[Echognome]

Using FD as a memory aide in a "competitive" match is silly. Using it as a training exercise is fine.

I'm not too bothered however, since we are generally talking about "friendly" games on BBO.

[shintaro]

Can I wade into the fray here; As one who always uses FD cards when playing with 'regular' partnerships online, I always send any and all oponents a standard message to the effect that we are using a FDC and that it will be displayed in the Top Right hand of screen, I continue with If you wish to know the meaning of any bid you can hover your cursor over that bid and it will tell you but feel free to ask any questions you like

[barmar]

shintaro, on Nov 4 2009, 04:16 AM, said:

Can I wade into the fray here; As one who always uses FD cards when playing with 'regular' partnerships online, I always send any and all oponents a standard message to the effect that we are using a FDC and that it will be displayed in the Top Right hand of screen, I continue with If you wish to know the meaning of any bid you can hover your cursor over that bid and it will tell you but feel free to ask any questions you like

But do you also remind them that the meanings are shown to you and your partner as well? That's what people are complaining about.

[shintaro]

barmar, on Nov 4 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

But do you also remind them that the meanings are shown to you and your partner as well? That's what people are complaining about.

Would/do the same people complain under ACBL where I understand that Self Abuse (oopps sorry Self alerting) is mandatory If that is not an 'aid memoir to Wake up partner I dont know what is

[barmar]

shintaro, on Nov 4 2009, 02:15 PM, said:

barmar, on Nov 4 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

But do you also remind them that the meanings are shown to you and your partner as well?  That's what people are complaining about.

Would/do the same people complain under ACBL where I understand that Self Abuse (oopps sorry Self alerting) is mandatory If that is not an 'aid memoir to Wake up partner I dont know what is

In f2f games, partner alerting is the norm, not self alerting, except when screens are in use.

It's understood that this can pass UI, but we live with it because it's hard to fix. But BBO is under no such limitation. There's no reason why FD has to display its meanings to all the players, it was a decision made by Fred et al.

[csdenmark]

barmar, on Nov 5 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

In f2f games, partner alerting is the norm, not self alerting, except when screens are in use.

It's understood that this can pass UI, but we live with it because it's hard to fix.  But BBO is under no such limitation. There's no reason why FD has to display its meanings to all the players, it was a decision made by Fred et al.

But BBO is under no such limitation
Therefore BBO has decided to comply with modern standards for information technology.

There's no reason why FD has to display its meanings to all the players, it was a decision made by Fred
And good so, Fred is a man who can brainwork

[Elianna]

shintaro, on Nov 4 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

barmar, on Nov 4 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

But do you also remind them that the meanings are shown to you and your partner as well?  That's what people are complaining about.

Would/do the same people complain under ACBL where I understand that Self Abuse (oopps sorry Self alerting) is mandatory If that is not an 'aid memoir to Wake up partner I dont know what is

Partner can't see your alerts. But he CAN see the FD explanation of your bid.

[barmar]

csdenmark, on Nov 5 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

barmar, on Nov 5 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

In f2f games, partner alerting is the norm, not self alerting, except when screens are in use.

It's understood that this can pass UI, but we live with it because it's hard to fix.  But BBO is under no such limitation. There's no reason why FD has to display its meanings to all the players, it was a decision made by Fred et al.

But BBO is under no such limitation
Therefore BBO has decided to comply with modern standards for information technology.

There's no reason why FD has to display its meanings to all the players, it was a decision made by Fred
And good so, Fred is a man who can brainwork

I still don't understand why you think this is so great. Don't you think that the skill of remembering your agreements is an important part of the game? Bridge is a mind sport, and this is a test of your mind. One of the things that sets Meckwell apart from the rest of us is that not only do they have hundreds of pages of system notes, but they remember most of them.

Just because the computer CAN tell you what your bids mean doesn't mean it SHOULD.

BBO is inconsistent about this philosophy. It shows your partner FD explanations, but NOT hand-typed explanations. So it seems like Fred hasn't made up his mind whether players should or shouldn't be able to see explanations of their partner's bids.

I think Fred has explained that FD works this way because it was new and experimental. I don't think it's because he disagrees with the Law prohibiting consulting your own CC. Also, he acknowledged that players routinely ignore that Law on BBO anyway, so this isn't letting them do anything they weren't doing already.

The difference, as I see it, is that players can at least try to be ethical in the old system, by controlling their urge to look at their CC. But when the program automatically displays explanations on the screen, it's hard to avoid reading them.

[shintaro]

Elianna, on Nov 5 2009, 07:56 PM, said:

[
Partner can't see your alerts. But he CAN see the FD explanation of your bid.

