[csdenmark]

Old York, on Nov 6 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

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

Sorry Tony I thought community was the correct word.

I looked it up now by Google Translations and I receive "Forening(danish) -> Association"

What I have named community is therefore 'association'. I think of ACBL, English Bridge Federation, Danmarks Bridge Union.

Those have laws, those have lawmakers. Thats those I attack. There are no laws outside associations(hope we can agree that we both understand the same now by the word 'association')

A loose group of persons have no rules.

[Old York]

csdenmark, on Nov 6 2009, 06:36 PM, said:

Old York, on Nov 6 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

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

Sorry Tony I thought community was the correct word.

I looked it up now by Google Translations and I receive "Forening(danish) -> Association"

What I have named community is therefore 'association'. I think of ACBL, English Bridge Federation, Danmarks Bridge Union.

Those have laws, those have lawmakers. Thats those I attack. There are no laws outside associations(hope we can agree that we both understand the same now by the word 'association')

A loose group of persons have no rules.

I do not expect others to obey laws created exclusively by the English Bridge Union, but the World Bridge Federation Rules should be followed by all (with some regional exclusions)
I think the word "laws" is wrong in many contexts and "treatments" etc should be used, many of which are controvertial and difficult to enforce

The word community is perfect for BBO, and I hope that we all play within a community spirit. BBO is like a "virtual" village/dorf/dorp/aldea/villaggio

Wikipedia
"Since the advent of the Internet, the concept of community no longer has geographical limitations, as people can now virtually gather in an online community and share common interests regardless of physical location."

Tony

I think that this thread is now closed, the original post has been answered, and Fred has given excellent advice and explanation. I have never been offended by Claus's comment, and find them entertaining and thought provoking

[barmar]

I played one round in an ACBL tourney tonight against a pair using FD. They had the following auction: 1♣-2♣-2♠-3♣. FD explained 2♣ as 6-9 with ♣ support, 2♠ as 16+ with ♠. Dummy came down with a shapely 13 HCP, and declarer had a 4=2=3=4 12 count. See the hand here:

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...8691-1257649200

I tried asking RHO about the big difference between his bid and his hand, but then the round changed.

I'm not sure what point I'm making. I guess it's that people don't usually write their own FD cards (they're hard to write, so most players use one of the supplied cards), and it's hard for them to know everything in the card they're using, so there's a strong likelihood that FD will give misinformation. In this case, I assume they're actually playing inverted minors, and didn't realize that the card was written with standard minor raises.

Another thing: some have written that FD only explains, it doesn't alert. But every bid that was automatically explained by FD was also highlighted in the alert color. So it's not possible to tell which bids actually required an alert. On the other hand, the FD explanations don't appear in the movie.

[csdenmark]

barmar, on Nov 8 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

Another thing: some have written that FD only explains, it doesn't alert.  But every bid that was automatically explained by FD was also highlighted in the alert color.  So it's not possible to tell which bids actually required an alert.  On the other hand, the FD explanations don't appear in the movie.

According to which rules should a bid be highlighted?

[A2003]

barmar, on Nov 8 2009, 02:05 AM, said:

Another thing: some have written that FD only explains, it doesn't alert.  But every bid that was automatically explained by FD was also highlighted in the alert color.  So it's not possible to tell which bids actually required an alert.  On the other hand, the FD explanations don't appear in the movie.

Is alert color possible? What color is being used?
When the bridge game started there were no alert procedures and rules.
These are introduced to help the opponents who can stay alert.
This is the bad rule invented.
Another argument at the table, People start advising when I should alert and when I should not.

If explanation is given, I still don't see the reason for secondary alert.

[csdenmark]

A2003, on Nov 8 2009, 03:34 PM, said:

barmar, on Nov 8 2009, 02:05 AM, said:

Another thing: some have written that FD only explains, it doesn't alert.  But every bid that was automatically explained by FD was also highlighted in the alert color.  So it's not possible to tell which bids actually required an alert.  On the other hand, the FD explanations don't appear in the movie.

