[blackshoe]

csdenmark, on Aug 26 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

I also like to talk about the good old days but sometimes duty calls. If you have the knowledge needed I think you have the obligation to be helpful.

Nice try, but I didn't say a *****ed thing about the good old days.

As for obligations, my obligations are my business, not yours.

[cicus]

uday, on Aug 23 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

What I find sensible is to require an alert for alertable calls, regardless of whether there is an auto-generated explanation.

I believe that this is what we do in the acbl games on BBO.

Uday

The problem I see here is that the alert button makes a bubble pop up in which you are required to write your explanation. What is then the use of the explanation given by the FD CC? You are giving the same explanation twice. If you just OK it without giving an explanation, the opponents are usually confused and inquire further, because the don't notice that there is already a FD CC explanation visible. Shall I alert and write 'see explanation in the top right corner'? Grrr...

[jillybean]

If you use the alert function correctly and click alert before you make the bid, no bubble pops up. (BBO win)
The bid is simply highligthed so the opps can ask, mouse over it or read top/right, if they want more information.

[barmar]

cicus, on Aug 27 2009, 05:02 AM, said:

The problem I see here is that the alert button makes a bubble pop up in which you are required to write your explanation.

No it doesn't. The bubble pops up when an opponent clicks on the bid to ask for an explanation (they can do this for any bid, whether it's alerted or not). Do you find that opponents do this even though FD has already displayed the explanation automatically?

[cicus]

barmar, on Aug 27 2009, 06:58 PM, said:

cicus, on Aug 27 2009, 05:02 AM, said:

The problem I see here is that the alert button makes a bubble pop up in which you are required to write your explanation.

No it doesn't. The bubble pops up when an opponent clicks on the bid to ask for an explanation (they can do this for any bid, whether it's alerted or not). Do you find that opponents do this even though FD has already displayed the explanation automatically?

Yes, they often do not notice the explanation because it is at an unusual place. They only see that the alert has no explanation and demand it repeatedly. I think many players are not at all aware that FD type CC's exist.

[csdenmark]

cicus, on Aug 28 2009, 07:48 AM, said:

Yes, they often do not notice the explanation because it is at an unusual place. They only see that the alert has no explanation and demand it repeatedly. I think many players are not at all aware that FD type CC's exist.

Completely correct.

The problem is there has been no development of Full Disclosure application since it was introduced. The very low numbers of users is of course no motivation for Fred and his team to invest energy here.

Several players posting in this forum, who regard themselves as solid players, have often said they dont use convention cards, especially not this one. Unserious statements and discouraging for Fred of course.

It is wrong to judge on the basis of the present way the application works. The right way is to judge on the basis of the potential of how an improved version would be able to work.

Blackshoe's comments in this thread are just adding to the problems for bridge to be able to overcome the deficit which comes because of outdated rules. Those rules which were mostly well in place earlier but which are often completely obsolete in a modern world of information technology.

[blackshoe]

You want to rewrite the laws of bridge to suit yourself, be my guest. You may have trouble getting your version accepted anywhere, though.

[csdenmark]

blackshoe, on Aug 28 2009, 05:04 PM, said:

You want to rewrite the laws of bridge to suit yourself, be my guest. You may have trouble getting your version accepted anywhere, though.

Sorry you have misunderstood.

In my view the law-complex is much too big to be of relevance to persons who plays the old card game.

For those who plays the version online most of the complex is obsolete. It describes features not here, for example lead out of turn and false discard. There are many other, probably something like 80% of the law-complex is obsolete.

What is neccessary is to separate the two games. What we have today is a simple automatisation of a game. It is a poor mix annoying most persons. All the questions about regulation is an evidance that something important is really wrong.

[barmar]

There's a version of the Laws for online bridge, published in 2001, located at:

http://www.worldbrid.../onlinelaws.pdf

I just glanced at it, and the changes (with respect to the 1997 Laws that it's based on) are minimal (they're marked in red). It still has the laws regarding revokes, bid/play out of turn, insufficient bids, as well as mechanical procedures like shuffling, counting your cards, returning them to the board, etc.

Perhaps the time is right to get another effort started to do this right. There are probably an order of magnitude more online players than there were a decade ago, and online tournaments are now offering masterpoints and being used in preliminary rounds of some major tournaments.

The right place to bring this up would be down below in the "Changes to the Laws" forum.

[csdenmark]

barmar, on Aug 28 2009, 06:27 PM, said:

The right place to bring this up would be down below in the "Changes to the Laws" forum.

At first glance it looks like it may be a good solution.

The comments from Blackshoe shows that with persons like Blackshoe and those who enjoy toying with minor fixes nothing is to be achieved.

The present set of laws are much too complex to be taken into account by ordinary weekly club players.

Bridge has developed out of whist. For several years features and systems were added and now nobody is able to remember the stuff they are confronted with. Therefore we for several years have had a trend trying to roll back to a more simple way close to whist.

