[ducky_rh]

When a traditional convention card is used, a quick glance at a few items gives one a good idea of the opponents' system.

With FD, the one screen that we see is very limited, and tells us nothing beyond the meaning of that particular bid, and in my experience so far, that information is consistently inaccurate.

For example: A 1-Club opening bid that shows the word "constructive"...how can a bid be "constructive" when the partner has yet to bid?

For example: A 1NT opening which shows the words "No agreement"...I am certain there are MANY agreements about a 1NT opening bid...these are known to the bidder and the partner thereof, but are not displayed to the opponents.

FD may fall into the category of "a triumph of form over substance", or alternatively "a cure for which there is no disease". In the heat and time constraints of tournament play, it is impossible to make any sense of the system, and leaves opponents more in the dark than if there were no disclosure at all. It raises more questions than it answers.

The other night, I asked three times for an explanation of an FD bid. I received three different answers, with more information added to the response each time. This is proof of the pudding that FD is False Disclosure. All that information should have been provided IN THE FD NOTICE, but was not. Had I not asked, I would never have received the information. And to top it all off, the information, or some of it, was given to me in a private message, so my partner remained partly in the dark.

False Disclosure it IS, guilty until proven innocent.

[hrothgar]

ducky_rh, on Mar 6 2006, 05:46 AM, said:

False Disclosure it IS, guilty until proven innocent.

Simple solution Ducky: Since you find the FD information useless, just ignore it. You'll be happier.

>For example: A 1-Club opening bid that shows the word "constructive"...
>how can a bid be "constructive" when the partner has yet to bid?

You really might want to learn the definition of the expression before condeming the application.

With this said and done, the FD application forces players to select a Disposition. (I believe that disposition is intended to provide a summary description of the bid)
Many people use "Constructive" as a default for normal openings

[ducky_rh]

I know very well what "constructive" means, and its bridge definition cannot apply to an opening bid. Either that, or it apparently, in the world of FD, applies to ANY opening bid.

I notice there was no comment about the 1NT with "no agreements".

The system is faulty because the little snippets of information it gives, sloppy preparation aside, apply only to the particular bid in question. One does not know if it would apply to the same bid in a different situation in the same way. One gets no overall picture of the complete system used by the FD adherents. One is not given sufficient information to enable one to anticipate future bids, and prepare responses to them. One is given a minimum of information, with the clock ticking, and left with only a tedious and often not-well-received procedure of asking question after question, until one finally is given the full extent of the true agreement...which is another issue about which comment was carefully avoided.

Meanwhile two or three minutes out of seven or eight have been needlessly consumed, placing defenders under extreme pressure trying to figure out what they are facing while attempting to play in tempo. It may be someone else's idea of fun. It isn't mine.

[cherdano]

Richard (Edit: ducky_rh, not hrothgar), you are making problems where there aren't any. Ok, 1N shouldn't have "No agreement" selected as disposition, but wtp? You are no way worse off than without FD. Your fuzz about opening bids being labelled "constructive" (you must have a different definition of constructive than I do) makes about as much sense as when you complained about our 2♠ opening labelled as artificial, when it was showing 5+spades and 4+clubs, opening strength.

This post has been edited by cherdano: 2006-March-06, 09:49

[hrothgar]

ducky_rh, on Mar 6 2006, 06:35 PM, said:

I know very well what "constructive" means, and its bridge definition cannot apply to an opening bid.

Bullshit

Consider a 3♣ opening in which 3♣ promises a 7 card suit, 2 of the top three honors, and denies a side suit Ace or King. This type of preemptive style is commonly referred to as a "constructive" preempt.

[hrothgar]

ducky_rh, on Mar 6 2006, 06:35 PM, said:

I notice there was no comment about the 1NT with "no agreements".

Actually, there was...

As I noted earlier, the current implementation of the FD application requires that players assign a "Disposition" for each bid. I will repeat that once again: Players are REQUIRED to select a disposition from the following list:

No Agreement
Signoff
Non-forcing
Invitational
Forcing
Forcing to game
Slam try
Control Bid
Preemptive
Transfer
Puppet
Relay
Asking Bid
Asking Bid Response

Regretfully, none of these dispositions perfectly matches to a "Normal" opening bid like 1♠ or 1NT or the like. Some players have defaulted towards using "No Agreement". Others (including myself) prefer to describe these bids as "Constructive" openings.

