[1eyedjack]

hotShot, on Nov 14 2008, 12:39 PM, said:

But you should not close your eye about the fact that playing online, your opponents (and even your pickup partner) can write down each trick as they are played or check his printed system notes during bidding.

So if they want to use memory aids, they can do that.
If they don't want to do that they will ignore or switch off FD.

I agree with this 100%. It just seems a shame that if you don't want the memory aid then you have to switch off FD altogether, when there would otherwise be some tangible benefits to FD (assuming you can get it to "behave" of course)

[Codo]

1eyedjack, on Nov 14 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

Codo, on Nov 14 2008, 09:30 AM, said:

Another solution is to leave it like it is.

In so far as it does not actually solve the concerns raised in this and similar previous threads, you can call it a "solution" if you like.

But for "solving the concerns" of some members you make the game worse for others, who enjoy to have their system notes of an otherwise unfamiliar system, or who wants to have opponents which do not play in ridicoulus contracts. You cannot serve them all.

[helene_t]

Codo, on Nov 14 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

You cannot serve them all.

Why not? Let the table host decide whether FD all alerts, FD alerts only, or no alerts are visible to partner. To each his own.

[Codo]

Where is the progress in this?

If I want to play with FD to my partner and my opps don't want us to use it, we both better part and search for new opponents. This is easy.

So it comes down to what is used in a tourney: I think that it will be a good idea to have the tourney host to allow or forbid Partner to see my FD and to make this clear BEFORE the tourney starts . But maybe this point is not at top of Udays priority list.

[kenberg]

If I understand Codo correctly he is suggesting that we really do not need to get too worked up over this and i agree. But with the subject on the table I will list a cou;e of my objections.

I. Some stuff is hidden in plain sight. I mean: rho opens 1S. I look at the FD and see that this shows an opening hand and spades. After a while I may forget to look when I encounter a natural sounding bid. My error, no doubt. But in bridge as I am used to it when someone opens, say, 2D and it shows, say hearts and spades there is an alert. W/O the alert I assume it shows diamonds and I do not consult their card.


II. Part of bridge, as I see it, is to work through agreements with your partner, hope you have resolved ambiguities, and then try to keep your memory alive. Even at the highest levels, this sometimes fails. With the FD, someone can hand you the card and then at your turn to bid you browse around and see what you should do. To me, this is a different game than what I call bridge.


I have other things to worry about and I don't go ballistic over this, but I prefer bridge without the cheat-sheets. They remind me of the perhaps imaginary old ladies "I bid 2C. Now you remember what that bid means, don't you dear?"

[JoAnneM]

1eyedjack, on Nov 13 2008, 06:15 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Nov 13 2008, 07:07 AM, said:

Elianna, on Nov 12 2008, 10:07 PM, said:

It's perfectly legal to write down the opening lead as it's being made.

It's also legal to jot down the auction in your score card as you're writing the contract.

Source?

The laws generally prohibit rather than expressly permit. The more pertininent question, if you are in doubt, is what is the source for a suggested ban on the practice. There being none, it is permitted by default.

This can be a matter of judgment on the part of the Director. I have a player in my game who sits with the scoring side of the convention card propped against the edge of the table, facing her, in her lap. She has the reputation of being the slowest player in our club.

One day while at my table I noticed she was continually writing. I asked to see her card. She was writing the auction, the opening lead, and little marks for cards played! She still sits with the card propped like that and all I allow her is the opening lead, and I monitor it. I don't know what else to do. She continually is challenging me on the Laws.

Can I force her to place her card face down once play has started?

[1eyedjack]

JoAnneM, on Nov 14 2008, 05:56 PM, said:

Can I force her to place her card face down once play has started?

LOL - I certainly place mine face down. I would not refer to it even if it were face up, but (1) I would not want to be exposed to that accusation and (2) I do not want the opposition seeing the results that I obtain on other hands (I don't think I would generally have the opportunity to prop it up), which risk is eliminated if the card is face down.

I think in your case I would tactfully advise her that as she is aware that she cannot refer to it during play, it would be in her interests to place it face down for the above two reasons, whether you as TD can compel it or not. No reasonable person would want to attract a reputation for referring to it. If she decides otherwise you might then tactfully ask her for any reason for her preferred practice.

[awm]

In addition to the issue mentioned about FD acting as a memory aid, here are my other issues with FD:

(1) Many people who use FD fail to alert. They seem to feel that since FD is displaying their bids meanings there is no need for alert. But alerting serves a useful purpose as a warning that something unusual is going on (and that one should look at the FD card or ask questions).

(2) At times the FD display will be incorrect. This happens actually quite a lot, since pairs load an FD card that is different from their real agreements or which hasn't been updated recently enough, or simply because some of the system cards that correspond to "standard systems" actually have some kind of weird stuff in them. Typically people using the FD card are not in the habit of looking at it to correct the explanations. So we have a situation where the opposing side gets a wrong explanation even though both players are clear on their agreement! Of course one could argue that "the director should sort this out" but these situations create a lot of work for directors.

