Rule-breaking

[sanst]

To avoid the webcam?

:)

Of course. Who wants Big Brother watching you? There’s already that “independent observer”, so it’s hard enough to scratch your bum unobserved. :D

I’m afraid it’s a Dutchism, we sit behind the computer and in front of the tele. You probably know we keep our language as difficult and puzzling as possible.

[Gilithin]

The problem of creating a Bridge clock was solved by the Stepbridge platform years ago.

And how does Stepbridge deal with the issues raised by Paul?

[pilowsky]

And how does Stepbridge deal with the issues raised by Paul?

 

Which specific issues?

He raised several.

[Gilithin]

Which specific issues?

He raised several.

All of them.

[pilowsky]

1. Directors of pay tournaments on BBO have access to a tournament log that provides the time for each bid, alert, play and other actions including public and private chat messages.

This is the same on Stepbridge.

2. Interestingly, when I've used it, the recorded facts often tell a very different story to anything provided by the players. Of course the players are unaware of the time they've taken for any action and, in my experience, bridge players are very poor at judging time both online and face-to-face.

Players on Stepbridge are also 'unaware' of the time they have taken. At the 5 minute mark, if the third board is not on the table, the program automatically adjusts the score as I explained previously. The pair that has taken the longest total time on the previous two boards gets 40% or -3 IMPs. BUT, the Director can adjust this penalty manually if they determine that there were shenanigans.

I've often played, and opps complain, "We weren't the slow ones," but they were.

A common cause of slowness and adjustments is the failure to explain in a timely manner.

3. As many have written in the past, there are plenty of issues with trying to make bridge a timed game. For example, who is charged when you ask for an explanation of the auction, especially as some players ask about every alerted call to avoid creating UI? Who resolves, in a reasonable time, the issue of a player saying, "no agreement".

On Stepbridge, players are required to have convention cards posted. These are easily checked, and just as on BBO, questions can be asked and MUST be answered privately - talking to the table may lead to UI and is adjusted appropriately. BUT many pairs are auto-matched or do not have agreements, in which case - just as in the club "Undiscussed" is the correct response.

Opps are entitled to know what the partner will believe the bid means, NOT what the bidder thinks it should mean. Oddly this concept is not well-understood in many circles.

3. What happens when there are connection issues, how can these be fairly assessed and will it create discrimination against the technology challenged and the technology deprived? Should I be blamed because the Scottish Government has provided access to superfast and fibre broadband to you, but will take at least another three years to give it to me?

The same thing happens if a player in the club stays in the bathroom or decides to chat to their mother on the phone. Why should you get a mulligan because you have not adequately equipped yourself to play?

Yes, it is your fault if you choose to enter a formula 1 race riding a horse and buggy - also, the waste from the horse may be dangerous for the other players using the correct equipment.

4. What happens when players fail to claim, possibly putting their opponents under time pressure?

What does this mean? The player not claiming is putting themselves under pressure - this is, I presume - the reason for the 5-minute rule. Although, perhaps really bad players might figure that 40% is a good result against better players.

Personally, I think there is room for improvement here.

5. I know that you do not approve of subjective rulings, but timing bridge is going to require the directors to make even more of them, not to mention the issue of parsing the logs for information.

This turns out to be a minor problem. Complaints are few and dealt with very easily by the experienced team of Directors.

It seems that the role of the Director is caught between a rock and a hard place.

Judging from the comments on this Forum.

I think there are four tiers of players.

1. Those starting out and trying to come to grips with an interesting game with seriously complicated rules. This is a very large portion of [layers and I suspect it is where there is most churn. In this group the Director does not want to offend the new player and wants to create a comfortable atmosphere. Certain things are banned (eg multi 2's). And rules are bent.

2. Overlapping with this group are the people that self-describe as intermediates/advanced. I include myself here. We have a pretty good grasp of the rules and the fundamentals of a commonly played system. We can also play quite a few things above beginner grade, but we struggle with Lebensohl and struggle to work out complex card plays ATB. I suspect we are the largest group of Bridge players.

