[sceptic]

Hi the use of FD is it cheating?

Internet bridge has taken away the opportunity for a wrong suited card to be lead out of turn (a revoke I believe it is called)

Undos are allowed, again, if people HAD to concentrate they may play at more appropriate times when they have less distractions, I do not beleive that all undos are ethically asked for (IMHO) no idea about percentages but I would think it has to be over 10% which is a huge amount of bad ethical conduct.

Now FD files are taking away an other opportunity for an opponent to make an error over system amnesia.

I thought that you are not allowed visual aids or memory aids to assist your bidding(I may not be technically correct here and I am sure I will be stamped on and corrected here, but I think you understand what I mean)

I thought an expert is someone that makes less mistakes than an advanced player, how many advanced players are now catapaulted to expert status as yet one more area of concentration and possible error has been removed for them?

your comments on this view of things would be most interesting

[Gerben42]

You have a point but on the other hand: Online bridge does not count as a real tournament for me, and getting this out of the way lets you focus on what really matters: card play and judgement.

[inquiry]

Is FD cheating? The answer is yes or no or maybe.

Did you know there are options on FD? Some of them are you can turn off your ability to see your or your partner's FD alert. In this case (assuming you and your parnter turn this off), the answer is no, it is clearly not cheating.

Not everyone using FD has it filled out correctly. So some people might choose to see the FD alerts made after they bid. The purpose being to correct any accidental mis-information give by an incompete or totally wrong FD alert. Since they have already made the bid, this is either no or maybe. It could be maybe if he sees the meaning of his bid and realises the alert was correct but he made the wrong bid. If he then uses this fact to try to change the subsequent auction then it is.

IF you look at yuor partners bid in FD to refresh your memory then it is cheating. And clearly if you open FD and search around for the right bid then it is cheating.

The fact is, however, the alerts come up after you bid so for the most part, as llong as you set the option not to see partners FD alert, it is most often not cheating and can be quite helpful to the opponents.

[csdenmark]

inquiry, on Nov 25 2006, 05:11 PM, said:

Is FD cheating? The answer is yes or no or maybe.

Did you know there are options on FD? Some of them are you can turn off your ability to see your or your partner's FD alert. In this case (assuming you and your parnter turn this off), the answer  is no, it is clearly not cheating.

Not everyone using FD has it filled out correctly. So some people might choose to see the FD alerts made after they bid. The purpose being to correct any accidental mis-information give by an incompete or totally wrong FD alert. Since they have already made the bid, this is either no or maybe. It could be maybe if he sees the meaning of his bid and realises the alert was correct but he made the wrong bid. If he then uses this fact to try to change the subsequent auction then it is.

IF you look at yuor partners bid in FD to refresh your memory then it is cheating. And clearly if you open FD and search around for the right bid then it is cheating.

The fact is, however, the alerts come up after you bid so for the most part, as llong as you set the option not to see partners FD alert, it is most often not cheating and can be quite helpful to the opponents.

How about the old format of convention card?

How about the convention card on ZONE.com?

How about the convention card on Swanbridge.com?

How about the convention card on JBridge.com?

On Yahoo you have NO option to cheat this way - they have no serious bridge.

----------------------------------------
It is never cheating to try to use tools at a place you are, bridge or anywhere else according to intensions. Thats simply to try to adopt the rules best possible and be nice and helpful to all.

Bridge rules are outdated - created at a time before Internet was running. It is really time for online bridge to free ourselves from ancient rules.

I wonder the reasons for these constant attempts to discredit the strongest tool available. The method seems to me like people pick a piece of some rules, looking at them and leave aside the total context.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Nov 25 2006, 06:54 PM, said:

I wonder the reasons for these constant attempts to discredit the strongest tool available. The method seems to me like people pick a piece of some rules, looking at them and leave aside the total context.

I don't think that people are necessarily trying to discredit the application. Rather, they are pointing out problems and short comings with the existing implementation. I see nothing wrong with this. Constructive criticism and feedback is a necessary part of the product development process.

