[hrothgar]

Chamaco, on Dec 5 2005, 05:47 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 5 2005, 02:44 PM, said:

Chamaco, on Dec 5 2005, 05:36 PM, said:

I think it would be nice to have a popup window with all the PREALERTS at the table when u sit down.

Things such as: NT range, ultralight openings/response, unusual 1/2/3 level openings, special carding, and other specific toys.

the popupwindow would appear automatically at the table as opps sit down

I believe that is what the "Convention Card Summary" is intended for...

I guess so, but it's fundamentally different the summary from the prealert.

in the prealert you give info of unusual leads, and, at least at the real table, the prealert is displayed immediately BEFORE the hand, so that opps can quickly try to create meta-agreements for unusual situations.

====

For example:
in every REAL paper copy of a CC, there is an initial summary of the system and general approach.

Yet, specific treatments or unusual methods REQUIRE an ADDITIONAL prealert to opps, despite the fact that there is a written summary in the CC.

Reason for this requireent is to allow opps to prepare a method BEFORE the play starts vs our unusual treatments

I don't think that we're actually disagreeing on anything:

1. I agree that some form of pre-alert is strongly desirable
2. I am noting that the "Convention Card Summary" can be used to record this same information
3. The only question that remains is how said info should be displayed to end users

Option 1: Information is stored in the convention card summary. End users are expected to consult the convention card prior to the start of play

Option 2: Information from the convention card summary is automatically sent to the user in a secondary window

I can see advantages and disadvantages to either approach.
I prefer Option 1, simply because you have WYSIWYG formating

[han]

What You See Is What You Get??

[Chamaco]

hrothgar, on Dec 5 2005, 03:36 PM, said:

I can see advantages and disadvantages to either approach.
I prefer Option 1, simply because you have WYSIWYG formating

I don't know abroad, but in Italy, for specific conventions/treatments, you cannot play them unless Prealerted.

It is the responsible of the player playing an unusual method to MAKE SURE that the prealert is done with anticipation before the actual play starts, and simply offering the CC is not enough.

I think an automatic popup window would replicate this procedure without too much hassle, no ?

[pigpenz]

Fred is our ultimate goal to be able to let us make our own cards with our regular partners so we can load them ourselves or to just have a database that we have to use that is stored on BBO and we use what they have there?

[hrothgar]

Chamaco, on Dec 5 2005, 08:39 PM, said:

I don't know abroad, but in Italy, for specific conventions/treatments, you cannot play them unless Prealerted.

For better or worse, the FD system will not be compatible with the specific disclosure regulations used by various zonal authorities.

Case in point: Consider the whole topic of "alerts".

As currently implemented, FD is based on announcements. The concept of an "alert" doesn't exist. Accordingly, FD isn't compliant with ANY alerting regulations currently in existence.

At some point in time, Fred might chose to add an alert mechanism to the FD system. Until then, players will be forced to either manually alert bids or ignore the regulations.

[hrothgar]

Hannie, on Dec 5 2005, 08:32 PM, said:

What You See Is What You Get??

yeapers

[fred]

pigpenz, on Dec 5 2005, 06:03 PM, said:

Fred is our ultimate goal to be able to let us make our own cards with our regular partners so we can load them ourselves or to just have a database that we have to use that is stored on BBO and we use what they have there?

In general, the ultimate goal is for the BBO server to store all "user-defined" information (ie not just private FD files).

For example, there was a time when your list of friends and enemies was stored on your PC. It was a big improvement to store these files on the server (one reason being that people could then log in from different PCs and still be able to access this information).

There will be advantages in storing user-defined FD files on the server as well. Assuming the FD project is a success, we will almost certainly do this in the not too distant future (provided of course that doing so proves to be feasible from a technical and business point of view and I think this is a near certainly).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[uday]

Quote

For better or worse, the FD system will not be compatible with the specific disclosure regulations

That is putting it mildly.