3. Excellent players with a complete grasp of complex systems and able to work out difficult card play problems routinely. And explain them to tier 1 and 2 players coherently.

4. nullve.

 

Who said: "It ain't nothing until I call it."? This concept applies on Stepbridge - we all abide by the final decisions of the Director. The computer helps them.

[johnu]

For those who want to see how a serious match at top level is played online, next week you can. August 23 to 28 the European Championships (European Qualifier for the World Team Championships) are played online on RealBridge. Players sit in their homeland in a single room behind their computer. In this room there is a independent observer, proposed by the national unions and approved by the EBL. No one else is permitted to enter this room, not even the TD's. These direct the game also online. The matches, from 10 am to 7 pm CET, can be seen on RealBridge, with a half hour delay at the start. There are four categories: open, mixed, senior and ladies. What's missing in 2021 is of course a LHBTIQ+ category ;)

 

The Italians and their opponents are playing unnaturally verrrry fast.

[paulg]

3. As many have written in the past, there are plenty of issues with trying to make bridge a timed game. For example, who is charged when you ask for an explanation of the auction, especially as some players ask about every alerted call to avoid creating UI? Who resolves, in a reasonable time, the issue of a player saying, "no agreement".

On Stepbridge, players are required to have convention cards posted. These are easily checked, and just as on BBO, questions can be asked and MUST be answered privately - talking to the table may lead to UI and is adjusted appropriately. BUT many pairs are auto-matched or do not have agreements, in which case - just as in the club "Undiscussed" is the correct response.

Opps are entitled to know what the partner will believe the bid means, NOT what the bidder thinks it should mean. Oddly this concept is not well-understood in many circles.

 

System cards vary in quality immensely. nige1 has a system card which is largely blank, devoid of useful information, despite playing with the same partner for many years. My system card has no blank space and is excellent if you want to check any agreement: however, it is so full that it is very difficult to read, quite intimidating and some would say that it is devoid of useful information (although fully compliant).

 

Even if you provide system cards to those that do not have them, how do you know that the pair understand what is on the card?

 

Pick-up partnerships are always a challenge, but at the club there is a 'general understanding' of what people play. They may not have a system card, but they know what no trump range they are playing, whether transfers are on, whether a player "likes conventions" and so will play Michaels or not, etc.

 

 

3. What happens when there are connection issues, how can these be fairly assessed and will it create discrimination against the technology challenged and the technology deprived? Should I be blamed because the Scottish Government has provided access to superfast and fibre broadband to you, but will take at least another three years to give it to me?

The same thing happens if a player in the club stays in the bathroom or decides to chat to their mother on the phone. Why should you get a mulligan because you have not adequately equipped yourself to play?

Yes, it is your fault if you choose to enter a formula 1 race riding a horse and buggy - also, the waste from the horse may be dangerous for the other players using the correct equipment.

I didn't want bridge to become the preserve of the privileged.

When BBO started it transformed online bridge because it was free and accessible to all. The number of people playing and the number of countries they were from escalated rapidly compared to the other pay sites that existed.

4. What happens when players fail to claim, possibly putting their opponents under time pressure?

What does this mean? The player not claiming is putting themselves under pressure - this is, I presume - the reason for the 5-minute rule. Although, perhaps really bad players might figure that 40% is a good result against better players.

Personally, I think there is room for improvement here.

Suppose I know that I can only make 12 tricks on a hand, however I play and however the opponents defend; there is literally no chance of a 13th trick from my perspective. So I can play the tricks very quickly, but the defenders have to think about every trick because the situation is unclear to them. I run their clocks down at no cost to mine.

5. I know that you do not approve of subjective rulings, but timing bridge is going to require the directors to make even more of them, not to mention the issue of parsing the logs for information.

