[Oof Arted]

LghtnngRod, on 2015-May-23, 06:23, said:

Thanks for these references. I have had a good read of these sections, and I agree with what you say about 40B2(d). However I cannot find anything in these sections to support your second statement, ie the extension beyond the limited conditions of 40B2(d). If you have a spare moment could you elaborate?

I belive the EBU for example bar the use of certain bids in competitions that are say Level 3 and below

[Oof Arted]

nige1, on 2015-May-11, 05:03, said:

IMO

• Psyches should probably be allowed, except in novice games. Bridge-rules about special partnership understandings do allow the banning of psyches.
• In a tournament, only the tournament-director should see and rule on your request for an undo. I often miscilck but would still prefer no "undo" button.

IMHO

Undos should not be allowed otherwise your partner now gets UI surely by knowing you have changed your bid

[1eyedjack]

Oof Arted, on 2015-May-24, 03:51, said:

IMHO

Undos should not be allowed otherwise your partner now gets UI surely by knowing you have changed your bid

Undos are a intended as a remedy for misclicks. There is no UI for correcting a misclick as there is no meaningful information that you can infer from the original accidental and unintended call.

Let me put it this way: If you clicked on the "7N" bid and then immediately, without pause, clicked on Undo, which is accepted, and you change it to "1N", which is what you intended all along, what UI do you think responder would elicit from the fact that you first clicked on 7N, apart from the fact that you are a plonker?

It is slightly different during the play, because a misclicked card played exposes that you held that card, which would be UI unless there were some penalty card provisions applied.

I think that the interface would be improved by renaming the button "Misclick" rather than "Undo". The effect of clicking it would be the same, but it would remind users of the purpose of the button.

[LghtnngRod]

Oof Arted, on 2015-May-24, 03:47, said:

I belive the EBU for example bar the use of certain bids in competitions that are say Level 3 and below

Thanks but this is not very helpful. Certainly they bar the use of a huge number of bids in low level competitions. HUMs are banned, for example, but that has nothing to do with psyches.
They may also bar the use of artificial psyches under Law 40B2(d). I am out of touch with EBU regs so cannot comment.
But *IF* you say that they impose a ban on psyches that is more restrictive than those specified in Law 40B2(d), then it would be helpful if you would confirm (a) that that is the case and (b) if possible highlight the legal authority to support that regulation.

[Oof Arted]

LghtnngRod, on 2015-May-24, 05:40, said:

Thanks but this is not very helpful. Certainly they bar the use of a huge number of bids in low level competitions. HUMs are banned, for example, but that has nothing to do with psyches.
They may also bar the use of artificial psyches under Law 40B2(d). I am out of touch with EBU regs so cannot comment.
But *IF* you say that they impose a ban on psyches that is more restrictive than those specified in Law 40B2(d), then it would be helpful if you would confirm (a) that that is the case and (b) if possible highlight the legal authority to support that regulation.

Oh no the EBU do not ban Phsyces, they are a perfectly legitimate bidding tool

[Oof Arted]

1eyedjack, on 2015-May-24, 05:31, said:

Undos are a intended as a remedy for misclicks. There is no UI for correcting a misclick as there is no meaningful information that you can infer from the original accidental and unintended call.

Let me put it this way: If you clicked on the "7N" bid and then immediately, without pause, clicked on Undo, which is accepted, and you change it to "1N", which is what you intended all along, what UI do you think responder would elicit from the fact that you first clicked on 7N, apart from the fact that you are a plonker?

It is slightly different during the play, because a misclicked card played exposes that you held that card, which would be UI unless there were some penalty card provisions applied.

I think that the interface would be improved by renaming the button "Misclick" rather than "Undo". The effect of clicking it would be the same, but it would remind users of the purpose of the button.

So for example you respond to your partner with a bid that you have forgotten has a partnership understanding. You claim mis-click are you saying your Partner is entitled to know ??

[1eyedjack]

Oof Arted, on 2015-May-24, 08:49, said:

So for example you respond to your partner with a bid that you have forgotten has a partnership understanding. You claim mis-click are you saying your Partner is entitled to know ??

in what universe did I suggest that a player should claim a misclick when there has been no misclick?

[Oof Arted]

1eyedjack, on 2015-May-24, 09:04, said:

in what universe did I suggest that a player should claim a misclick when there has been no misclick?

You didn't but if it was a simple misclick you meant to click 1♥ but instead clicked 1♠

If you are allowed an undo your partner has got UI

[1eyedjack]

Oof Arted, on 2015-May-24, 12:32, said:

You didn't but if it was a simple misclick you meant to click 1♥ but instead clicked 1♠

If you are allowed an undo your partner has got UI

Sorry I still don't get it. You misclick 1S, you change it to the 1H bid that you meant to bid all along, what does partner now know about your hand that he would not have known had you clicked on 1H to start with?

[barmar]

The reason most tourneys ban undoes is because too many players do not use it honestly. It's supposed to be used only for misclicks, but many people try to use it to correct momentary lapses. For instance, they lead towards a tenace, planning to finesse, and don't notice that the opponent played the card in the slot. They play the lower honor, then notice the card that was played, and try to get an undo. They'll claim it was a misclick because the two cards are right next to each other.

[1eyedjack]

That may be a sound argument for denying the compulsory acceptance of an undo request. But the existing format does not prescribe compulsory acceptance anyway, so no change there.

It does not, to my mind, provide a sound argument to deny the facility for an undo request for a misclick which has the potential to be accepted.

[mycroft]

The social aspect, after, for accepting (or not accepting) an undo, is ugly. Worse for people who don't yet know the BBO traditions.

