[david_c]

pigpenz, on Nov 7 2006, 04:46 AM, said:

Glen is an experienced enough player that he should know to look and def knows how to look.

should people look? Yes
Do they have to look? no

I actually disagree with the answer to the first question. When there is no alert in a sequence like 2♣ - 2♥, there is no reason to look at the CC at all, since you know it is natural. In fact, if I did look at the CC and found 2♥ was shown as a double-negative, I would think it was more likely that the CC was wrong than they forgot to alert.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Nov 7 2006, 01:19 PM, said:

A very interesting approach to the topic 'providing false information'. I am not expert in quoting the laws but I assume Richard has the relevant sequences present.

I wasn't sure about the right way to rule in these sorts of cases, so I sent a hypothetical off to the Bridge Laws mailing list. This generated a fairly long thread which is still ongoing. As is often the ways with these sorts of discussions, the trhead has wandered a bit, however, folks might still find it useful

http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...ber/030017.html

[hrothgar]

awm, on Nov 7 2006, 08:56 AM, said:

Let me explain why I'm opposed to using FD. As far as I can tell, a convention card serves four basic purposes:

1. To act as a "catch" in case people forget to alert.
2. To reduce the need to slow down the game and/or transmit UI by asking questions about people's bids in common auctions.
3. To give a "quick summary" of general approach.
4. To act as "proof of agreement" to directors or committees in case there is some question as to what the actual agreements are.

I don't think FD serves particularly well in any of these roles.

Marshall McLuhan famously observed that the "medium is the message". I think that it is a mistake to consider an Full Disclosure file to be a 1:1 replacement for traditional convention cards. A computerized system, leveraging hypertext, unlimited storage, and complex graphics should not strive to emulate a single page of flat text that is designed to be scanned in 15 seconds.

Note: I very much agree that an FD file should strive to improve on a plain, flat text convention card... However, I argue that it does so successfully. I also believe that the existing FD implementation needs to be viewed as a work in progress. Many of the criticisms that you raise can be addressed with relatively simple enhancements to the user interface (or, alternatively, more experienced end users). Let me seize on one obvious example: You claim the the FD tree structure is to complicated for players seeking to get a quick summary of the system. My answer is that the FD tree isn't intended for that use... Full Disclosure includes a field labeled "Convention Card Summary" which serves that same purpose. For example, the CC Summary for MOSCITO reads:

MOSCITO = Strong Club, 4 card majors, and transfer openings. 1♦ = Hearts, 1♥ = Spades, 1♠ = unbalanced with 4+ Diamonds.

1NT = 11+ - 14. 2/1 = Natural and non-forcing. Frequent use of Relays
Assumed Fit preempts

In my mind, this provides a pretty reasonable summary. Could it be better? Of course. In fact, I also have argued that FD needs to be extended to include a GUI. Ideally, this GUI can be used both to create new conventions and also to provide a graphical summary describing standard systems. In time, I suspect that this will happen. (Short term, I think that there are some nasty issues that need to be worked out regarding feedback between different modules)

As to your more general criticisms: Personally, I don't think that FD creates new problems. However, I do believe that FD makes existing problems much more explicit. Almost all the issues that you point out with the FD application are lurking in the background all the time. The fundamental problem is that many players don't understand the bidding systems that they claim to be using. They agree to play 2/1 game force, but they don't realize that a 2NT response to a 1M opening is a strong raise of parter's suit...

Ignorance is going to cause problems, plain and simple. However, here once again, I'm taking a glass half full approach to FD... From my perspective, FD has the making of a phenomenal educational tool. In the long term, this is the only real solution to these sorts of issues.

[csdenmark]

hrothgar, on Nov 7 2006, 04:15 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Nov 7 2006, 01:19 PM, said:

A very interesting approach to the topic 'providing false information'. I am not expert in quoting the laws but I assume Richard has the relevant sequences present.

I wasn't sure about the right way to rule in these sorts of cases, so I sent a hypothetical off to the Bridge Laws mailing list. This generated a fairly long thread which is still ongoing. As is often the ways with these sorts of discussions, the trhead has wandered a bit, however, folks might still find it useful

http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...ber/030017.html

I have been reading much of the info from this interesting thread. I dont know where it ends, I am not used to this interface and dont know what blml-online bridge is. I have no idea in what capacity the participants rules.

