[Brandal]

hrothgar, on Jul 19 2005, 06:25 AM, said:

However, I do have a concern that novices may come to regard that "law abiding" players are cheating in some way. We already have issues with players who beleive that making a psyche is equivalent to cheating or lying or what. I'd prefer not to see the same issue develop propagate surround disclosure.

And I don't have "issues" with those who type "no agreement"

I trust them to be honest with me.

It just seems to me that selfalert/explain and "no agreement"
is kinda standing out like a sore thumb....a paradox maybe

There will always be room for interpretation too,whether to type
no agreement or explain the bid?

This isn't a big deal for me really,I just think there has to be a way
to handle selfalert/explain better,because I realise that I'm no better
when I explain when many type no agreement,meaning I'm not saying
my way is right,or better,the way it is now it isn't "fair" is my point.

[hrothgar]

LH2650, on Jul 19 2005, 03:02 AM, said:

LH2650 wrote

>Fascinating. You attack the concept of Active Ethics as created by the ACBL,
>and then refuse to accept their definition of it.

I have a fair amount of skepticism regarding the "definition" of programs. As the old saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding". The real issue at hand is the impact that programs have. Consider, for example, the "Healthy Forests" iniative here in the US. If you prefer a bridge related, there is the ACBL decision to adopt a "Defensive Database" in order increase the range of systems that people were permitted to play.

Returning to "active ethics". Active Ethics was always Wolff's baby. I see nothing wrong with using his case history in applying these standard to judge the the of the program. Personally, I am less than impressed. Equally significant, there is widespread dissatisfaction with his little crusade.

>I have reviewed your link to Lille, and think that you have misrepresented
>Mr. Wolfe's position. Three times, he makes his central point in various forms
>(I'll help) - that there was a failure to alert. Mr. Stevenson does not respond to
>this. THAT would have been an interesting discussion.

This thread is not probably not the best location to rehash Lille. I will simply point out that David Stevenson was facilitating a conversation between the rec.games.bridge newsgroup and the bridge laws mailing on one side and Wolff on the other. I think that he did a pretty good job avoiding introducing his own opinions.

[helene_t]

This just happened ....

LHO opens 2♦ (no alert). We both click his bid.
It becomes explained as "some diamonds" (presumably partner clicks again)
It becomes explained as "... and some points"
Me->LHO: "0-37 HCPs at least two diamonds. lol"
LHO->Me: "Something like that :-)"
(Presumably partner sends a private message to LHO)
LHO->Table "Weak"
Partner->Table: "That's not an explanation"
LHO->Me: "My girlfriends name is Helene"
Me->Table: "Just bid, p, presumably they have no agreement about 2♦"

[vbcastor]

I must admit i was in that category that was annoyed at the 'no agreement' response. I was under the impression from others that you had to explain your bid but of course now know the rules. However, I did take the situation to 2 other 'yellows' and they said that they had to explain so there does appear to be a problem with the rules. In a self-alert, self-explain system, I still think disclosure of what you mean by your bid seems more fair. If 'no agreement' is acceptable, then why not go back to the partner having to alert and explain bids. I find that more acceptable coming from the partner than the person who made and the bid and knows what he is trying to convey to his partner.

I don't play in tournaments as I have not had good experiences there. So I play in the main lounge for fun and enjoyment and assume that others are there for the same reason. But of course, I know I shouldn't assume anything. It just seems to me in the main lounge where you have so many pick-up games, the right thing to do is explain your bid and since there is no damage in the main lounge, at least i don't know of way to change the results in the main lounge, then what is the reason for not explaining.

I will not be annoyed with the 'no agreement' or 'ask partner' response as I am now educated on the rules. I will simply continue on. I still don't like the rule but that's of no concern to anyone. I can live with whatever the rules are.

