[Vampyr]

chigal64, on 2020-August-04, 12:38, said:

i would like all players to create a profile om the system they use and the conventions they play. Several different systems are used here and it would make the understanding the bidding better for you and your partner and against other players.

I have a convention card with each of my partners. There is no point in writing out a kind-of convention card in your profile, because partner’s might be different.

[mmerz]

mangurian, on 2020-August-03, 03:57, said:

2) Can I have reading material open that covers conventions and agreements?

Regarding this, ignoring the "legalities" (about which I have little to contribute), I have two conflicting thoughts.

The first is that for informal pick-up (e.g., individual) games where my partner says "I play 2/1 with double-upside down Drury" (or worse yet, asks to play their info and has 12 conventions listed), I like to be accommodating. In such cases, I may need to take a quick glance online to remind myself of the responses to a 2D rebid... This has nothing to do with regular partnerships, though - just to facilitate pickup games.

By contrast, following the "I can review online materials" to its absurdist conclusion, one might believe that some quasi-optimal scientific method would be the best approach to bidding. The reason these don't gain more popularity in "real life" is that the alternate branch on the fifth relay is hard to remember (for both partners). Thus, allowing "reading material" clearly has its limits in terms of fairness. Otherwise, we'll just get into complexities that, for me at least, would damage the game.

So, as usual for me, I'm a radical moderate. I say, "sure - check the meaning of a few conventions or twists in informal events and pickup partnerships, but otherwise it's a bad policy.

-- MM

[RD350LC]

nige1, on 2020-August-03, 05:59, said:

Some questionable on-line actions:

• Consult convention-cards?
• Click on GIB's call to find out what it means by it?
• Test different choices for your own call to discover how GIB would interpret them?
• Look back at the auction and alerts during play?
• Keep and consult a trick-by-trick record of all cards played and by whom?
• Self-kibitz?
• Enter the same daylong competition several times using different names?
• Chat with partner or other players about the hand?

At a pinch, the tournament COC might permit, and a player might rationalise the first 4 actions; but surely the fifth is a NO-NO, and the last 3 are blatant cheating?

Regarding #8. I have a regular partner, and we frequently discuss bridge hands. We do make a point NEVER to discuss the hand currently being played. Once the bidding is over, and we are declarer, we can discuss the bidding. Only when the HAND is over will we discuss the full bidding, and the play.

[pilowsky]

Vampyr, on 2020-August-04, 11:00, said:

It's not important though is it.

It is important if you are the person (not me) whose copyright teaching material is being stolen from the web then copied hundreds of times without your name on it and used as if you (this other person) had created it.


This is called theft of intellectual property.
Large companies can seek remedy,
But the average 'Joe' can do nothing.

It is morally wrong because the person in question is using the material to increase the profitability of their organisation and enhance their job security.

[JJE 0]

I know that in other online games "multi"s as they are referred to are multiple accounts presumably used by the same person with the same IP address, and they are generally forbidden in those games.

My understanding is that almost every online "massive" game forbids this, checks routinely, and suspends any accounts that are doing this.

For ACBL black point regular weekly club play, there are lots of husband-and-wife pairs; I do not particularly suspect them of cheating (although the opportunity is evident), but it would surprise me greatly if they all took the care to get separate IP addresses!

[Vampyr]

pilowsky, on 2020-August-05, 06:31, said:

It is important if you are the person (not me) whose copyright teaching material is being stolen from the web then copied hundreds of times without your name on it and used as if you (this other person) had created it.


This is called theft of intellectual property.
Large companies can seek remedy,
But the average 'Joe' can do nothing.

It is morally wrong because the person in question is using the material to increase the profitability of their organisation and enhance their job security.

I was not talking about that. Perhaps it is safer not to put your teaching materials online?

[pilowsky]

Vampyr, on 2020-August-05, 07:45, said:

I was not talking about that. Perhaps it is safer not to put your teaching materials online?

I was not the author of the material - as I pointed out - there is an expectation that when a person publishes material, the source will be attributed to them when it is reproduced.
This is especially so when the original person has put their name on every page and added the copyright symbol.
What happened, in this case, is that the offender copied the material added their own name with "Free lessons with "___" at the top removed the name of the author and the copyright symbol and then produced in hard copy the lessons. Dozens of times.
The person then proceeded to read out the lessons - badly - while complaining about the content.
It could not have been more obvious that this person was not the author.
Only later when I left the Club did I discover where the material was plagiarised from.
This may be OK with you.
In my world, it is not.

[miamijd]

nige1, on 2020-August-03, 05:59, said:

Some questionable on-line actions:

• Consult convention-cards?
• Click on GIB's call to find out what it means by it?
• Test different choices for your own call to discover how GIB would interpret them?
• Look back at the auction and alerts during play?
• Keep and consult a trick-by-trick record of all cards played and by whom?
• Self-kibitz?
• Enter the same daylong competition several times using different names?
• Chat with partner or other players about the hand?

At a pinch, the tournament COC might permit, and a player might rationalise the first 4 actions; but surely the fifth is a NO-NO, and the last 3 are blatant cheating?

1. Depends on the laws of the sponsoring organization
2. Absolutely fine. I mean, you can't have a prior system discussion with GIB, now can you?
3. Fine. See 2 above.
4. Depends on the laws of the sponsoring organization
5. Cheating
6. Cheating
7. During the hand? Cheating, of course. After the hand, fine, provided you know that the people you are speaking with will not play the hand or have already played the hand (you cannot discuss a hand with someone who is playing it or may play it in the future).
8. Cheating

Aren't most of these pretty obvious?

Cheers,
Mike