IMO, the gains from using FD in fast, casual online play (think INDYs, where everyone is reduced to pleading "SAYC pd?" and leaping to 3N asap) overcome the loss of purity.

If all goes well, FD will allow casual partners to have a more enjoyable pickup session because there will be far fewer "dumb" accidents (passing xfers, and what not).

To me, this feels like a big step forward in making online bridge more enjoyable for the participants.

I don't know quite what to think of my alertable bids being announced to partner in a noncasual partnership. I think I like it, and i have hopes that the zonal orgs will recognize that online is not offline and refrain from making a fuss.

The only Zonal org that matters on a day-to-day basis here at BBO is the ACBL, and we'll take their instructions when it comes to FD in the ACBL club games. As the others (if the others) come on board, they can lay down their own rules.

[stev_hav]

hrothgar, on Dec 4 2005, 09:35 AM, said:

fred, on Dec 4 2005, 08:18 PM, said:

Still not sure about the best way to handle opponents bids that are "qualified". I like Hrothgar's suggestion of a standard vocabulary (which would allow for this process to be completely automated). Thinking...

One additional comment regaridng a standardized vocabulary:

Don't make the best the enemy of the good...

I doubt that its possible to create a vocabulary that will handle every possible case.
However, if you're able to handle "common" cases this will meet the needs to 90% of the users...

A few thoughts, concerning the handling of bids whose meaning depends upon opponents' agreements. Any useful approach would need to:
A. Be straightforward enough to be understandable, and to be implementable with a reasonable degree of effort.
B. Be comprehensive enough to cover a high percentage of reasonably-forseeable situations.
C. Be flexible enough to support extension/expansion, as dictated by experience.

It appears, to me, that the list of frequently-encountered partnership agreements is not all that long. It would tend to include most whose names appear on the standard ACBL Convention Card, and "not all that many" others--Bergen raises, responses/rebids to strong 2♣, Flannery/Multi/Mini-roman 2♦, defenses to opponents 1N, etc.

Thus, it would appear entirely feasible to develop and publish a list of "basic definitions", for such agreements. Each entry would specify:
A. A name, by which the agreement is to be recognized.
B. The call or calls which initiate the convention. At least initially, only those which actually have the conventional meaning. For example, the definition of "Bergen" would specify only 3♣ and 3♦; on the assumption that references to this would be made only in auctions beginning with 1M-(P).
C. The normally-expected hand pattern, and strength. As necessary (multi 2♦, major-suit Michaels, etc), supporting multiple entries.
D. Frequently-occuring sub-sequences. Probably defining only one such per entry; where multiple options exist (2♥/2♣ either natural or a "bust" response), tending to create a separate entry for each option.

During entry/editing of each side's own agreements, a dropdown list would show the names of all "basic definitions" for conventional meanings of a call. In its simplest form, a call such as 2♥ would present "all defined" meanings for the call (transfer to spades over partner's 1nt, capp/dont over opponents' 1nt, flannery 2♥, etc). If bidding side's agreements matched any such, the meaning would be selected and recorded. (Altho it would "seem logical" to show only the meanings consistent with the auction to date, this would tend to complicate the process of definition, and most likely the software . . ).

Another dropdown box would show "all defined" opposing agreements for opponents' last action (bid, double, or redouble). When the meaning of bidding side's call depended upon opponents' agreement, the applicable agreement(s) would be selected.

A specific example. Assume three possible definitions--MINI_1N, WEAK_1N, and STRONG_1N--of a 1N opening, and two possible defenses--CAPP and DONT.

Bidding side might well see fit to "mix and match" 1NT size, depending upon seat and vulnerability. For each separate occurence of a 1N opening, it would select a definition. (Or, if no definition were at all applicable, make no selection).