This turns out to be a minor problem. Complaints are few and dealt with very easily by the experienced team of Directors.

This may be true on StepBridge and it is also true for my local club, which is largely inexperienced players. But the knives will come out if you introduce timing rules to competitive events rather than social bridge.

[pilowsky]

1. If these "general understandings" exist, then there is no need for alerts. Your statement undermines your argument.

2. I haven't seen your system card or Nigel's, but it sounds like you are referring to profiles online, not system cards.

3. If by 'system cards' you mean the cards (and explanations) in the club, that's a different matter and is the reason for requiring alerts and is the reason for the statement "undiscussed" if it isn't. I've never played against Nigel in the club or online. Still, I would guess that his card has a little more detail on it than you imply.

4. Stepbridge charges 3.00 Australian dollars per 24 board game. If that makes it the preserve of the privilege, then Scotland is in worse shape than I thought. OTOH the free games on BBO are excellent but would still benefit from a clock - which amongst other things, is a great anti-cheating device.

5.You can't 'run their clock down'; they have to choose to think. Or are you suggesting that out of an abundance of integrity, you should always lose any losing tricks first to avoid causing the under-privileged excess anxiety?

6. I defer to others experience regarding "competitive" events - as opposed to the games that I - and most Bridge players can afford to play.

 

[nige1]

System cards vary in quality immensely. nige1 has a system card which is largely blank, devoid of useful information, despite playing with the same partner for many years. My system card has no blank space and is excellent if you want to check any agreement: however, it is so full that it is very difficult to read, quite intimidating

I haven't played F2F for a couple of years but I've had brief discussions about methods with many regular partners. We simply agreed a variant of the WBF card that partner uses with other partners. That meant inadequate agreement with some partners in some areas. Recently, Mike McGinley helped one long-suffering partner remedy these deficiencies. I advocate full disclosure so I again admit that I've been lazy and stupid.

On-line, I use BBO convention-cards for each partnership, accessible by all opponents.

[paulg]

1. If these "general understandings" exist, then there is no need for alerts. Your statement undermines your argument.

If I am playing with MM, then I do not play Michaels because I know she does not. If I'm playing with PD, she does. Even if I'm playing at the club, why should I withhold that information by not alerting appropriately? I might say, "Undiscussed, but I know MM does not play Michaels", but I'm not hiding behind the "Undiscussed, but I know" banner.

2. I haven't seen your system card or Nigel's, but it sounds like you are referring to profiles online, not system cards.

https://www.sbu.org....yth_Guthrie.pdf

https://www.sbu.org....pson-gipson.pdf

 

My point was that system cards vary greatly and usefulness. nige1 has improved his with help, but there is a vast difference in the amount of information provided. However is mine really more useful?

 

3. If by 'system cards' you mean the cards (and explanations) in the club, that's a different matter and is the reason for requiring alerts and is the reason for the statement "undiscussed" if it isn't. I've never played against Nigel in the club or online. Still, I would guess that his card has a little more detail on it than you imply.

System cards are the WBF nomenclature for 'convention cards'.

4. Stepbridge charges 3.00 Australian dollars per 24 board game. If that makes it the preserve of the privilege, then Scotland is in worse shape than I thought. OTOH the free games on BBO are excellent but would still benefit from a clock - which amongst other things, is a great anti-cheating device.

I was commenting on the quality of Internet connection as a cost, since you want me to have an always-on fast connection with no disconnections.

5.You can't 'run their clock down'; they have to choose to think. Or are you suggesting that out of an abundance of integrity, you should always lose any losing tricks first to avoid causing the under-privileged excess anxiety?

I am in 7NT with the ten top spades and three aces. I do not claim, but play it out. The opponents do not really have any choice but to think. I am running down their clocks for my benefit.

 

In real life, a strong players ability to run the clock down of their opponents is more subtle.

