[Gilithin]

pilowsky, on 2021-August-24, 19:53, said:

You're trying to run my clock. Just watch a chess clock video on youtube if you don't understand how it works.

I have seen plenty of live chess but I have to admit never yet a video of one player asking their opponent what the meaning of their last move was. Could you perhaps provide a link?

[blackshoe]

The "whose time is it?" question wrt consultation of system cards could be solved by requiring each player to exchange his system card with his RHO at the start of the round or match, and not get it back until the end of the round or match.

I have yet to run into a situation where asking the question to which I need to know the answer seems less desirable than asking some other question.

There is a conflict between the desire to have rounds take specific lengths of time (e.g. 7 1/2 minutes or 6 2/3 minutes or 6 minutes or 5 minutes) and the need to ensure full disclosure of methods. If we want to go back to the days when everyone played the same system and there were no questions, then the former desire could certainly take precedence (though beware of catering to the "I can finish a round in 4.3 seconds, why can't everybody?" crowd). If we don't want to go back to those days (I certainly don't) then maybe we should convince the purveyors of online bridge to ensure their software is in compliance with Law 8C.

[mycroft]

"Please explain x" *should* get you a full explanation, without passing information (to partner or opponents) about what, specifically, is in question.

When it doesn't for whatever reason (except when certain opponents ask "what do you need to know?", because they *absolutely will* use that information, and in some cases, mold their initial explanations to get that information back. Those people - need a different strategy), then you ask the particular question. But still, it shouldn't be necessary, and requerying incomplete information shouldn't cost your time.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-August-25, 15:01, said:

"Please explain x" *should* get you a full explanation, without passing information (to partner or opponents) about what, specifically, is in question.

When it doesn't for whatever reason (except when certain opponents ask "what do you need to know?", because they *absolutely will* use that information, and in some cases, mold their initial explanations to get that information back. Those people - need a different strategy), then you ask the particular question. But still, it shouldn't be necessary, and requerying incomplete information shouldn't cost your time.

A partnership could always be penalised for not having a clear explanation of any call (up to a certain low level) ready in markup language. For higher level calls or for card plays, a default maximum time quota for a single explanation (say 10s) can be allocated without touching either clock. Yes, this is an issue compared to chess, but I'm not convinced it excludes the possibility of timed play even in high level competition. I think the real issue for the future of bridge is more the right to deviate from agreements (or to not have them, or to not be capable of formulating them implicitly, or to have them so complex that human opponents cannot react) rather than the right to be slow or the acceptability of paying a price for being so.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2021-August-25, 15:01, said:

"Please explain x" *should* get you a full explanation, without passing information (to partner or opponents) about what, specifically, is in question.

When it doesn't for whatever reason (except when certain opponents ask "what do you need to know?", because they *absolutely will* use that information, and in some cases, mold their initial explanations to get that information back. Those people - need a different strategy), then you ask the particular question. But still, it shouldn't be necessary, and requerying incomplete information shouldn't cost your time.

Actually, no. When the answer to "please explain x" doesn't fully explain x, I don't ask a particular question. I call the director, because they have violated the rules of the game.

[paulg]

blackshoe, on 2021-August-25, 14:44, said:

The "whose time is it?" question wrt consultation of system cards could be solved by requiring each player to exchange his system card with his RHO at the start of the round or match, and not get it back until the end of the round or match.

pescetom, on 2021-August-25, 15:33, said:

A partnership could always be penalised for not having a clear explanation of any call (up to a certain low level) ready in markup language. For higher level calls or for card plays, a default maximum time quota for a single explanation (say 10s) can be allocated without touching either clock. Yes, this is an issue compared to chess, but I'm not convinced it excludes the possibility of timed play even in high level competition. I think the real issue for the future of bridge is more the right to deviate from agreements (or to not have them, or to not be capable of formulating them implicitly, or to have them so complex that human opponents cannot react) rather than the right to be slow or the acceptability of paying a price for being so.

If you look at the system cards for the European World Team Championships qualifier (http://db.eurobridge...ion.htm#Systems), which have been subject to approval by the EBL, you will see a vast difference in the quality of cards at the highest level of the game. Everyone has opening bids described; some provide excellent coverage of responses; a few cover opener's rebid and a couple cover responder's rebid. They rarely cover competitive sequences and you just need to be able to ask questions; system cards allow you to prepare, not play.

As one of the most technically competent bridge players I know, and a user of Full Disclosure before it came out, I think (markup) software will have to improve a lot before it is useful and there will have to be a quantum leap to make it accessible to everyone. There are just too many bridge sequences that come up to cover them all.

[Gilithin]

paulg, on 2021-August-26, 01:39, said:

As one of the most technically competent bridge players I know, and a user of Full Disclosure before it came out, I think (markup) software will have to improve a lot before it is useful and there will have to be a quantum leap to make it accessible to everyone. There are just too many bridge sequences that come up to cover them all.

FD had a strict size limit. You simply could not use it to cover both uncontested and competitive auctions in any sort of all-inclusive way.

[paulg]

Gilithin, on 2021-August-26, 03:04, said:

FD had a strict size limit. You simply could not use it to cover both uncontested and competitive auctions in any sort of all-inclusive way.

I described FD as a technology demonstration rather than a product, as i believe it was something that Fred just knocked up one afternoon.

One problem it highlighted was the complexity of capturing competitive bidding and the need for information to be transferred from one partnership to another. For example, most people play a different defence to a strong club than to a natural one club, so the meaning of bids are different.

[mycroft]

I play 1NT overcall for takeout. An explanation that will satisfy A (a good, but C player, who has never heard of this before) and J (a multi-time Canadian champion who plays a relatively complicated Precision system, and does in fact need to know the details - she's the one who famously got the response of "he's walking home?" to "what does it mean if he doesn't bid 2♦?", not accepting the "it's forced" explanation. Which, to her credit, many people mean "unless he has something he really wants to show, he bids this", so it wasn't a horrible question) doesn't exist. And definitely, where to put the nuance the first time for Blackshoe is a guess. Hope I don't guess wrong.

As Paul said - and he's right, I'm used to reading those things, and his WBF card is both pretty complete, and an unreadable wall-o-text - there is no single correct description of system that will work for everyone.

If I give a J-level answer to A, I'm just DDBB'ing her. If I give an A-level answer to J, I'm hoping she will accept fluff as an answer, despite my previous experience. I try with "8-14 or so, takeout of [suit]. 3+ in unbids" online, knowing that gets most players 90% of the way there, and they can ask if they want to know about the boundaries.

* If you can't Dazzle 'em with Data, Baffle 'em with...

[nige1]

paulg, on 2021-August-26, 04:28, said:

I described FD as a technology demonstration rather than a product, as i believe it was something that Fred just knocked up one afternoon.One problem it highlighted was the complexity of capturing competitive bidding and the need for information to be transferred from one partnership to another. For example, most people play a different defence to a strong club than to a natural one club, so the meaning of bids are different.

Interesting history. Full Disclosure was a great idea, as were its extensions by Kungsgeten and others. Regulators should strive for perfection but any improvement would be welcome. A start might be
Disclosure suggestion