Whilst I agree partner can see description of bids made with FDC it is no worse than f2f where you are having to self alert your own bids surely



Online I would much rather that ALL information regarding your system is available to opponents than not

[csdenmark]

barmar, on Nov 6 2009, 09:52 AM, said:

I still don't understand why you think this is so great.  Don't you think that the skill of remembering your agreements is an important part of the game?  Bridge is a mind sport, and this is a test of your mind.  One of the things that sets Meckwell apart from the rest of us is that not only do they have hundreds of pages of system notes, but they remember most of them.

No I dont think so. I think time is long overdue to be realistic.

The rule about skills of remembering has lead to simple and unsolid bridge. Maybe professionels who can devote their whole life for such crab can do the trick. Ordinary persons who needs to care about their daily life, and especially need to use their ability to remember for their job dont have the option to play interesting bridge using your axiom.

The rule about remembering is therefore in important part, maybe the most important, for why bridge is becoming still more unattractive.

The lawmakers have tried to deal with the problem by several kind of rules, midchart and brownsticker are just some examples. This has caused a mess about regulation which many suffers from. The only one who dont suffer are those who just play family bridge, and thats approxmately 80-90% of the players.

The rule dates back to the time when there was not so much to remember. The conventions were not yet invented and bridge was only marginally more complex than whist. Whether the rule by that time made sense or not I dont know. But I think it made very little difference then.

Today it makes a huge difference and the argument is nowadays mostly used to try to legitimate lazy and unsolid behavior.

[barmar]

shintaro, on Nov 6 2009, 04:06 AM, said:

Whilst I agree partner can see description of bids made with FDC it is no worse than f2f where you are having to self alert your own bids surely

Since when do you self-alert in f2f bridge? Only when screens are in use, and then partner doesn't see your alerts. Normally in f2f bridge you alert your partner's bids, not your own.

And while partner may hear your alerts, he only hears the explanation if the opponents ask for it. They can often look at your convention card instead.

And just because something happens in f2f bridge, doesn't mean we have to emulate it in online bridge. Revokes, bidding and playing out of turn, insufficient bids are all parts of f2f bridge that are impossible in online bridge. Should the program be "fixed" to allow them as well? f2f bridge has to put up with these things because it's impractical to prevent them, but online bridge makes it practical.

Quote

Online I would much rather that ALL information regarding your system is available to opponents than not

Yes to the opponents, not to your own side. Again, online bridge makes it practical to disclose to one side without the other side hearing it. Preventing partner from seeing explanations of your bids is an improvement, just like preventing revokes is.

[barmar]

csdenmark, on Nov 6 2009, 04:21 AM, said:

The rule about skills of remembering has lead to simple and unsolid bridge. Maybe professionels who can devote their whole life for such crab can do the trick. Ordinary persons who needs to care about their daily life, and especially need to use their ability to remember for their job dont have the option to play interesting bridge using your axiom.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I don't want a pop-up telling me what my partner's bid means. IMHO, much of the fun of the game is in trying to work things like this out. Is that 4♣ Gerber or natural? Are transfers on in a particular competitive auction? Was that bid forcing? Are we playing Drury?

[csdenmark]

barmar, on Nov 6 2009, 11:44 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Nov 6 2009, 04:21 AM, said:

The rule about skills of remembering has lead to simple and unsolid bridge. Maybe professionels who can devote their whole life for such crab can do the trick. Ordinary persons who needs to care about their daily life, and especially need to use their ability to remember for their job dont have the option to play interesting bridge using your axiom.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I don't want a pop-up telling me what my partner's bid means. IMHO, much of the fun of the game is in trying to work things like this out. Is that 4♣ Gerber or natural? Are transfers on in a particular competitive auction? Was that bid forcing? Are we playing Drury?

Certainly we dont need to agree. As it is now on BBO we both have the freedom to choose our ways. You may use the old style convention card and I use FD. I like it to be that way and and I want regulations to discover that this is modern world.

Are we playing Drury?
Yes this could be important, especially whether we play Drury or reverse Drury and which is what. I doubt many are quite sure about that.

But it is fact not here the problems are. The problems are deeper, in the continuations. It is in the continuations the mess comes and the only ways to avoid such problems are to play simple or make a lot of mistakes.

To me it makes no difference which way FD displays. I use my notes invisible to you.

[Old York]

OK, so some of us prefer to hide these explanations from partner, and some of you prefer to have them visible. I did not expect us all to agree. np.

The way bbo is set up, we all have the CHOICE. My only argument was whether or not these explanations should be displayed by default

The options are already there on CONV button, but should the default setting be on or off?

The vast majority of players would never expect to see these explanations, so why not switch them off by default? Players can then CHOOSE to switch them on if needed. Seems like a reasonable question

Tony

[helene_t]

Agree with Tony.