[blackshoe]

Opps are entitled to know what the partner will believe the bid means, NOT what the bidder thinks it should mean. Oddly this concept is not well-understood in many circles.

Not entirely accurate. Opponents are entitled to know the partnership's understanding of the meaning of the bid. If there is no such understanding, they're entitled to know that. If there is some expectation on the part of the bidder that his partner will, or is likely to, interpret the bid in a certain way, they are entitled to know that. But they are not entitled to an answer from the partner of the bidder to the question "How do you take that bid?" absent a mutual partnership understanding (including one which may arise from experience).

[Gilithin]

Your claim is that

The problem of creating a Bridge clock was solved by the Stepbridge platform years ago.

but I have still not really seen an explanation as to what this solution is.

 

On Stepbridge, players are required to have convention cards posted. These are easily checked, and just as on BBO, questions can be asked and MUST be answered privately - talking to the table may lead to UI and is adjusted appropriately.

A convention card is not even close to full disclosure. A typical CC is around 2 pages long, the system file for a complex method might be 500 pages or even longer. Someone opens 1♣ and I ask - whose clock is running? If my clock is running then there is an incentive to the opps in taking as long as possible to answer. If their clock is running then we can ask about every call and they will be disadvantaged since it takes longer to type an explanation in than to ask. And if the clocks are stopped then we can store up multiple asks for when we need to think and use the answering time as extra thinking time. All of these allow gamesmanship and slow the game down, thus making it more likely that we can benefit from the slowness by getting a free 60% board.

 

BUT many pairs are auto-matched or do not have agreements, in which case - just as in the club "Undiscussed" is the correct response.

Opps are entitled to know what the partner will believe the bid means, NOT what the bidder thinks it should mean. Oddly this concept is not well-understood in many circles.

this seems to display a fundamental misunderstanding of the way most high level bridge is organised. In most tournaments the table is divided in half along the NW-SE diagonal. Regardless of who made the call, North and East explain to each other on one side with South and West doing the same on the other side. Explanations should be a full description of the partnership agreements, both explicit agreements and those that have emerged through casual discussion, previous experience or general meta-agreements that cover otherwise undiscussed situations.

 

The same thing happens if a player in the club stays in the bathroom or decides to chat to their mother on the phone. Why should you get a mulligan because you have not adequately equipped yourself to play?

Yes, it is your fault if you choose to enter a formula 1 race riding a horse and buggy - also, the waste from the horse may be dangerous for the other players using the correct equipment.

Is it also the F1 team's own fault if the organisers decide to park a crane outside of their garage and they therefore cannot get their cars to the starting line in time for the parade lap? The internet connection is generally not something within the power of a bridge player to secure. This has been an issue, for example, at some chess events during the covid pandemic. And there are some potentially bigger issues too. Let's say that China and Australia reach the BB final and it is played being online. Australia are 50 points up going into the final session and the Chinese government launch a DoS attack on the Australian internet causing it to go down. Are you feeling satisfied when the organisers declare China the winners because Australia could not adequately equip themselves?

 

4. What happens when players fail to claim, possibly putting their opponents under time pressure?

What does this mean? The player not claiming is putting themselves under pressure - this is, I presume - the reason for the 5-minute rule. Although, perhaps really bad players might figure that 40% is a good result against better players.

Paul already explained the typical sort of scenario where the situation is quickly and easily available to declarer but not to the defence. Combined with slowing the game down through unnecessary asks as above, it is potentially possible to put the opponents under time pressure at no risk to yourself while making sure that the game takes considerably longer than is really necessary.

 

So please try to explain again, in detail and with particular reference to Paul's questions, just how Stepbridge has solved the issue of a bridge clock.

[pilowsky]

Your claim is that

 

but I have still not really seen an explanation as to what this solution is.

