[hrothgar]

Over the past couple weeks, the BBO discussion lists have seen a number of discussions related to regulatory structure. The discussion about psyches is one obvious example, as is the discussion about alerting.

Online bridge presents a unique set of regulatory challenges. First and foremost, participants hail from all corners of the world. Unfortunately, this means that players have no-common frame of reference regarding alert structures, convention regulations, or disclosure standards.

Equally important, online bridge uses a radically different communications medium than the physical game. The online playing environment has the potential to radically simplify many aspects of the game: For example, online bridge makes revoking and leads out of turn physically impossible. Unfortunately, online bridge also has the potential to make many aspects of the game much more complicated. Preventing players from cheating is much more difficult. Finally, the online environment offers a wealth of different possibilities that simply aren’t possible using a “physical” playing environment. Creating databases of hands records is one obvious example. “Televising” major tournaments is another. Hypertext based convention cards is a third.

From my perspective, the gap between the online playing environment and physical playing environment is sufficiently broad that the various regulatory organizations from the physical world cannot be expected to provide adequate regulatory oversight. Ultimately, I believe that the regulations that govern online bridge will be embodied within code rather than a legal superstructure. In part, it is for this very reason that I am anxious to ensure that existing ACBL or even WBF regulations are not used as the basis for the legal structures that evolve for Internet play. Simply put, the regulators do not have the institutional perspective to allow them to function adequately in this new environment.

[inquiry]

Fred has takens a very opened minded view about what to "allow" on the BBO. From his rules of the site, it seems he is happy to stay out of the way and allow the users to decide what they want to play. I am ok with this in the open rooms, because you can always choose your opponents. In on line tournments, I think perhaps the tournment director should decide what is and what is not allowed in their events.

On the other hand, with Fred's very open view of what is allowed, he makes it very clear that ALERT when in doubt. The alert is painless, and your partner can't see it so no chance for UI.

Another issue I take exception too is hypertext convention cards. You love them, and if they where short, maybe. But here is the problem, we are not allowed memory aids when we play bridge, rather in the real world, or in online bridge. Having extensive or mega-extensive hyperlinked text makes playing "very complicated and memory intensive" systems very easy on-line. But if one uses such a crutch, then when faced with face-to-face, errors bound to slip in. So extensive html might help the side using the system, but will it help the other side? I suspect not because they will not wade through pages of pages of notes written in whatever shorthand/table format that makes sense to the author, but maybe not to someone seeing it for the first time.


" that the various regulatory organizations from the physical world cannot be expected to provide adequate regulatory oversight. "

In the on-line environment, the rules can easily be established by the site running the play. Okbridge, Swan bridge, BBO, and others can, and some do, establish rules for what is allowed (see link to okbridge worldwide tourney in the psych thread for instance, and in fact, a modified version of the international laws of duplicate contract bridge has been prepared. And you might be surprised to find out that law 42E had been modified, adding the following.....
"If permitted by the sponsoring organisation, in special events
such as individual tournaments or tournaments using specified
systems, a player may refer to his own convention card. *
*Except as permitted in L40E2-Online, a player is not entitled,
during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory,
calculation or technique.

To read more about these laws, modifed for on-line play and "sanctioned by the World Bridge Federation" see
http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/b7/online_l...aws/default.asp

But at least I agree with you Richard, that apply ACBL rules of WBF rules to online bridge will be tough call. However, I think you will find that as far as generally accepted systems go, what will be taken as ok on line will be what is more commonly played. I don't think forcing pass or other highly unusual methods will past muster with the majority of online players because no one wants to spend the time learnign enough about them to prepare and play against it. It is like a critical mass issue. Polish club will always be accepted becasue it is familiar to most people (sound like precision) and lots of people play it, and for the most part it is a natural system. Multi-2D is in, because it is widely played, IT is even going to become legal in all US event I suspect. But there will be limits.. no encrypted signals, no prism signals (I like these), no psyching of conventional bids.. I think this will become the norm, and as WBF codifies the rules, I suspect the various sites will follow them

Ben

[hrothgar]

Another issue I take exception too is hypertext convention cards. You love them, and if they where short, maybe. But here is the problem, we are not allowed memory aids when we play bridge, rather in the real world, or in online bridge. Having extensive or mega-extensive hyperlinked text makes playing "very complicated and memory intensive" systems very easy on-line. But if one uses such a crutch, then when faced with face-to-face, errors bound to slip in.

I think that you are confusing two different issues:

The first issue has to do with the use of memory aides. From my perspective, this topic should be treated completely separately from the question of formatting. For what its worth, I do agree that the Convention Cards that I built can be used as a memory aide.