That roll back is obsolete to what options information technology offers. The online version must take advantage from easy access to informations, ability to use technical features for mathematical computerization and handheld hardware.

System restrictions in general makes no sense in online play but very good sense in offline play.

I think a separation will take place sooner or later. Online bridge has to come closer to the way normally used in computer games. It is no law of nature that computer games need to be about dead and destruction.

[blackshoe]

csdenmark, on Aug 28 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

At first glance it looks like it may be a good solution.

The comments from Blackshoe shows that with persons like Blackshoe and those who enjoy toying with minor fixes nothing is to be achieved.

Personal insults do not help your case.

[csdenmark]

blackshoe, on Aug 28 2009, 09:19 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Aug 28 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

At first glance it looks like it may be a good solution.

The comments from Blackshoe shows that with persons like Blackshoe and those who enjoy toying with minor fixes nothing is to be achieved.

Personal insults do not help your case.

Sorry - I have no case and I have not asked for any help from you

[blackshoe]

I didn't offer you any help.

[barmar]

csdenmark, on Aug 28 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 28 2009, 09:19 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Aug 28 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

At first glance it looks like it may be a good solution.

The comments from Blackshoe shows that with persons like Blackshoe and those who enjoy toying with minor fixes nothing is to be achieved.

Personal insults do not help your case.

Sorry - I have no case and I have not asked for any help from you

I think you misunderstand the phrase "help your case", it means "induce people to agree with you". Including ad hominem attacks weakens your argument.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make by bring up complex systems and system restrictions, since there's nothing in the Laws about this.

[bluejak]

csdenmark, on Aug 28 2009, 05:51 PM, said:

The present set of laws are much too complex to be taken into account by ordinary weekly club players.

While true, you say this as though it matters. The present set of Laws in the USA, for example, is much too complex to be taken into account by ordinary citizens of the USA. But it works generally because they know the really relevant Laws [not being allowed to murder or steal, for example] and let others worry about other Laws [the legalities of buying a house, for example]. The same applies to club players who know the basics, and call the TD to sort out problems.

csdenmark, on Aug 28 2009, 05:51 PM, said:

Bridge has developed out of whist. For several years features and systems were added and now nobody is able to remember the stuff they are confronted with. Therefore we for several years have had a trend trying to roll back to a more simple way close to whist.

I really do not know where this comes from. It is not immediately apparent whether you are talking about Laws, where it is not true, systems, where it may have slight truth, especially in North America which is somewhat less advanced than the rest of the world where experimentation is concerned, or just that online Laws are simpler, which is the way online bridge has developed. Note that it did not have to develop that way: it would be very easy for the software writers to allow calls and plays out of turn, revokes and insufficient bids, and it would be a different but perfectly playable online game.

csdenmark, on Aug 28 2009, 05:51 PM, said:

System restrictions in general makes no sense in online play but very good sense in offline play.

I am not sure this is true at all. In some parts of the world, Australia for example, there are very few system restrictions: since people have got used to it no-one cares.

On th other hand, if you play Acol, some people will refuse to play against "such an artificial system" in online play, and for some people, forcing opponents to play Standard American would be helpful.

csdenmark, on Aug 28 2009, 05:51 PM, said:

I think a separation will take place sooner or later. Online bridge has to come closer to the way normally used in computer games. It is no law of nature that computer games need to be about dead and destruction.

There is separation now. Whether more is necessary is not clear: it is fairly easy to see it both ways.

[csdenmark]

David I have no interest in a discussion about the beard of the emperor. I will therefore not comment all what you write and comment.

The most important is whether there today is a separation between online and offline. I say there is not - there is a simple automatization of offline bridge and that is now called online bridge. That works unacceptable poorly today and won't work at all in the future. I think it is doomed to be swept away.

The day you will see a separation you will no doubt know it. One of the reasons I think why is because it is doubtfull the platform and the computer which will be that used for administrative tasks. It will probably be more like World of Warcraft than the way BBO looks and works today.

I think you will spend your time well trying to reduce the rules to what constitutes the game. And from that create two separate rails, a fairly simple one for offline bridge and a more complex one for online bridge.

[thebiker]

Children - please behave!

thebiker

[barmar]

Who are you talking to, the thread died out 3 weeks ago?

[fazzzoola]

OK, I've read the posts on alerts.

IMHO, why can't the FD CC have an "alert" box there, which can be "checked", just like the "artificial" one, which could automatically pop up with the bid? The bid explanation is already included in the FD CC; it's just the alert that is not there. This could be done by simply invoking the alert box with the bid, as in, the bidder does not have to fill in the alert box, but, the alert box pops up anyway.

This way, bids which must be alerted can be so marked and automatically "pop up" , while all other bids remain the responsibility of the opponents to query, if they choose to.