[csdenmark]

Old York, on Nov 6 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

The vast majority of players would never expect to see these explanations, so why not switch them off by default? Players can then CHOOSE to switch them on if needed. Seems like a reasonable question

Tony

No the vast majority don't care. They play simple bridge if bridge at all.

You are right Tony they don't expect to see anything and in fact they don't need the information.

Where it is needed there are other ways and it is exactly here the regulations are completely outdated. They stay in late 1920's. That you find such relevant I think looks like a sad fact.

[A2003]

barmar, on Nov 6 2009, 04:44 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Nov 6 2009, 04:21 AM, said:

The rule about skills of remembering has lead to simple and unsolid bridge. Maybe professionels who can devote their whole life for such crab can do the trick. Ordinary persons who needs to care about their daily life, and especially need to use their ability to remember for their job dont have the option to play interesting bridge using your axiom.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I don't want a pop-up telling me what my partner's bid means. IMHO, much of the fun of the game is in trying to work things like this out. Is that 4♣ Gerber or natural? Are transfers on in a particular competitive auction? Was that bid forcing? Are we playing Drury?

Is it the best way to win just because opponents cannot remember the convention?
Many experienced players will not enjoy winning this way.

Also, opponents can mess up the convention due to lack of memory and disturb the auction. There is no penalty.

Other parts of the game like declarer play, defense are suffering. No practice for that.

[fred]

Claus,

It seems that you think it is appropriate to insult anyone who disagrees with your completely radical positions on these matters (ie everyone). I seem to be just about the only person you have not insulted yet. In fact, you complimented my "brainwork" (thanks!). But I fear I am about to enter the ranks for those you insult...

In my strong opinion (actually I am certain but I am trying to show you that it is not very difficult to phrase one's objections in a way as to not give the impression that one thinks that one knows everything and that anyone who disagrees is living in the 1920s), FD-like devices will never be part of any serious bridge event and that is a very good thing.

IMO in the world you would like to live in, serious bridge would become a complete joke. If any specific organizer of a serious tournament happened to agree with you (not that this will ever happen), I would have no interest in playing in such tournaments. I strongly suspect (ie I am certain) that the same would be true of virtually all leading players.

If you really think that all these people (not to mention all the people who disagree with you in this thread) are living in the 1920s, that is your right. But given that so far you have not been able to get a single person to agree with you, perhaps you should consider showing a little more humility in the way you express your opinions.

This is what your posts sound like: I am the only person who is right and every single other person is an idiot.

Aside from the obvious rudeness of this attitude, it is not a very effective way to try to convince others of your position. Probably there are plenty of people on Forums who don't even bother reading your posts anymore.

I know English is not your first language, but to me it is very clear that this is not about language.

As I have tried to explain, the motivation behind FD was to try to take a glaring flaw in online bridge (that we can't stop players from referring to their own system notes or convention cards) and turn it into a positive thing.

FD was not an attempt by me to make bridge itself a better game.

FD is useful as an educational device. FD is useful for helping to minimize the number of absurd bidding misunderstandings in pickup partnerships.

But that's all - there is no place for FD or anything like FD in "serious bridge". If a serious partnership needs FD then they are not ready to play in a serious event.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[csdenmark]

Fred those who disagree with me here, and this is not the first time people are doing so, I have really tried not to insult, namecalling or anything bad as far I understand your language. I think they live in an ancient world most of us know best from a bad history of wars and economic hardship. Regarding bridge there were not much substance. Therefore rules were simple and mattered very little. Today it is all much more complex but the rules are basically the same ones.

I am not the only one who think as have explained. But even if I was that prove not I am wrong. A majority proves nothing else than they are the most persons. Sometimes such matters much sometimes it matters very little, but it proves nothing about correctness. You cannot wote the length of 1 meter. Everything has to start somewhere. Online bridge is after 10 years still a minority but that says nothing about whether it is the future and it is the right way.

To me it makes no sense to refer to rules which have no authority. Rules are only binding prescriptions to members of a community. Outside the community there are no such rules. There are only the minimum set of rules constituting the game, I call those family bridge.

Bridge rules are not a priori rules.

I dont think I need to comment your position about serious bridge. I disagree as I have explained earlier and I will be ready to elaborate about that if you will be interested.

[Old York]

csdenmark, on Nov 6 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

To me it makes no sense to refer to rules which have no authority. Rules are only binding prescriptions to members of a community. Outside the community there are no such rules. There are only the minimum set of rules constituting the game, I call those family bridge.

Bridge rules are not a priori rules.

This is were your logic leaves me cold. Bridge players are a community
I am certain that respected authors and tournament directors disagree with every word you say, although there is some merit in your attack on lawmakers, we have no alternative but to obey these laws, correctly and justly enforced by TDs.
This creates a level playing field for all
Otherwise it simply isn't cricket, old boy

Tony