The second issue is whether convention cards should continue to be based on flat test or whether some other medium such as HTMP is more appropriate. From my own perspective, HTML is the best solution since this permits individuals to flexibly extend the information that they present. Case in point: the convention card utility that Fred designed is quite useful for pairs playing relatively "standard" systems. However, it really can't support a bidding system based on radically different philosophies. Equally significantly, the format doesn't allow players to easily refer the opponent's to suggested defenses.

I have long advocated that Online Bridge would best be served if developers could agree to a standard file format that established mappings between a given bidding sequence and a hypertext string. In turn, this file would serve two main purposes:

The first use would be a superior mechanism for for disclosure of methods: As an example, the file could be used to automatically generate alert strings.

The second use is as a learning tool when practicing a new system. The file could be used to explain the meaning of partner's bids or to explain options at different branches during the bidding.

Personally, I think that the best service that a Zonal authority like the ACBL could provide would be to promote such a standard.

[inquiry]

For what its worth, I do agree that the Convention Cards that I built can be used as a memory aide.

Lol.. yes, I know. I use your convention card to follow along when I am kibitzing you.

From my own perspective, HTML is the best solution since this permits individuals to flexibly extend the information that they present.

From my perspective it just this "flexibily extend information" that is what is wrong with your solution. If the powers that be wanted to make MORE information available, they would make the convention card four, five or ten pages long. They are short, sweat, with check boxes and simple style for a reason.. to AVOID exposing your opponents to uncessary filler. This is what ALERTS are suppose to do. This is a basic difference of opinion we have about this issue. Maybe we can start a poll wiht a link to your html card and ask people which they prefer BBO online card (or standard WBF or ACBL cc), or the hypertext thing

[hrothgar]

Happy to help constructing a poll or some such.

I will note one important point: Physical convention cards such as those provided by the ACBL or the WBF are "short" and simple because they can't be threaded. I argue that an HTML based card permits superior organization of information, in turn permitting more information to be provided.

[hrothgar]

From my perspective it just this "flexibily extend information" that is what is wrong with your solution. If the powers that be wanted to make MORE information available, they would make the convention card four, five or ten pages long. They are short, sweat, with check boxes and simple style for a reason.. to AVOID exposing your opponents to uncessary filler. This is what ALERTS are suppose to do. This is a basic difference of opinion we have about this issue.

As I noted on an earlier thread, the value of an alert can be modelled using concepts like signal to noice ratio. The more bids that you alert, the less information the "alert" carries.

I strongly prefer that alerts are restricted to truely "special" occurences and that convention cards are used to provide the vast majorty of information about bidding sequences.

Centralizing this data in a single/standard document has to be better than alerting/annoucing everything on the fly.

[DrTodd13]

Can't we have the best of both worlds? Imagine a convention
card program that used the [+] and [-] outline structured as
provided by programs like Word and Outlook. You could "contract"
everything and get something like:

[+] 1C - 12-14 bal, 15-17 w/ clubs, 18+
[+] 1D - ...
[+] 1H - ...
[+] 1S - ...
[+] 1N - 15-17
[+] 2C - precisionish
[+] 2D - Wilkosz

You could also expand them all (which I won't show) or expand only
the ones you are interested in. If you don't want the information then
you don't have to mess with the CC program. If you do want it then
you can get exactly what you are interested in. Example below expanding
the wilkosz entry.

[+] 1C - 12-14 bal, 15-17 w/ clubs, 18+
[+] 1D - ...
[+] 1H - ...
[+] 1S - ...
[+] 1N - 15-17
[+] 2C - precisionish
[-] 2D - Wilkosz
[+] 2H - 2+ hearts
[+] 2S - 0-1 hearts, 3+ spades
[+] 2N - ...
[+] 3C - ...

I don't like simple HTML without this capability because it is too hard
to find things you are interested in.

[keylime]

Here's my take on it: I am using RoboHelp as our data modeling source. With this I can implement multiple layers of bidding within a directory-style tree that will allow us to further define each and every sequence, if desired. Due to the depth of Key Lime's new fragment asking bids for Version 12 and 13 (which is in development), I needed a tool that we could not only manipulate as a macro into the alert box, but also could use it as a mechanism to identify weaknesses as we discovered. It's all about logical presentation...

I can see HTML possibly as a good start, but for the detailed methods, a more dynamic modeling language, like XSLT, DHTML, XML, Robohelp, and so on should work.

[hrothgar]

I concur regarding the comment about adopting a dynamic modeling language like XML.

In the "long term", I argue that what we really need is a "convention file" mapping bidding sequences onto hypertext strings.

In this way, every bid during an auction can automatically be mapped onto the appropriate announcement.

"Unusual" bids can be accompanied by an audible tone or displayed in red or some such.

Suggested defenses are only a click away.

Combine all this with a simple convention card designed to pre-alert methods and you have a pretty comprehensive solution.

