[hrothgar]

 billw55, on 2015-September-08, 08:31, said:

And chess players spend a lot of time studying their opponents' games. But they don't get to check that material during play.

True that. However, chess also doesn't have rules about disclosure.

[Vampyr]

I think that these forums are divided into two groups: those for whom bridge is sitting down and having a game of cards and those for whom bridge is an abstract exercise which may, on rare occasions, be rather poorly approximated by sitting down and having a game of cards. I don't think that the two groups speak the same language, which is why discussions can sometimes be very frustrating.

[nige1]

 Vampyr, on 2015-September-08, 08:53, said:

I think that these forums are divided into two groups: those for whom bridge is sitting down and having a game of cards and those for whom bridge is an abstract exercise which may, on rare occasions, be rather poorly approximated by sitting down and having a game of cards. I don't think that the two groups speak the same language, which is why discussions can sometimes be very frustrating.

I used to enjoy Bridge as a social game but recently, I've begun to be distracted and irritated by at-the-table chit chat, UI, and psychological tactics. In particular, I disagree with...

Bob Hamman, in At the Table said:

The point is that in the main event of any competitive endeavor, you had best be prepared to play hard ball - literally in some areas - figuratively in others. You wouldn't be surprized to get thumb in the eye in the first-play from scrimmage in the Super-Bowl - or an elbow to the jaw in an NBA final. Well bridge is no different.

[Trinidad]

 billw55, on 2015-September-08, 08:12, said:

If I want to know about their tendencies, I have two options. First, I can ask. If they don't adequately disclose, that is an infraction on their part.

Thanks for the clarification.

How about if you see it from the other side: The opponents can use the database to disclose their tendencies to you. The database helps them to disclose adequately.

To stay with Ken's example: In the auction 1♣-1♠; 2♠, you might ask how often the raise is based on three cards. An experienced pair will have a "feeling" about that and will answer as good as they can: e.g. "40-60%". Unfortunately, humans are very bad at guessing frequencies (which is why it is a popular theme in many game shows on TV). They are even worse at "feeling" probabilities. The database might show that in the past 3 years, the raise was based on three card support in 97 out of 535 cases (=18.1%).
You could ask the opponents a follow-up question: "What kind of a hand would raise on three card support?" They might answer: "Typically unbalanced." You could also ask the database for the distributions of these 97 hands and it comes up with:

3145:  44
3415:  41
3316:   7
3136:   4
3406:   1
Total: 97

Now you know that the real answer is: "always unbalanced".

In both cases, the answer that you would get by asking is slightly off the mark. I would certainly not accuse the opponents of bending the truth: They gave the best answer they could give. But the best answer that they could give is not really "adequate disclosure". A database could help the opponents in disclosing adequately, just like a convention card helps them to disclose.

Having said all that: I am, in general, not a fan of an electronic playing environment. But having a database to help understand the opponents' bidding could (emphasize could) be a genuine advantage.

Rik

[barmar]

 Trinidad, on 2015-September-08, 10:24, said:

Thanks for the clarification.

How about if you see it from the other side: The opponents can use the database to disclose their tendencies to you. The database helps them to disclose adequately.

In that case you could consider it a memory aid that they're using to help them disclose their tendencies, and thus illegal.

But by that same logic, if someone can't remember an agreement, and hand you their convention card/notes so you can look it up (because they're not allowed to look at their own CC), that would also be considered an illegal memory aid. And AFAIK this has never been the case.

Basically, I don't think players are expected to remember anything about the opponents, so nothing about their system, style, tendencies, etc. can be considered a memory aid.

[hrothgar]

 Vampyr, on 2015-September-08, 08:53, said:

I think that these forums are divided into two groups: those for whom bridge is sitting down and having a game of cards and those for whom bridge is an abstract exercise which may, on rare occasions, be rather poorly approximated by sitting down and having a game of cards.

Given that this website is for an online bridge site, I don't find it at all surprising that the latter group is represented here...

[Trinidad]

 barmar, on 2015-September-08, 12:30, said:

In that case you could consider it a memory aid that they're using to help them disclose their tendencies, and thus illegal.

Why would it be a memory aid? You don't have access to your own data, only to the opponents' data.

It is entirely equivalent to a convention card, or an FD file: a tool to disclose, available to opponents only. And it gives information that is difficult to write on a convention card.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2015-September-08, 09:25, said:

I used to enjoy Bridge as a social game but recently, I've begun to be distracted and irritated by at-the-table chit chat, UI, and psychological tactics. In particular,

Well. We had a really fun and social game recently in Brighton.

[barmar]

 Trinidad, on 2015-September-08, 13:25, said:

Why would it be a memory aid? You don't have access to your own data, only to the opponents' data.

It's an aid to the player who is answering the request for an explanation. He's supposed to answer from memory, but instead he refers the opponents to this data.

Quote

It is entirely equivalent to a convention card, or an FD file: a tool to disclose, available to opponents only. And it gives information that is difficult to write on a convention card.

Isn't that pretty much what I said?

[Trinidad]

 barmar, on 2015-September-09, 09:25, said:

It's an aid to the player who is answering the request for an explanation. He's supposed to answer from memory, but instead he refers the opponents to this data.

Even then... players are not allowed to use memory aids in the bidding and play. They are allowed to use memory aids when disclosing... such as a convention card.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Some thoughts:
- You do not need lots of rooms for this to work. You need 2 large rooms instead of one with 2 players seated at each table.
- One simple solution would be to keep everything basically as it is but put a monitor in front of the seats of the missing 2 players. These screens would display the bids made and cards played of the players and would be alerted in the normal way. There is no need to display the whole hand or force players to adjust to the different feel of playing at a single screen.
- Having a microphone + loudspeaker available to be used between hands would take care of some issues relating to communication.
- If this sort of format were successful then the next step might be to go to a BBO-style interface but I think you get the main advantages with such a limited implementation and it is not such a leap for the players.
- It is perfectly sensible for club play to be fully social and international play to be fully electronic, in the same way that much club and junior tennis is played without line judges or an umpire but such would be unthinkable at Wimbledon or in the US Open.
- The use of databases is an interesting idea but probably impractical for human play at the current time.

[Vampyr]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-September-14, 05:51, said:

Some thoughts:
- You do not need lots of rooms for this to work. You need 2 large rooms instead of one with 2 players seated at each table.

Well, now you are in the same room as one of your teammates, plus you can hear explanations from other tables... no, you would really need four rooms per match.

[Zelandakh]

 Vampyr, on 2015-September-14, 10:01, said:

Well, now you are in the same room as one of your teammates, plus you can hear explanations from other tables... no, you would really need four rooms per match.

Depends if we are talking pairs or teams, no? Would you settle for twice as many as required playing with screens?