 

 

A convention card is not even close to full disclosure. A typical CC is around 2 pages long, the system file for a complex method might be 500 pages or even longer. Someone opens 1♣ and I ask - whose clock is running? If my clock is running then there is an incentive to the opps in taking as long as possible to answer. If their clock is running then we can ask about every call and they will be disadvantaged since it takes longer to type an explanation in than to ask. And if the clocks are stopped then we can store up multiple asks for when we need to think and use the answering time as extra thinking time. All of these allow gamesmanship and slow the game down, thus making it more likely that we can benefit from the slowness by getting a free 60% board.

 

 

this seems to display a fundamental misunderstanding of the way most high level bridge is organised. In most tournaments the table is divided in half along the NW-SE diagonal. Regardless of who made the call, North and East explain to each other on one side with South and West doing the same on the other side. Explanations should be a full description of the partnership agreements, both explicit agreements and those that have emerged through casual discussion, previous experience or general meta-agreements that cover otherwise undiscussed situations.

 

 

Is it also the F1 team's own fault if the organisers decide to park a crane outside of their garage and they therefore cannot get their cars to the starting line in time for the parade lap? The internet connection is generally not something within the power of a bridge player to secure. This has been an issue, for example, at some chess events during the covid pandemic. And there are some potentially bigger issues too. Let's say that China and Australia reach the BB final and it is played being online. Australia are 50 points up going into the final session and the Chinese government launch a DoS attack on the Australian internet causing it to go down. Are you feeling satisfied when the organisers declare China the winners because Australia could not adequately equip themselves?

 

 

Paul already explained the typical sort of scenario where the situation is quickly and easily available to declarer but not to the defence. Combined with slowing the game down through unnecessary asks as above, it is potentially possible to put the opponents under time pressure at no risk to yourself while making sure that the game takes considerably longer than is really necessary.

 

So please try to explain again, in detail and with particular reference to Paul's questions, just how Stepbridge has solved the issue of a bridge clock.

 

You're trying to run my clock. Just watch a chess clock video on youtube if you don't understand how it works.

[pilowsky]

... and the Chinese government launch a DoS attack on the Australian internet causing it to go down. Are you feeling satisfied when the organisers declare China the winners because Australia could not adequately equip themselves?

Is this some sort of joke?

In any event, Australia uses Akamai which has developed countermeasures against DDOS (that sometimes cause our entire banking system to collapse).

Next thing you'll complain that they get more time because their computer is closer to the server - as Michael Lewis wrote about in Flash Boys.

The tides coming in; King Canute couldn't stop it, neither can you.

[mycroft]

As discussed before, chess is easy. it's either your turn or your opponent's, or a draw is offered or the arbiter has been called. Plus the game isn't biased in any great way (barring the white goes first bias). There are no questions to ask (save "draw?")and no explanations required to be given. There is no consultation of your opponent's opening book to understand what their moves mean. And yet, all the rules about clocks - never mind the regulations around how to actually set the clocks (time for the auctionfirst 40 moves, time for each action (or not?), time after first 40, speed controls, differing standards for differing ages/levels/tournaments...)

 

None of this applies to bridge. If I have to read your CC, because you don't explain well, or just because I want to see, and your CC is hard to read, or takes a minute to get out of your purse, that's time off my clock (but should it be?) If I have to ask questions, is it my time (because it's my call) or yours (because I've asked a question)? If the answer to 1♦-p-2♦ is "diamond raise", and I have to re-ask to actually get a non-obvious answer, who's responsible? If I have to explain my question in "I know it was today, but what time today" detail to get the answer to the question I actually need to know, whose time does it cost? What if the opponents know how this works, and deliberately play dumb? If we call the director, who's clock is on - because unlike chess, the round will be called in 10 minutes whether there were director calls or not? If all the hands in the round are my direction, we're going to take more time in the auction over your insta-passes (oh, and does my "pause 10 seconds after your skip bid" count on my clock? Or is it tied into the clock where it won't let me call until those 10 seconds are up?) and likely the play as well.