I also think that this entire issue is a lot more complicated that you seem to want to believe. For example: I believe that referencing an FD type application as a memory aid should be prohibited in serious events. When a TD creates a tournment they should have the option to block players from referencing their own FD cards or looking at the meaning of partners bids.

This software fix addresses one problem, but it will bring another one to the forefront. Someone (I believe it was Adam) commented that you could have some very real problems if players load an FD cards that doesn't describe their actual agreements. So, we're going to need a fix to this type of problem as well. (Personally, I expect that solving this problem will require developing some standard jurisprudence. The legal system will need to determine the appropriation adjustments for this infraction and the software will need to be modified to permit the TD to adjust the score appropriately)

[EricK]

I don't care if it is "cheating" or not. It is more fun to play against people who don't have bidding misunderstandings but explain all their auctions properly than it is to play against people who can't tell you what half the bids that are going on mean.

[paulg]

I believe it is pointless to worry too much about the use of FD as a tool for cheating. There are other mechanisms that are just as easy and (potentially) more profitable, such as having your system notes open or having the web pages open that define your conventions.

I find FD is the best tool available for informing the opponents of my agreements.

Paul

[csdenmark]

hrothgar, on Nov 25 2006, 06:16 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Nov 25 2006, 06:54 PM, said:

I wonder the reasons for these constant attempts to discredit the strongest tool available. The method seems to me like people pick a piece of some rules, looking at them and leave aside the total context.

I don't think that people are necessarily trying to discredit the application. Rather, they are pointing out problems and short comings with the existing implementation. I see nothing wrong with this. Constructive criticism and feedback is a necessary part of the product development process.

I also think that this entire issue is a lot more complicated that you seem to want to believe. For example: I believe that referencing an FD type application as a memory aid should be prohibited in serious events. When a TD creates a tournment they should have the option to block players from referencing their own FD cards or looking at the meaning of partners bids.

This software fix addresses one problem, but it will bring another one to the forefront. Someone (I believe it was Adam) commented that you could have some very real problems if players load an FD cards that doesn't describe their actual agreements. So, we're going to need a fix to this type of problem as well. (Personally, I expect that solving this problem will require developing some standard jurisprudence. The legal system will need to determine the appropriation adjustments for this infraction and the software will need to be modified to permit the TD to adjust the score appropriately)

Correct - that day you see 98% of the players to play according to a convention card instead of cheating using undisclosed method - then lets take the discussion. Right now it is nothing but trying to discredit tools they are not serious enough to invest time to explore their options.

The rules you can violate on BBO is the rules set up by tournament organizers. If no tournament then only rules to apply - and only rules with option to violate - are BBO rules lined up in 'Rules for these sites.' No other rules exists and it is ridicoulos to try to punish persons for rules they have no commitment to apply to. I am member of no official bridge organization. I therefore is binded by none of the rules most on BBO refer to - I am therefore prevented from any kind of cheating.

We need an option to enforce use of convention cards.

We need that persons claiming solid skill levels have no option to play without convention card.

[1eyedjack]

In answer to the OP, I *believe* (and it is a long time since I checked this out) that FD software allows the user to suppress system hints to own side, while giving the info to opponents.

I think that using FD I would feel personally happier suppressing the hint. But anyone who chooses not to suppress the hint would have the same options available to them were they not using FD.

It would also be nice if the software informed me if my opponents (using FD) had set their own FD software so as to suppress self hints. That is sort of an extension to the other suggestion in this thread that the tourney host has the option globally to disable self hints.

But it is a matter of concern as already observed that if there is a bug in the FD database the user has no opportunity to correct a misexplanation given by FD if the user has no access to the information given. Perhaps another suggestion is to automatically enable historical FD disclosures (of own bids) to the declaring side after the final pass. Too late for an immediate correction of explanation but late enough for the info not to do any further damage. Another improvement might be to force the user to commit to the bid BEFORE he has access to the information transmitted by FD as to its meaning. Again it is a while since I looked, and my recollection may be wrong, but I have a feeling that you can hover the mouse over the bid, see what explanation the bid would provide before committing to it, and then change your mind.