Luckily, we have you to inform us that we're wrong regardless of what we choose.

>I'm far from an idiot, but several attempts to create an FD card for
>myself have failed miserably.

I respectly suggest that you probably should have spent more time looking at the application or some of these issues would already be clear. Alternatively, your "far from an idiot" estimate could be wrong.

[hrothgar]

ducky_rh, on Mar 6 2006, 06:35 PM, said:

> One gets no overall picture of the complete system used by the FD adherents.

Actually, one does... The FD application includes a separate window used to describe a "convention card summary". In a shocking develop, its generally believed that players should use the CC summary to get a general overview of the system.

FOr example, the CC summary for my MOSCITO card currently reads

MOSCITO = strong club, 4 card majors, and transfer openings.
1♦ = Hearts, 1♥ = Spades, 1♦ = unbalanced with 4+ Diamonds

1NT = 11+ - 14 2/1 = Natural and non forcing Frequent use of Relays

Assumed Fit Preempts

>One is not given sufficient information to enable one to anticipate future bids,
>and prepare responses to them.

And this is provided on traditional text based convention cards?

[david_c]

hrothgar, on Mar 6 2006, 04:55 PM, said:

Regretfully, none of these dispositions perfectly matches to a "Normal" opening bid like 1♠ or 1NT or the like.  Some players have defaulted towards using "No Agreement".  Others (including myself) prefer to describe these bids as "Constructive" openings.

... or "non-forcing", which at least has the virtue of being obviously true.

I'm convinced that the solution to this is to make the disposition optional. By reducing the amount of irrelevant or inappropriate information, we make the remaining information more meaningful.

[csdenmark]

'Constructive' is just an alternative word for 'limit bid' meaning don't raise unless extra.

It is correct that 'no agreement' often looks strange. But if you know it is impossible to change - then no problem I think. It is so for NT bids but also for doubles and pass bids. You need to describe the meaning yourself.

It is correct it is difficult to have an overview in FD if FD-file is created as a system file. To read a convention card with 8 entries to 1NT opening is not for human beings. And FD is in fact not intended to be read by human beings but by computers. As Richard explains correctly there is a place for a summary of system. You may see my explanation here for: Bocchi-Duboin Club 2003

A FD-file only serving as a normal convention card will be created much simpler. There will only be one string for each opening which means display of bids will often and normally end after responders 1st bid, exactly as it does using normal convention cards. You read a FD-file created in that way as simple as you read any other convention card and in exactly the same way as the old convention card format.

[ducky_rh]

Beg to differ. "Constructive" lies somewhere between "non-forcing" and "invitational", and should only describe responding bids, since it "constructs", as in adding one brick to a wall.

When I have looked for the complete convention card belonging to opponents, all I found was a mostly-blank traditional text card, so I guess I haven't found the trick to unlocking the Pandora's Box containing the wealth of information that some claim is available.

FD is potentially a good idea, but I do not think it should be used when it requires the opponents to ignore what is shown and assume that something else is true.

[csdenmark]

ducky_rh, on Mar 7 2006, 02:14 AM, said:

Beg to differ.  "Constructive" lies somewhere between "non-forcing" and "invitational", and should only describe responding bids, since it "constructs", as in adding one brick to a wall.

When I have looked for the complete convention card belonging to opponents, all I found was a mostly-blank traditional text card, so I guess I haven't found the trick to unlocking the Pandora's Box containing the wealth of information that some claim is available.

FD is potentially a good idea, but I do not think it should be used when it requires the opponents to ignore what is shown and assume that something else is true.

FD provides the intended information and nothing else. If the intended information is false it is a violation of bridge laws and has nothing to do with options in FD.

I think wise of you to try to be inspired from FD-files created carefully.

[luke warm]

ducky_rh, on Mar 5 2006, 09:46 PM, said:

The other night, I asked three times for an explanation of an FD bid.  I received three different answers, with more information added to the response each time.  This is proof of the pudding that FD is False Disclosure.  All that information should have been provided IN THE FD NOTICE, but was not.  Had I not asked, I would never have received the information.  And to top it all off, the information, or some of it, was given to me in a private message, so my partner remained partly in the dark.

