is this AI on BBO?

[kuhchung]

your LHO opens 2D and partner overcalls 2S. LHO now requests an undo, which you grant, and opens 3D! It goes pass pass to you.

 

Is 2S AI? I thought yes.

[TylerE]

I mean, as soon as LHO asks for an undo you're far into the realm of not-bridge, so...

[helene_t]

I mean, as soon as LHO asks for an undo you're far into the realm of not-bridge, so...

Yes, after the 2♠ bid it is too late to undo a mechanical mistake.

 

So the law doesn't help us here.

 

Personally, I would say that it is bad form to take blatantly advantage of the information, but you should be free to chose between logical alternatives.

[barmar]

Most "serious" tournaments don't allow undos, so this problem doesn't come up. In particular, they're not allowed in the ACBL tournaments that award masterpoints.

 

Players are expected to request undos only for misclicks, but of course there's no way to enforce this. The closest thing in the Laws is LAW 25 - LEGAL AND ILLEGAL CHANGES OF CALL.

 

Regarding UI and AI, Law 16C seems relevant. I'd treat the side that made the undo as the offending side. Under that law, the original 2♠ bid is UI to the offending side, AI to the non-offending side.

 

If this takes place in the MBC or a team game, there's no director to enforce any of these laws or adjust the score if someone violated them. And I'd expect that tourneys that allow undoes are probably lax enough that they're not interested in adjudicating them, either. Basically, if undoes are allowed, you're usually on your own.

[Vampyr]

Yes, after the 2♠ bid it is too late to undo a mechanical mistake.

 

Not in real bridge, but online should really have its own set of laws.

[gordontd]

Not in real bridge, but online should really have its own set of laws.

I understand they are currently being worked on.

[pescetom]

Not in real bridge, but online should really have its own set of laws.

 

 

A better solution to the misclick problem might be to give bidder a brief time (1 second should be enough) to pull his call back before it becomes definitive - the online equivalent of correcting a mechanical error with bidding box.

Or some confirmation after selecting the call (such as drag and drop).

In alternative, the online law could just be no redress, think before click.

IMO Undo enabled after successive bidding is the worst possible solution.

The spirit of the online laws should be to eliminate as many headaches as possible, not to introduce new ones.

[kuhchung]

This was just MBC, and I intended the question kind of tongue in cheek. It's kind of interesting to think about, but we just had a big laugh about it at the time.

 

My partner messaged me at the time asking if he should treat it as AI and I basically took barmar's stance. We are the non offending side so we shouldn't be punished.

[gordontd]

A better solution to the misclick problem might be to give bidder a brief time (1 second should be enough) to pull his call back before it becomes definitive - the online equivalent of correcting a mechanical error with bidding box.

There is an option in BBO to require confirmation of plays.

[pescetom]

There is an option in BBO to require confirmation of plays.

 

I use it when playing on a small phone. Not that it is a great improvement, as the confirmation is unnecessarily difficult (why not just tap the centre of table instead of the pre-selected card?) and adds to the stress and time delay in an automated tournament.

Non-intrinsic difficulties aside, I suggest it would be enough, and that the Undo feature is unnecessary and confusional.

[barmar]

I use it when playing on a small phone. Not that it is a great improvement, as the confirmation is unnecessarily difficult (why not just tap the centre of table instead of the pre-selected card?) and adds to the stress and time delay in an automated tournament.

Non-intrinsic difficulties aside, I suggest it would be enough, and that the Undo feature is unnecessary and confusional.

If you make it too easy, you'll just get into the habit of doing it, which negates the point.

 

It's a Catch-22: If you make it too intrusive, people will get annoyed and not use it; if you make it too easy, it won't be effective. We need to hire Goldilocks to find the "just right" method.

[nige1]

your LHO opens 2D and partner overcalls 2S. LHO now requests an undo, which you grant, and opens 3D! It goes pass pass to you.Is 2S AI? I thought yes.

 

According to F2F law, the auction is illegal but, IMO you nullify your generosity in permitting LHO to correct his opening bid, if you now take advantage of the UI from your partner's cancelled overcall (i.e. it's UI morally if not legally).

[pescetom]

If you make it too easy, you'll just get into the habit of doing it, which negates the point.

 

It's a Catch-22: If you make it too intrusive, people will get annoyed and not use it; if you make it too easy, it won't be effective. We need to hire Goldilocks to find the "just right" method.

 

There are two reasons why I might want to retract a call I just made:

1) I made a mechanical error and selected a call different from the one I thought

2) I selected a call that I thought for at least an instant, but now realise it was a bad choice.

It sounds to me like you are thinking more about case 2, which is explicitly excluded by the Laws.

