[hrothgar]

Gweny, on Jan 1 2007, 06:52 AM, said:

Dear HR,

The problem is very simple - we have fits getting the majority of the population to post any convention card let alone one that needs a degree in computer science from MIT and twenty five pages of manuel. <kidding> Most have a hard enough time filling out the "old" one let alone the "new" one.

It is a very true case that the majority of our players are not that sophisticated/not sophisticated enough computer types to fill out a full disclosure card.

I have asked for a convention card wizard or perhaps a better thing would be a convention card room, much like the partnership bidding room where two partners could sit down and hack out a card. What would be wonderful would be a pre-tournament "room" that would seat the partners and they could do nothing but work up their convention card - both could "see" it and in real time click buttons to fill it. There would also be a choice once seated as to who is doing the filling in. As soon as card was filled it is autosaved and put in use for that tournament. This could maybe happen when the partnership was formed or do it all at the same time when a tournament started


For the ACBL application it would greatly help our ACBL community if the convention card physically looked like the ACBL convention card. <see teaching old dogs new tricks>

Until FD is more non computer literate friendly it is not going to be widely accepted/used. It is a lovely tool I agree but it is used in the minority not the majority and until that changes our policy will remain the same.

I think that you are confusing some very basic issues:

Your "old dogs" need to learn some new tricks whether they like it or not. Lets assume for the moment that the FD application had the best convention file editor anyone could imagine. Players still need to be trained to access this information by moving their mouse over the bid in question. There is no getting arround this and the sooner that people get used to this, the better.

In fact, as we all know, the FD editor is far from perfect. However, this shouldn't be an issue for ACBL tournaments. I've been playing online bridge for a VERY long time, dating back to the telnet days with OKBridge. For whatever reason, most online partnerships don't spend any time creating a convention card. You yourself note that no one bothers to use the "traditional" Convention Card system which is as about as simple as it gets. Its completely illogical to claim that its the complexity of the FD editor that is preventing run of the mill players from using the system.

As for the whole "failure to alert" issue... I agree with you here. The FD announcement system does not eliminate the requirement to alert certain bids. You need to make a decision whether you want to enforce these rules. (I would argue that the best way to teach people that they need to alert to enforce penalties. The same penalties should apply regardless of whether someone is using the FD application)

In a similar fashion, as I recall the ACBL has a requirement that players announce an enormous number of different bids. I'd argue that the FD system makes it MUCH easier for players to conform to this set of regulations.

[glen]

hrothgar, on Jan 1 2007, 08:46 AM, said:

most online partnerships don't spend any time creating a convention card

Assuming your quote above is true, this means most online partnerships are playing with a default cc. Given many players seem to make some on-the-go adjustments at the start ("play your profile", "capp" etc. often heard at start of tourneys) the cc's they are playing with are not 100% correct. This matches our experience in these tourneys.

Since many cc's will be inaccurate, whether old or new style, it is imperative that partnerships self-alert and self-explain alertable bids, so one will not be confused by the less-than-100% correct cc's. While there is a fraction of partnerships with accurate cc's., and these may be annoyed by having to retype stuff, that is the price of living with all these inaccurate cc's in widespread use.

For us, one problem with the widespread inaccurate cc's is they cannot be trusted to reveal carding agreements. Thus I believe the Okbridge practise (could be former practise, as have not played on their site in 2006 or this year) of the mandatory carding methods summary announcement at the start of the round could assist a lot here. Something like "updca, 3/5" or "random carding".

[pbleighton]

"Thus I believe the Okbridge practise (could be former practise, as have not played on their in 2006 or this year) of the mandatory card summary announcement at the start of the round could assist a lot here. Something like "updca, 3/5" or "random carding". "

I like this idea.

Peter

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on Jan 1 2007, 08:46 AM, said:

In a similar fashion, as I recall the ACBL has a requirement that players announce an enormous number of different bids.

The ACBL alert regulation requires announcement of

1. The range of all 1NT opening bids.
2. "Transfer" for a response in diamonds or hearts at any level to a natural NT opening, overcall or rebid by opener if the response is a transfer to the next higher suit.
3. "May be short" if an opening bid in a minor suit is non-forcing and may be on fewer than three cards.
4. "Forcing" when a 1NT response to a natural one of a major opening is forcing for one round.
5. "Semi-Forcing" when a 1NT response to a natural one of a major opening is generally forcing for one round, but may be passed if opener has a balanced minimum.

Doesn't seem like an enormous number to me.

Quote

"random carding"

If I'm not mistaken, "random carding" is an illegal agreement in ACBL events.