[A2003]

FD is a great tool to learn various bridge biddings. It only improves and minimizes biddding error. There are too many errors in misunderstanding bidding of the agreement. Using FD, Gifts will be less.
Partnership understanding is fully explained.
Some may have system notes in front of the computer and play accordingly.
The second round, third and fourth round biddings can be established well in FD.
It takes time to prepare one. Over the years, it will improve the bidding skill.

[1eyedjack]

csdenmark, on Nov 25 2006, 05:41 PM, said:

it is nothing but trying to discredit tools they are not serious enough to invest time to explore their options.

Rightly or wrongly I see myself (among others) as the target of this comment, and I feel duly insulted. Perhaps I misread the meaning.

I am (or rather was) serious enough to invest time and effort into using FD.

Despite that investment of time and effort I was unable bring the power of the software to bear on my personal needs with the success that others claim to have achieved for themselves.

I am fully prepared to accept that the cause of that failing has more to do with the size of my intellect than shortcomings in the software, but having done my best and failed in the attempt, while mine is just one small voice in the wilderness I see nothing wrong in placing on record the cause of my rejection. If I am alone then my small squeak will be rightly ignored. If I am typical of a sizeable population then it will only be apparent to those who write the software if like-minded individuals magnify the squeak in chorus.

Were I a software writer, one of my aims would be to produce software that is usable by idiots like myself and not just to a small clique of professional programmers to whom the syntax and architecture is their bread and butter, and having written FD in its current state I would be justifiably proud of the achievement to date but recognise that it has a way to go before I would be prepared to insult players who do not use it as lacking the seriousness to devote time and effort.

[csdenmark]

1eyedjack, on Nov 25 2006, 07:24 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Nov 25 2006, 05:41 PM, said:

it is nothing but trying to discredit tools they are not serious enough to invest time to explore their options.

Rightly or wrongly I see myself (among others) as the target of this comment, and I feel duly insulted. Perhaps I misread the meaning.

I am (or rather was) serious enough to invest time and effort into using FD.

Despite that investment of time and effort I was unable bring the power of the software to bear on my personal needs with the success that others claim to have achieved for themselves.

I am fully prepared to accept that the cause of that failing has more to do with the size of my intellect than shortcomings in the software, but having done my best and failed in the attempt, while mine is just one small voice in the wilderness I see nothing wrong in placing on record the cause of my rejection. If I am alone then my small squeak will be rightly ignored. If I am typical of a sizeable population then it will only be apparent to those who write the software if like-minded individuals magnify the squeak in chorus.

Were I a software writer, one of my aims would be to produce software that is usable by idiots like myself and not just to a small clique of professional programmers to whom the syntax and architecture is their bread and butter, and having written FD in its current state I would be justifiably proud of the achievement to date but recognise that it has a way to go before I would be prepared to insult players who do not use it as lacking the seriousness to devote time and effort.

Nice to see at least 1 person recognize himself as serious here trying to be serious. You are allowed to create a convention card in old format and load that. BBO is only place with 2 convention card formats. Sad to see the many postings discrediting a strong and easy tool - the aim opening this thread has in fact nothing to do with FD - it is the same for all kind of computer tools incl. all formats of convention cards.

The only serious thing to do is to see to that it will be widely spread that undisclosed methods are cheating - and use of convention card is the simplest way to be right in bridge.

Well - we have a whole chapter in this Forum for FD - where all can post any kind of problems and certainly will receive the help they need for that.

10 days since last post there(15th November)
2 topics coming up - the other one had last posting 25th August.

Your comments on such a record please!

[sceptic]

Quote

I wonder the reasons for these constant attempts to discredit the strongest tool available. The method seems to me like people pick a piece of some rules, looking at them and leave aside the total context.

I can't see an attempt to discredit anything I posted this as a different view as I am curious of opinions and how it does relate to the issues I raised, I am not a conformist in my approach to a lot of things, and I find it hard to accept things without trying to look at the other view points.

