[fred]

Vampyr, on Nov 2 2009, 04:45 AM, said:

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.

There is no such option.

Quote

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.

This is exactly the motivation behind Full Disclosure (FD).

FD is just a fancy convention card that is integrated into the software so that defined bids are explained automatically. When a player see an FD-generated explanation of a bid made by his partnership, this is analogous to a player looking at his own convention card or system notes.

As you correctly point out, this is something that we cannot stop so we figured we might as well take this basic "flaw" in online bridge and try to turn it into an opportunity for learning, speeding up the game, and assisting in, well, full disclosure.

It is the case that there are innacurate FD convention cards out there and that this can cause problems in the same way that an incorrectly filled out convention card, a forgotten agreement, or an improper explanation can cause problems.

The FD software itself (and its programmer - me) deserve some of the blame for this state of affairs because the FD editor is not exactly user friendly and because we have not done any work on improving FD in recent years.

But I do think the basic idea is a good one even if the specific implementation and the way some people use FD certainly has plenty of room for improvement.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[bluecalm]

I love this approach. I don't mind opponents using FD card for remembering their system at all. I can get higher level bridge this way and enjoy playing more as it's always more fun/challanging to play if opponent doesn't make basic bidding errors in most basic sequencies. I also love default 2/1 cc as even casual partneships can enjoy basic bidding system thanks to it.

[Old York]

fred, on Nov 2 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

Vampyr, on Nov 2 2009, 04:45 AM, said:

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.

There is no such option.

Sorry, Fred, but there is such an option.... and it is switched on by default

http://www.bridgebase.com/help/3/common/te....html?fdoptions

Perhaps you meant that this option does not exist in the web version?

My main concern is the one expressed by OP, this problem would be eliminated (to a large extent) if this option was turned off by default (especially in pay tournaments)

Players who then wish to display explanations of all bids to all players would, perhaps, have the option to turn it back on at their own discretion

Best regards always
Tony

[fred]

Old York, on Nov 2 2009, 07:15 PM, said:

fred, on Nov 2 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

Vampyr, on Nov 2 2009, 04:45 AM, said:

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.

There is no such option.

Sorry, Fred, but there is such an option.... and it is switched on by default

http://www.bridgebase.com/help/3/common/te....html?fdoptions

Perhaps you meant that this option does not exist in the web version?

My main concern is the one expressed by OP, this problem would be eliminated (to a large extent) if this option was turned off by default (especially in pay tournaments)

Players who then wish to display explanations of all bids to all players would, perhaps, have the option to turn it back on at their own descretion

Best regards always
Tony

Maybe it is a question of semantics, Tony.

For me "viewing your partner's alerts" means to see the information that your partner provides (such as whether or not your partner self-alerts a particular bid or the explanation for a particular bid that your partner types in). The BBO software does not allow this.

What the BBO software does allow is for all players to see information that the convention card provides (which, as I explained, is something we cannot prevent so instead we have tried to turn it into a positive thing).

For me at least these are 2 different things.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Old York]

Fair comments, but in the context of this thread and my post (in it's entirety), it should be impossible to think that I intended to mean manually inputted alerts

I always thought that FD was a great idea, and many of us have spent hours compiling an FD which accurately describes our bidding, even in complex and competative auctions

But I still feel very uncomfortable about allowing my partner to see my FD alerts, perhaps I am simply being too ethical about such things, np

Thanks for the input

Tony

[jdonn]

Old York, on Nov 2 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

Fair comments, but in the context of this thread and my post (in it's entirety), it should be impossible to think that I intended to mean manually inputted alerts

You keep calling the FD explanations "alerts" which is why there is confusion. They are not alerts, they are explanations. BBO doesn't allow you to see partner's alerts.

I think FD is a fine idea. It's just an option, turn it off if you don't want it, otherwise it's a good tool.

[Old York]

jdonn, on Nov 2 2009, 08:40 PM, said:

You keep calling the FD explanations "alerts" which is why there is confusion. They are not alerts, they are explanations

Most BBO players who use FD actually believe that there is no need to alert their bids, this has been discussed in another thread recently. This means that the FD "explanation" is actually being used as an "alert", so there is no confusion on that point

You cannot force your opponents to switch off their display options for "explanations", maybe this is OP's reason for opening this thread

In a perfect world, Bidders should always alert their bids with no explanation being visible until an opponent clicks on the bid, then, and only then, would the FD Explanation be made visible, and only to the opponent who clicked

Nevertheless, FD is better than receiving "no information" or "no agreement" when you ask for an explanation, this outweighs many arguments

Tony

[csdenmark]

Tony - maybe time for you to think over why the rule you refer to is there.