[pbleighton]

"If I'm not mistaken, "random carding" is an illegal agreement in ACBL events"

Perhaps, but it is quite common

Peter

[1eyedjack]

blackshoe, on Jan 1 2007, 06:06 PM, said:

Quote

"random carding"

If I'm not mistaken, "random carding" is an illegal agreement in ACBL events.

Is there a difference between an agreement to card randomly and not have an agreement regarding carding methods? I think it would be hard to legislate against the latter.

[hrothgar]

officeglen, on Jan 1 2007, 07:33 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 1 2007, 08:46 AM, said:

most online partnerships don't spend any time creating a convention card

Assuming your quote above is true, this means most online partnerships are playing with a default cc. Given many players seem to make some on-the-go adjustments at the start ("play your profile", "capp" etc. often heard at start of tourneys) the cc's they are playing with are not 100% correct. This matches our experience in these tourneys.

Since many cc's will be inaccurate, whether old or new style, it is imperative that partnerships self-alert and self-explain alertable bids, so one will not be confused by the less-than-100% correct cc's. While there is a fraction of partnerships with accurate cc's., and these may be annoyed by having to retype stuff, that is the price of living with all these inaccurate cc's in widespread use.

For us, one problem with the widespread inaccurate cc's is they cannot be trusted to reveal carding agreements. Thus I believe the Okbridge practise (could be former practise, as have not played on their site in 2006 or this year) of the mandatory carding methods summary announcement at the start of the round could assist a lot here. Something like "updca, 3/5" or "random carding".

No one is forcing people to use an FD type convention card.
It takes a conscious decision to go and load a CC.

The Laws provide remedies for folks who don't accurately describe their agreements. There are multiple ways to deal with this issue: If someone is damaged by misinformation, you can adjust the score. If there is no damage, there is still the option (or should be the option) to issue a proceedural penalty.

However, it doesn't make sense to prevent people from using the FD tool in a responsible maner.

[glen]

blackshoe, on Jan 1 2007, 12:06 PM, said:

Doesn't seem like an enormous number to me.

While the types of bids to be announced are not an enormous number, the number of bids to be announced are considerable. However the annoucements themselves are quite short. For examples, sometimes we just see f for forcing.

[awm]

One issue is that the types of director call FD tends to generate are the "misinformation/unuathorized information" type calls that are the most difficult for a director to deal with. Directors in BBO tournaments often have a rather large number of tables (40-50 is not atypical) and have to deal with disconnects and requests for substitution (which face to face directors generally don't have to deal with) as well as occasionally having to deal with a language barrier. The "MI/UI" type calls are quite complex, leading to a lot of appeals and committees in face to face play -- even the best directors will sometimes get a table ruling wrong. Making the right decisions in these cases often requires a poll to determine logical alternatives, which is hard to perform in a pressed-for-time online event (where showing a player a hand diagram is also somewhat troublesome due to interface issues).

In any case, allowing FD as an alternative to alerting and explaining will substantially increase this type of director call. While in principle this can be handled, in practice it's going to lead to a lot more work for directors, a lot more questionable calls, and a lot more complaining about the directing.

[keylime]

Adam, I agree wholeheartedly.

I think FD should be a supplement and not the primary tool of "full disclosure".

[DrTodd13]

I think we need to be careful and not be too hard on those who are at least trying to fully disclose their methods by using FD. I think there is this tendency for people to complain if someone's hand does not match exactly what it says in FD. Conversely, people who use no CC or are forced to use the default CC can do all kinds of things that aren't SAYC and then people will get upset if you try to complain about this. Generally, in f2f bridge, if you can provide system notes that document your agreement then those notes are believed. A FD file is the equivalent of system notes and if a bid disagrees with the notes then you should have to prove that they consistently deviate from their agreements before any penalty is imposed. An infrequent deviation is protected by law 40.

[barmar]

The difference is that system notes are normally written by the players themselves. It's unlikely that a pair will agree "Let's play MeckWell's system notes". But FD cards are not normally written by the players themselves -- there's a handful of prewritten cards that most players choose from.

I don't normally use FD, but yesterday I played in a tourney with Hrothgar and agreed to use the BBO Advanced CC. As a result, I needed a quick primer in Bergen Raises, which I don't normally play, and had to agree to use Drury, which I know but don't particularly care for, because they're on the card and it would have been too much work to revise it in the short time before the tourney started.

