[johnjo42]

Playing with a regular partner, I misunderstod one of his bids and we ended up with a (deservedly) bad score.

But if I'd been playing with a different partner our Full Disclosure CC would have been operating (unless we turned it off) and a full explanation of my partner's bid would have been displayed for everyone (including me) to see so the mix-up wouldn't have happened.

Surely this can't be fair to opponents. At least with the alerting system only the opponents can see the explanation

JJ

[barmar]

The mix-up would only not have happened if you let the explanation influence what you. If you're highly ethical, you won't use explanations of your partner's bids. But I understand that it can be difficult to forget what you've seen.

I believe you can set an option to disable display of your own side's bidding explanations.

[A2003]

One disadvantage is that, at least at the current state of the art, you can't develop agreements with your partner. You have to choose among a variety of canned agreements with no opportunity to make refinements.

There are many cases, because of the opponents mishaps, they got good scores too.
There are cases, because of the uses of full disclosure convention card, the meaning was different, they got into bad contract also. I have seen that.

Overall, it is better to use Full disclosure convention card to eliminate silly bidding errors. example, when opponents opens 1NT, what convention you are using?
Memory test is not good bridge here. waste of time, frustration.

Full disclosure convention card is different format with better explanation of partnership understanding. This will make refinement better for future systems.

[helene_t]

You can create your own FD cards (using for example the bidedit.exe application from the BBO-Windows download, maybe there are more convenient ways of doing it).

[paulg]

I have one of the larger FD convention cards. The real benefit, to my mind, is that it quickly informs our opponents of our agreements without my having to type explanations continuously during the auction.

Our basic system is not that complex but we have a number of treatments that require alerts and the automatic display of the agreement lets the opposition decide whether to compete or double with full disclosure, without having to ask about each bid (whether alerted or not) and potentially compromise their interests.

I certainly recognise that JJ's concern is a legitimate one and there is no mechanism to prevent misuse. However the same can be said of players who have their system notes open on the computer. I feel that the benefits of FD outweight this downside.

At the end of the day you do need to trust your opponents.

Although there is an option to turn off the FD display on the Windows client, it is not the default setting. As far as I can tell, you cannot turn off the FD display of your partnership's calls on the web client.

A2003 said:

Overall, it is better to use Full disclosure convention card to eliminate silly bidding errors. example, when opponents opens 1NT, what convention you are using?
Memory test is not good bridge here. waste of time, frustration.

I do not agree with this use of the FD convention card.

Paul

[A2003]

cardsharp, on Oct 27 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

A2003 said:

Overall, it is better to use Full disclosure convention card to eliminate silly bidding errors. example, when opponents opens 1NT, what convention you are using?
Memory test is not good bridge here. waste of time, frustration.

I do not agree with this use of the FD convention card.

Paul

How will you eliminate the bidding error caused by the opponents?

When asked opponents say don't remember what system they are playing?
opposite to 1NT ; brozel or cappelleti or Don't and or any other system.
Sometime they don't remember 1430 or 0314 when ace asking is invoved in the bidding.
I think the FD eliminates silly memory error. There is convention disruption.
The FD helps that.

[paulg]

A2003, on Oct 27 2009, 05:01 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Oct 27 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

A2003 said:

Overall, it is better to use Full disclosure convention card to eliminate silly bidding errors. example, when opponents opens 1NT, what convention you are using?
Memory test is not good bridge here. waste of time, frustration.

I do not agree with this use of the FD convention card.

Paul

How will you eliminate the bidding error caused by the opponents?

When asked opponents say don't remember what system they are playing?
opposite to 1NT ; brozel or cappelleti or Don't and or any other system.
Sometime they don't remember 1430 or 0314 when ace asking is invoved in the bidding.
I think the FD eliminates silly memory error. There is convention disruption.
The FD helps that.

I think my comment comes overly more strongly than intended (difficult to paint a 'grey' feeling when it looks black and white).

I think it is inappropriate, in general, for FD to be used this way. Simple conventions can be agreed in chat, like Landy, Puppet, 4031, 3140, etc. But then using FD to define all the follow-up sequences, perhaps more than many regular partnerships have done, feels wrong as it removes judgement and places the opponents at a disadvantage. It has become a memory aid, not a tool for the opponents.

