[andych]

I like FD and agree trial & error is a feasible way of using FD. After some struggling, I now have a FD conv card with my favourite partner.
However to make it popular, an idiot guide would probably be useful.

[ducky_rh]

I'm far from an idiot, but several attempts to create an FD card for myself have failed miserably. It is not at all clear how one is ti edit the standard cards to reflect one's own methods. I find the system incredibly cumbersome, completely user-unfriendly, and when it has been used by opponents, what it displays has so far had no connection whatever with what the opponents had when they made the bid. So far, in my experience, FD stands for "False Disclosure". In the heat and time constraints of tournament play, there is no time to wade through page after page of the card to try to understand what is on it. I think it is nowhere near as quick and easy to use and understand as the "old-style" convention card...one page, and we all know exactly where to look in an instant.

[csdenmark]

ducky_rh, on Feb 22 2006, 03:15 PM, said:

I'm far from an idiot, but several attempts to create an FD card for myself have failed miserably.  It is not at all clear how one is ti edit the standard cards to reflect one's own methods. I find the system incredibly cumbersome, completely user-unfriendly, and when it has been used by opponents, what it displays has so far had no connection whatever with what the opponents had when they made the bid.  So far, in my experience, FD stands for "False Disclosure". In the heat and time constraints of tournament play, there is no time to wade through page after page of the card to try to understand what is on it.  I think it is nowhere near as quick and easy to use and understand as the "old-style" convention card...one page, and we all know exactly where to look in an instant.

It is in fact very simple and logic. What you see creating your card is exactly what computer displays to you and your opponents. You have no need to look into your card when playing - it displays itself with the info you have entered.

Of course if you split VULN and opening seats or enter for interference handle - you are heading for some kind of advance handle - but still exactly the same and logic way. Take very much care if you copy features from one structure into another one. Copying opening structure from 1♥ into 1♠ you need to handle very carefully - always remembering to also correct interference handle and and hidden pass-responses.

If you regard yourself poor in handling computers it is not wise of you to try to create your own card. Use the default cards.

Nobody requires you to use the new format - the old format will do everywhere a convention card is mandatory.

You are completely wrong stating false disclosure.

[hrothgar]

ducky_rh, on Feb 22 2006, 04:15 PM, said:

I find the system incredibly cumbersome, completely user-unfriendly, and when it has been used by opponents, what it displays has so far had no connection whatever with what the opponents had when they made the bid. So far, in my experience, FD stands for "False Disclosure".

In part, I feel that these comments are directed at Echognome and myslef, since you raised some simpler comments during the Homebase Bridge Club event a couple days back.

I apologize for any inconvenience that you experienced. There certainly wasn't any intention to mislead you or provide false disclosure. With this said and done, I think that you need to learn the rules surrounding disclosure in the game of bridge because you have some fundamental misapprehensions regarding the way this works.

For better or worse, disclosure systems are based on describing partnership agreement, not the specific content's of ones hand. Echognome and I have played "Tarzan Club" on a grand total of two occasions. We had a bit of bidding practice prior to Monday's match. Immediately following this, we sat down and played. Our complete set of agreements was documented by the FD convention card that we provided. I agree that one of Matt's bids departed from the description provided in the CC. However, I was every bit as much in the dark as you. The disclosure system equalized the information provided to the two parties. In doing so, it achieved its design goals.

>In the heat and time constraints of tournament play, there is no time to
>wade through page after page of the card to try to understand what is on it.

There shouldn't be any need to wade through muliple pages of the convention card during the course of play. (It almost sounds as if you are trying to use the convention card editor as a convention card) Each time a player makes a bid, the relevant information can be accessed by moving the mouse over the bid on the screen.

>I think it is nowhere near as quick and easy to use and understand as the
>"old-style" convention card...one page, and we all know exactly where to look
>in an instant.

The new system is much more powerful than traditional convention cards. I agree that transitioning between systems might take some time. However, its a mistake to limit ourselves to the familar.

[glen]

hrothgar, on Feb 22 2006, 02:55 PM, said:

There shouldn't be any need to wade through muliple pages of the convention card during the course of play.  (It almost sounds as if you are trying to use the convention card editor as a convention card)  Each time a player makes a bid, the relevant information can be accessed by moving the mouse over the bid on the screen.