 

As I've mentioned before, time in bridge, if you were to clock it correctly, would be closer to MTGO than chess. Also solved, but again, there's no "question and answer" part to it, outside of the questions the game puts to the players.

 

Never mind the UI that will be caused when time management is actually a consideration. If the first board went slow (for both pairs), the second will definitely be readable for "I have nothing to think about". And it will get used. And, as now, there's not that much the directors can do about it. Players who attempt to fast-play their opponents get another arrow to their bow (though if they succeed in getting the other pair to play to their tempo, at least there won't be time issues. If they don't succeed, they automatically get A+ on missed boards. Not sure the latter's wrong, but the style definitely is).

 

You could just as easily say that there's no issues with time in world championship chess - why should it take weeks to do a best-of-11? Bridge can play 50 games in 6 hours!

[Gilithin]

You're trying to run my clock. Just watch a chess clock video on youtube if you don't understand how it works.

I have seen plenty of live chess but I have to admit never yet a video of one player asking their opponent what the meaning of their last move was. Could you perhaps provide a link?

[blackshoe]

The "whose time is it?" question wrt consultation of system cards could be solved by requiring each player to exchange his system card with his RHO at the start of the round or match, and not get it back until the end of the round or match.

 

I have yet to run into a situation where asking the question to which I need to know the answer seems less desirable than asking some other question.

 

There is a conflict between the desire to have rounds take specific lengths of time (e.g. 7 1/2 minutes or 6 2/3 minutes or 6 minutes or 5 minutes) and the need to ensure full disclosure of methods. If we want to go back to the days when everyone played the same system and there were no questions, then the former desire could certainly take precedence (though beware of catering to the "I can finish a round in 4.3 seconds, why can't everybody?" crowd). If we don't want to go back to those days (I certainly don't) then maybe we should convince the purveyors of online bridge to ensure their software is in compliance with Law 8C.

[mycroft]

"Please explain x" *should* get you a full explanation, without passing information (to partner or opponents) about what, specifically, is in question.

 

When it doesn't for whatever reason (except when certain opponents ask "what do you need to know?", because they *absolutely will* use that information, and in some cases, mold their initial explanations to get that information back. Those people - need a different strategy), then you ask the particular question. But still, it shouldn't be necessary, and requerying incomplete information shouldn't cost your time.

[pescetom]

"Please explain x" *should* get you a full explanation, without passing information (to partner or opponents) about what, specifically, is in question.

 

When it doesn't for whatever reason (except when certain opponents ask "what do you need to know?", because they *absolutely will* use that information, and in some cases, mold their initial explanations to get that information back. Those people - need a different strategy), then you ask the particular question. But still, it shouldn't be necessary, and requerying incomplete information shouldn't cost your time.

 

A partnership could always be penalised for not having a clear explanation of any call (up to a certain low level) ready in markup language. For higher level calls or for card plays, a default maximum time quota for a single explanation (say 10s) can be allocated without touching either clock. Yes, this is an issue compared to chess, but I'm not convinced it excludes the possibility of timed play even in high level competition. I think the real issue for the future of bridge is more the right to deviate from agreements (or to not have them, or to not be capable of formulating them implicitly, or to have them so complex that human opponents cannot react) rather than the right to be slow or the acceptability of paying a price for being so.

[blackshoe]

"Please explain x" *should* get you a full explanation, without passing information (to partner or opponents) about what, specifically, is in question.

 

When it doesn't for whatever reason (except when certain opponents ask "what do you need to know?", because they *absolutely will* use that information, and in some cases, mold their initial explanations to get that information back. Those people - need a different strategy), then you ask the particular question. But still, it shouldn't be necessary, and requerying incomplete information shouldn't cost your time.

Actually, no. When the answer to "please explain x" doesn't fully explain x, I don't ask a particular question. I call the director, because they have violated the rules of the game.