the other night you played against me and i was *not* using FD at the time... here, for others to see, is exactly what happened

i opened the bidding 1C, partner bid 1D, i bid 1S and alerted it as "unbalanced"... you (or your partner) then clicked on my bid, so i felt compelled to add another line... i wrote "guarantees 5+ clubs else 3 suited hand - unbalanced"... had i been using FD, all of that would have been in it... my partner and i didn't have agreements suitable for any FD either of us had created

since the original 'unbalanced' obviously wasn't understood, it then struck me that perhaps the 2nd explaination might seem, somehow, cryptic... so i then clicked the double arrows, sending a message to you *and* your partner, that opener can bypass a major with balanced hands.. someone called the TD (i assume you) and i told him i'd gladly take a screen shot of all that had been said.. he said no need

it is at the very least disingenious, if not dishonest, of you to post that

1) FD was in use when it most definitely was not,
2) that your opps were trying to hide something from you or deceive you in any way, or that
3) your partner was not a party to all that you were

FD is a great program... before you criticize that which you possibly don't understand, i think you should at least try to utilize its features... yes, there are errors made when people first start... even though i wasn't using FD this particular night, the aim is to eventually have most people use this cc, so consider errors you observe to be data entry errors - growing pains - rather than some nefarious attempt to hide partnership agreements from you

[Sigi_BC84]

ducky_rh, on Mar 7 2006, 01:14 AM, said:

Beg to differ.  "Constructive" lies somewhere between "non-forcing" and "invitational", and should only describe responding bids, since it "constructs", as in adding one brick to a wall.

I disagree; "constructive" can be very well applied to opening bids, if these are made in the intention of starting an auction that allows your own side to reach the best spot (as opposed to preemptive openers which are mainly made to deprive the opponents of that possibility).

Example: ♠AKQJxx♥xx♦x♣xxxx Depending on your style you could open this constructively (1♠) or preemptively (2♠) in a standard system.

Quote

FD is potentially a good idea, but I do not think it should be used when it requires the opponents to ignore what is shown and assume that something else is true.

Maybe a better disposition for the bids under discussion is needed. "No Agreement" certainly misses the point and unfortunately it is being chosen for the lack of a better alternative.
Also, many people don't bother correctly specifying the final outcome of the auction (the "♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ NT Def" bit). This could also be regarded as non-information you are required to ignore.

It would be best if one could turn off unused parts of FD so that nothing at all would be shown.

I also think that the system is not flexible enough for specifying what you hold after artificial bids (e.g. if 2♦ is showing a weak two in a major, you have to specify that in the text and you have to specify something like 0-7♦s as well, even though that's quite irrelevant and maybe not even true because nobody will open a multi with 6=0=7=0).

--Sigi

[ducky_rh]

I have yet to decipher what the "♠♥♦♣NT-Def" feature does or means...when I click on it, nothing happens...why is it there?

FD may be a fun tool for computer techies to play with, and maybe they can overlook its obvious flaws and inaccuracies, but for a player accustomed to the standard text convention card, it is not an improvement, it is simply an obstacle which we must attempt to overcome. As I said previously, the FD bidders know exactly the full extent of their system, and the full meaning of their bids. THEY know that "No Agreement" does NOT mean "NO Agreement" but WE DO NOT. They know that "constructive" has taken on a new meaning, but those of us who learned the meaning that I decsribe DO NOT.

Tournament directors and sponsors ask us to disclose fully the meaning of our artificial bids. In my brief experience playing against FD bidders, this has not been the case. If there is no built-in option for describing the full agreement represented by an FD bid, perhaps another option should be added to the list, instead of telling us that it is an obvious flaw and perhaps inaccurate but we should just learn to live with it. Why not an option such as "please ask"?

Further, why should such a flawed system be FORCED upon us in tournament conditions, leaving us who are unfamiliar with the system to deal with the unfamiliarities and inaccuracies under time constraints, when we'd rather be concentrating on the game, and not a flawed, inaccurate, obscure system of disclosure?

Simply stated, FD is a PAIN IN THE ASS, and I wish it would go away.

[hrothgar]

>I have yet to decipher what the "♠♥♦♣NT-Def" feature
>does or means...when I click on it, nothing happens...why is it there?

As an auction progresses the number of potential strains that a partnership can play in collapses towards unitary.

Assume the following auction

1N - 2D
2H - 3D
3H - 3S
4D - 4H

The 1NT opening doesn't fix strain. The partnership could conceivably play in Clubs, Diamonds, Hearts, Spades, or NT.