Well not all relevant information is accessed by moving the mouse over the bid on the screen.

For example, some FD systems say that their 1♣ opening is 3+♣s and 11-21. At this point, one wonders what their 1NT range is, if they are playing four or five card majors, if they are playing better minor openings or that 1♦ promises 4+ or 4-4-3-2 exactly, and if they are playing certain two level openings (e.g. Mexi) that would take hand types out of 1♣. All this relevant information is not accessible by moving the mouse over the bid.

What FD needs is an overview or dashboard view of what one is facing, instead of having to navigate to various points (e.g. carding). This overview would be quite similar to the front page of the BBO cc, with some reductions.

This would not be limiting ourselves to the familiar - it would be combining the best of the old and the new.

[luke warm]

i don't understand your concerns, glen... playing sayc or 2/1, how many people alert 1C as "3+, 11-21?" ... i've never seen it alerted... all FD does is provide a description of bids, some alertable and some not... the bids themselves are those that reflect some p'ship agreement or other

as for the 1nt range as it relates to any other opening, one can always ask.. i think it's enough to sit and say "we play 2/1, udca, standard leads, and our convention card (FD) is posted"

there will be errors in some FD files until the bugs are worked out... sometimes it isn't easy creating the files, and sometimes errors sneak in... those things happen

unlike ducky, i find the system fabulous, easy to use, and a great advancement

[csdenmark]

officeglen, on Feb 23 2006, 03:46 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 22 2006, 02:55 PM, said:

There shouldn't be any need to wade through muliple pages of the convention card during the course of play.  (It almost sounds as if you are trying to use the convention card editor as a convention card)  Each time a player makes a bid, the relevant information can be accessed by moving the mouse over the bid on the screen.

Well not all relevant information is accessed by moving the mouse over the bid on the screen.

For example, some FD systems say that their 1♣ opening is 3+♣s and 11-21. At this point, one wonders what their 1NT range is, if they are playing four or five card majors, if they are playing better minor openings or that 1♦ promises 4+ or 4-4-3-2 exactly, and if they are playing certain two level openings (e.g. Mexi) that would take hand types out of 1♣. All this relevant information is not accessible by moving the mouse over the bid.

What FD needs is an overview or dashboard view of what one is facing, instead of having to navigate to various points (e.g. carding). This overview would be quite similar to the front page of the BBO cc, with some reductions.

This would not be limiting ourselves to the familiar - it would be combining the best of the old and the new.

I think I agree with you.

It is so that you can load as well FD and cc in old format at the same time. So maybe the good solution is already there.

It can be very difficult for human beings to read the new convention card. It is aimed for computer to read. It is difficult to handle 1NT opening divided into 6 threads simply because you need to have a special opening for 1-2seat FAV. Thats causes 6 threads and 4 of them are exactly alike. That is Meckwell Club and when 1♦ opening consists of 4 threads and 1♥♥ each 2 then you see 14 threads for 3 openings. Not so easy to take a look at for you and me.

[hrothgar]

officeglen, on Feb 23 2006, 04:46 PM, said:

Well not all relevant information is accessed by moving the mouse over the bid on the screen.

For example, some FD systems say that their 1♣ opening is 3+♣s and 11-21.  At this point, one wonders what their 1NT range is, if they are playing four or five card majors, if they are playing better minor openings or that 1♦ promises 4+ or 4-4-3-2 exactly, and if they are playing certain two level openings (e.g. Mexi) that would take hand types out of 1♣.  All this relevant information is not accessible by moving the mouse over the bid.

I feel obligated to point out that a lot of the functionality that people are requesting is already present.

Players have the option of bringing up FD application.
This can be used to present a summary description of the entire system.

Players can also inspect different levels of the bidding tree to get negative inferences. I agree that some enhancements in this area might be useful. As Claus notes, the current system describes all of the different opening bids regardless of seat or vulnerability. It might be easier to default to only presenting bids that were valid at this seat and vulnerability.

For example, if a player made a Red versus White preempt in 2nd seat, the FD system would default to describe the set of opening bids corresponding to Red versus white in second seat. Players would have the option of moving to a root node describe all openings or moving down the tree to see responses to the 2♥ opening...