Players who aren't as anal as myself are more likely to agree to make exceptions to what's on the card, but they still won't revise the card because that's too hard. As a result, you're very likely to end up with people playing systems that don't precisely match the CC. Until it becomes easier to edit FD cards, we need to be understanding of this -- FD is practically useless if you stringently enforce that people play exactly the card they have loaded.

[csdenmark]

barmar, on Jan 2 2007, 10:41 PM, said:

The difference is that system notes are normally written by the players themselves.  It's unlikely that a pair will agree "Let's play MeckWell's system notes".  But FD cards are not normally written by the players themselves -- there's a handful of prewritten cards that most players choose from.

I don't normally use FD, but yesterday I played in a tourney with Hrothgar and agreed to use the BBO Advanced CC.  As a result, I needed a quick primer in Bergen Raises, which I don't normally play, and had to agree to use Drury, which I know but don't particularly care for, because they're on the card and it would have been too much work to revise it in the short time before the tourney started.

Players who aren't as anal as myself are more likely to agree to make exceptions to what's on the card, but they still won't revise the card because that's too hard.  As a result, you're very likely to end up with people playing systems that don't precisely match the CC.  Until it becomes easier to edit FD cards, we need to be understanding of this -- FD is practically useless if you stringently enforce that people play exactly the card they have loaded.

No it is not useless - in fact it is so that players are informed of and has an opportunity to learn better the system they thought they knew. OK I know there are a few bugs in default cards - I dont understand why they are not corrected.

In general just load your FD - alert and explain where there are differences. But please remember FD discloses your agreements and not your actual holding.

It would be nice to have software modified in that way that if a bid is alerted and explained manually - then that explanation would take priority to general explanation of FD. Thats the way it works on ZONE.

[DrTodd13]

Partner could always keep FD open and track each bid manually if the explanation wasn't shown automatically. The result would be that things would just be slower. There is no way to stop people from consulting notes while playing online and so in my opinion you shouldn't even try.

What should bridge be about? Should it be about memorization or should it be about using your brain to figure out the best meanings for bids in each and every possible situation? The requirement to memorize (which isn't a total requirement because you can consult defensive notes for mid-chart+ conventions) is likely one to speed the pace of the game. Having a huge book of notes at the table and trying to leaf through it would be pretty slow. On a computer though, this objection largely goes away.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Jan 3 2007, 01:23 AM, said:

What should bridge be about? Should it be about memorization or should it be about using your brain to figure out the best meanings for bids in each and every possible situation? The requirement to memorize (which isn't a total requirement because you can consult defensive notes for mid-chart+ conventions) is likely one to speed the pace of the game. Having a huge book of notes at the table and trying to leaf through it would be pretty slow. On a computer though, this objection largely goes away.

As everyone knows, I'm a systems geek. I think that people should be allowed to play (pretty much) whatever systems they want. Furthermore, I have no problem if folks want to use a wide variety of cheat sheets when they're playing informally.

However, I think that tournaments are different. Law 40E2 famously contains the following footnote:

"A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. However, sponsoring organizations may designate unusual methods and allow written defenses against opponents' unusual methods to be referred to at the table."

One of the fundamental laws that define the game of bridge states that you can't use crib notes. In much the same fashion, you don't get to bring a double dummy solver to the table and use it during a match. Furthermore, I don't think that this rule has anything to do with the time required to access the information. Rather, the fundamental dimension on which we're competing is how well our brains work without cheat sheets, computers, or copies of the Dictionary of Card Combinations.

There's nothing wrong if you want to deal with issues like bidding system design in the abstract. However, I'd argue that the computer bridge championships are probably a better venue for you...

[DrTodd13]

If I wanted to memorize stuff I'd go on Jeopardy. To be clear, I am suggesting that we strike the rule you cited from the law books. I don't believe that how well or how much can we memorize says or should say anything about our bridge abilities. I know what the law is. The question is why was the law introduced in the first place? It was certainly written in an era when there weren't many conventions. This is a new era and perhaps it is time to review this law. I'm not sure how much more bridge can develop with this memorization requirement. To me, off-line contemplation of whether convention A or B works better in a given situation is a better indicator of bridge ability. Inventing conventions to suit situations, choosing when to apply a convention...both of these are bridge abilities but memorization to me seems like an appeal to expediency rather to something that must inherently be a part of the game.

[blackshoe]

The laws (including this one) are reviewed every ten years. That review is going on as we type here. A revised edition of the laws is due out later this year - which probably means next year.

As to further development of bridge, it seems to me the banning of conventions is far more a detriment to that than any requirement to "memorize" your system.

[Wayne_LV]