If defending side wanted to bid naturally over MINI_1N, use CAPP over WEAK_1N, and DONT over STRONG_1N, it would make appropriate entries in its specification of double, and 2-level overcalls. Over opponents MINI_1N, it would select no agreement; CAPP over WEAK_1N, and DONT over STRONG 1N. Specification of an agreement "ought to" copy in all related sub-sequences; especially useful where various forms of Blackwood are involved.

In practice, it might well be advisable to support "customized" definitions of the named agreements. Covering "minor modifications", which retained the basic meaning.

Hopefully, an implementable version of "the good" . .

[Chamaco]

stev_hav, on Dec 10 2005, 06:05 PM, said:

It appears, to me, that the list of frequently-encountered partnership agreements is not all that long.  It would tend to include most whose names appear on the standard ACBL Convention Card, and "not all that many" others--Bergen raises, responses/rebids to strong 2♣, Flannery/Multi/Mini-roman 2♦, defenses to opponents 1N, etc.

......

It seems to me that these suggestions are quite practical, but limited *specifically for ACBL tourneys*.

But let's not forget that FD is not geared specifically to ACBL and Nort-America: the conventions that are popular in USA are not as popular in other parts of the world (e.g. Capp and DONT, or Bergen raises , to use some of the given examples.)

[bestguru]

Quote

A specific example. Assume three possible definitions--MINI_1N, WEAK_1N, and STRONG_1N--of a 1N opening, and two possible defenses--CAPP and DONT.

One of the many great things about bbo is that you can try out some of the more unusual systems and conventions. I am worried that this approach will make bbo a somewhat hostile environment for this. For example, I have really enjoyed playing notional club. My 1nt bid would be both minors <12 points. When FD catches on and people are used to relying on it, my 1nt bid will be basically destroy their usual interface to bbo.

I agree a standard vocabulary is needed, but I think it should not be focused on any standard systems or conventions. Instead we need to focus on creating a short set a set of words as possible to be able to describe these systems and conventions. We will still have issues because your definition of balanced may be slightly different than mine. Yes we will have a standard definition of balanced, but that will create a disconnect for players that play both in bbo and their local club where balanced is different than our standard. Therefore each word should be defined with a logical expression.

[hrothgar]

bestguru, on Dec 11 2005, 05:16 AM, said:

Quote

A specific example. Assume three possible definitions--MINI_1N, WEAK_1N, and STRONG_1N--of a 1N opening, and two possible defenses--CAPP and DONT.

One of the many great things about bbo is that you can try out some of the more unusual systems and conventions. I am worried that this approach will make bbo a somewhat hostile environment for this. For example, I have really enjoyed playing notional club. My 1nt bid would be both minors <12 points. When FD catches on and people are used to relying on it, my 1nt bid will be basically destroy their usual interface to bbo.

This discussion is starting to to eerily like many of the real world debates surrounding disclosure and suggested defenses. (Which, I might add strikes me as a being a good thing)

There is a simple answer to the problem that Bestguru raises: Many Zonal authorities including the ACBL require that the players using unusual methods have an obligation to provide an appropriate suggested defense. This construct could be easily adopted by Full Disclosure. A pointer to the suggested defense to "weird" openings like an Ekrens 2♥, a Strong Pass, a MOSCITO type transfer opening, or even Bestguru's 1NT opening would be included as part of the Convention Card of the players using the "weird" stuff.

For what its worth, I am philosophically opposed to the notion that the players using weird methods have an obligation to develop appropriate counter measures. As I have noted in past, I think that the incentives are all wrong. Equally significant, players often have blind spots about the methods that they are promoting. With this said and done, this is probably the easiest work arround for this issue.

In an ideal world, the FD system would be able to apply meta-defenses and dynamically create a new partnership defensive agreement on the fly. For example, the FD system would look at a bid, recognize that this is an assume fit preempt with a known anchor suit and dynamically generate definitions for double and all the different overcalls. (This is the way that people defend against weird ***** in places like Oz where even the LOLs are playing Myxomatosis). I'll be looking forward to this feature making its way into FD sometime arround 2015. if its not there by 2020, I'm gonna start getting cranky.