[csdenmark]

It might be easier to default to only presenting bids that were valid at this seat and vulnerability
Richard I am not quite sure I understand you correct. My english is not good enough for that.

Readability for human beings I also think is important. I have considered to create files with summaries for that and include web-links for such in my pre-alert. I have for now decided to wait and see in which direction modifications will take before I do anything of that.

It is so if you press the green conv. button during play FD will open at the page computer is reading exactly now. It does not open from the very beginning but at the relevant page. This means if you open FD you will see all of the present alternatives bidder have exactly for this bid. In that respect it is very easy to read FD - also for human beings.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on Feb 23 2006, 02:50 PM, said:

Players have the option of bringing up FD application.
This can be used to present a summary description of the entire system.

Players can also inspect different levels of the bidding tree to get negative inferences.

I think that's what Ducky was complaining about when he wrote:

Quote

In the heat and time constraints of tournament play, there is no time to wade through page after page of the card to try to understand what is on it.

FD is a cumbersome application for something like this. Its complexity is necessary for what it does -- the computer needs precise details to be able to display what a bid means in a particular context. But it's too much information if you're trying to get a general idea of a partnership's system, which you can currently do very easily with old-style CCs.

[Badmonster]

I'm afraid I'll need some extra iq points before trying to deal with FD again. I couldn't even get through the one level. But I'm allowed to use the old fashioned one, right?

[luke warm]

Badmonster, on Feb 25 2006, 09:37 AM, said:

But I'm allowed to use the old fashioned one, right?

no

tell me what you like and i'll send you one...

[Badmonster]

luke warm, on Feb 25 2006, 10:09 AM, said:

Badmonster, on Feb 25 2006, 09:37 AM, said:

But I'm allowed to use the old fashioned one, right?

no

tell me what you like and i'll send you one...

You are a doll. The thing is I can't ask you to make all my cc's for me. I guess I'm going to have to learn to do this.

[csdenmark]

Badmonster, on Feb 25 2006, 04:37 PM, said:

I'm afraid I'll need some extra iq points before trying to deal with FD again. I couldn't even get through the one level. But I'm allowed to use the old fashioned one, right?

No problem - special formats are not required. The only thing you cannot is to play without convention card. The way you disclose your methods are up to yourself. A WEB-site-link will do too.

Of course the simple way is FD. Try again it is in fact simple and logic. Try look into default cards and see the features there and modify from that.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Feb 25 2006, 07:06 PM, said:

No problem - special formats are not required. The only thing you cannot is to play without convention card. The way you disclose your methods are up to yourself. A WEB-site-link will do too.

One again Claus, learn the laws before making authorative statements

Disclosure methods are dictated by the sponsoring organization, NOT individuals

[csdenmark]

Richard makes no sense. We have to try to encourage those who want to do the right things. It makes no sense to raise the steps in a way so persons think the cannot handle computer features.

As far as I know you have for years used a web-site-link. BBO have now 2 formats so there is no point trying to confuse.

The point is to be serious trying to do the right things - not the way you do so.

Who is the sponsoring organization on BBO? BBO itself perhaps? Might be so the day software will no longer accept play without. Then the matter will be settled in that way - fine with me of course.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Feb 25 2006, 08:19 PM, said:

As far as I know you have for years used a web-site-link. BBO have now 2 formats so there is no point trying to confuse.

The point is to be serious trying to do the right things - not the way you do so.

Who is the sponsoring organization on BBO? BBO itself perhaps? Might be so the day software will no longer accept play without. Then the matter will be settled in that way - fine with me of course.

Klaus

I need to make something perfectly clear. I agree with a LOT of what you say. With this said and done, the way in which you express yourself is infuriating. Ordering people and dictating ways that they MUST behave is not a good way to convince anyone of anything. Please understand: I agree with your goals but find your postings VERY objectionable. Think what individuals who don't agree with you must feel.

Equally significant: As I have noted several times in the past, disclosure regulations are decided by the sponsoring organization. If you host a table, you and require other pairs to do whatever you damn well please. However, in a similar fashion, if the ACBL or the EBU is hosting a tournament, they can ban or require whatever type of convention card they want. I could write the best web based convention card the world has ever seen, but if the ACBL doesn't like it I'm not fulfilling my responsibilities with respect to disclosure.

