BBO Discussion Forums: A Pearl from Ed - BBO Discussion Forums

aguahombre, on 2013-August-22, 12:56, said:

I'm sorry but I am frankly not willing to do that work. There is more than enough to do with the system itself, I don't want to prioritize a written-down meta system also.

That's fine. We just disagree about whether our disclosure is as important as our agreements.

aguahombre, on 2013-August-22, 13:28, said:

Yes.

And when it comes down to it, I think I'll provide better explanations overall for my opponents by being generally well-prepared within my system than by memorizing specific speaches for some specific bids.

For anyone who's interested, here is the previous thread wherein I came to the conclusion that blackshoe's (and aguahombre's) "attitude on full disclosure" is deficient: http://www.bridgebas...on-and-an-oops/

mfa1010, on 2013-August-22, 13:15, said:

And there was me thinking agua was being ironic in suggesting that writing such things down on a convention card (separate document for disclosure) might be a good idea.

Zelandakh, on 2013-August-23, 06:16, said:

That wasn't what I was saying, and was not using irony. We were talking about system notes, not public displays.

Our system notes are our record of thoughts and discussion pertaining to conventions and methods we use. They extend to when/how we use them and to continuations.

Our thoughts, while going over them, could easily stray to ideas about disclosing those methods at the table ---and might be worth writing down (separately or not) and periodically reviewing such verbage so that we will be prepared and consistent.

Here, we find some posters who say they can't be bothered doing that. O.K., then the idea is not for them.

Now, we have another thread where ---in a CRASH over artificial 1♣ auction --- North couldn't be bothered to review his methods from the standpoint of disclosure; thus, he not only failed to alert the first advance but also gave an unwarranted guess about partner's holdings later in the auction.

Personally, I think people who "can't be bothered" to learn how to disclose properly should receive larger penalties than those who try, but fail.

aguahombre, on 2013-August-23, 08:50, said:

Obviously it has little to do with the posters in this thread that some random north in some other thread failed to live up to his disclosure responsibilities (I haven't read the thread myself).

Anyway, the thread sounds interesting. I have a feeling, that once in a while it happens that players are less informative about their disruptive bids than they would generally be with their explanations. I think this is unconscious, the bid's merit often lies for a significant part in the confusion created, and an unconscius swift and too short explanation might enhance that confusion. I find it to be good style when players are particularly careful to explain in depth about their disruptive bidding.

aguahombre, on 2013-August-22, 12:56, said:

mfa1010, on 2013-August-22, 13:15, said:

IMO:

Some players treat system-notes as a kind of private crib to be shielded from the prying eyes of curious opponents. Perhaps that practice is OK in some jurisdictions.

WBF rules seem superior: If you can't disclose all your understandings on your system-card, then you should complete as many supplementary-notes as necessary (not as private aides-mémoire but for perusal by opponents). Your supplementary-notes should have the same depth of coverage as your system-notes, so they might as well replace them (saving unnecessary work).

The supplementary-notes should be designed to be easy for your opponents to reference and to understand. It would be worthwhile to try to memorise explanations from them, to facilitate your answers to opponents' questions. A beneficial side-effect would be that you and your partner would be more likely to give identical full explanations, avoiding the fraught appeals that have decided recent high-profile matches.

If an opponent has access to this information, at his turn to bid, there's no point in having different rules for disclosure of the meaning of your past and future actions.

nige1, on 2013-August-23, 19:06, said:

I think bridge players treat system-notes as a tool for their own system work. I think few would mind having opponents looking in the notes, but typically that is not practical.

For example. Our section with bidding after 1C (we play precision) starts: "RP, except...". That's a reference to a norwegian book, where we play the corresponding chapters in full expect when something else is agreed. That way we save say 30 pages of sequences. But good luck to anybody else figuring out what we mean. And our notes are (not surprisingly) in Danish btw.

Quote

I disagree that this is the WBF policy.

As I understand it, WBF policy for supplementary sheets is that they should include: conventional systems and treatments that require defensive preparations (which there was no room to describe on the card itself).
This is very different from a pair's system-notes in full.

I have met pairs that had dozens, maybe even a hundred, of pages of supplementary sheets. This is clearly not the intention. The intention is that the sheets could be rewieved by the opponents in advance for their preparations.

It has been suggested that a pair should file its complete system in English in advance with the organizer (in WBF-tournaments). This has not been enforced. It would also be quite a burden for non-English pairs with the translation. So far I think pairs can file their system if they want to, in any language. The purpose is not disclosure as such but rather to serve as documentation if there will be a TD case of possible misinformation.

Quote

Yes, and easy to skim through in advance, which is their main purpose.

I will make the claim however, that I have not once ever in my ~14 years of playing international bridge found something concretely useful for me in my opponents' supplementary sheets. Not once.

Quote

If we take the Vanderbilt HH-appeal then no amount of notes would have been likely to avoid the appeal. The misinformation was after a 1x-1y-2NT continuation, and the opponents would have been most unlikely to try to gauge a meaning of the actual sequence out of a huge system-book rather than just ask for it (and as it happened, get misinformed because of bad memory).

mfa1010, on 2013-August-24, 05:57, said:

Sorry. I bow to mfa1010's superior knowledge. I was duped by wishful thinking. I apologise.