[helene_t]

Old York, on Nov 2 2009, 08:56 PM, said:

Nevertheless, FD is better than receiving "no information" or "no agreement" when you ask for an explanation, this outweighs many arguments

I suppose "no agreement" is the answer you get in some situation which the opponents haven't discussed. If they haven't discussed it they probably wouldn't have put it in their FD file either! Actually, there is an option to define a call as "no agreement" in the FD file format, I sometimes use it to highlight elements of the system that still need to be discussed. For example, if a 2♣ response to a 1NT overcall is left undefined, some may assume that it is Stayman while others may assume it is natural. If it is explicitly "no agreement", then it is clear that it is something we need to discuss.

But maybe if opps are a pick-up partnership that just agreed to play "SAYC" (whatever that means), there will be some basic auctions which are actually covered in the SAYC FD file but which the pair in question would not be sure about. Then FD wakes them up, but at least opps will know what is going on, too.

I think FD is fine for pick-up partnerships. Also fine for kibbitzers when it shows the meaning of calls which players don't bother to alert because opps already know what system they play, but kibbitzers may not know. Maybe it shouldn't be allowed in "serious" tournaments, I would prefer hosts to decide on that. And personally I would prefer it not to be used in most educational events, but again, it should be for the host to decide.

[csdenmark]

helene_t, on Nov 3 2009, 12:19 AM, said:

I think FD is fine for pick-up partnerships. Also fine for kibbitzers when it shows the meaning of calls which players don't bother to alert because opps already know what system they play, but kibbitzers may not know. Maybe it shouldn't be allowed in "serious" tournaments, I would prefer hosts to decide on that. And personally I would prefer it not to be used in most educational events, but again, it should be for the host to decide.

I think you have a problem Helene. What is a 'serious tournament'?

Certainly a nice plus word. Is there any meaning in it or is it only an empty statement?

I understand that using FD discredit tournaments not to be serious. Can you think of a tournament without convention card to be serious?

As you may have deducted from my former statements I think the non-serious ones are the bridge organizations which still allow 80 years old fundamentals to be here in modern times of information technology. It is quite scandalous that their lawmakers have not been fired for incompetence.

[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

I think it ironic that, when using FD, the only thing that is not disclosed is the manner in which it is being used

There was a recent example in an Acol Club Team Match, where only one side were using FD
The non-fd side had a tiny bidding mishap, which could never have happened using FD. The FD team had a "perfect" bidding sequence on a different difficult hand and landed on a pinhead into the only making contract

The FD side were victorious, but it was a hollow victory. All the kibs were left with a bad taste in their mouth. Later, I learned that the non-fd side were not aware that the fd team could see explanations of every bid, The Team Captain said that they would have objected to fd usage, had they known this in advance

Tony

[csdenmark]

Old York, on Nov 3 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

The FD side were victorious, but it was a hollow victory. All the kibs were left with a bad taste in their mouth. Later, I learned that the non-fd side were not aware that the fd team could see explanations of every bid, The Team Captain said that they would have objected to fd usage, had they known this in advance

Tony

And what to learn from that Tony?

Looks like they need a team captain who understand the world of today.

[Old York]

csdenmark, on Nov 3 2009, 07:29 PM, said:

And what to learn from that Tony?

Looks like they need a team captain who understand the world of today.

I will allow my BBO Forum signature to answer on my behalf

[csdenmark]

Old York, on Nov 3 2009, 08:48 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Nov 3 2009, 07:29 PM, said:

And what to learn from that Tony?

Looks like they need a team captain who understand the world of today.

I will allow my BBO Forum signature to answer on my behalf

Sorry Tony I think I am too old to be able to understand Pink Floyds cryptical message.

[barmar]

Old York, on Nov 3 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

I think it ironic that, when using FD, the only thing that is not disclosed is the manner in which it is being used

I think there's a pop-up on the screen that says "NS are using a new convention card". I'm not totally sure about this, but I think "new" means FD. However, I admit that this meaning is not likely to be obvious to the opponents.

