[nige1]

On BBO, you explain your own calls. A great idea but there are drawbacks, for example...

• This protocol is different from normal f2f rules.
• Problems can arise when you psych, deviate from system, or are unsure about your agreements.

IMO,

• For consistency with f2f rules, you should only explain partner's calls to opponents.
• Your online partner wouldn't see your explanation.
• In an ideal world, BBOalert or a built-in full-disclosure tool could automate your explanations.

(Elsewhere, I've suggested that f2f bridge disclosure would be simpler, if partner's calls were explained ("announced") by the bidder's partner, rather than alerted ... but that is a separate discussion)

[barmar]

We consider self-alerts superior to alerting partner's bid. f2f alerting is done the way it is to reduce UI -- you don't want partner to hear what you think your bid means, because that's essentially telling you what's in his hand. That's not a concern online, since partner doesn't see your explanations.

System deviations shouldn't be a problem. You're still supposed to explain only your agreements, not what you actually hold.

In general, we don't feel the need to be consistent with f2f bridge where the online environment allows improvements. So we don't have to allow insufficient bids, playing out of turn, etc.

[pescetom]

It's rare that I vote against your ideas but I don't think you thought this one through.

nige1, on 2020-May-07, 10:57, said:

On BBO, you explain your own calls. A great idea but there are drawbacks, for example...

• This protocol is different from normal f2f rules.
• Problems can arise when you psych, deviate from system, or are unsure about your agreements.

On BBO as I understand it you explain *partnership agreements* related to your calls if necessary.
But no need or possibility to advise that you deviate from them or psych.

nige1, on 2020-May-07, 10:57, said:

In an ideal world, BBOalert or a built-in full-disclosure tool could automate your explanations.

Agreed, but in the meantime this does not swing the jury either way.
The opponents just need to be advised of the agreements and neither of us need to be advised of anything.

nige1, on 2020-May-07, 10:57, said:

For consistency with f2f rules, you should only explain partner's calls to opponents.

So why be consistent with this protocol in a world that supports communication invisible to partner?
What is the advantage?
Partner alerting has obvious intrinsic problems as you yourself point out elsewhere.
Even in f2f, higher level play with screens follows different rules to mitigate the problems.

[steve2005]

Self-alerts are more likely to be correct and that is what should be most important. They are also faster, to wait for partner to wake up and alert will slow game down.
Not totally but I'm bet you will forget what partner's bid means more than the bids you made.
At least if you don't know what the bid means you can say that.

I don't see what psyching has to do with it. If you psyche you still are required to put what the bid means not that you have psyched, misbid or even misclciked.

[sfi]

Explaining partner's bid is impractical online. Partner bids, you think for two seconds while working out exactly what it is and how to explain it. Then you take five seconds to type it. What are the chances the opponent hasn't bid in those seven seconds?

Now the opponent has an issue since they thought the bid was natural. Can they ask for an undo? Not in many events, including any EBU event if I read the sky blue book correctly. Even if they can it creates more UI and more lost time because the bidder has to approve the undo without knowing the timing or nature of the explanation.

[barmar]

steve2005, on 2020-May-07, 15:12, said:

Self-alerts are more likely to be correct and that is what should be most important.

Depends on what you mean by "correct". They're more likely to be consistent with the bidder's hand. But you're supposed to explain your agreements, not your holding, and it's just as likely that the bidder forgets their agreement as their partner.

However, I think many people consider that if there's a possibililty of misexplanation, the opponents are better served if the error is in the direction of describing the bidder's hand.

Screens have the added problem that each opponent can get a different explanation -- these are sometimes the trickiest situations to adjudicate in high-level play.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2020-May-07, 10:57, said:

On BBO, you explain your own calls. A great idea but there are drawbacks, for example...

• This protocol is different from normal f2f rules.
• Problems can arise when you psych, deviate from system, or are unsure about your agreements.

IMO,

• For consistency with f2f rules, you should only explain partner's calls to opponents.
• Your online partner wouldn't see your explanation.
• In an ideal world, BBOalert or a built-in full-disclosure tool could automate your explanations.

(Elsewhere, I've suggested that f2f bridge disclosure would be simpler, if partner's calls were explained ("announced") by the bidder's partner, rather than alerted ... but that is a separate discussion)

But this isn't consistent with F2F rules

For example, when people playing behind screens, screen mates alert one another