I can dream up some additional bells and whistles by linking this into a database of hands. Imagine being able to click on a 1S bid in third seat and get a Probability Density Function describing the HCP strength the last 100 times this bid cropped up. If the distribution is approximately normal, there is nothing much to worry about. However, a bi-model curve is a pretty good guide to pyschic tendencies...

Sadly, my programming skills aren't nearly sufficient to implement anything like this.

[inquiry]

Quote

(stuff deleted)
In the "long term", I argue that what we really need is a "convention file" mapping bidding sequences onto hypertext strings. In this way, every bid during an auction can automatically be mapped onto the appropriate announcement. Imagine being able to click on a 1S bid in third seat and get a Probability Density Function describing the HCP strength the last 100 times this bid cropped up.

Todd's suggestion of using outlook +/- structure is ok, in effect, a simplized version of this exist on the BBO convention card where after any 1 or 2 bid you can click on the box with ... in it to see the meaning of all bids through like 4D or so.

What Dwayne suggested with Robohelp, I think, is more meant for a learning/system development tool than than as a convention card to help the opponents.

But what you are suggesting Richard is just not real world feasible in any sense of the reality. To begin with, as you have advocated I believe, such convention cards would require all tourments to be "online" (at least on computers. No shuffling, no dealing. There are plenty of advantages, no bid out of turn, no revoke, no five cards to one trick, no dropping cards on table, etc. But the expense would be prohibitive. But online (computer) it would have to be EVEN to have access to such a convention card. And if you allowed this on line but normal convention cards for real world events, why bother.

Second problem, no one wants to wade through the morass of a even "brief" system notes, much less a tree of bids. And here is the problem in a nut shell.. say I start clicking (or the software does it for me) a triee of your bids...

1D-1H-1S-2D-3H... any your notes describe accurately what each of these bids mean. That really doesn't help me as much as you might think. For while I am clicking though what is being said about the bids MADE, what do I know about the negative inferences from the bids NOT Choosen? I mean to understand your system (or any system), one needs to be able to apply logic as to not only what the current auction shows, but what other auction WOULD HAVE shown so that pictures of the unseeen hands can be drawn.

And then there is competition. Everyone knows what subsequent bidding means when the auction goes 1H-(1NT)- we have all faced this stuff. But what if you are sitting there, and the bidding goes...

1H-(1NT*)- and 1NT is alerted as showing either 22+ balanced, or club preempt or spade preempt, or three suiter short in clubs. And you look over at their recommend defense which is to PASS to see see which hand it is, or dbl when holding 9 pts plus. The bidding goes 1H-(1NT)-DBL-Pass-2H,

Ok, did your partner pych his heart? If you had time to discuss this auction, who knows, your partner maybe making slam try, maybe indicating he is weak heart opener and that if passes and bids 2H over their run out to 2C would be stronger than bidding 2H now, who knows? The reason being is you never had time to DISCUSS what to do over such an auction, and even if you can hammer out the first level of what to do, how to handle follow up auctions.

The WBF has a real problem. They oversee world wide event where players from different countries compete. What is normal, everyday bidding in London may sound bizzare in Soul, and how what is normal in Poland would shock many in the US. So the "anything goes" of the WBF is clearly the ONLY solution. But the anything goes requires extensive notes on the meaning of a wide variety of auctions, presented in writing, months earlier so everyone can see what others are playing. This seems about right to me.

The concept that you can make a 100 page xml datasheet that will pop up alerts and give statistics to your opponents about the meaning and likely distribution of your latest bid -- and equally that your opponents need to prepare such things for you assuming they had a clue how to do much less the inclination when the VAST majority do not even fill out the standard on line CC -- is utter nonsense.

If we have to be honest, what you have created is a very nice practice tool to use when learning your system. It is marvelous for moscito beginners to pull out when bidding practice hands (of course it should not be used by them during online events as a memory aid without approval of opponents, as that is a form of online cheating). I wish I had something like your html document for my bidding system to share with would be partners. And Dwayne's solution is EVEN better as it seems more hellpful in improving his system as well as a training tool. Your html thing might also be very helpful as documentation given to opponents weeks in advance so they can familiarze themselves with your metthods. I know I have enjoyed reading it, and following along in your auctions while kibitzing. But as a real world convention card solution, it fails miserably, imho, and even more so if you anticipate REQUIRING people to follow you lead and create their own.

ben

[the hog]

Hmm. I thought Robohelp was an application designed for producing on line documentation eg Help files etc. I did not think it was used for data modelling; am I wrong here?

What I would like to see on bbo is the implementation of a macro language so that I can automatically alert opening bids eg
"1H - 9-14, 4+S, may have a longer minor."

This would save heaps of typing time and frustration.

Ron