Any error should be in the actual selection (I touched the adjacent card to the one I wanted) and not in the failure to reflect due to an easy confirmation method.

 

The existing confirmation mechanism allows me to eliminate case 1, in that I can now see which card I actually selected before I commit to bidding it. But it then nullifies that advantage by requiring me to make an equally difficult confirmation. If I were able to confirm by clicking in the centre of table, then I would be quick and happy and have no excuse of mechanical error. And if I could change an inaccurate selection by clicking on the left or right of the pack rather than having to hit the right card again then it would be even better.

[nige1]

I use it when playing on a small phone. Not that it is a great improvement, as the confirmation is unnecessarily difficult (why not just tap the centre of table instead of the pre-selected card?) and adds to the stress and time delay in an automated tournament. Non-intrinsic difficulties aside, I suggest it would be enough, and that the Undo feature is unnecessary and confusional.

 

Agree that Undos cause confusion and controversy. But many players (e.g. JEC) like them. Hence it's reasonable to keep "allow undos" as an option when setting up a table or tournament,

[Vampyr]

According to F2F law, the auction is illegal but, IMO you nullify your generosity in permitting LHO to correct his opening bid, if you now take advantage of the UI from your partner's cancelled overcall (i.e. it's UI morally if not legally).

 

The auction in not illegal in live bridge. You’d have a tough case to make, though, that it was truly a mispull.

[thepossum]

Regarding unintended clicks while bidding, the most likely (from personal experience) is hitting the Pass key when planning to click a number then a suit. This would be one case where possibly a user option could allow a small delay or confirmation of pass (even just a few seconds or a two step pass) prior to submission of the bid. Its not an undo so is only intended for unintentional clicks. I know on Fun Bridge for example, all passes are 2 step (which can be a bit annoying) but you can use a single click to view the meaning and a double click to submit immediately (I think)

 

Its particularly important (to me) in tournaments where one misclick (not an error with undo, a misclick) can destroy a tournament and not only cause embarrassment but waste of valuable dollars, time etc.

 

Just a thought :) I do try very hard to be careful with both web and phone app interfaces but it does happen from time to time, no matter how careful I am :(

 

I think computer bridge and interfaces do need a small rethink on rules like that but mine is an undo prior to the bid being submitted, not after, so isnt really a rules issue at all :)

 

PS I know there is a confirm bids and plays options which I am trying out (and is quite good) but my thoughts were for something a bit less intrusive if possible. However the two step OK button is fine now Ive found it :)

[kuhchung]

I have also misclicked pass. Instead of confirmation or timing delays, I would just move the bidding buttons farther from the pass button.

[thepossum]

Hi

 

I think there is a bit of a timing/tempo issue in computer bridge which may be the partial cause of some issues. While I'm not suggesting everything is slowed to the bidding rate of the slow and methodical professional tournament bridge players I would argue that the speed of bot (and some human) bidding with our new apps is at too high a rate and psychologically leads to errors. Its not helped by the (unreasonable) expectation of almost instant bid and play by some players too. Its just a thought. But every site and app chooses to do it their way. If I was designing an app I would slow down the automated bidding a bit

 

regards P

[pescetom]

I think there is a bit of a timing/tempo issue in computer bridge which may be the partial cause of some issues. While I'm not suggesting everything is slowed to the bidding rate of the slow and methodical professional tournament bridge players I would argue that the speed of bot (and some human) bidding with our new apps is at too high a rate and psychologically leads to errors. Its not helped by the (unreasonable) expectation of almost instant bid and play by some players too. Its just a thought. But every site and app chooses to do it their way. If I was designing an app I would slow down the automated bidding a bit

I agree, and of course this applies to play too. Hopefully the upcoming laws for electronic bridge will impose some order on site / app behaviour.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

[helene_t]

Not in real bridge, but online should really have its own set of laws.

You are right, of course. Partner had not called yet.

[nige1]

I understand they are currently being worked on.

According to F2F law, the auction is illegal but, IMO you nullify your generosity in permitting LHO to correct his opening bid, if you now take advantage of the UI from your partner's cancelled overcall (i.e. it's UI morally if not legally).

The auction in not illegal in live bridge. You'd have a tough case to make, though, that it was truly a mispull.

You are right, of course. Partner had not called yet.

The current on-line framework seems a vast improvement on the f2f laws, so it might be better to change TFLB than spoil the online protocol.

Thank you, Vampyr and Helene_t, for correcting my mistake about f2f law

I accept that if you allow LHO to change his call from 2♦ to 3♦ then partner's cancelled 2♠ call should be UI to RHO but AI to you.