One word about ethics and morality. I think these 2 things are important and I can sleep well at night because I have them. I know at the end of the day, I have not hurt anyone feelings or made them annoyed or irritated if they have visited my table during the day. If I get a bad board because I have divulged too much...so be it. Tournaments are different beasts but the main lounge should be for fun and enjoyment and I would hope I wouldn't upset anyone over a game. for the sake of a fun and fair game, I still believe disclosure is better than 'no agreement' but I will live by the rules.

Vicki

[Echognome]

Just a comment in general. By explaining what the rules or laws of bridge are, it doesn't mean we abide by them to the letter when we're playing for fun. As most people know when I play in the main bridge club, we allow undos without question, explain our bids when they are not required and generally err on the side of offering too much information. However, when it comes to tournaments we are more mindful of other tables and stick closer to the laws.

Personally I don't enjoy much playing in individual tournaments because you often get tops and bottoms based on random misunderstandings either between you and your partner or the opponents' minsunderstandings.

All I am saying is that if you come across an unfriendly table, just thank them and go play at another table. I think there are enough friendly tables around that you should be able to find one.

[luke warm]

i agree with that... since i don't think i can hurt others who are playing my board at other tables by alerting and explaining what i intend (usually, that is - in the case of the opening bid in question i have no doubt the majority of the tables will alert it as weak *if* they even open it), i do so even if there is no agreement

as far as being sticklers for the rules, i've rarely played in the main room when it wasn't allowed for people to talk... say opps bid 1h : 2h : 4nt... we allow the bidder to say "1430" or "0314" or "blackwood"... same for undos and other things

[1eyedjack]

Hi Vicki

vbcastor, on Jul 19 2005, 06:12 PM, said:

In a self-alert, self-explain system, I still think disclosure of what you mean by your bid seems more fair.  If 'no agreement' is acceptable, then why not go back to the partner having to alert and explain bids.

I think it unfortunate that you should be left with a lingering feeling of injustice, especially if you accept the legality of the action in principle. *My* definition of an ultimately fair system is a level playing field. I just do not understand how the playing field has been tilted in favour of the bidder's side, unless you discard the presumption of honesty.

In typical f2f bridge, the main reason (in the absence of screens) why we use partner-alerts rather than self-alerts is that the potential for unauthorised information (UI) passing in the giving of alert or explanation is greater (such alerts and explanations being visible to all, and alerting a partnership to its misunderstanding). Where screens (and self-alerts/explanations) are in force in f2f bridge the option of "no agreement" remains available and is used in practice without comment.

There is no particular reason why the position is reversed in online bridge apart from the saving of time (and perhaps convenience of software logistics in the case of alerts): you can alert and explain at the same time as making the bid. UI can be wholly removed whoever makes the disclosure.

I think that the software could be improved by permitting (without perhaps requiring) both partners to alert (leaving the primary responsibility with the bidder, as he can get it in quicker). Providing that the alerts are hidden from each other and visible only to opponents that would maximise the opportunities for disclosure. Alerting is of course only a small part of disclosure, and the software already allows, even if it does not initially require, both partners to explain. I suspect it might be technically more difficult to program partner-alerts and would clutter the interface. Also it may create bad feeling where one person alerts and the other (with the facility and expectation) decides not to.

With my regular partner I have most common bids (all openings and a lot of others) programmed into OKScript, which both I and partner have on our respective computers. When a bid is made, both players tend to send an explanation (where defined in the script) to both opponents by a single keystroke. There are ethical problems even with this technique, as it provides an opportunity to remind you of your own system ... the explanation may not be visible to partner but is certainly visible to the sender, who may have forgotten the system and becomes reminded of it, albeit after the event but perhaps still in time to recover. So you have to be mentally sure of your system to embark on that, and perhaps only program into OKScript those bids that you have no chance of forgetting, or resist using the button (in preference for a manual explanation) when in doubt. But everyone, even those not using OKScript, are placed on trust not to refer to their own system notes, so there is no difference in principle there.