[paulg]

The "whose time is it?" question wrt consultation of system cards could be solved by requiring each player to exchange his system card with his RHO at the start of the round or match, and not get it back until the end of the round or match.

 

A partnership could always be penalised for not having a clear explanation of any call (up to a certain low level) ready in markup language. For higher level calls or for card plays, a default maximum time quota for a single explanation (say 10s) can be allocated without touching either clock. Yes, this is an issue compared to chess, but I'm not convinced it excludes the possibility of timed play even in high level competition. I think the real issue for the future of bridge is more the right to deviate from agreements (or to not have them, or to not be capable of formulating them implicitly, or to have them so complex that human opponents cannot react) rather than the right to be slow or the acceptability of paying a price for being so.

 

If you look at the system cards for the European World Team Championships qualifier (http://db.eurobridge.org/repository/competitions/21OnlineNationalTeams/microsite/Information.htm#Systems), which have been subject to approval by the EBL, you will see a vast difference in the quality of cards at the highest level of the game. Everyone has opening bids described; some provide excellent coverage of responses; a few cover opener's rebid and a couple cover responder's rebid. They rarely cover competitive sequences and you just need to be able to ask questions; system cards allow you to prepare, not play.

 

As one of the most technically competent bridge players I know, and a user of Full Disclosure before it came out, I think (markup) software will have to improve a lot before it is useful and there will have to be a quantum leap to make it accessible to everyone. There are just too many bridge sequences that come up to cover them all.

[Gilithin]

As one of the most technically competent bridge players I know, and a user of Full Disclosure before it came out, I think (markup) software will have to improve a lot before it is useful and there will have to be a quantum leap to make it accessible to everyone. There are just too many bridge sequences that come up to cover them all.

FD had a strict size limit. You simply could not use it to cover both uncontested and competitive auctions in any sort of all-inclusive way.

[paulg]

FD had a strict size limit. You simply could not use it to cover both uncontested and competitive auctions in any sort of all-inclusive way.

I described FD as a technology demonstration rather than a product, as i believe it was something that Fred just knocked up one afternoon.

 

One problem it highlighted was the complexity of capturing competitive bidding and the need for information to be transferred from one partnership to another. For example, most people play a different defence to a strong club than to a natural one club, so the meaning of bids are different.

[mycroft]

I play 1NT overcall for takeout. An explanation that will satisfy A (a good, but C player, who has never heard of this before) and J (a multi-time Canadian champion who plays a relatively complicated Precision system, and does in fact need to know the details - she's the one who famously got the response of "he's walking home?" to "what does it mean if he doesn't bid 2♦?", not accepting the "it's forced" explanation. Which, to her credit, many people mean "unless he has something he really wants to show, he bids this", so it wasn't a horrible question) doesn't exist. And definitely, where to put the nuance the first time for Blackshoe is a guess. Hope I don't guess wrong.

 

As Paul said - and he's right, I'm used to reading those things, and his WBF card is both pretty complete, and an unreadable wall-o-text - there is no single correct description of system that will work for everyone.

 

If I give a J-level answer to A, I'm just DDBB'ing her. If I give an A-level answer to J, I'm hoping she will accept fluff as an answer, despite my previous experience. I try with "8-14 or so, takeout of [suit]. 3+ in unbids" online, knowing that gets most players 90% of the way there, and they can ask if they want to know about the boundaries.

 

* If you can't Dazzle 'em with Data, Baffle 'em with...

[nige1]

I described FD as a technology demonstration rather than a product, as i believe it was something that Fred just knocked up one afternoon.One problem it highlighted was the complexity of capturing competitive bidding and the need for information to be transferred from one partnership to another. For example, most people play a different defence to a strong club than to a natural one club, so the meaning of bids are different.

Interesting history. Full Disclosure was a great idea, as were its extensions by Kungsgeten and others. Regulators should strive for perfection but any improvement would be welcome. A start might be

Disclosure suggestion