(3) Sometimes there are software problems and the FD card doesn't load properly. In this case the FD players' opponents essentially get no alerts and no explanations. Good luck with that.

(4) The memory issue actually constrains system design. One of the disadvantages to playing a really bizarre and complicated system is that the "forgets" start to outweigh the potential benefits. With FD, there are no forgets. Many of the pairs who play the weirdest/most complex systems on BBO do seem to have FD cards... this is a substantial change to the structure of the game, not just a boon for inexperienced partnerships.

(5) I have had inexperienced people on BBO complain several times about the many detailed alerts that I post for my bids, because "I am telling partner what my bids mean." Of course, this is not really the case because BBO hides my alerts/explains from partner. But if I am using FD, these people would be exactly right! Muddying the waters like this will create more annoyance for those of us who do play some unusual methods but who routinely alert and explain all our bids, as more people will assume that alerts are visible to partner (since FD alerts are visible to partner).

[A2003]

awm, on Nov 14 2008, 01:36 PM, said:

In addition to the issue mentioned about FD acting as a memory aid, here are my other issues with FD:

(1) Many people who use FD fail to alert.
(2) At times the FD display will be incorrect.
(3) Sometimes there are software problems and the FD card doesn't load properly. I
(4) The memory issue actually constrains system design.
(5) I have had inexperienced people on BBO complain several times about the many detailed alerts that I post for my bids, because "I am telling partner what my bids mean." Of course, this is not really the case because BBO hides my alerts/explains from partner. But if I am using FD, these people would be exactly right! Muddying the waters like this will create more annoyance for those of us who do play some unusual methods but who routinely alert and explain all our bids, as more people will assume that alerts are visible to partner (since FD alerts are visible to partner).

All of these problem exists even for old style convention card also.
Misinformation and insufficient or no information is lot more in old style convention card.
FD resolves some of the issue. 5 years down the line FD will be better may be.

[hrothgar]

A2003, on Nov 15 2008, 12:57 AM, said:

awm, on Nov 14 2008, 01:36 PM, said:

In addition to the issue mentioned about FD acting as a memory aid, here are my other issues with FD:

(1) Many people who use FD fail to alert.
(2) At times the FD display will be incorrect.
(3) Sometimes there are software problems and the FD card doesn't load properly. I
(4) The memory issue actually constrains system design.
(5) I have had inexperienced people on BBO complain several times about the many detailed alerts that I post for my bids, because "I am telling partner what my bids mean." Of course, this is not really the case because BBO hides my alerts/explains from partner. But if I am using FD, these people would be exactly right! Muddying the waters like this will create more annoyance for those of us who do play some unusual methods but who routinely alert and explain all our bids, as more people will assume that alerts are visible to partner (since FD alerts are visible to partner).

All of these problem exists even for old style convention card also.
Misinformation and insufficient or no information is lot more in old style convention card.
FD resolves some of the issue. 5 years down the line FD will be better may be.

Hopefully, most folks recognize that the existing FD system is but the first step down a long road...

There are a number of enhancements that would improve FD:

Generating alerts
Only displaying information to the opposing pair
Amore powerful editor
yada, yada, yada

At the same time, I really think that Fred should be commneded for investing time and effort to release this initial verison of the FD system. I work in product development. Its VERY rare that the 1.0 version of a product gets everything right. I don't even think that folks should try to get everything right in the initial version (You'll end up wasting amazing amounts of time and effort).

Its far better to get something adequate out into the market, gather feedback, see how it gets used, gather feedback, and then try to get it right with version 2.0... (And even then you'll probably need a 3.0 to get all the bugs out)

[blackshoe]

JoAnneM, on Nov 14 2008, 12:56 PM, said:

She continually is challenging me on the Laws.

Law 90B8 said:

The following are examples of offenses subject to procedural penalty (but the offenses are not limited to these):

[snip]

failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the director.

If she can see it during the play, it's an aid to memory, even if she claims she's not looking at it. Law 40C3(a) prohibits aids to memory. IMO, she doesn't have a leg to stand on.

If you tell her not to leave her score card face up where she can see it during the play of the hand, she either complies, or she gets a PP. Tell her if she wants to argue the legality of your instructions, she can do so after the session. Tell her to bring her law book (and you bring yours).

Club TDs (including me) rightly give players a lot of leeway on things like this, but you have to draw a line somewhere.

[1eyedjack]

A2003, on Nov 14 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

Misinformation and insufficient or no information is lot more in old style convention card.

This is not (broadly) my experience, and on the whole I agree with awm. It is of course a matter of degree.

