Echognome Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Here's the situation I'm thinking of: You make a bid and it's either alerted or it isn't. One of the opponents clicks on the bid. You give an explanation (maybe that explanation is 'natural'). This explanation now pops up for both opponents. This is UI in the sense that now one opponent knows the other asked about a bid. I think this form of UI can be completely eliminated. I don't know how difficult it would be to implement this, but in order to address this issue, why not have the explanation be revealed only to the player that clicks on the bid. If both happen to click on the bid while you are typing, then both receive the explanation. If only one clicks on the bid, then the other won't find out the answer unless they also click on the bid. It seems to me that this would completely eliminate partner even knowing we asked a question and thus any UI surrounding that question. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohitz Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Nice idea. Not sure why this is not being done already! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I would only be in favor of something like this if they also got rid of the ability to alert bids without entering an explanation. The only time this is reasonable is when operating Vugraph (I can tell when players are alerting, but they don't always make it easy for me to see the explanation). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted December 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I would only be in favor of something like this if they also got rid of the ability to alert bids without entering an explanation. The only time this is reasonable is when operating Vugraph (I can tell when players are alerting, but they don't always make it easy for me to see the explanation). I feel like you're trying to add an unnecessary rider to my bill. Look at what the software does now and what I'm suggesting it should be. Your suggestion is a complete aside. I'm not stating an opinion on your suggestion, just stating that it is a separate topic that I wouldn't want to be a part of this suggestion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Maybe there is some UI in the situation you suggest but I don't think it's very reliable. Sometimes I make a bid, then a few moments later realize or decide that they may want to know what it means, so I'll type in an explanation unprompted. Alternatively I sometimes make my bid then start to type the explanation because I anticipate being asked, but when I'm not asked just enter it anyway since I've already been typing it. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I consider it so minor that it probably wouldn't be worth the work to implement your suggestion. Unless it's just less work than I think. I actually like barmar's (unrelated) suggestion better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted December 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 To be honest, it's not a problem I personally face often on BBO, as I typically play with friends. However, it's a problem I have heard about in the MBC. The problem is when it's the next person's turn to call. They click the bid, hear the answer, then pass. That conveys that the meaning of the bid affected their answer. I would not suggest changing the self-alert part of the procedure. If we add in an explanation later or change our explanation, then the pop-up showing for both opponents should carry on as normal. To make my example perhaps clearer, suppose an auction with no alerts goes: 1♣ - P - 1♠ - P;1NT - P - 3NT - .... At which point, you get a click asking what the 1♠ bid was. The answer is "natural". Lo and behold, opening leader finds a spade lead from say Qxx. Wouldn't you be unhappy? Nothing prevents that from happening right now. My suggestion would just eliminate any worries that UI is being created, since if it happened that the opening leader asked what 1♠ meant, no one would care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 If people are really using this UI to their benefit, their behavior is exploitable, if you wish to fight fire with fire. Just alert things randomly; throw in a "stayman lol" once in a while unprompted. (I know neither gnome nor anyone else who posted in this thread would ever consider doing this, of course, but it could be used to get back at blatant abusers.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old York Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 I would definitely smell a rat if someone asked me to explain any natural bidAsking for an explanation of a 1♠ response cannot be right, something fishy is going on. FD, used correctly, will cure this problem. Full explanations of your bids will be visible to both opponents, but should be invisible to your partner Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 If you're worried just private message RHO instead of typing it into the alert box. It's easy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old York Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 As an aside, does the bidder have any legal right to know who is asking? (private messages will not work, if you cancel a request for explanation it is displayed as "no information available" so UI is still transmitted)It is lawful to receive UI, but unlawful to use it - walking a tightrope? Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 (private messages will not work, if you cancel a request for explanation it is displayed as "no information available" so UI is still transmitted) I believe if you type nothing and click 'ok' they see that, but if you click 'cancel' they see nothing and only you see it. Maybe someone can confirm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 I would only be in favor of something like this if they also got rid of the ability to alert bids without entering an explanation. The only time this is reasonable is when operating Vugraph (I can tell when players are alerting, but they don't always make it easy for me to see the explanation). I feel like you're trying to add an unnecessary rider to my bill. Look at what the software does now and what I'm suggesting it should be. Your suggestion is a complete aside. I'm not stating an opinion on your suggestion, just stating that it is a separate topic that I wouldn't want to be a part of this suggestion. I don't think it's unrelated. If someone clicks the alert box, I think both opponents have a right to see the explanation. I shouldn't have to click on the bid to get him to fill in the explanation. Your idea has some merit if someone questions an unalerted bid, but I think alerted bids should always be explained. So we should just require players to fill in the explanation at the time they make the bid, rather than wait until asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.