But I don't have strong feelings and it does depend a lot on the environment that you are playing in.

[Old York]

I do have strong feelings about this and have posted on this subject before. Many players refuse to play against oppo using Fd, some Tds have tried to ban the use of Fd.

The answer is simple, and complies with the Laws.... BBO should simply remove the option to view your Partner's alerts (with the exception of teaching tables etc)

Fd is a great idea, but it is being mis-used. This causes a great deal of resistance to its use

Tony

[csdenmark]

Old York, on Oct 27 2009, 08:47 PM, said:

I do have strong feelings about this and have posted on this subject before. Many players refuse to play against oppo using Fd, some Tds have tried to ban the use of Fd.

The answer is simple, and complies with the Laws.... BBO should simply remove the option to view your Partner's alerts (with the exception of teaching tables etc)

Fd is a great idea, but it is being mis-used. This causes a great deal of resistance to its use

Tony

Pure rubbish. Time is long overdue for the bridge community to arrive in modern times

[Old York]

csdenmark, on Oct 28 2009, 01:05 AM, said:

Time is long overdue for the bridge community to arrive in modern times

Perhaps it is perfectly legal for a player in Denmark to give a full explanation of every bid he makes to his partner, perhaps modern bridge would benefit greatly for all bids to be explained to all players, but I prefer to adhere to the old-fashioned rules of the game

Tony

[csdenmark]

Old York, on Oct 28 2009, 10:01 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Oct 28 2009, 01:05 AM, said:

Time is long overdue for the bridge community to arrive in modern times

Perhaps it is perfectly legal for a player in Denmark to give a full explanation of every bid he makes to his partner, perhaps modern bridge would benefit greatly for all bids to be explained to all players, but I prefer to adhere to the old-fashioned rules of the game

Tony

You refer to my country in the old world. The world for taxes, wellfare, children and no FD-convention cards.

In the virtual world, internet, we have FD-convention cards but no bridge rules. The rules which are to be used are those normally used for family bridge. Thats basic rules which constitutes the game and differentiate it from other kind of games.

The lawmakers and the organizations have been very sleepy even they ought to wake up. They have been sleeping for at least 10 years now. I think such ought to be enough to manage a fresh start.

Pity Tony you have chosen to put your head on the shoulders of those you ought to run away from. I think thats the poorest option of those you have.

[bid_em_up]

csdenmark, on Oct 28 2009, 01:05 AM, said:

Pure rubbish.  Time is long overdue for the bridge community to arrive in modern times

Old York, on Oct 28 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

Perhaps it is perfectly legal for a player in Denmark to give a full explanation of every bid he makes to his partner, perhaps modern bridge would benefit greatly for all bids to be explained to all players, but I prefer to adhere to the old-fashioned rules of the game
Tony

I suspect Claus is referring more to this:

Quote

Many players refuse to play against oppo using Fd, some Tds have tried to ban the use of Fd.

and not this:

Quote

BBO should simply remove the option to view your Partner's alerts (with the exception of teaching tables etc)

It's real easy to think that your first statement is pure rubbish. While it is true that some players and TD's feel like this, it shouldn't be that way.

I doubt that Claus really disagrees with the second statement. I think it just appears that he does because he quoted the whole paragraph.

(Of course, I could be wrong also).

[Old York]

johnjo42, on Oct 26 2009, 01:45 AM, said:

Surely this can't be fair to opponents.  At least with the alerting system only the opponents can see the explanation

JJ

My appologies to Claus if that is true. It is very easy to type one thing and actually mean the opposite

I agree totally with OP, and I still believe that Fd is a great idea. The title of this thread should read "Misusing full disclosure CC can damage opponents"

But it is definitely being mis-used by many. It is unlawful to see your partner's alerts, and highly unethical to actually use this unauthorised information

Personally, I wish that a simplified Fd should be compulsory in tournaments, but only visible to opponents

Tony

p.s. In my own tournaments, I ask that complex systems should use Fd, in the hope that it helps oppo more than it helps the bidders. Failure to use correct alerting procedure is the biggest problem in tournaments

[csdenmark]

Quote

It is unlawful to see your partner's alerts, and highly unethical to actually use this unauthorised information

There is no such on internet Tony. In virtual world we all have our own rules.

