Looking at Convention Cards

[fuburules3]

Consider the this hand from an ACBL speedball. Partner is only an occasional partner and I remember that we have an agreement for 3D, but don't remember what it is. At the table I thought it was either 55 minors gf or natural invitational. Our actual agreement is that 3D shows both majors and disaster follows.

 

My question is during the hand I noticed that I could have clicked on my posted convention card and read what our agreement is (and presumably no one would know). I can also click on my partner's profile and read the notes I've made there. My question is whether this is allowed? Certainly in live bridge I can't refer to my convention card during the auction, but here the software allows it when it surely would be easy to disable.

[ArtK78]

In face-to-face play, one cannot look at one's own convention card.

 

I don't have any problem in referring to one's own convention card in online play. Quite frankly, if it were prohibited, the system should make it impossible to view one's own convention card during a round.

 

There is no UI conveyed when one is viewing one's own convention card, as the other players are unaware.

 

I know of no rule that prohibits one from viewing one's own convention card during online play. If there is any rule (or even any statement that it is either unethical or undesirable to do so), I would appreciate it if someone would point it out to me.

[Cthulhu D]

It appears the general operating method is that unethical players are going to look at their own notes in another tab, so no point punishing ethical players and the system will let you share their advantages.

[Vampyr]

Quite frankly, if it were prohibited, the system should make it impossible to view one's own convention card during a round.

I am not sure what "system" could prevent one from printing out the convention card and referring to it at will.

 

I agree that it makes sense for online players to be permitted to look at their own convention cards, but this change has not been made; in fact I am not sure that there is an online lawbook at all, which would mean that online play is governed by the normal bridge laws, in which looking is of course prohibited.

 

An online code would need to have lots of differences -- not too long ago a player said that he wrote down the played cards. How would someone else discover this and/or stop him? It is a bad idea to prohibit things that are undetectable and unenforceable, though this really cannot be true for extraneous communication between partners or reference to single-dummy solvers, so the issue is a bit complicated.

[fuburules3]

I am not sure what "system" could prevent one from printing out the convention card and referring to it at will.

 

I agree that it makes sense for online players to be permitted to look at their own convention cards, but this change has not been made; in fact I am not sure that there is an online lawbook at all, which would mean that online play is governed by the normal bridge laws, in which looking is of course prohibited.

 

An online code would need to have lots of differences -- not too long ago a player said that he wrote down the played cards. How would someone else discover this and/or stop him? It is a bad idea to prohibit things that are undetectable and unenforceable, though this really cannot be true for extraneous communication between partners or reference to single-dummy solvers, so the issue is a bit complicated.

 

I think that it is not possible to stop anyone who is committed to cheating from doing so online. However, we can try to make it so that the average (or beginning) player who wants to be ethical, but may not know the rules that well does not unintentionally break a rule.

 

Here a beginning player who does not know that you typically can't look at your convention card during the auction (I didn't realize this when I first started) may assume that it is ok because BBO lets you view your convention card (or partner's profile) during the auction. On the other hand, BBO is programmed so that you cannot see the previous tricks which makes it less likely that someone who didn't know the rules would think it was ok to write down the cards previously played (I imagine such a player would stand out anyway because they surely would play slowly).

[Vampyr]

 

Here a beginning player who does not know that you typically can't look at your convention card during the auction (I didn't realize this when I first started) may assume that it is ok because BBO lets you view your convention card (or partner's profile) during the auction. On the other hand, BBO is programmed so that you cannot see the previous tricks which makes it less likely that someone who didn't know the rules would think it was ok to write down the cards previously played (I imagine such a player would stand out anyway because they surely would play slowly).

 

Yes, I think this is a good distinction.

[blackshoe]

I agree that it makes sense for online players to be permitted to look at their own convention cards, but this change has not been made; in fact I am not sure that there is an online lawbook at all, which would mean that online play is governed by the normal bridge laws, in which looking is of course prohibited.

 

An online code would need to have lots of differences -- not too long ago a player said that he wrote down the played cards. How would someone else discover this and/or stop him? It is a bad idea to prohibit things that are undetectable and unenforceable, though this really cannot be true for extraneous communication between partners or reference to single-dummy solvers, so the issue is a bit complicated.

The issue is extremely complicated, given that we don't want to be bugging peoples' houses to make sure they aren't cheating, and we don't really want to allow things that would be cheating in f2f bridge (like looking at your own system card).

 

A set of online laws was published by the WBF in 2001. They're not really substantially different from the f2f laws, and do not really address a lot of the unique problems of the online environment, but they do exist. :P

[Cthulhu D]

The issue is extremely complicated, given that we don't want to be bugging peoples' houses to make sure they aren't cheating, and we don't really want to allow things that would be cheating in f2f bridge (like looking at your own system card).

 

Then why does 'Full disclosure' show you the alerts of partners bids?

 

 

vvvv Edit: Derp thought you were Barmar.

[blackshoe]

Ask the programmers.

[gnasher]

A set of online laws was published by the WBF in 2001. They're not really substantially different from the f2f laws, and do not really address a lot of the unique problems of the online environment, but they do exist. :P

 

That document describes itself as "The proposed Laws of Online Bridge" and "an interim 'Key' to the laws". So it appears that they're not really laws at all.

[Vampyr]

Then why does 'Full disclosure' show you the alerts of partners bids?

 

 

Does it really? Sounds like a serious error.