[stev_hav]

Chamaco, on Dec 10 2005, 10:13 AM, said:

stev_hav, on Dec 10 2005, 06:05 PM, said:

It appears, to me, that the list of frequently-encountered partnership agreements is not all that long.  It would tend to include most whose names appear on the standard ACBL Convention Card, and "not all that many" others--Bergen raises, responses/rebids to strong 2♣, Flannery/Multi/Mini-roman 2♦, defenses to opponents 1N, etc.

......

It seems to me that these suggestions are quite practical, but limited *specifically for ACBL tourneys*.

But let's not forget that FD is not geared specifically to ACBL and Nort-America: the conventions that are popular in USA are not as popular in other parts of the world (e.g. Capp and DONT, or Bergen raises , to use some of the given examples.)

I hadn't really given all that much thought to "internationalization" issues, but my thinking would be along the following lines.

At least initially, assume use of English as the only supported language within FD.

In the relatively-near future, the "czars" should publish a "primary" list of the conventions for which they intend to develop definitions (including a short description of each). A mechanism for handling proposed additions might also be implemented; probably allowing members to simply develop/upload any such into a secondary area, subject to a restriction against duplicating any name on the "primary" list.

As time permitted, the "czars" would review new additions to the secondary area, and take one of the following actions:
A. Mark the addition as "accepted" and copy it to the primary area.
B. Determine that the addition is a "synonym" for something which is already on the primary list. Software permitting, add the new name to the primary list, with a cross-reference to the original entry.
C. Determine that the addition should not be added to the primary area, so mark it, and so notify the submitter. Most likely, leave the addition in the secondary area, allowing (only) the original submitter to modify or remove it.

[hrothgar]

stev_hav, on Dec 12 2005, 06:39 PM, said:

In the relatively-near future, the "czars" should publish a "primary" list of the conventions for which they intend to develop definitions (including a short description of each).

yada
yada
yada

I was mulling over this issue yesterday and reached some similar conclusion:

Assume for the moment that FD is moving in the direction of "modular" design in which players can combine a series of discrete modules into a complete systems. For example, I might have one module defining my 1NT opening, a second module would describe my multi 2D opening, a third module describes my "MisIry preempts",

Equally significant, in many cases, players will want to tailor their defensive methods to based on what module that players are using. To chose a simple example, its reasonable to adopt difference defenses against a weak NT as opposed to a strong NT.

In an ideal world, we'd like to create a system in which

1. Well defined defenses can be developed to different modules

2. Users are able to allocate thier time in an efficient manner. Ideally, we'd like a system in which defenses are developed to "common" modules prior to obscure stuff.

I know that the BBO server generates statistics regarding user activity. Its interesting to contemplate whether the server could be used to track the use of iddferent modules by players. Assume for the moment that each module could be tagged with some kind of unique identifier. The server could generate statistics describing the relative frequency of different modules. In turn, this could be used to recognize specific modules that require a defense.

In many cases, you might want to have an extremely simple "default" defense to a specific module, with more complex options for experienced partnerships. (As an example, the ACBL's Defensive Database lists multiple suggested defenses to the multi-2D sorted by complexity)

[stev_hav]

I am in substantial agreement with hrothgar's last post; a couple of points . .

It may well be advisable to support multiple categories of named conventions. In addition to the officially-supported "primary" list, perhaps allow any interested user to develop a "personal" secondary list, in an area identified by userid. To contain items such as hrothgar's "misiry preempts"; especially useful when a member maintains convention cards for each of several frequent partners.

Somewhat related, I would question whether it's truly cost-effective to have the server track frequency of module usage. It seems more likely that, over time, frequent users would develop a pretty-reliable "feel" for development priorities.

[hrothgar]

stev_hav, on Dec 13 2005, 03:34 AM, said:

Somewhat related, I would question whether it's truly cost-effective to have the server track frequency of module usage. It seems more likely that, over time, frequent users would develop a pretty-reliable "feel" for development priorities.