I understand the rules are not exactly clear and that L40 is about concealed agreements and L75 about misinformation. I understand it is difficult to separate and that plans are to modify rules merging L75 and L40.

I understand from the discussion that only a few of the persons knows FD where info is pupping up. If so then there seems to be no doubt of culpa. In that respect it seems like the participants agree that FD intensions is a major step forward.

I noticed that one participant assumed it would be rather simple to build bridge rules into an online tool. Maybe so - very interesting.

I was very pleased to see the frank language correct naming violations of L40 and L75 as cheating.

In general I wonder the intensions of all those persons discrediting the most advanced bridge tool on internet! Do you really think negative attitudes are encouraging for Fred to improve free top-level service to you?

[awm]

The issue is that FD increases the frequency of a certain kind of infraction. Additionally, this kind of infraction often requires a complicated director call to sort out (note that the directors on the Bridge Laws mailing list seem to disagree). In online play, directors are often unavailable or poorly trained, and giving them more complicated scenarios to sort out is a bad idea.

To compare, let's take an example from one of hrothgar's favorite systems:

1♦! - P - 2♣

The 1♦ bid is alerted and explained as 4+♥, 9-14 hcp, maybe longer side suit. Now 2♣ is bid. Without FD, it's possible that the 2♣ bidder forgets to alert. But with a rudimentary understanding of Moscito, I know that it's reasonable to ask the meaning of 2♣. An ethical RHO (forget or no forget) will now explain whether 2♣ shows clubs, whether it's forcing, various inferences about values and/or heart length, and so forth.

But now suppose these opponents are using FD. We see the same auction, but FD may announce that 2♣ shows "5+♣, 0-2♥, less than 11 hcp, NF." Unfortunately this is one of the things that seems to change in different versions of Moscito, and there's a fair chance the real agreement is different than this. Unsuspecting, I pass... but opponents' real agreement is to play 2♣ transfer to diamonds, and opener bids 2♦ (explained by FD as a natural suit without club tolerance) and everyone passes. Note that here, I don't realize what has happened until dummy is faced. At this point it's too late to ask questions or get an undo (say I wanted to bid clubs over a transfer 2♣ but pass throughout given RHO has clubs). Now I need a director, who has to understand the situation and figure out what "would've happened" if I'd been correctly informed -- not an easy task when the director is handling dozens of tables and impossible in most team games.

Without FD, wrong explanations are much less common. When they do occur, often it means that opponents didn't have a clear agreement and weren't on the same page in which case often a director isn't needed (they're headed for trouble anyway). Only with FD is it possible that opponents have an agreement, and both know the agreement, but yet opponents are still misinformed.

I agree that FD is useful in working out your methods and improving your system. I'm just not convinced that it's useful as a substitute for alerting and posting a CC in serious play.

[david_c]

hrothgar, on Nov 7 2006, 03:47 PM, said:

In fact, I also have argued that FD needs to be extended to include a GUI.  Ideally, this GUI can be used both to create new conventions and also to provide a graphical summary describing standard systems.

Agreed. If FD is to become widely used, it must become much easier to create and review FD files, and also much easier for opponents to view them. For all the work that has gone into the current interface, it is nowhere near what we would really want from a GUI.

However I am not as optimistic as Richard is about this actually happening, because I think the structure of the files themselves needs to be changed. At present, the bulk of a FD file consists of explanations for individual sequences. This does mean that when one of these sequences comes up, FD does a very good job at providing an explanation. However, I don't think that giving explanations for individual sequences is always the right way of providing disclosure.

Basically the problem is that there are too many sequences. The users can't be expected to define all the sequences by hand, so the program would have to do much of the dirty work automatically. In some cases (Blackwood, for example), I don't even believe it is possible to achieve this. Where it is achievable, you still have the problem that the user won't understand exactly what the program is doing, and so it might not produce an accurate reflection of their agreements. [This applies both to individual conventions and to entire standard systems.]

Also, defining individual sequences is often not the way that the opponents want to receive the information, particularly when they want to know about other bids that might have been made.

So, I believe that FD currently has too much functionality based on the idea of defining individual sequences. In order to make progress I think it might be necessary to cut back or downgrade the importance of this part of the program.