This means table host or tournament organizer individually decide what to apply to. Mostly that will just be basic rules for family bridge.

Thats one of the important problems caused by the old world lawmakers to fall into deep deep sleep.

[csdenmark]

Quote

Personally, I wish that a simplified Fd should be compulsory in tournaments, but only visible to opponents

Then the players use an alternative version invisible to you.

You think such is better?

[Old York]

csdenmark, on Oct 29 2009, 05:50 PM, said:

Then the players use an alternative version invisible to you.

Such people undoubtedly cheat at Patience - sigh

The Lawmakers are sleeping soundly, I agree, but my main point is that BBO should not be seen to be encouraging the unlawful misuse of the site

Tony

[csdenmark]

Old York, on Oct 29 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Oct 29 2009, 05:50 PM, said:

Then the players use an alternative version invisible to you.

Such people undoubtedly cheat at Patience - sigh

The Lawmakers are sleeping soundly, I agree, but my main point is that BBO should not be seen to be encouraging the unlawful misuse of the site

Tony

Tony any rule, also bridge-rules, are binding only to members of a community. And only inside the community.

Cheating means unlawful behavior. If there are no law it is obvious there can be no break of a law.

Your use of the word 'cheating' is not right in place. I certainly understand what you mean. You are not the only one using this kind of speaking, but the basis for the argument is missing and therefore the statement is false.

[babalu1997]

csdenmark, on Oct 29 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

Quote

It is unlawful to see your partner's alerts, and highly unethical to actually use this unauthorised information

There is no such on internet Tony. In virtual world we all have our own rules.

This means table host or tournament organizer individually decide what to apply to. Mostly that will just be basic rules for family bridge.

Thats one of the important problems caused by the old world lawmakers to fall into deep deep sleep.

Thank you for stating it this way csdenmark.

And it is just as well that the ruling organizations remain asleep.

Must the kids who play ball in the school yard obey the laws of the olympic committee?

I used to play with a fella who had trouble with responses and continuations to some conventions. so I made some flashcards with those conventions and mailed it to him.

i had hoped he would eventually learn the answer but, instead he kept using the cards as crutch.

So there comes the our only slam in a game of eight boards, and upon my slam try, i see it flash on the screen-- one moment please-- and i knew he was shuffling the flash cards.


I bid as i would have bid, and after the game is played, we get adjusted down because the opps claim i could not bid because my partner hesitated.

At the time i did not know of such law, and I was upset with partner, who after 2 years had to be fumbling flash cards of mundane conventions.

so yeah, some laws are ridiculous at the level I play.

As it is the tds of non-rated games can use any rules that strike their fancy, they even boot people for false carding, so where is the beef?

Just make a game and say XXX Federation rules apply.

So tony, give people a chance to kick footballs around the corner ok?

[Old York]

babalu1997, on Oct 31 2009, 05:37 PM, said:

So there comes the our only slam in a game of eight boards, and upon my slam try, i see it flash on the screen-- one moment please-- and i knew he was shuffling the flash cards....I bid as i would have bid, and after the game is played, we get adjusted down because the opps claim i could not bid because my partner hesitated

This looks like another hopelessly bad Director's decision

I cannot see how your partner saying "one monent please" constitutes a hesitation, he could have been interrupted by phone/doorbell etc

Even so, a hesitation is not unlawful. Neither is it unlawful to receive unauthorised information.
The oppo must prove that they were damaged by your taking advantage of unauthorised information, which seems impossible

This type of adjusting is giving online bridge a bad name

Tony

[Vampyr]

Old York, on Oct 27 2009, 07:47 PM, said:

The answer is simple, and complies with the Laws.... BBO should simply remove the option to view your Partner's alerts (with the exception of teaching tables etc)

I must say that I am surprised that there is an option to view your partner's alerts. This should definitely be removed.

As for using the convention card itself as a memory aid, I do not think that it is possible to outlaw it, because someone could easily be sitting with a print copy by their side.