Hard for either of us to determine what's "cost effective", given that Fred and Uday are the ones paying... With this said and done, I'm an information junkie. Data is a very good thing.

I find that there is often a very big gap between perception and reality. People fixated on issues that they find interesting or objectionable and often lose track of whats really going on... There are all sorts of well known psych studies that question the ability of witness to accurately describe crime scenes. I have no reason to assume that folks are any better at judging the relative frequency of different bidding modules.

Case in point: Lets use Ben's Misery style preempts as an example...

Misery type preempts are very flashy. When you sit down and play against against a pair using Misery you notice this almost immediately because this is part of the pre-alert. With this said and done, the bids themselves are relatively rare. Big 5-5 hands don't crop up that often. Three level preempts aren't too common either. You might see one of these bids one in a hundred hands. From a system design perspective, the Misery preempts are important because of the negative inferences; Removing the big 5-5 hands changes the meaning of lots of other sequences. However, people don't pay attention to this because its not shiny... Its the opening bids that get the attention.

[benlessard]

ULTRA EDIT 32

A real time saver.

If you want to attach a convention after a seq get ULTRA EDIT a html editing software. It allow you to move/duplicate column something that WORD curiously doesnt handle.


Example

If in your system the response

are the same after

1nt

1c-1d-1nt.

2nt

2c-2d-2nt


Then you write the 1nt and subsequent bid and you add

1CP1DP after the 00

example

001CP1DP1HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP3HP3SP3N=YYYYYYY0ACE
001CP1DP1HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP3HP3SP4C=YYYYYYY008ACF
001CP1DP1HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP3HP3SP4D=YYYYYYY008ACG
001CP1DP1HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP3HP3SP4H=YYYYYYY008ACH
001CP1DP1HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP3HP3SP4S=YYYYYYY008ACI
001CP1DP1HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP3S=YYYYYYY008AD
001CP1DP1HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP3N=YYYYYYY0AE
001CP1DP1HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP4C=YYYYYYY008AF
001CP1DP1HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP4D=YYYYYYY008AG
001CP1DP1HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP4H=YYYYYYY008AH
001CP1DP1HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP4S=YYYYYYY008AI
001CP1DP1HP1SP2HP2NP3D=YYYYYYY008g2mma b



001HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP3HP3SP3N=YYYYYYY0ACE
001HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP3HP3SP4C=YYYYYYY008ACF
001HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP3HP3SP4D=YYYYYYY008ACG
001HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP3HP3SP4H=YYYYYYY008ACH
001HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP3HP3SP4S=YYYYYYY008ACI
001HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP3S=YYYYYYY008AD
001HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP3N=YYYYYYY0AE
001HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP4C=YYYYYYY008AF
001HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP4D=YYYYYYY008AG
001HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP4H=YYYYYYY008AH
001HP1SP2HP2NP3CP3DP4S=YYYYYYY008AI
001HP1SP2HP2NP3D=YYYYYYY008g2mma b



So lets say its keycard

after

1h-4nt
1h-2h-4nt
1h-3h-4nt

1s-3s-4nt

then you write the response for 1h-4nt

001hp4np5c=1or4
001hp4np5d=3or0
001hp4np5h=2 no q

after copy paste

you insert

p2h in a column

then you get

001hp2hp4np5c=1or4
001hp2hp4np5c=3or0
001hp2hp4np5c=2 no q




after that you copy paste

and replace the 6th column "2" by a "3"


001hp3hp4np5c=1or4
001hp3hp4np5c=3or0
001hp3hp4np5c=2 no q


after that you do the same 3 to 4




You can also replace a letter
in the first 6 column you can replace all the H by a S.

so you get

1s-4nt

1s-2s-4nt

1s-3s-4nt

1s-4s-4nt


Ben


PS don't forget the P for opp pass.