My experience is that of those who attempt to complete an old-style CC they do not tend to fill it up with outright falsehoods, which FD is prone to display, not through any culpable act by the perpetrator, but through flaws in the particular FD script that they have struggled to complete in the face of adversity. Being just a form-filler, the old-style CC is not vulnerable to errors of that nature.

[A2003]

1eyedjack, on Nov 15 2008, 04:36 AM, said:

A2003, on Nov 14 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

Misinformation and insufficient or no information is lot more in old style convention card.

This is not (broadly) my experience, and on the whole I agree with awm. It is of course a matter of degree.

My experience is that of those who attempt to complete an old-style CC they do not tend to fill it up with outright falsehoods, which FD is prone to display, not through any culpable act by the perpetrator, but through flaws in the particular FD script that they have struggled to complete in the face of adversity. Being just a form-filler, the old-style CC is not vulnerable to errors of that nature.

Old style convention card gives lot less information or not filled out either completely.
It is limited to 20 characters and second round bids only.
Followup sequence bids cannot be entered.
other block : ~97 characters.
opening bids 3C and above, you can not give information.
Takes several clicks to find the information, Takes more time.
Easy to add or change the convention card agreement during the play or tournament.
There is no overcall responses information.

All of these problem are enhanced in FULL DISCLOSURE CONVENTION CARD.

There is no error in displays. If the input of the bid is wrong meaning, it will display wrong meaning. It means correction needed.
Presently, there is no easy way to check the input for each bid.
You need to load in teaching table and check the meaning of the each bid in display.
This is a tricky part and time consuming.

I dislike old style convention card, another window pops up and takes up the space, several clicks and find no information.

FD is the way to go in the future.

[awm]

The point is, I have a choice between two options:

(1) A convention card that presents a brief sketch of the opponents general approach and opening structure up-front, combined with voluntary alerts and accurate on-the-fly explanations (if requested and opponents have a clearcut agreement) for anything that happens later in the auction.

(2) A convention card that presents no useful information up-front, but which automatically pops up explanations of many of the opponents bids (even fairly deep in the auction); however these explanations are often inaccurate (even in cases when the opponents do have a clear agreement), rarely corrected, appear without any prompting on my part, appear to the opponents as a potential memory aid, include long descriptions of very standard bids, and give no particular indication when the bids are non-standard (unless I am reading all of every long entry). This convention card also has a non-negligible incidence of complete failure (i.e. fails to load or display anything at all even though it's supposed to) and the people who use it tend not to be in the practice of alerting/explaining even in situations where the card may not have loaded correctly or doesn't include an explanation for a given sequence.

Personally I think this choice is pretty clear. FD is an interesting idea, but I think some of the issues with it are fairly fundamental. The size of the system is too large to keep up to date efficiently, it doesn't substitute for alerts (even though people think it does), and if you display it to all players it acts as a memory aid, whereas if you show it to opponents only it becomes impossible for the bidding side to correct erroneous explanations (even if they are so inclined).

[1eyedjack]

I agree that there are problems with the design of the classic CC. That is a separate issue. I would resist any suggestion that FD is the solution to the shortcomings of the classic CC. It makes a lot of sense to revise the design of the classic CC, even if FD gets developed further.

[A2003]

awm, on Nov 15 2008, 12:28 PM, said:

(2) A convention card that presents no useful information up-front,

This statement is incorrect.
In the define section, You can write system name and brief explanation of the system approach and lot more pre-alert type of information.

It is possible to use old style convention card as a memory aid also.
Just open and look at it.
If needed, add/change it during the play.

awm, on Nov 15 2008, 12:28 PM, said:

(2) Accurate on-the-fly explanations

This is time consuming. Working with the keyboard, everyone is not efficient.
Disturbs the bidding thought process. Preplanned FD statement is time efficient.

I dislike spending time on writing the same explanation over and over to the same bids.
On top of that, I make spelling errors, I need to proof read before I click ok in the alert box explanation. While writing the alert meaning in the alert box, if opponents clicks again, it wipes out all the write up and NO information available comes up.
This is waste of time. Opponents gets frustrated, if delayed in the explanation.
My main problem is where do I spend my time, in explanation in alert box or bidding thought process.

[JoAnneM]

Blackshoe, do you work as a playing director? This is the problem I have with a lot of things I would like to do. I can keep track of what she is doing at my table, but at other tables I feel very awkward peeking at what she is doing, or actually asking to look at her card. I suppose I could ask to see her card at the end of the game.

I have trained myself to not look at the board numbers when I am called to a table, and to not actually look at a hand, just to address the actual problem presented to me and then wipe it from my mind and go back to the hand I was playing. It is difficult to declare a hand when receiving two director calls, but I can do it. However, multitasking becomes harder with age. lol

Our club is small - 9/10 tables, a nonplaying director is out of the question.