The 2D response eliminated Spades as a potential trump suit. (If partner held 5+ Spades, he would have started with 2♥. If partner held 4♠ and 5+ Hearts, he would have started with a 2♣ response)

In a similar manner, the 3♦ eliminates Clubs as a potentially trump suit. Once the 1NT opener rebids 3♥, the only possible strains are Hearts and NT....

The field that you are looking at in the FD explanation is used to to indicate the set of strains that the players can still (conceivably) play in.

[hrothgar]

ducky_rh, on Mar 9 2006, 09:51 PM, said:

Further, why should such a flawed system be FORCED upon us in tournament conditions, leaving us who are unfamiliar with the system to deal with the unfamiliarities and inaccuracies under time constraints, when we'd rather be concentrating on the game, and not a flawed, inaccurate, obscure system of disclosure?

Regretfully, you're being used as a guinea pig.

Very little in life starts out perfect... This is especially true where radically new functionality is being introduced to computer software. The FD application represents a VERY significant change from any that online bridge has seen before. Growing pains are going to be inevitable.

Try to take consolation in the fact all of our experiences with FD will (hopefully) be used to create a new and improved version...

>Simply stated, FD is a PAIN IN THE ASS, and I wish it would go away.

Said it before, said it again... If the system is so annoying just ignore it. No one is forcing you to move your mouse over those explanations. With this said and done, I suggest that you suck it up and learn to live with FD application. The players who are using FD do so so that they don't need to type out long explanations of all their bids.

If/when I get asked to explain a bid that is adequately described by the FD application, I am simply going to referrence folks to the application. What's the old saying: "Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime."

[luke warm]

Quote

I have yet to decipher what the "♠♥♦♣NT-Def" feature does or means...when I click on it, nothing happens...why is it there?

to use, for those who choose to use it... it probably doesn't *have* to be there, but so far you're the only person i've seen who is irritated by it

Quote

FD may be a fun tool for computer techies to play with, and maybe they can overlook its obvious flaws and inaccuracies

what flaws? what inaccuracies?

Quote

As I said previously, the FD bidders know exactly the full extent of their system, and the full meaning of their bids.  THEY know that "No Agreement" does NOT mean "NO Agreement" but WE DO NOT.

any partnership, whether using FD or not, who answers an alert with 'no agreement' have no agreement.. this seems to be a mere assertion, and it verges on slanderous (not legally, ethically)... give an example of a pair using FD whose bid said 'no agreement' yet was *known* by you to have an agreement.. if you have no such example, try not to paint with such a broad stroke

Quote

Further, why should such a flawed system be FORCED upon us in tournament conditions, leaving us who are unfamiliar with the system to deal with the unfamiliarities and inaccuracies under time constraints, when we'd rather be concentrating on the game, and not a flawed, inaccurate, obscure system of disclosure?

it isn't forced on you... you can use the text based CC if you want... and if there are inaccurancies (you've yet to cite any), they aren't the fault of this marvelous program, no more than a letter i write using Word proves how flawed that program might be

Quote

Simply stated, FD is a PAIN IN THE ASS, and I wish it would go away.

give us some examples, don't make ungrounded assertions... ducky, when you open the bidding 1C, do you alert it? do you even alert 1H as "5+ cards?" you probably don't have to, unless there's some agreement between you and partner concerning those bids... but using FD, the opps would know what the bids mean, or at least what the p'ship understands the bids to mean

in your p'ship if the bidding goes

1C : 1H
1NT

do you alert any of those? can 1H bypass longer diamonds? do you explain inferences your partner gains from your bids? in FD, we do.. if 1NT denies a 4 card major, and if my partner knows this, so should the opps... i played against you (see post above, where you made many inaccurate statements) and didn't see any alerts or explanations for any of those

FD is more than a program designed to alert certain bids... the name, Full Disclosure, says it all... the function of the program is to disclose to the opps that which is known by the p'ship making the bids... as with any program, the operators will make errors until their tasks become second nature... to call the system "flawed," "inaccurate," and "obscure" is, imho, a flawed, inaccurate, and obscure criticism

added by edit:
i want to say another word about 'no agreement' in FD... it's the default setting on bids until a person writes something in.. so if a pair uses FD and a bid reads 'no agreement' they either have no agreement else have left it blank because the meaning is, or should be, obvious... perhaps the default should be something else, who knows? but i do know that i have clicked on an opps' bids in the past and received 'no agreement' as an answer...