I have one partner who still won't play online because, in a clearly labelled practise using online match, RHO (who was brought in to help) denied an undo in the play, and then not only requested one (in the bidding), but wouldn't continue unless it were accepted. I think she was very clearly in the wrong - if it's rejected, it's rejected; but she was expecting "standard BBO undos", and not making it clear what they were to everyone else.

And we've lost a BBO player.

Better, frankly, to set a written policy and stick with it, even if it does occasionally mean a hand is spoiled.

[1eyedjack]

You are not going to please everyone, and I don't think that it is reasonable to expect otherwise. The occasional waif will fall by the wayside. Just need to accept that. Actually it would not surprise me if that BBO player later returns after a cooling off period, perhaps under a new ID. As for those who don't know BBO traditions, and even those who think that they do, education is superior to capitulation.

[Bbradley62]

mycroft, on 2015-May-25, 09:47, said:

Better, frankly, to set a written policy and stick with it, even if it does occasionally mean a hand is spoiled.

How many would see such a written policy, or remember it if they do see it?

[PhilG007]

LghtnngRod, on 2015-May-10, 11:39, said:

Just wanted to check whether my own opinions are off-kilter here.
For better or worse, the regulatory environment within which you are operating comprises:
1) Psyches are disallowed
2) Undos are disallowed

The question to be addressed is what is the fairest regulation to govern mis-clicks.

I have an opinion of my own but will await the views of others before I state them.

In some BBO tourneys pysches and undo's are allowed. The TD will announce this at the start
of play... Misclicks must be announced as soon as made telling opponents privately and summoning the TD The opponents have the option of calling the TD once a misclick has been revealed

I discovered a way to deal with misclicks.
At the start of each board there is a button at the top of the screen called 'options' Clicking on this
brings up another window called 'more options' Clicking on this will reveal another window.
Amongst other options offered,there is a button showing (confirm bid/card) Selecting this will the effect
of asking if the bid selected is intentional. Click on the 'OK' button to save the bid if correct.

[mycroft]

in my tables' profile, and many others, it says "undos allowed: X" for whatever X. And we follow it. Easy. You don't like it? don't sit at my table/tournament.

And perhaps this person will come back. But the dangers of "unwritten rules" is that I'm sure she isn't the only one-and-done.

[LghtnngRod]

PhilG007, on 2015-May-25, 13:31, said:

I discovered a way to deal with misclicks.
At the start of each board there is a button at the top of the screen called 'options' Clicking on this
brings up another window called 'more options' Clicking on this will reveal another window.
Amongst other options offered,there is a button showing (confirm bid/card) Selecting this will the effect
of asking if the bid selected is intentional. Click on the 'OK' button to save the bid if correct.

Hi - thanks for this idea. Not sure that it is a panacea. I can think of two objections, straight off.

For most of us, mis-clicks are very rare events. I expect that it would get irritating to have to confirm each bid or play just on the off-chance that this occasion may be the one in a thousand times when it was a mis-click. Few players would be prepared to suffer the inconvenience of requiring to confirm the other 999 bids or plays just to cater for the odd one in a thousand. OK I made up the one in a thousand statistic, which will in practice vary from player to player, but you get my drift.

The second objection, not entirely unrelated to the first, is that when you get in the habit of clicking on the OK confirmation due to the fact that 999 times in a thousand that is the appropriate action, then you get in the habit of clicking on OK without thought. The control then loses its designed intention and effectiveness. I cannot count the number of times that I have deleted a file and in response to the "are you sure" prompt clicked on yes as an automatic conditioned reflex, that being the appropriate response most of the time, only then to regret it a moment later.

[barmar]

I think Undoes mostly only work at tables of friends. If someone asks for an undo in a table of randoms or a tournament, even if it was a legitimate misclick, the opponents are usually going to be suspicious. If they allow the undo, they'll feel like they're being taken advantage of. If they don't, the requester will feel like they're a-holes. Either way, there are likely to be bad feelings.

Although, disallowing undoes at your table can also have a similar effect: the table host is essentially saying "I don't trust you to be honest when you ask for an undo". But at least he's being equitable -- he can't undo, either. And you shouldn't take it personally -- if you're a random joining the table, he didn't know you'd be coming, so he didn't intend it for you specifically. It's just a general distrust of all the randoms out there, many of whom are not as honest as you are.

[1eyedjack]

barmar, on 2015-May-25, 15:16, said:

If someone asks for an undo in a table of randoms or a tournament, even if it was a legitimate misclick, the opponents are usually going to be suspicious. If they allow the undo ...

I think that one of the earlier posters suggested that it would be for the TD to sanction or deny an undo request, not the other players at the table (unless they generously are content to allow it). TD will (alone) have sight of all 4 hands and can form an opinion on the misclick v change-of-mind conflict.

It would remain possible that both alternative calls were LAs and it may still have been a misclick ruled change-of-mind in error. There is no guaranteed perfect solution, but I think this comes close.

[PhilG007]

1eyedjack, on 2015-May-25, 22:15, said:

I think that one of the earlier posters suggested that it would be for the TD to sanction or deny an undo request, not the other players at the table (unless they generously are content to allow it). TD will (alone) have sight of all 4 hands and can form an opinion on the misclick v change-of-mind conflict.

It would remain possible that both alternative calls were LAs and it may still have been a misclick ruled change-of-mind in error. There is no guaranteed perfect solution, but I think this comes close.

The opponents can accept or refuse an undo request...I've found it's common courtesy to accept.. after all "do as you would be done by."
Incidently,I find the 'undo' option unique...it would never be allowed in a 'real life' tournament(!)