This could be replaced by having more sections in the convention card. For example, we might have a section for "slam bidding". This would not generate pop-up explanations in the same way that FD does (unless the user had also specified the meaning of a sequence separately), but it could be made so that whenever that situation came up, the opponents would have an easy way to look at that part of the convention card. I believe that this would be a better way of providing that sort of information.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Nov 7 2006, 06:44 PM, said:

I have been reading much of the info from this interesting thread. I dont know where it ends, I am not used to this interface and dont know what blml-online bridge is. I have no idea in what capacity the participants rules.

As the name suggests, the Bridge Laws mailing list is an email listed that is used to discuss Bridge Laws, rulings, regulatory structures, and the like. I have no idea how long the list has been in existence, however, I've been a subscriber for roughly a decade.

The list includes a large number of high qualified tournament directors. Several members of the WBF Laws Committee participate in discussions, so you get to see the opinions and logic of folks like Bill Schoder, Grattan Endicott, and Ton Kooijman. You also have lots of top national level directors, along with a bunch of talented amateurs. I won't pretend that these conversations are always polite, or for that matter interesting. However, there's a lot of valuable discussion. From my own perspective, I tend to find the discussions and analysis of controversial appeals committee rulings the most useful part of the list.

Conversations on the list tend to take place "after the fact"... I doubt that any discussion on the mailing ever directly impacted an appeal in real time. However, I think that themes that get discussed may have some impact on the Laws.

From my perspective, one of the most frustrating things about the list is my perception that very few members of the list have any real experience with the realities of online bridge. I suspect that a lot of this boils down to a generation difference, however, I suspect that some members see online bridge as a threat rather than an opportunity.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Nov 7 2006, 07:11 PM, said:

Without FD, wrong explanations are much less common. When they do occur, often it means that opponents didn't have a clear agreement and weren't on the same page in which case often a director isn't needed (they're headed for trouble anyway). Only with FD is it possible that opponents have an agreement, and both know the agreement, but yet opponents are still misinformed.

I disagree with this assertion...

Assume for the moment that partner and I are playing in a tournament. We sit down against a pair who announces that they are playing SAYC.

LHO opens 1NT, partner passes, and RHO bids 2♥

I know SAYC and I know that SAYC defines 2♥ as a transfer to Spades.

Unfortuantely, it turns out that this pair uses the expression "SAYC" is actual "Simple SAYC" which doesn't include transfers, or Jacoby 2NT or any of that complex stuff.

True, you don't have the FD application mis-informing about whats going on, but your own knowledge of the system that they claim to be playing serves just the same purpose..

[david_c]

awm, on Nov 7 2006, 05:11 PM, said:

Without FD, wrong explanations are much less common. When they do occur, often it means that opponents didn't have a clear agreement and weren't on the same page in which case often a director isn't needed (they're headed for trouble anyway). Only with FD is it possible that opponents have an agreement, and both know the agreement, but yet opponents are still misinformed.

When FD is giving a wrong explanation, the bidder is supposed to notice this and correct it. If they don't do that then they are clearly at fault for the MI - you can't just blame FD itself. For this reason I don't think it is quite as serious a problem as you are suggesting. People who play complicated systems and have a FD file are likely to be conscientious enough to correct any wrong explanations.

[Echognome]

david_c, on Nov 7 2006, 05:33 PM, said:

awm, on Nov 7 2006, 05:11 PM, said:

Without FD, wrong explanations are much less common. When they do occur, often it means that opponents didn't have a clear agreement and weren't on the same page in which case often a director isn't needed (they're headed for trouble anyway). Only with FD is it possible that opponents have an agreement, and both know the agreement, but yet opponents are still misinformed.

When FD is giving a wrong explanation, the bidder is supposed to notice this and correct it. If they don't do that then they are clearly at fault for the MI - you can't just blame FD itself. For this reason I don't think it is quite as serious a problem as you are suggesting. People who play complicated systems and have a FD file are likely to be conscientious enough to correct any wrong explanations.

Except for the fact that you are not supposed to use memory aides. Thus many that use FD turn off the feature that shows themselves what the bid means or what their partner's bids mean. I think this is the ideal way to use the application.

A possible solution is that at the end of the auction, before the lead is faced, the explanations THEN show up and you can then announce if there is a problem and if playing in a tournament call the TD.

