[awm]

This seems much better if "screenmates" are in the same room, rather than isolating each player. Some reasons for this:

1. Makes it possible to notice some forms of cheating in person. For example, if someone is using their cell phone to communicate. Even if some hidden electronic device, it's possible that a person in the same room would notice something "off."
2. Easier to ask questions about the meaning of auctions; in principle this could be typed but some people are slow typists and you often get better description verbally. Methods like FD are simply a disaster waiting to happen, creating complex MI cases that simply cannot exist in normal bridge (as in the software gives a wrong explanation and neither member of the "offending side" even knows what explanation was given to correct it).
3. Retains at least some possibility for legal "table feel" from opponents.

[Vampyr]

 awm, on 2015-September-07, 00:36, said:

2. Easier to ask questions about the meaning of auctions; in principle this could be typed but some people are slow typists and you often get better description verbally. Methods like FD are simply a disaster waiting to happen, creating complex MI cases that simply cannot exist in normal bridge (as in the software gives a wrong explanation and neither member of the "offending side" even knows what explanation was given to correct it).

And who would do the programming for, well, every pair that might make it to the late rounds of international competition? And if a pair changed its methods? And anyway the calls early enough in the bidding for something like Full Disclosire to be useful would probably be listed on the convention card and need little extra explanation.

[hrothgar]

 Vampyr, on 2015-September-06, 20:20, said:

OK, well for future if something is quoted and then referred to as "this", the quoted thing is what is being referred to, rather than some component part of it which isn't even mentioned.

Just because you are ignorant of the the fact that your words have more than one interpetation doesn't mean that the rest of are.

[Fluffy]

I also think 2 players per room is a lot better, perhaps with voice recording to have a base of how bids have been explained.

Regarding the database. IMO partnership experience is a part of partnership agreements. And partnership agreements are to be fully disclosed, so partnership experience is to be disclosed as well.

[Trinidad]

 Fluffy, on 2015-September-07, 03:59, said:

Regarding the database. IMO partnership experience is a part of partnership agreements. And partnership agreements are to be fully disclosed, so partnership experience is to be disclosed as well.

This. I do not understand why Vampyr would consider it illegal.

(I do see a practical problem: How are you going to present the data in the database to the player? Scroll through hands? Present the average number of hcps + a standard deviation? Average, standard deviation, minimum and maximum number of cards in the suit shown and the other suits? It will be a difficult job to interpret this at the table or to reduce the data in such a way that every player will be (equally) happy with it.)

Rik

[Fluffy]

Ideally you would get whatever. For example if you want info of 1♣ strong opening you will get averages, and which shapes are most common, and what point count does he have (10 = 6%, 11 = 10%, 12= 20%, 13 = 19%, 14= 15%, 18= 6%, others less than 5%)

If you want to know what opponent has for a 2♣ overcall followed by a 4♥ rebid you will get a single case from 4 years ago if you are lucky.

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2015-September-07, 05:00, said:

This. I do not understand why Vampyr would consider it illegal.

It definitely seems to,violate 16A1(d) and 40A something. But the practical problems would make it impossible anyway, I am pretty sure.

Canny players will,change their methods after the database has been created, and periodically thereafter.

[Vampyr]

 Fluffy, on 2015-September-07, 03:59, said:

I also think 2 players per room is a lot better, perhaps with voice recording to have a base of how bids have been explained.

Regarding the database. IMO partnership experience is a part of partnership agreements. And partnership agreements are to be fully disclosed, so partnership experience is to be disclosed as well.

If you start the electronic play in, say, the round of 8, don't you have to find a lot of rooms? You would require 4 per match.

[Vampyr]

 hrothgar, on 2015-September-07, 03:43, said:

Just because you are ignorant of the the fact that your words have more than one interpetation doesn't mean that the rest of are.

I don't know if English is your native language, but I promise you that your interpretation of my remarks is not possible.

[billw55]

 Fluffy, on 2015-September-07, 03:59, said:

Regarding the database. IMO partnership experience is a part of partnership agreements. And partnership agreements are to be fully disclosed, so partnership experience is to be disclosed as well.

 Trinidad, on 2015-September-07, 05:00, said:

This. I do not understand why Vampyr would consider it illegal.

I definitely agree with Vampyr on this one. Such a database is clearly a memory aid, about the same as looking at one's own convention card and system notes during an auction. Or perhaps having a copy of Love to refer to during those tricky declarer problems.

Want to know the opponents auction history? Fine, study it. Bring notes to the table to consult during play? No way.

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2015-September-08, 05:33, said:

I don't know if English is your native language, but I promise you that your interpretation of my remarks is not possible.

The other interpretation is not possible. It is part of full disclosure that your opponents have the right to know your style and tendencies.