[csdenmark]

barmar, on Nov 3 2009, 11:59 PM, said:

Old York, on Nov 3 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

I think it ironic that, when using FD, the only thing that is not disclosed is the manner in which it is being used

I think there's a pop-up on the screen that says "NS are using a new convention card". I'm not totally sure about this, but I think "new" means FD. However, I admit that this meaning is not likely to be obvious to the opponents.

It is correct - they receive the message as you describe.

If they dont understand the meaning of the message - they certainly have a problem. It is ridiculous to blame those doing their homework for faults by others only to be lazy and all too much used to play non-serious bridge.

[barmar]

csdenmark, on Nov 3 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

barmar, on Nov 3 2009, 11:59 PM, said:

Old York, on Nov 3 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

I think it ironic that, when using FD, the only thing that is not disclosed is the manner in which it is being used

I think there's a pop-up on the screen that says "NS are using a new convention card". I'm not totally sure about this, but I think "new" means FD. However, I admit that this meaning is not likely to be obvious to the opponents.

It is correct - they receive the message as you describe.

If they dont understand the meaning of the message - they certainly have a problem. It is ridiculous to blame those doing their homework for faults by others only to be lazy and all too much used to play non-serious bridge.

Harsh! Is there somewhere that the meaning of this message is explained, that they should have found when "doing their homework"? Does everyone (or even anyone) read all the BBO documentation before they start playing here?

The first few times I saw that message I didn't realize the meaning. I thought it just meant that they changed CCs, (like when you buy new clothes or a new car, they aren't fundamentally different from your old clothes or car). I haven't used BBOWin in a while, but I think it was slightly clearer, saying "new-style convention card". But eventually I noticed that whenever I saw that message I also saw the ideosyncratic style of FD's explanations, and made the connection.

[fred]

barmar, on Nov 3 2009, 10:32 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Nov 3 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

barmar, on Nov 3 2009, 11:59 PM, said:

Old York, on Nov 3 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

I think it ironic that, when using FD, the only thing that is not disclosed is the manner in which it is being used

I think there's a pop-up on the screen that says "NS are using a new convention card". I'm not totally sure about this, but I think "new" means FD. However, I admit that this meaning is not likely to be obvious to the opponents.

It is correct - they receive the message as you describe.

If they dont understand the meaning of the message - they certainly have a problem. It is ridiculous to blame those doing their homework for faults by others only to be lazy and all too much used to play non-serious bridge.

Harsh! Is there somewhere that the meaning of this message is explained, that they should have found when "doing their homework"? Does everyone (or even anyone) read all the BBO documentation before they start playing here?

The first few times I saw that message I didn't realize the meaning. I thought it just meant that they changed CCs, (like when you buy new clothes or a new car, they aren't fundamentally different from your old clothes or car). I haven't used BBOWin in a while, but I think it was slightly clearer, saying "new-style convention card". But eventually I noticed that whenever I saw that message I also saw the ideosyncratic style of FD's explanations, and made the connection.

I am pretty sure that this message is now displayed regardless of the type of convention card that a given pair has started using.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

barmar, on Nov 4 2009, 12:32 AM, said:

The first few times I saw that message I didn't realize the meaning.  I thought it just meant that they changed CCs, (like when you buy new clothes or a new car, they aren't fundamentally different from your old clothes or car).  I haven't used BBOWin in a while, but I think it was slightly clearer, saying "new-style convention card".  But eventually I noticed that whenever I saw that message I also saw the ideosyncratic style of FD's explanations, and made the connection.

That is exactly the meaning.

It is a poor habit only to be interested in what others are doing when you assume they might be harmful to you. To be curious is an important part of life.

All who have done their homework carefully have noticed how features are working for themselves and therefore they know.

[A2003]

Old York, on Nov 3 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

There was a recent example in an Acol Club Team Match, where only one side were using FD
The non-fd side had a tiny bidding mishap, which could never have happened using FD. The FD team had a "perfect" bidding sequence on a different difficult hand and landed on a pinhead into the only making contract.

The FD side were victorious, but it was a hollow victory.

Tony

Mishaps happens even when you are using FD.
You will have to start using FD to see the consequences.
Disasters strike whether you use or not.
Some bids cannot be explained for some layout of the cards.
Even in FD, you will have two or more choices to select the bid and you may choose the wrong one.

FD eliminates the silly bidding errors and make the game more competitive.