[mycroft]

Prompted by "A helping hand", but a question I've had (and had been asked) many times before, without a suitable answer. So I'm looking not for "the answer" (as I bet it's RA-dependent, and I'll probably ask my superiors in my RA), but if people have an idea how it is handled in their part of the world (or how they think it should be handled, especially if the response is the expected "yeah, it's a problem, but what can you do?")

There are many ways that people "remember their system". Sometimes it's as blatant as "Hey partner, remember [the bid I'm going to make] means [the meaning of the bid]", but nowhere near always. The question I've been asked is "I know their CC is for us, and they're not allowed to look at it. But what if they do anyway?" - especially if they now remember how Meckwell/NT works, or what answer to give for RKC, or to 2♥-2NT inquiry.

You know, the things they "always knew, just confirming". Because you know that's always going to be the answer (even to "hey partner, remember..."). And it's really hard to say "we're ruling as if you forgot your system, and used UI to bid correctly" - frankly, what are you going to make them bid? DONT/Blackwood/Feature instead of Meckwell/1430/Ogust?

And of course I give lenience to newer pairs (in the club. At the tournament, you knew the rules when you signed up), especially if I've put them together as singles 5 minutes after game time. I ask for lenience myself if I'm the one playing "partner's card" when I have them fill in 5 minutes after game time - but if they don't grant it, I guess and hope, of course. But there are those who do use the card as a crutch, but "of course I knew the system, just double-checking."

[barmar]

It's common in online bridge to announce your general approach in chat at the beginning of each round. I have a partner who always announces "2/1 GF, UDCA, MeckWell against your NT". I mentioned to him that I don't think the opponents need to be pre-alerted to our NT defense, since we always alert and explain those bids; it's unlikely that they need to prepare for it in advance. He told me that he does this to remind himself, since he plays different defenses with different partners.

[mycroft]

Well, online is a bit different.

I know the people commenting (on the other site) about "improper pre-Alerts to remind partner" (or themselves, for that matter) have a point, and the rulings I have seen seem stupid (as in, without cards in your hands, what's the difference between "reverses don't show extra strength" (to use an example from here) with the opponents there every round and saying the same thing before the opponents arrive, every round?

But online, the text on the chat line stays right there (unless there's a lot of chat after) and does remind himself. Which would be an issue, if it weren't for the fact that most RA's regulations are "anything you can get from the program is usable" (basically, because there's no way to know). So you can look at your card online (in the ACBL and EBU games, at least) and get the same reminder.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-January-12, 11:58, said:

The question I've been asked is "I know their CC is for us, and they're not allowed to look at it. But what if they do anyway?" - especially if they now remember how Meckwell/NT works, or what answer to give for RKC, or to 2♥-2NT inquiry.

You know, the things they "always knew, just confirming". Because you know that's always going to be the answer (even to "hey partner, remember..."). And it's really hard to say "we're ruling as if you forgot your system, and used UI to bid correctly" - frankly, what are you going to make them bid? DONT/Blackwood/Feature instead of Meckwell/1430/Ogust?

And of course I give lenience to newer pairs (in the club. At the tournament, you knew the rules when you signed up), especially if I've put them together as singles 5 minutes after game time. I ask for lenience myself if I'm the one playing "partner's card" when I have them fill in 5 minutes after game time - but if they don't grant it, I guess and hope, of course. But there are those who do use the card as a crutch, but "of course I knew the system, just double-checking."

My LA has the usual rules about CCs and the usual ambiguity about enforcing them in practice. We are potentially in a better position than most, in that the CC has a reasonably practical format, 2 readable pages allowing more detail than EBU and a lot more flexibility than ACBL. It can also now be edited in a browser (with some gratuitous limitations, but they will listen to me sooner or later) which removes a lot of alibis on both sides. Nonetheless, a CC is still a rarity in many tournaments and there is no sign of the tournament app becoming able to display it, let alone contestually explain a call.

Having said that, of coure I give lenience to a beginner or a member of a newer pair who consults their own CC during play: heck, I'm already delighted that they know they should have a card and can understand it. As for a more experienced pair: almost never encountered this, but I would reprimand them and apply the Laws, without enthusiasm.

Online my RA does not allow consultation of CC (even if available), so the legal problem does not exist even if a huge practical one takes its place. Another question for future law ( @WBF, the world will not wait for 2027). FWIW, I would approve consultation of one's own CC online or not, so long as the information in CC is pretty much what it currently is, without going into detail about developments of conventions. Having people aware of their basic agreements and known to be so aware can only be a good thing.

As for illegal communication about agreements in general, I think things only get really smelly when it allows them to wake up to one of two possible explanations (Alert:"Ghestem"), or to a pet convention (Alert: "Exclusion"), or to take advantage of a specific situation ("1430" over hearts when the agreement is 0314).

My RA also has a potential problem in Announcements which are vulnerable to use as Reminders. This can work in at least three different ways:
1. omitting a due announcement
2. making a deviation from the prescribed announcement (hopefully not pre-agreed) such as "4 cards" rather than "4 or more cards"
3. making an undue announcement such as "Puppet Stayman" which wakes up partner about the expected reply scheme.
But the alternative of alerting most low level calls has it's own not dissimilar problems too.

The (benevolent) Elephant In The Room is of course automated explanations of calls, which is challenging technically and "only" relevant to online, but should be at the front of WBF minds if they want to save this game without renouncing the idea of disclosure.

[TMorris]

Last week in one of the regular large ACBL games I called the director as an opponent had commented in chat to his partner, possibly about a previous board after seeing his hand but before bidding had started.

After enquiring of the opponents the director told me that as the comment was about a previous board it was fine since had they wanted to cheat they would not have done so in such an obvious manner (ie potentially coded message) but would have just rung each other on the phone.

At this point I gave up.

Issues of system reminders seem to me to be irrelevant given this ruling.

[akwoo]

It's long past time that BBO implemented the feature where there is a delay at the start of a round before hands are dealt - to exchange pre-alerts - I suggest 10 seconds, during which any player can pause for an addition 30. And then chat can be wiped when the first hand is dealt.

[pescetom]

akwoo, on 2023-January-21, 18:39, said:

It's long past time that BBO implemented the feature where there is a delay at the start of a round before hands are dealt - to exchange pre-alerts - I suggest 10 seconds, during which any player can pause for an addition 30. And then chat can be wiped when the first hand is dealt.

I agree about player-determined delay at start of a round or board (or to put it differently, not throwing the cards at the players before all is ready) but more for the possibility to air disputes about the previous board while it is still visible and to call TD if necessary. The business of prealerts could be handled simply by players having to dismiss the pre-alert message before seeing the first hand of the round, so with delay self-limiting to think/ask time only.

[weejonnie]

On BBO there is something called 'chat manager' - you save your basic system announcements and then just send it to the table at the start of each round. (I use it for the plethora of announcements a TD has to make). In EBULand we allow access to convention cards on the principle that there is no way to prevent it. BBO being mainly barometer, comments about previous hands would seem irrelevant. RAs can allow bidding aids if they so wish