As for the original question, I see no reason why you should be required to look at the opponents cc. In fact, we are often disappointed when playing f2f when we say "you might want to look at our cc as we play unusual methods to most," and some opponents could care less. Do you think that gives them any less protection from the laws?

[csdenmark]

Echognome, on Nov 7 2006, 07:38 PM, said:

As for the original question, I see no reason why you should be required to look at the opponents cc.  In fact, we are often disappointed when playing f2f when we say "you might want to look at our cc as we play unusual methods to most," and some opponents could care less.  Do you think that gives them any less protection from the laws?

Choose more intelligent opposition next time.

[glen]

On the subject of disclosure, I would like to see three things:

1) For both old-style and FD type cc, that there be two summary lines, one for a system description, the other for a defensive carding description, and these two mandatory summary lines auto display at the start of a round, such as:

NS play:
Sayc
Natural

Even better add a third line for the auto welcome, such as “Hi O’s”, or "Welcome Chosen More Intelligent Opposition" or "Sorry that you got us without picking us". It could also add the names in too, such as:

Welcome Opps! NS, Private & Private, play:
2/1 with weak notrump
UPDCA, Smith Echo

One could call this ID, for Initial Disclosure, and, imo, this is more important to implement than FD.

2) For FD, an add-as-you-go option. You start will a relatively blank FD, and then each time you make a bid, if your partnership does not already have an FD entry, the system prompts you to enter it – it then stores this in your FD and also displays it to the opponents. If the system displays a previous entered incorrect entry, you can change it and then it stores this update too.

So instead of hours of time consuming set up of the FD, you add as you go, mostly filling in the commonly occurring sequences.

3) Better display options for FD, including a nice tree view with maximum-level-to-display selection, and, if it is your FD, click to have a small pop-up entry screen - the same pop-up that could be used for 2) above.

[hotShot]

FD is a nice approach and i am sure that it will work for established partnerships and uncontested auctions.

Almost nobody outside the ACBL fully knows what SAYC implies, and I'm not sure that many people from ACBL land know more. So using a default file FD-File is not always a good idea.

Entering a system into FD is quite an effort, it can't be done on the fly. Although i have some ideas how this could be improved, we will have to wait for them.

Looking at your own convention card is against the law of bridge, as you are not allowed to use memory aids. So if i don't look, i don't know that my opps where missinformed and if i look I'm using illegal means.

In competitive bidding FD is bound to know what opps overcall meant. It does matter to the following bidding whether the 1NT overcall in 2nd hand following a 1m bid, shows 16-18 HCP balanced with stopper or raptor style showing 5+ cards in the other minor and 4 cards in an unspecified major.
Without that information FD will produce wrong alerts when the overcall meant something different then the FD author expected.

[pigpenz]

officeglen, on Nov 7 2006, 01:23 PM, said:

Even better add a third line for the auto welcome, such as “Hi O’s”, or "Welcome Chosen More Intelligent Opposition" or "Sorry that you got us without picking us". It could also add the names in too, such as:

Welcome Opps! NS, Private & Private, play:
2/1 with weak notrump
UPDCA, Smith Echo

.

Glen
you can do that with the OKscript but again its only as good as the info you put into it...just like full disclosure.

Playing online seems to be a two way street or sometimes no way you can win. I dont know how many people in acbl games forget to alert jacoby transfers both without and in competition. Do you ask or not?

until there can be some sort of procedural penalty there is no impetus on the offenders to take the time to alert their bids.

[Echognome]

csdenmark, on Nov 7 2006, 05:57 PM, said:

Echognome, on Nov 7 2006, 07:38 PM, said:

As for the original question, I see no reason why you should be required to look at the opponents cc.  In fact, we are often disappointed when playing f2f when we say "you might want to look at our cc as we play unusual methods to most," and some opponents could care less.  Do you think that gives them any less protection from the laws?

Choose more intelligent opposition next time.

This may come as a shock to you, but it is usually the case in f2f bridge that we do not get to choose our opponents.

[glen]

pigpenz, on Nov 7 2006, 10:55 PM, said:

you can do that with the OKscript but again its only as good as the info you put into it...just like full disclosure.

I'm a lot more interested in everybody doing it so there is consistent disclosure across the field, and it is not likely they will all pick up okscript (or even decide to CTRL+V a standard message). With FD it took a lot of effort to produce something rarely used - with ID it would take a (relatively) small effort to produce something every tourney player would use.

