, we have no alternative but to obey these laws, correctly and justly enforced by TDs.

This creates a level playing field for all

Otherwise it simply isn't cricket, old boy

 

Tony

Sorry Tony I thought community was the correct word.

 

I looked it up now by Google Translations and I receive "Forening(danish) -> Association"

 

What I have named community is therefore 'association'. I think of ACBL, English Bridge Federation, Danmarks Bridge Union.

 

Those have laws, those have lawmakers. Thats those I attack. There are no laws outside associations(hope we can agree that we both understand the same now by the word 'association')

 

A loose group of persons have no rules.

[Old York]

To me it makes no sense to refer to rules which have no authority. Rules are only binding prescriptions to members of a community. Outside the community there are no such rules. There are only the minimum set of rules constituting the game, I call those family bridge.

 

Bridge rules are not a priori rules.

This is were your logic leaves me cold. Bridge players are a community

I am certain that respected authors and tournament directors disagree with every word you say, although there is some merit in your attack on lawmakers, we have no alternative but to obey these laws, correctly and justly enforced by TDs.

This creates a level playing field for all

Otherwise it simply isn't cricket, old boy

 

Tony

Sorry Tony I thought community was the correct word.

 

I looked it up now by Google Translations and I receive "Forening(danish) -> Association"

 

What I have named community is therefore 'association'. I think of ACBL, English Bridge Federation, Danmarks Bridge Union.

 

Those have laws, those have lawmakers. Thats those I attack. There are no laws outside associations(hope we can agree that we both understand the same now by the word 'association')

 

A loose group of persons have no rules.

I do not expect others to obey laws created exclusively by the English Bridge Union, but the World Bridge Federation Rules should be followed by all (with some regional exclusions)

I think the word "laws" is wrong in many contexts and "treatments" etc should be used, many of which are controvertial and difficult to enforce

 

The word community is perfect for BBO, and I hope that we all play within a community spirit. BBO is like a "virtual" village/dorf/dorp/aldea/villaggio

 

Wikipedia

"Since the advent of the Internet, the concept of community no longer has geographical limitations, as people can now virtually gather in an online community and share common interests regardless of physical location."

 

Tony

 

I think that this thread is now closed, the original post has been answered, and Fred has given excellent advice and explanation. I have never been offended by Claus's comment, and find them entertaining and thought provoking

[barmar]

I played one round in an ACBL tourney tonight against a pair using FD. They had the following auction: 1♣-2♣-2♠-3♣. FD explained 2♣ as 6-9 with ♣ support, 2♠ as 16+ with ♠. Dummy came down with a shapely 13 HCP, and declarer had a 4=2=3=4 12 count. See the hand here:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...8691-1257649200

 

I tried asking RHO about the big difference between his bid and his hand, but then the round changed.

 

I'm not sure what point I'm making. I guess it's that people don't usually write their own FD cards (they're hard to write, so most players use one of the supplied cards), and it's hard for them to know everything in the card they're using, so there's a strong likelihood that FD will give misinformation. In this case, I assume they're actually playing inverted minors, and didn't realize that the card was written with standard minor raises.

 

Another thing: some have written that FD only explains, it doesn't alert. But every bid that was automatically explained by FD was also highlighted in the alert color. So it's not possible to tell which bids actually required an alert. On the other hand, the FD explanations don't appear in the movie.

[csdenmark]

Another thing: some have written that FD only explains, it doesn't alert.  But every bid that was automatically explained by FD was also highlighted in the alert color.  So it's not possible to tell which bids actually required an alert.  On the other hand, the FD explanations don't appear in the movie.

According to which rules should a bid be highlighted?

[A2003]

Another thing: some have written that FD only explains, it doesn't alert.  But every bid that was automatically explained by FD was also highlighted in the alert color.  So it's not possible to tell which bids actually required an alert.  On the other hand, the FD explanations don't appear in the movie.

Is alert color possible? What color is being used?

When the bridge game started there were no alert procedures and rules.

These are introduced to help the opponents who can stay alert.

This is the bad rule invented.

Another argument at the table, People start advising when I should alert and when I should not.

 

If explanation is given, I still don't see the reason for secondary alert.

[csdenmark]

Another thing: some have written that FD only explains, it doesn't alert.  But every bid that was automatically explained by FD was also highlighted in the alert color.  So it's not possible to tell which bids actually required an alert.  On the other hand, the FD explanations don't appear in the movie.