[Mbodell]

One reason to let you look at your own convention card is to make sure you have the correct one posted. I know you aren't supposed to look at your own convention card during the bidding or play as an external memory aid, but I suspect may do (either through ignorance or through ease of looking). I also think that if it were harder to do, some folks who knowingly improperly look today might not in the future. People's tendency to do immoral things and cheat and what not is affected by the ease of doing so.

[Phil]

Someday very important tournaments will be played online. For instance, I think it will become more common that District GNTs (ACBL) will be hosted on BBO.

 

I keep cc's of all my online partners on my desk. Is it a memory aid? Yes. So sue me.

 

When things like the GNTs are being played, I suspect that monitors will be used, and it will be incumbent upon players to remember their own system and not to peek at their cc, at least during the play.

 

Until that time, I don't think anyone should take it too seriously.

[TimG]

I know of no rule that prohibits one from viewing one's own convention card during online play.

The opening post was about an ACBL Speedball where presumably the Laws (which forbid aids to memory) are in effect.

 

I agree with your position if we're talking about the Main Bridge Club (which is little different than the kitchen table).

 

(This all being said, I would not feel cheated if a Speedball opponent referred to a convention card. Or, at least I wouldn't feel like it was a big deal.)

[blackshoe]

That document describes itself as "The proposed Laws of Online Bridge" and "an interim 'Key' to the laws". So it appears that they're not really laws at all.

 

If you want to argue that with the WBFLC, go ahead.

[barmar]

Then why does 'Full disclosure' show you the alerts of partners bids?

 

 

vvvv Edit: Derp thought you were Barmar.

I wasn't involved -- I've only worked for BBO since 6 months ago.

 

My understanding is that this is because most FD cards are not written by the users who use them. Creating FD cards is difficult, so it's likely that most are using the canned ones that were supplied. There's also no easy way to know all the agreements that are represented on the card -- it's just a detailed list of sequence, with no organization around conventions, no logical structure. So if you're using an FD card, there's often little assurance that it will display what you expect it to, except for some of the most basic bidding sequences.

 

So using FD is often more like playing in a tourney with an enforced CC provided by the organizers, rather than playing with a partner with whom you've written a CC together.

 

I believe there is an option for the table host controlling whether FD explanations should be shown to the side making the bids.

[barmar]

Going back to the original question, here are my opinions:

 

If you're playing with a regular partner, you should not look at your CC.

 

If you're playing in a pick-up partnership that you formed just a couple of minutes before the tourney, and you agree to play your partner's CC, looking is OK. It's asking too much to expect you to memorize everything on the CC so quickly. However, the player who supplied the CC shouldn't look -- he wrote it, he should know what's on it.

 

If you agree to use one of the stock CC's, I think it's also OK to look. Basically, I think my general approach is that if you were involved in creating the CC, you should remember it, and the Law's restriction on memory aids applies; if you didn't write it, then it's not really a memory aid, because you were never expected to commit it to memory in the first place.

[gnasher]

If you want to argue that with the WBFLC, go ahead.

No thanks. I imagine that arguing with the WBFLC about anything would be a rather frustrating business. Anyway, it appears that the WBFLC does think this document is a set of laws. The WBFLC minutes from Veldhoven include this:

 

Mr Wignall informed the committee that it is possible a scheme would be introduced by which, for a fee, online bridge organizations would be licensed to issue WBF Masterpoints in certain competitions. It was agreed that the Executive Council be informed of the committee's view that a condition of any such licence should be that the game is played in accordance with the WBF Laws of Online Bridge.

It's curious that they prefer people to use what is effectively the 1997 laws instead of the 2007 laws.

 

Also of interest is:

It was reported that a draft revision of the laws of online bridge had been prepared.

Presumably this is based on the 2007 Laws. What's the betting that they manage to get it published before it's rendered out of date by the 2017 laws?

[blackshoe]

No bet. :P

[barmar]

It's curious that they prefer people to use what is effectively the 1997 laws instead of the 2007 laws.

The biggest change between the 1997 and 2007 laws is probably the revoke penalty. Since revokes are impossible in online bridge, the change is irrelevant. Probably many of the other changes are in laws that don't apply to online bridge as well. So using Laws based on the 1997 laws may not be so bad.

[Zelandakh]

It used to be stated somewhere on BBO that FD was designed as a tool to enable better bridge to be played and that this is why it was designed such that you can see your partner's alerts. I personally would far prefer my opponents to have some system notes they refer to than to start discussing their bids during play or to end up with a silly result, which is often the alternative. As long as they are willing to fully explain what everything means what is the problem? It is not like there is any money on it. Or is GIB also cheating because it can "refer" to its system notes during the auction?!

[jillybean]

The problem is that the laws forbid memory aids.

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

 

Edit: Sorry, I posted this in response to Zelandakh's post and hadn't seen the rest of the discussion.

[Cthulhu D]

It used to be stated somewhere on BBO that FD was designed as a tool to enable better bridge to be played and that this is why it was designed such that you can see your partner's alerts. I personally would far prefer my opponents to have some system notes they refer to than to start discussing their bids during play or to end up with a silly result, which is often the alternative. As long as they are willing to fully explain what everything means what is the problem? It is not like there is any money on it. Or is GIB also cheating because it can "refer" to its system notes during the auction?!

 

I mostly put a FD card together to save myself typing, but there you go.

 

The funniest is when FD alerts something ugly we are playing (Typically the auction 1H-1S playing Kaplan inversion) as, say, 0-12 HCP, 0-4 spades, forcing for 1 round OR 5+ spades 13-17 points and they repeatedly click the bid to ask for more information.