The problem in the analogue world is that it can be very difficult to disclose the partnership tendencies and style. The partnership will have a clear "feel" for each others style, but how are you going to put that in words? Many pairs will resort to descriptions of preempts like "aggressive, but not idiotic", which is already an awful lot better than "ATV".

With the help of a database the partnership style can be quantified. It can be presented by means of frequencies of distributions, HCPs, ODR, losers, or whatever. It is not illegal to disclose your style to your opponents, nor is it illegal to ask for the opponents' style. But in the analogue world it can be difficult to answer the question. This is where the digital world could help. (Though I don't think it is straightforward.)

Rik

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2015-September-08, 05:29, said:

It definitely seems to,violate 16A1(d) and 40A something.

On the contrary.
16A1d deals with authorized information and does not apply.
"40A something" (to be precise: 40A1b) specifically allows an NBO to specify how a pair is supposed to disclose its methods. So, an NBO can require the players to make their style and tendencies available through a database of partnership history.

In other words: Under the current laws it is perfectly possible to require disclosure by means of a database. The technology may not be there yet, and the implementation may be difficult, but the laws are prepared for it.

Rik

[kenberg]

A few thoughts

I like the spirit of the original post a lot. I take it to be: We could and should do a lot more with technology, at least at the highest levels, to keep the game honest. In club games I take the view that anyone cheating at such a level is pretty much the definition of pathetic. It happens, but mostly it happens by people not accepting responsibility for dealing properly with the inevitable occurrence of unauthorized information. At the high levels, big bucks are involved and, regrettably, the temptations have to be dealt with.

I certainly don't think historical data of bidding and play is private. Possibly if I invite friends over for a private game, and one of them later regales others with stories of my stupid play, I have a right to object. But if I enter a high level tournament I would expect my actions to be publicly open for examination.

That being said, if the idea is to have players consult a database during the play I think this is overkill. I don't play at, or anywhere near, the level we are talking about but I assume that, when team X meets team Y in the finals or the semi-finals of a big deal tournament, they are generally familiar with their opponent's style. This familiarity can be enhanced by before game studies of previous games, using statistical techniques if that seems right, but it seems to me that's enough. At the table we play bridge.

Something that came to mind: I generally use the downloadable version of BBO. I started with it, and I like it. I can look up the hand records for any username that I know. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think that I can do this not the web version. I can look up my hand records, I can look up tourneys, but I cannot just plug in joedokes and see how he did. Maybe this was decided on privacy grounds? I make some pretty stupid plays but if I made them you can see them, as far as I care. An occasional use: I get suspicious of someone who made a weird play that worked well. I look up the hands he has played. I see that he makes a lot of weird plays and they mostly don't work well. So I relax.,

[Trinidad]

 billw55, on 2015-September-08, 06:58, said:

I definitely agree with Vampyr on this one. Such a database is clearly a memory aid, about the same as looking at one's own convention card and system notes during an auction.

Are we on the same page here? We are not talking about our own convention card. We are talking about the opponents' convention card being made available in electronic form... and in a totally different format than what we are used to.

 billw55, on 2015-September-08, 06:58, said:

Want to know the opponents auction history? Fine, study it. Bring notes to the table to consult during play? No way.

I don't need notes. I am allowed to ask my opponent at any time that I am bidding or on play... and he is supposed to give a correct answer. The practical problem is that often a player cannot give the answer, because often the answer cannot be phrased conveniently in words. A database might give an accurate answer to a question that should be answered, but is difficult to answer.

_________________________

I see a lot of practical problems with the presentation of data in the database. For one thing, I would not like it if you need a PhD in data analysis to understand the presentation in the database and I fear that a PhD in data analysis would be very helpful.

So, enough problems on the practical side, but on the fundamental side: You are entitled to this information about your opponents and they are supposed to provide it. That is full disclosure.

Rik

[kenberg]

I think the practical problems are close to overwhelming. Take a trivial example 1C-1S-2S, uncontested. Might I have raised on three cards. Yes, and certainly the opponents are entitled to kow whether my raise promises (or all but promises) four but when do I raise on 3? Now a high level pair can perhaps give a fairly satisfactory answer to that, but none of my partner's could accurately summarize my style, and I doubt that I could. I read advice somewhere, maybe by Edgar Kaplan, recommending that opener should be allowed to raise on three but should not go out of is way to do so. That's about the way I see it.

Ok, that's trivial. But if I try to imagine how a database would help me if my opponents bid this, I am having trouble. Mere frequency of three card raises doesn't really do it. Maybe I want to know: If he has a small doubleton in diamond but a Axx in hearts, so 3=3=2=5 shape, does he bid 1NT or 2S? How about xx in hearts and Axx in diamonds? Or Ax in hearts and xxx in diamonds. Probably it matters how good his three card spade support is. And how does he feel about rebidding a five card club suit such as KQJTx when he holds xx in one of the red suits? etc etc etc. Playing one hand could take the better part of a day.