If this thread had been one that said does the ABCL sanction cheating by allowing a tool such as FD or a cc that is accessable to all to view without the opponents knowledge or the internet hides peoples ability to play with notes in front of them, to be used in its tournaments, then yes I would agree that this had been a rather negative take on things, I use FD myself and think it is great, the truth is I am running on the back of someone elses work, Chernandos to be exact as he is running the 2/1 side of FD development I believe (for free)

so I have no interest in derising something I use and like and perhaps do not have the time or the knowledge to learn how to use it properly, the difficulty with FD is it is not that user friendly and for the lay person it is a waste of time trying to master it, their time as was rightly pointed out would be better spent learning to bid and play better.

I suspect some peoples motives are not quite altruistic and may even be motivated by the thought of making money of someone elses back, perish the thought,

I wonder what makes you so sure you know my reasons for opening this thread, curiousity seems the best reason, may be it is because I like opinions and do not really get the chance to discuss somethings that interest me, nor do I get the chance to challenge some of my own views about things as I have a lack of friends interested in bridge in the real world to ask.

[DrTodd13]

Compared to the old BBO CC's, FD is just more complicated and faster to access. You could still have your old CC up with the old mechanism and consult it at appropriate times. Is this against the current laws of bridge? Yes. Why be more restrictive with FD than with old CC's though?

My view is we need to lobby to get rid of this notion that memorization should be some fundamental part of the bidding process. The need to memorize is always trotted out when it comes to justifying the ban on this system or that convention. To me, the interesting part is deciding what defense to use against some convention and then applying it at the table. The process of memorization is just tedious but not doubt memory aides were not originally allowed to try to keep the speed of the game going. Perhaps in the near future they'll be hand-held devices that can instantly retrieve said defenses and then the need for this rule will be gone. Even without those devices, I'd still trade a more interesting game for a faster one.

[1eyedjack]

csdenmark, on Nov 25 2006, 06:42 PM, said:

Well - we have a whole chapter in this Forum for FD - where all can post any kind of problems and certainly will receive the help they need for that.

10 days since last post there(15th November)
2 topics coming up - the other one had last posting 25th August.

Your comments on such a record please!

My comments on such a record would not be authoritative, but I can speculate.

I suspect that most players (other than developers) who encounter FD fall into the following groups:
1) those who embrace it and require minimal assistance (and so do not post in the forum unless altruistically they are happy to devote time to others having problems), and
2) those to whom it appears to be, at least initially, an incomprehensible fog.

The second group will fall itself into two subgroups:
2A_) those who seek further help, and
2B_) those who give up at the first hurdle.

I have limited sympathy with group 2B (but some sympathy if the population of group 2 is substantial). Personally I fell into group 2A.

Those who fall into group 2A will either receive satisfaction from their attempt to receive help or they will not. If they do not then they will discard the software rather than continue pursuit, and I have every sympathy with that decision (not surprisingly, as I count myself among that number). Most of those who receive help will not require a continuous drip-feeding of further help from the forums - having mastered the software they will drop into group 1 and out of public forum view.

So it does not come as a great surprise to me that traffic in that forum chapter is small. Personally I would expect the majority of traffic to be from those in group 1 who are actively trying to push forward the boundaries of the software in future releases, but as I am not in that group I would not speculate on their silence.

[csdenmark]

sceptic, on Nov 25 2006, 07:55 PM, said:

Quote

I wonder the reasons for these constant attempts to discredit the strongest tool available. The method seems to me like people pick a piece of some rules, looking at them and leave aside the total context.

I can't see an attempt to discredit anything I posted this as a different view as I am curious of opinions and how it does relate to the issues I raised, I am not a conformist in my approach to a lot of things, and I find it hard to accept things without trying to look at the other view points.

If this thread had been one that said does the ABCL sanction cheating by allowing a tool such as FD or a cc that is accessable to all to view without the opponents knowledge or the internet hides peoples ability to play with notes in front of them, to be used in its tournaments, then yes I would agree that this had been a rather negative take on things, I use FD myself and think it is great, the truth is I am running on the back of someone elses work, Chernandos to be exact as he is running the 2/1 side of FD development I believe (for free)

so I have no interest in derising something I use and like and perhaps do not have the time or the knowledge to learn how to use it properly, the difficulty with FD is it is not that user friendly and for the lay person it is a waste of time trying to master it, their time as was rightly pointed out would be better spent learning to bid and play better.