I still think that the partner has a responsibility (under pure courtesy) to provide a private explanation on enquiry. If you are invited to ask partner of bidder for an explanation (ie because the bidder suspects that a convention may be in force but he cannot remember the details of it) then I would suggest accepting that invitation. If you are instructed to do so (because the bidder thinks he has no obligation) then that should be resisted, as I think any resistance by the partner of the bidder to providing an explanation (on the alleged grounds that he is not obliged to) should be rebutted. This may not be expressly stated in the site rules but it is I think supported by the underlying laws.

As a practical compromise, in a friendly game in the main playing area, if at the table all are agreed to bar a "no agreement" explanation, then it MAY be appropriate, accepting this also is a relaxation of the laws, to agree that explanations should be made publicly to the table, ie visible to partner as well as opponents. Otherwise I have difficulty understanding why you think that the existing rules are unfair. OR you could as a table agree to revert to public explanations by the partner of the bidder. You would still have to self-alert at present, because of software limitations, and you could still (in addition to requirements in that case) self-explain in private, if you are concerned that partner's disclosure might be better worded.

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, you have considerable autonomy to choose your opponents and partners in the main playing area, the better to gravitate to an amenable atmosphere. Just one further point on this: If you feel strongly about this and cannot find (or readily identify) a table that meets your requirements, the solution is to serve as host at your own table. Then YOU can set these rules and those who join you (provided that you make your rules clear) can take them or leave.

I have some reservations about that last suggestion. In a tourney, it is arguably fair for the tourney host to set whatever bye-laws he wishes, because those bye-laws would apply to all who contribute to the result of the hand, across all tables. If those bye-laws contravene the rules of bridge, then they would be no less fair for that. It simply would not be called "Bridge", but some other, similar game. However if you make up bye-laws as table host in the main playing area, and you have not set the scoring method to "Rubber" (ie your scores are compared with other tables) then an element of unfairness can creep in. All I would say in that case is that in practice nobody would really care, provided that fairness within the table is preserved.

[pigpenz]

now i had an intersting thing happened last night playing in acbl imp game I opened one notrump, and the next thing I got was the querry box explain bid.

so typed in its on the CC take alook

now i got another querry....so i said 15-17 hcp

now since I had opened on 14 hcp should i tell them that?
just joking of course

[DrTodd13]

Having players alert not only their bids but their partner's bids is a bad idea because it can only lead to misinformation. Have the person making the bid alert it is optimal and the only reason it isn't done in f2f is the UI issue. Online, that UI issue does not exist so we can do the optimal thing.

[1eyedjack]

DrTodd13, on Jul 21 2005, 06:28 PM, said:

Having players alert not only their bids but their partner's bids is a bad idea because it can only lead to misinformation.

I don't understand that statement. Can you elaborate?

Incidentally, as I recall OKbridge (at least when I used to play it on the Telnet interface) used to facilitate alerts by either or both. A character was inserted in the bidding history next to the bid, that indicated who had alerted (or both, ie 3 possible combinations - 4 if you count no character as no alert). I do not recall the practice giving rise to problems at the table, but others may have different experiences.

[pigpenz]

1eyedjack, on Jul 21 2005, 06:35 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Jul 21 2005, 06:28 PM, said:

Having players alert not only their bids but their partner's bids is a bad idea because it can only lead to misinformation.

I don't understand that statement. Can you elaborate?

Incidentally, as I recall OKbridge (at least when I used to play it on the Telnet interface) used to facilitate alerts by either or both. A character was inserted in the bidding history next to the bid, that indicated who had alerted (or both, ie 3 possible combinations - 4 if you count no character as no alert). I do not recall the practice giving rise to problems at the table, but others may have different experiences.

i think what he means is that on BBO you dont know what partners bid is if alertable cause it doesnt show up on your screen as alertable. Where in the real world by alerting by bidding box or voice you know something is up, so on bbo you are taking a chance by trying to correct if you arent sure.