cicus

Thank you.

What's the difference in Full Disclosure between switching tooltips ON/OFF?

I have created 2 entries for 1M openings - one for 1st and 2nd seat, another for 3rd and 4th. Only, somehow the new one for 3rd and 4th place appears before the other on the list. This is a bit confusing. How could I exchange them? Is there a - possibly easy - way of sorting opening bids in FD? Thanks in advance for any response. Gábor

The versions supplied in the BBO 4.4.5 pack and FD 1.1.1 pack seem to be different. If I install 1.1.1 and run it, I get the 1.1.0 version number. The two bidedit files are of different date and contents. Gábor Szots

I'll try to describe more precisely what happens, although it seems to me it is in accordance with what you wrote. Say I open my system file and go to the Top. I click on the 1NT we use 3rd in hand nonvulnerable. Now I change my mind and go Up. At this moment Vul=We not vul, while Dealer=3, that is, it shows the vulnerability and position of the last edited item. If I now click on our 1♠ opening, which we use in all vulnerabilities, I am surprised to see that a new (empty) 1♠ opening has been created. If I go Up now, the newly created 1♠ does not disappear. Yes, you are right that I can delete this or I can prevent the whole thing by paying attention to the positional and vulnerability information. But I think the opposite would be better: a new 1♠ should only be created if I deliberately change the pos/vul information *after* I opened the old 1♠. Of course, this may have drawbacks of which I am not aware of. At least I can see that it is not a bug but a feature. Thanks for your reply. Gábor

Suppose I play variable NT's. I edited the one used in 4th position. I go up a level and choose the one for 3rd position. Now if I am not awake I may lose the previously edited 4th-in-hand NT because the position does not change automatically by selecting another 1NT. Moreover, if I have an in-all-positions 1♣ and click on it in order to continue editing, a new instance of 1♣ will be opened with the dealer positions of my last editing. Gábor

As to your points: 6. There are a lot of players rejecting claims because they are unable to see your line of play however obvious it may be to you. Yes it annoys me too but play levels are different. 9. Why should they leave? They want to play and you accepted their request to join your table. The only justification for booting them for this reason seems to me if they faked their level ("expert") and it turns out they can hardly tell spades from hearts. 10. These reasons may be very subjective. If you can't bear them you can leave the table yourself. Gábor

Thanks for the reply. In fact if memory serves me well I have never booted anybody till today. Both these players were from Turkey (maybe in a region of Turkey there were connection problems - I don't understand why there were no red dots in either case), and when a 3rd Turkish player came to play to my table I felt quite desperate... I decided not to boot him whatever happens, but I also decided that I would never be a table host again. :) Gábor

Just finished playing on BBO. During the session I had to boot two players for giving no response of any kind for several minutes. They had no red dot, they simply did not bid or answer. Now I think this will count the same as though I had booted them out of anger. SOS! Gábor Szőts

Have you completed enough of the keying to be able to estimate your final record count? I have just begun working on a comparable file, based upon "BBO Standard - Basic". All that I'm attempting to do, at this time, is record sequences beginning with 1c and 1d. I have keyed what appear to be the higher-frequency uncontested auctions, including "only some" of the more-likely slam-try sequences. It appears that, after suit agreement and using standard Blackwood, there are at least 55 logical sub-sequences from 4nt onward. (4 possible replies, after which asker may sign off, bid slam, or continue with 5nt . . ). And, that there are "quite a few" suit-agreement sequences, in which one partner is unlimited and may logically ask for aces. (Single raise, 2+ jump raises, 3 possible splinters, raise followed by cue bid/s, etc). In all likelihood, several thousand uncontested slam-try sequences. Not to mention possible competition. Each combination of opposing actions--even assuming that opponents subside below 3nt--would generate an additional copy of "all logical uncontested" sequences. It is "far from obvious", to me, that it would be truly feasible to make use of--let alone record--a file consisting of one record for each reasonably-forseeable auction. It would seem advisable to--in the relatively-near future--estimate the "maximum feasible" file size . . I am a little bit scared by what you wrote. I have keyed in about the first 4 rounds of our most important bidding sequences. The file size is 15kbyte now. I have not yet bypassed 3NT... We use a bit complicated relay big club system. The same bid always denotes the same hand type, only the suits vary. E.g. 5422 is always shown by 3♠. I don't think I will include these 'moduls' in the file because then I will have to repeat the same key sequence 20 times. Even if I use copy and paste it is not easy because suits have to be altered in the explanation fields. Still, it is useful to complete this CC: while I'm doing it I memorize the system.

Yes, we will certainly create such a web page (and also make it possible to download various FD files through BBO itself). I am not sure if members of the BBO staff and going to get involved in creating these files themselves. I hope that groups of volunteers will form for this purpose. However, FD is still too young to start a project like that. The file format could still change and the program needs more testing until I am confident that it is stable enough to be used for a major project (like creating an SAYC file for example). Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Hi Fred, I have already typed in a great part of our pretty complex convention card so if you change the file format for FD could you please find a way so that I don't have to input all the data again? If not I'd better stop right now... Best wishes, Gábor

Convincing argument. Would you please explain where I went wrong? I bid according to WJ2005 (I hope).

Type !H or !S or !D or !C to show ♥ or ♠ or ♦ or ♣ symbol. This works in all versions since 1.0.3 or 1.0.4. Silly me! I should have known it goes the same as in BBO... Thanks.

2♦ intead of 1NT would have shown diamonds so we can exclude that 3♦ is natural. In that case it must be game forcing (I would bid 2NT with all 5-6 point hands without 3 spades) and showing values in diamonds. Opener shall bid 3♠ now to deny a heart stopper. With a heart stopper responder will bid 3NT, without that he will bid 4♠ or 4♣. Over 3NT and 4♠ opener should pass, over 4♣ he should bid 5♣ or even 5♥ with strong clubs. 6♣ may easily be on. Gábor

Somehow I can't reply to the post in which it was announced. I like this software very much. A small suggestion: if the minimum and maximum suit length promised by a bid are equal, can it not display something like "exactly 4 hearts" (or simply "4 hearts") instead of "4-4 hearts"? Another suggestion: when a bid is artificial but shows a specific suit can the suit length not made to refer to that suit? And a 3rd one: it would be nice to be able to use suit symbols in the description area. Thanks for listening. Gabor Szots

Thanks for the link. Interesting to see that Meckstroth-Rodwell seem to have abandoned the mini NT. Gábor