In the short, the best way to accomplish anything is simply to set a good example, let people experiment with the FD system at their own pace, and allow the application to evolve. If and when FD is ready for "prime time", it would be approrpiate to start petitioning large sponsoring organizations to require its use. However, right now, we're a long way away from that:

Here is a short list of things that I would want to see before an organization like the ACBL mandated use of FD based convention cards:

1. Conditional logic: Allow players to specify defenses based the definition of the opponent's bids. (As I commented before, I believe that the best way to implement this feature requires creating a lexicon describing different bids)

2. Better modularity: I like Fred's overall scheme in which players can select a basic system and then "graft" different bidding modules on top of this. As an example, I might want to add a "Bergen raise" module onto of my 1M opening structure and use a Soloway JS module over my 1m openings. Ideally, we want a system in which players can start with a checkbox style graphical CC much like the ACL uses and then create a complete FD convention card. (I see where the system is going. Unlike Moses, I hope that I will reach that promised land) However, we're a LONG way from this point. We need a lot more convention coded as modules. Equally significant, we need a GUI to drive the front end.

3. A library of suggested defenses, vetted by a real conventions committee.

4. Complete convention cards, documenting bidding systems to a depth of about 4 branches. These convention cards need to be in common use. Equally significant, they need to be integrated into major teaching programs.

[csdenmark]

Looks much more reasonable now Richard - very nice. I have always been of that opinion that we have no substantial disagreements. Damn so if we had - we are both analysts with the ability to see beneath the surface. For the record: I enjoy very much an interesting discussion with friends. Even hard from time to time - but if no longer friendly I will be out.

I am not sure I quite understand you. I need to rely on my school english - not always enough, sorry.

I don't remember if I have ever said so. But bridgerules are not binding to me. I am not a member of ACBL. I am not a member of Danish Bridge Federation. I am not a member of any bridgeorganization. This means those rules which are binding for members are for me guidelines or references. This makes me free to plug and play arbitrarely. This also means I don't study the exact texts - but take advantage from your quotes.

1. Conditional logic: Allow players to specify defenses based the definition of the opponent's bids. (As I commented before, I believe that the best way to implement this feature requires creating a lexicon describing different bids)
As what I understand you here refer to is the 'qualify field'. I assume it is a feature with a structure but not yet started for ordinary use.

2. Better modularity: I like Fred's overall scheme in which players can select a basic system and then "graft" different bidding modules on top of this. As an example, I might want to add a "Bergen raise" module onto of my 1M opening structure and use a Soloway JS module over my 1m openings. Ideally, we want a system in which players can start with a checkbox style graphical CC much like the ACL uses and then create a complete FD convention card. (I see where the system is going. Unlike Moses, I hope that I will reach that promised land) However, we're a LONG way from this point. We need a lot more convention coded as modules. Equally significant, we need a GUI to drive the front end.
Looks like high level handle

3. A library of suggested defenses, vetted by a real conventions committee.
I think you can just create the files yourself. I will gladly upload such to 'bridgeFILES'.

4. Complete convention cards, documenting bidding systems to a depth of about 4 branches. These convention cards need to be in common use. Equally significant, they need to be integrated into major teaching programs.
Not sure what you mean. More default convention cards? If you want to cooperate the platform 'bridgeFILES' will be open for you too.

[barmar]

csdenmark, on Feb 25 2006, 12:19 PM, said:

Who is the sponsoring organization on BBO? BBO itself perhaps? Might be so the day software will no longer accept play without. Then the matter will be settled in that way - fine with me of course.

The SO is whatever organization is sponsoring the particular tournament, BBO is just providing the infrastructure. For pay tournaments it's the clubs or bridge leagues, for free tourneys it's the person hosting.

[csdenmark]

barmar, on Feb 27 2006, 06:02 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Feb 25 2006, 12:19 PM, said:

Who is the sponsoring organization on BBO? BBO itself perhaps? Might be so the day software will no longer accept play without. Then the matter will be settled in that way - fine with me of course.

The SO is whatever organization is sponsoring the particular tournament, BBO is just providing the infrastructure. For pay tournaments it's the clubs or bridge leagues, for free tourneys it's the person hosting.

Very interesting.

They all have the same restricted choice: bss-format or txt-format. Unable to enforce any of them and therefore unable to enforce serious bridge to be applied.