I suspect some peoples motives are not quite altruistic and may even be motivated by the thought of making money of someone elses back, perish the thought,

I wonder what makes you so sure you know my reasons for opening this thread, curiousity seems the best reason, may be it is because I like opinions and do not really get the chance to discuss somethings that interest me, nor do I get the chance to challenge some of my own views about things as I have a lack of friends interested in bridge in the real world to ask.

I am accusing you Wayne for riding on a wave with ridicoulos accusations of an excellent tool much too little in use and therefore really impossible rightly to make judgements about.

If you had good intensions you would mention all kind of tools and convention cards. As Todd mention, I mentioned too, the old format you may see as a more violent tool regarding those rules I suppose you think of. I dont question your right to put up any topic to discuss with friends or anybody else - I question your motives because you rally one specific tool despite the same kind of problems are everywhere else, and not only on BBO.

I am very much interested to discuss FD - but makes no sense as long it is not used. I therefore think what we need to do is to discredit all those persons who are cheating using undisclosed methods. It is cheating - I normally use the more profane word Gigolo-bridge. The persons I am targetting with that phrase seems to understand.

[sceptic]

Claus, I am not riding a wave, I am asking some questions, if you are so narrow minded that your opinion is the only one that counts, then so be it, I am interested in a lot of views on this subject

[kenberg]

I enter with trepidation since this seems to be getting personal. But since I started a companion thread about FD I guess I'll comment on this one.

Cheating: If someone wants to cheat, they can. Accept this as fact. High level tournaments go to great lengths to stop it and they are mostly successful but in, say, an online acbl tournament I could have a copy of my cc in front of me or I could send my partner an email telling what my bid means or just tell him what I hold. Many ways. I don't do these things, and contrary to what is sometimes said I don't believe many do. When I have been suspicious I have sometimes looked up a bevy or so of hands played by the suspects and all I can say is if they are cheating they are doing a truly lousy job of it. There are folks out there with unusual ways of bidding and playing, and once in a while they get lucky. I don't claim cheating never happens or that we should not be vigilant but I do think it is rare.


Added: I do think that if someone wishes to retain his self-respect he needs to deny himself access to the FD visuals of his his own and his partner's bids, at least when playing in a tourney. When playing with friends he may do as they all agree to.

Self-interest, financial or otherwise, in comments: I can't follow this discussion at all. I guess the principals understand the innuendo and counter-innuendo but it's too deep for me. If there is to be a duel, please invite me as I have never had the pleasure of seeing one.

Criticism/accolades for FD: My views are evolving. But this issue is more along the lines of my thread. I do apprecaite brothgar's response on this. I applaud efforts on FD and on BBO in general (it's truly a great accomplishment), but I have some serious reservations about the way FD plays out in practice. In particular "partnership understanding is fully explained" is, imo, more a goal than a reality.

[csdenmark]

sceptic, on Nov 25 2006, 09:23 PM, said:

Claus, I am not riding a wave, I am asking some questions, if you are so narrow minded that your opinion is the only one that counts, then so be it, I am interested in a lot of views on this subject

I took a quick look into the present topics coming up in the front page on other topic-sites in this Forum. I found 4 threads aimed to justify poor behavior and rallying Full Disclosure. Thats what I call a wave.

What is right to do is to rally the cheaters and not those persons trying to enjoy their hobby in a decent way.

[sceptic]

Hi ken

maybe the title of my post is imflamatory and was not appropriate (hindsight is a wonderful thing) cheating was not really the fore of what I wanted answering, I thought of what I wanted answering off the back of your post, I do not consider that riding on a wave (but, hey hat is not my opinion)

my questions was really about taking away room for human error, undos (yahoo does this also) so it is not site specific

cc's are not site specific

revoking cured in cyberland

I was really looking at just how much removing human error out of the game is changing things and a further question would have been is it good for the game?

Claus sells FD files and I felt that he does not want a debate on any thing negative because he may lose revenue, this is something I dont give a rats about and yes your are right it is not a pleasant thread and in danger of becoming personal, if it has not already