for example, if i open 1H and partner bids 2H, i would only alert that bid if there was an agreement (shows 7-9, 3 card support, etc)... the same in FD... if there is no such p'ship agreement, FD defaults to 'no agreement'... this is the same as 'no alert' by a pair not using FD

very few people now alert a 1 level bid, even though they all carry meanings for partner... just because the bid isn't alerted doesn't mean there is no agreement... if an opp is interested, just ask... in FD an attempt is being made to limit that type thing by allowing a pair to type in agreements for bids... so in that sense, a pair using FD will show *far* more of their understandings than a pair not using it

[david_c]

ducky_rh points out a lot of things that are wrong with FD, and I grudgingly have to admit that I agree with him about nearly all of them. I've been convinced from the start that the "possible outcomes" were a bad idea - not only is it very doubtful that they provide useful information, ducky_rh's post proves the point that people don't understand what they mean anyway. And the "disposition" desperately needs to be made optional (which would solve the "no agreement" problem immediately). These things could [should?] have been fixed painlessly before FD became active on BBO. They still need to be fixed, but it will involve changes to the file format (though I believe this can be done without making anyone's files unusable.) I remain hopeful that we will see the end of the possible outcomes some day soon.

Having said all that, I still think FD is a great step forward. ducky_rh complains that it is not as good as a standard convention card, but this is missing the point. Disclosure does not end with the convention card: you have a convention card, but then also you give explanations at the table. FD's strength is in replacing the explanations, not replacing the convention card. For example, before FD I had to type in "Either real diamonds or 11-13 BAL" every time I opened a Precision 1♦. Now FD can do this for me - and not only that, it can give a much clearer and more detailed explanation than my attempt at doing it in one line. Ideally we would have both FD and a more standard convention card, integrated in some way. Maybe this will be possible in the future. But despite all the flaws FD has at the moment, it's still a wonderful thing.

[42]

I was using an FD CC before but now needed to make some personal changes. I went through and it is one of the best things I ever used! Not only that I don't have to explain my bids during playing anymore (and I like giving the whole information....) which distracts and takes time, I can go again through our whole system together with my partner: talking about some things while drinking a cup of coffee isn't the same as writing agreements down together for using/showing them in public.
There were some minor questions at the beginning, perhaps also due to language problems, but Ben answered them kindly and the rest was easy doing.
I also like it when people use a CC because it shows that they don't "muddle" in the current situation, it is fair play imo (I don't imply that people who use non are unfair per default!!)
Consequences:
- I wish I had another life time for using all the fancy things that are offered here, learning more and more (as well as playing a lot)
- I wish I could print the CC
Thanks again, Fred and all your helpers!
Caren

[csdenmark]

david_c, on Mar 10 2006, 01:07 AM, said:

ducky_rh points out a lot of things that are wrong with FD, and I grudgingly have to admit that I agree with him about nearly all of them. I've been convinced from the start that the "possible outcomes" were a bad idea - not only is it very doubtful that they provide useful information, ducky_rh's post proves the point that people don't understand what they mean anyway. And the "disposition" desperately needs to be made optional (which would solve the "no agreement" problem immediately). These things could [should?] have been fixed painlessly before FD became active on BBO. They still need to be fixed, but it will involve changes to the file format (though I believe this can be done without making anyone's files unusable.) I remain hopeful that we will see the end of the possible outcomes some day soon.

Having said all that, I still think FD is a great step forward. ducky_rh complains that it is not as good as a standard convention card, but this is missing the point. Disclosure does not end with the convention card: you have a convention card, but then also you give explanations at the table. FD's strength is in replacing the explanations, not replacing the convention card. For example, before FD I had to type in "Either real diamonds or 11-13 BAL" every time I opened a Precision 1♦. Now FD can do this for me - and not only that, it can give a much clearer and more detailed explanation than my attempt at doing it in one line. Ideally we would have both FD and a more standard convention card, integrated in some way. Maybe this will be possible in the future. But despite all the flaws FD has at the moment, it's still a wonderful thing.

Agree David. 'No agreement' is a bug. It is there as standard for Pass, DBL and RDBL with no option to change. As all info in a FD-file per definition is agreed that explanation must be removed.

I think you need to think about the history for the creation of FD. I think you still remember all the complainments for missing alerts we once had. At least such has become rare in Forum and I assume most of the problems have been solved with FD and rest are re-addressed.

But Ducky seems to try to wipe out the baby together with bathing water. That is silly.