Is alert color possible? What color is being used?

When the bridge game started there were no alert procedures and rules.

These are introduced to help the opponents who can stay alert.

This is the bad rule invented.

Another argument at the table, People start advising when I should alert and when I should not.

 

If explanation is given, I still don't see the reason for secondary alert.

It is not so complicated to modify the application to display certain bids in different colors. Could be a checkbox.

 

The problem here is there are different alert rules in Australia, Poland, Denmark, England, USA, Turkey etc. FD will alert in the same way to all opponents and that will be correct for some and misinformation for others.

 

Well then code all bridgelaws from all over the world into FD. That will be the heaviest application on internet ever seen.

 

The rules are outdated, thats the problem. Rules knows boundaries - internet knows nothing about such ones. In bridge rules the global village is unknown.

 

In Denmark bridge players are assumed to be members of Danmarks Bridgeforbund and will therefore apply to those laws. On internet players will be members of no association or their countrys association. Either they will apply to different set of rules or no rules at all.

 

Very difficult to handle for FD. The best way is of course simply to display the meaning of all bids. In ancient world this was of course the intension but without computers there were no such option. Instead alert procedure was invented to highlight important bids.

 

Now we have the option to be fair to all and then thats the problem.

[barmar]

Another thing: some have written that FD only explains, it doesn't alert.  But every bid that was automatically explained by FD was also highlighted in the alert color.  So it's not possible to tell which bids actually required an alert.  On the other hand, the FD explanations don't appear in the movie.

According to which rules should a bid be highlighted?

Each tournament has its own alert rules, specified by the person or organization hosting the tourney. Players are responsible for knowing which of their bids are alertable, and they should click the Alert button, even if they're using FD.

 

It would probably be useful if BBO had two highlight colors, one for normal bids that have FD explanations, and another for alerted bids, which may have FD or manually-typed explanations.

[blackshoe]

That a particular call is alertable in some geographical place, and not alertable in some other place, or that a particular player is "used to" alerting or not alerting it because that's what the f2f regulations where he lives say, has absolutely nothing to do with whether the call should be alerted when playing on line. As barmar says, that's up to the tournament organizer.

[csdenmark]

That a particular call is alertable in some geographical place, and not alertable in some other place, or that a particular player is "used to" alerting or not alerting it because that's what the f2f regulations where he lives say, has absolutely nothing to do with whether the call should be alerted when playing on line. As barmar says, that's up to the tournament organizer.

Yes playing online people jump from a polish regulated tournament to a chinese regulated one ending up playing an american based regulated.

 

Re-iterating the problem is not so funny. Please come up with a proposal for a solution to it. Looks like you think the alert rule still makes sense so it must be able to respond to the challenge of today.

[johnjo42]

As the original poster, I seem to have generated a lot of heat.

 

I think FD is great once you've learnt how to do it but my criticism is that you see the explanations of your partner's bids. This is fine so long as the opps don't object.

 

You cannot see partner's alerts.

 

I take Fred's point that people can sit with printed convention cards in front of them or even books.

 

Perhaps Tony's idea of telling the opps in advance is the right one and, if they object, to turn it off.

 

JJ

[OliverC]

This is exactly the motivation behind Full Disclosure (FD).

 

FD is just a fancy convention card that is integrated into the software so that defined bids are explained automatically. When a player see an FD-generated explanation of a bid made by his partnership, this is analogous to a player looking at his own convention card or system notes.

 

As you correctly point out, this is something that we cannot stop so we figured we might as well take this basic "flaw" in online bridge and try to turn it into an opportunity for learning, speeding up the game, and assisting in, well, full disclosure.

Hi All,

 

Fred, I hesitate to suggest anything which will add to the list of things your hard-working programmers are working on to improve the BBO software and the web client. I wonder, however, whether in some future upgrade it would be possible to give opponents and kibbers some means whereby they can see how people have their FD Options set (ie: in <Conv>/<Options>).

 

FD is a fantastic teaching and learning tool, and does also provide a great means to alert in far more detail than is possible via the alert box, but I can understand the concerns that some people have. Being able to see how people have their FD options set would, at least, put people's minds at rest if their opps had Options 1 and 3 unchecked. I tend to leave Option 2 checked so that I know when FD hasn't "caught" something so I know I need to alert it manually.

 

Regards,

Oliver