[gwnn]

The point is, you can consult the database if you like and ask your opponent if you like. Asking all the small questions you refer to would take the better part of a day the old way, but you might get a good feel if you glanced over the last 10 single raises and saw a few patterns. If you don't want to, you can ignore the database route and ask about Axx xx vs xx Axx and other minutiae, as you apparently regularly do now.

[nige1]

 Trinidad, on 2015-September-08, 07:21, said:

Are we on the same page here? We are not talking about our own convention card. We are talking about the opponents' convention card being made available in electronic form... and in a totally different format than what we are used to.


I don't need notes. I am allowed to ask my opponent at any time that I am bidding or on play... and he is supposed to give a correct answer. The practical problem is that often a player cannot give the answer, because often the answer cannot be phrased conveniently in words. A database might give an accurate answer to a question that should be answered, but is difficult to answer.

_________________________

I see a lot of practical problems with the presentation of data in the database. For one thing, I would not like it if you need a PhD in data analysis to understand the presentation in the database and I fear that a PhD in data analysis would be very helpful.

So, enough problems on the practical side, but on the fundamental side: You are entitled to this information about your opponents and they are supposed to provide it. That is full disclosure.

Agree with Trinidad: you are entitled to correct information about opponents' methods and style. To this end, were it convenient, I see no harm in allowing a database-search for similar auctions by opponents. Even better might be an expert-system with access to system-card and database, which could analyze and summarise relevant opponents' agreements, explicit and implicit. This might help opponents with the legal obligations that many find too onerous

[billw55]

 Trinidad, on 2015-September-08, 07:21, said:

Are we on the same page here? We are not talking about our own convention card. We are talking about the opponents' convention card being made available in electronic form... and in a totally different format than what we are used to.

I don't need notes. I am allowed to ask my opponent at any time that I am bidding or on play... and he is supposed to give a correct answer. The practical problem is that often a player cannot give the answer, because often the answer cannot be phrased conveniently in words. A database might give an accurate answer to a question that should be answered, but is difficult to answer.

I think we are on the same page. I am not talking about our opponents convention cards. I am talking about written records of past deals played by them, made available during the current play against them. I consider this a memory aid, and I think it should not be allowed.

If I want to know about their tendencies, I have two options. First, I can ask. If they don't adequately disclose, that is an infraction on their part. Second, I can study their past deals, prior to competing with them. This includes studying a database of their past deals, made by others.

But consulting the database during play? No, definitely not. To me, that feels equivalent to consulting any other reference material during play. I chose my own convention card as one example of such a reference - this may have caused the confusion. I also chose Clyde Love as another example reference. I don't want anyone opening up Bridge Squeezes Complete during declarer play. And I don't want anyone consulting databases either.

Hopefully that is more clear on what I meant.

[hrothgar]

Consider the following situation

Walter the Walrus and his wife Wilhelmina are playing a match against the Hideous Hog and the Rueful Rabbit.
The Walruses only "speak" Milton work HCPS. The pair does even have a vocabularly that allows it to understand Zar points or Binkey points or Bergen points.
In contrast, the Hideous Hog's opening style is best described as fluid and as for the Rabbit, who knows if he has a style at all.

Let's assume that these two (well established) pairs were to meet for the very first time.
How can be provide the Walruses with appropriate disclosure of the other pair's partnership tendencies.

I would argue that any approach based on "language" is going to run into severe problems.

There are too many theories of hand evaluation out there. I don't think that we can tied partnership's hands and force them to use Work HCPs because the Walrus prefers them, nor do I believe that the Walrus can be taught Zar Points five minutes before a match (if ever).

From my perspective, provide a large set of hands that are consistent with the current bidding is a much better approach.
As others have noted, having a set of 10,458 hands where I opened 1NT, white on red, in third seat isn't particularly useful.
There still needs to be rules to collapse this information down in a set of summary statistics appropriate for the individual consuming this information. However, at least you have a starting point.

FWIW, I would expect this approach to be adopted in the pro game first. If the pro game does migrate to an electronic playing environment were going to have a LOT more hand records. Even if the type of system that is being discussed doesn't get adopted as part of the disclosure system, I expect that it will factor into preparation for matchs.

Football players spend lots of time studying game films for the opposing teams. I doubt this will be any different.

The other area where this makes a lot of sense is for computer bridge, but thats a whole different ball of wax.

[billw55]

 hrothgar, on 2015-September-08, 08:25, said:

Football players spend lots of time studying game films for the opposing teams. I doubt this will be any different.

And chess players spend a lot of time studying their opponents' games. But they don't get to check that material during play.