david_c

"Standard" also helps in that your beginners will understand what their opponents are doing. I think this is important too.

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.

Elsewhere you've said you want the BBO-Advanced file to resolve things like RKCB 1430 vs. 3041. I don't really understand how this question is very different. Consistency seems important.

You are never too old to learn :P Generally speaking, I am not impressed with British (Acolish) bidding theory. I have said it before, and I still think that Acol is a system of the past. Too bad that innocent youngsters are led astray. Oh, you needn't worry about me Roland, I gave up Acol long ago. And for what it's worth, I would prefer 2♠ here to show an invitational hand with 5 spades (saying nothing about hearts) in both these sequences. That's definitely not standard though.

Yep, agree with Mike, Frances etc. :P

I think you're feeling the upwards pressure from 17-counts. If you were playing a 15-17 NT you would instead be feeling downwards pressure from 14-counts.

... 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.

I agree word for word with what Claus has just said. I think there is a need for a "minimal" 2/1 file, suitable for pick-up partnerships, which does not go into too much detail. Pick-up partnerships do not have detailed agreements, and they should be able to find a FD file which does not claim that they have. In particular, I agree with Claus when he says normally only opening and initial response are needed.

FD currently displays the suit length in the bottom left corner, and for artificial bids has "Artificial" on the right. Could these perhaps be combined, so that you get something like Artificial (Any #♣s) I think this would be more readable. [Personally I would like an option not to display the suit length at all, as it is sometimes just confusing to have it there, but that's another matter ... ]

Right, this is one of the limitations of the way conventions work at the moment. Ideally, you would be able to link to a convention from any part of the tree, so for example after defining some 2NT bid you could then tell FD, "for continuations, see Puppet Stayman convention". What we have at the moment is that conventions are rooted at a particular point - this works in most cases, but occasionally you want more flexibility.

Totally agree. The standard system files need to become more modular. Some of this can be done with conventions. For example, rather than including Capp in the main part of the file, it would be much better IMO to include this as a convention. Then I could change this to something decent much more easily. Also (and perhaps more importantly) it would mean I could see at a glance what defence to 1NT was being used by looking at the list of conventions, rather than having to wade into the file. [At the moment it's included in the system summary, but I do not think this is what the system summary is best used for.] But the way that conventions are treated at the moment comes nowhere close to what could be achieved with a truly modular approach.

It doesn't look like a squeeze to me, just a trump coup.

I voted "once or twice": I'm only happy using it when playing with people I know from the forums. The problem is that although 2/1 is widely played on BBO, the detailed system called "BBO advanced" is not.

That doesn't seem quite fair on the remaining player, as they might easily have done better than the GIB which takes their place. How about instead giving them the option to either (i) scratch the hand; or (ii) play it out against two GIBs.

Agree that this is a problem. It is also a good argument for being able to see your own alerts: if you can't see what the explanation is, then you will not be able to correct it if it's wrong.

That's right. :) Declarer has more than one normal play possible in the spade suit, so we give him the least favourable result which could arise from one of these plays. Law 70E: Unstated Line of Play (Finesse or Drop) The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play; or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational. Notice that this applies equally to a successful drop as a successful finesse.

Nice thread. Is it OK to bash natural bids as well? I wanna take a swipe at playing 1♠:2♣ as natural and forcing to game: what a waste of space! Yeah, this is fun :P

Well, yes ... if you'd said "England are strong favourites" I don't think you'd have got any complaints. But you didn't quite put it like that :huh: but never mind. I watched nearly all of the vugraph from the Junior Camrose and thought it was excellent. The commentators all did a great job of keeping their commentary at the right level. It was much better than the Lady Milne, where I agree with Roger that some of the remarks were not appropriate. This was not a problem last weekend. So, well done to everyone, particularly Alan with it being his first event - I certainly hope we see him again.

Presumably this is what was advertised on this forum a few days ago. (here)

None of it, unless you are playing in a tournament which has its own rules. Some competitions (online or in "real life") do have rules like this, but it is not normal. However it may be worth having a suggested defence prepared anyway, as some opponents may find it helpful. If you're playing against opponents who don't know how to defend against your system then you're not going to get a very good idea of how well your system works.

Agree with Owen: the third example would not worry me, but the first example is particularly bad. (Though it does also depend on the speed and tone of the question, which is difficult to convey in writing.) For my part, playing face-to-face I always ask when my RHO opens two of a suit. I'm not sure I'd expect a TD to believe me that this does not transmit UI, but it keeps my conscience clear anyway, and I only have to keep this up for another six months. That's very true. No wonder Matt said, "I was reminded why I no longer go there." Playing an unusual system against opponents who aren't used to unusual systems is generally no fun at all.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem to work: if you're discarding on a heart lead then a club and a spade both seem to ask for diamonds, but a diamond discard can't be read. You'd do better to make it "revolving". But most of the time it doesn't matter that your low card is not specific about which suit is preferred. I would recommend you keep it that way.

:D My first guess would be that this has the same meaning as p : (p) : 1♥ : (x) , 4♣. Whatever that might be (fit?). If this is impossible I'll have to think again. Nice. Just out of interest, what do you open with ♠ x ♥ QJxx ♦ Qxx ♣ AKJxx ?

That's if you want an "average" 15-count to have a value of 15.00. I believe Ben was giving this hand a value of 15.50 instead. I have to say I find the latter method more intuitive. When someone writes "11.5 - 14", they're using Ben's notation for the lower bound and the traditional notation for the upper bound; hence this is a 3.5-point range.

If anything, I think the tendency is to make the no-trump range slightly wider than 3 points. For example you see people playing a 15-17 opening but who upgrade a lot of 14-counts (often described on the convention card as (14)15-17). This makes the range more like 3.2 or so.