Is alert color possible? What color is being used?
When the bridge game started there were no alert procedures and rules.
These are introduced to help the opponents who can stay alert.
This is the bad rule invented.
Another argument at the table, People start advising when I should alert and when I should not.

If explanation is given, I still don't see the reason for secondary alert.

It is not so complicated to modify the application to display certain bids in different colors. Could be a checkbox.

The problem here is there are different alert rules in Australia, Poland, Denmark, England, USA, Turkey etc. FD will alert in the same way to all opponents and that will be correct for some and misinformation for others.

Well then code all bridgelaws from all over the world into FD. That will be the heaviest application on internet ever seen.

The rules are outdated, thats the problem. Rules knows boundaries - internet knows nothing about such ones. In bridge rules the global village is unknown.

In Denmark bridge players are assumed to be members of Danmarks Bridgeforbund and will therefore apply to those laws. On internet players will be members of no association or their countrys association. Either they will apply to different set of rules or no rules at all.

Very difficult to handle for FD. The best way is of course simply to display the meaning of all bids. In ancient world this was of course the intension but without computers there were no such option. Instead alert procedure was invented to highlight important bids.

Now we have the option to be fair to all and then thats the problem.

[barmar]

csdenmark, on Nov 8 2009, 04:46 AM, said:

barmar, on Nov 8 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

Another thing: some have written that FD only explains, it doesn't alert.  But every bid that was automatically explained by FD was also highlighted in the alert color.  So it's not possible to tell which bids actually required an alert.  On the other hand, the FD explanations don't appear in the movie.

According to which rules should a bid be highlighted?

Each tournament has its own alert rules, specified by the person or organization hosting the tourney. Players are responsible for knowing which of their bids are alertable, and they should click the Alert button, even if they're using FD.

It would probably be useful if BBO had two highlight colors, one for normal bids that have FD explanations, and another for alerted bids, which may have FD or manually-typed explanations.

[blackshoe]

That a particular call is alertable in some geographical place, and not alertable in some other place, or that a particular player is "used to" alerting or not alerting it because that's what the f2f regulations where he lives say, has absolutely nothing to do with whether the call should be alerted when playing on line. As barmar says, that's up to the tournament organizer.

[csdenmark]

blackshoe, on Nov 11 2009, 01:59 AM, said:

That a particular call is alertable in some geographical place, and not alertable in some other place, or that a particular player is "used to" alerting or not alerting it because that's what the f2f regulations where he lives say, has absolutely nothing to do with whether the call should be alerted when playing on line. As barmar says, that's up to the tournament organizer.

Yes playing online people jump from a polish regulated tournament to a chinese regulated one ending up playing an american based regulated.

Re-iterating the problem is not so funny. Please come up with a proposal for a solution to it. Looks like you think the alert rule still makes sense so it must be able to respond to the challenge of today.

[johnjo42]

As the original poster, I seem to have generated a lot of heat.

I think FD is great once you've learnt how to do it but my criticism is that you see the explanations of your partner's bids. This is fine so long as the opps don't object.

You cannot see partner's alerts.

I take Fred's point that people can sit with printed convention cards in front of them or even books.

Perhaps Tony's idea of telling the opps in advance is the right one and, if they object, to turn it off.

JJ

[OliverC]

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

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.

Hi All,

Fred, I hesitate to suggest anything which will add to the list of things your hard-working programmers are working on to improve the BBO software and the web client. I wonder, however, whether in some future upgrade it would be possible to give opponents and kibbers some means whereby they can see how people have their FD Options set (ie: in <Conv>/<Options>).

FD is a fantastic teaching and learning tool, and does also provide a great means to alert in far more detail than is possible via the alert box, but I can understand the concerns that some people have. Being able to see how people have their FD options set would, at least, put people's minds at rest if their opps had Options 1 and 3 unchecked. I tend to leave Option 2 checked so that I know when FD hasn't "caught" something so I know I need to alert it manually.

Regards,
Oliver