[pigpenz]

officeglen, on Nov 7 2006, 06:49 PM, said:

pigpenz, on Nov 7 2006, 10:55 PM, said:

you can do that with the OKscript but again its only as good as the info you put into it...just like full disclosure.

I'm a lot more interested in everybody doing it so there is consistent disclosure across the field, and it is not likely they will all pick up okscript (or even decide to CTRL+V a standard message). With FD it took a lot of effort to produce something rarely used - with ID it would take a (relatively) small effort to produce something every tourney player would use.

Glen:
there was a lot of effort that went into full disclosure and some of us tested it for about a year before Fred ever put it into bbo.

Now the plain old convention cards have been there from the start and its amazing how many people dont know how to edit them.

Now you think this would be very easy to do, but you as well as I know how hard it is sometimes to even get anyone to answer what their bids mean when you click on more info So Fred can put all of the bells and whistles he wants to into programing BBO but whats that old saying "you can lead horse to water but you cant make him drink" or in the case of others some people are jerks and no matter what they want to let you know they are.

[csdenmark]

pigpenz, on Nov 8 2006, 03:57 AM, said:

Now you think this would be very easy to do, but you as well as I know how hard it is sometimes to even get anyone to answer what their bids mean when you click on more info   So Fred can put all of the bells and whistles he wants to into programing BBO but whats that old saying "you can lead horse to water but you cant make him drink" or in the case of others some people are jerks and no matter what they want to let you know they are.

No - the real problem is that use of convention cards in general and especially the use of FD has never been promoted.

We have a great interface on BBO but the general moral standard is for each person completely to decide for himself. Poor standards are accepted as good enough.

[jikl]

Claus,

What you are asking for is completely untenable. The fact is probably a significant number over 80-90% of people playing together may have never played together before. They want to play for an hour or so. Are you therefore asking them to make a CC or fill in FD? Or are you asking them to be constrained by whatever default system is loaded and then edit any changes they make on the fly? Let's insert some realism, bridge is supposed to be fun for the majority of people that play. I am now guessing that for any that are playing for fun you would ban them from all tournaments and from any section of the MBC apart from the friendly or relaxed section. Perhaps they don't want to do that. Remember that BBO is self-rating, (another of your bugbears), it is supposed to be a place for players of all levels to be able to come and play a game. If real experts and world class players want a good game, they will organise one. Your continual attempts to make this into your perfect world is becoming tiresome. In any business model you try to cater to your main demographic, not the 1-2% that need a perfect one.

Sean

[csdenmark]

jikl, on Nov 8 2006, 03:07 PM, said:

Claus,

What you are asking for is completely untenable. The fact is probably a significant number over 80-90% of people playing together may have never played together before. They want to play for an hour or so. Are you therefore asking them to make a CC or fill in FD? Or are you asking them to be constrained by whatever default system is loaded and then edit any changes they make on the fly? Let's insert some realism, bridge is supposed to be fun for the majority of people that play. I am now guessing that for any that are playing for fun you would ban them from all tournaments and from any section of the MBC apart from the friendly or relaxed section. Perhaps they don't want to do that. Remember that BBO is self-rating, (another of your bugbears), it is supposed to be a place for players of all levels to be able to come and play a game. If real experts and world class players want a good game, they will organise one. Your continual attempts to make this into your perfect world is becoming tiresome. In any business model you try to cater to your main demographic, not the 1-2% that need a perfect one.

Sean

The fact is probably a significant number over 80-90% of people playing together may have never played together before.
A real problem - unfortunately never addressed. Now they are going to have a place for that and I hope very much this will be a great success.

Let's insert some realism, bridge is supposed to be fun for the majority of people that play. I am now guessing that for any that are playing for fun
We all play for fun. For the vast majority, referring to the directors in link from this thread, they dont even have knowledge of a basic system. Thats not fun for me and I think I cannot recall any other sport where the participants are happy with basic only.

I have never and will never advocate those I am not interested to share my life with to be banned in any way. There are and must be room for all. I have therefore started to advocate for a premium service option. I think such will be a good solution to all.

Your continual attempts to make this into your perfect world is becoming tiresome.
You have an opt out here - so I think I dont need to care