[32519]

This thread got me wondering: Does BWS2001 (Bridge World Standard) need to be revised. It is now 11 years old. New gadgets and new trends keep evolving. We have plenty of experts in these forums. The revised BWS2001 gets our name attached to it “BBO2012 Expert Standard.”

If there is sufficient interest, suggestions can be made how to tackle the project. Possibly the easiest would be deciding what needs revision and just revisit that leaving the rest unchanged. Once the task is completed, I am willing to create a summary CC of what THE MAJORITY agreed upon. From there I can send the summary CC to Inquiry and he can create a default convention card for use in the MAIN BRIDGE CLUB for any wishing to use it.

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2012-March-21, 01:37, said:

This thread got me wondering: Does BWS2001 (Bridge World Standard) need to be revised. It is now 11 years old. New gadgets and new trends keep evolving. We have plenty of experts in these forums. The revised BWS2001 gets our name attached to it “BBO2012 Expert Standard.”

If there is sufficient interest, suggestions can be made how to tackle the project. Possibly the easiest would be deciding what needs revision and just revisit that leaving the rest unchanged. Once the task is completed, I am willing to create a summary CC of what THE MAJORITY agreed upon. From there I can send the summary CC to Inquiry and he can create a default convention card for use in the MAIN BRIDGE CLUB for any wishing to use it.

Bridge World Standard is codified by "The Bridge World".

I've always been pretty impressed by the process that they follow, as well as the results.
I think that we're alot better off waiting to see what they do rather than trying to create yet another bidding system.

1. Its unclear that standardized bidding systems are necessary or even desirable for an institution as diverse as BBO. (Don't get me wrong, I think that they are very reasonable for relatively small institutional bodies like the EBU, maybe the ABCL. But the idea seems laughable for BBO)

2. The forums represent an incredibly thin slice of the players on BBO. We don't have the institutional legitimacy, necessary perspective, or membership depth to tackle this type of project.

[masse24]

As an FYI...

I asked this same question (Does BWS2001 (Bridge World Standard) need to be revised?) of Jeff Rubens at The Bridge World 6 months ago.

His reply:
"In brief, no. The usual motivation for a new version is the perception of significant changes in standard practice. There have been some, but apparently very few, since the last version."

[32519]

BBO developed its own convention cards in 2005. We have a BBO Advanced 1.3 Convention Card and a BBO Advanced 2/1 GF Convention Card. Both CCs still contain certain conventions that others have questioned e.g. Cappelletti. So we already have our own CC which may just need some tweaks. I am definitely part of the camp which would like to see Cappelletti replaced with something more effective. I support others who have suggested Multi-Landy.

Is it worth the effort to revisit these two CCs and the thread above? Or just dump it?

[Lurpoa]

32519, on 2012-April-02, 09:27, said:

BBO developed its own convention cards in 2005. We have a BBO Advanced 1.3 Convention Card and a BBO Advanced 2/1 GF Convention Card. Both CCs still contain certain conventions that others have questioned e.g. Cappelletti. So we already have our own CC which may just need some tweaks. I am definitely part of the camp which would like to see Cappelletti replaced with something more effective. I support others who have suggested Multi-Landy.

Is it worth the effort to revisit these two CCs and the thread above? Or just dump it?

♥ ♥ ♥



BBOadvanced is NOT BWS2001.


A good start would be a special dedicated forum: "BWS2001 development"
But a sine qua non is participation of THE BRIDGE WORLD.


Also, I cannot fully agree wit Mr Rubens, mostly because I think there are a few inconsistencies in the standard....where simplification might be needed.




♥ ♥ ♥