epeeist Posted September 20, 2005 Report Share Posted September 20, 2005 Full Disclosure, from the little I've tried it, doesn't seem to allow a meaning to be given to an initial pass. Though non-standard, would it be difficult for it to be possible for an opening pass to be assigned a meaning? Given possible future integration between Full Disclosure and e.g. Vugraph (which might have pairs using fert systems), perhaps the program should be changed now to allow for "opening pass" definitions? I've only encountered opponents using a forcing pass system once. They were VERY good about clearly explaining all their bids (or passes...). Indeed, they were so good about fair disclosure that even though the tournament had some bidding restrictions (e.g. didn't permit Polish club), the TD agreed they would be permitted to use a forcing pass system in future tournaments also... :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrTodd13 Posted September 20, 2005 Report Share Posted September 20, 2005 What do you mean by "standard?" If by that you mean are the bids in that system standardized within the context of those who play the system then I would tend to believe that forcing pass systems are more standardized than any of the popular systems. Maybe that is a function of the fact that they aren't popular and therefore you don't have a lot of cooks spoiling the broth, i.e. tinkering with the system. My partner and I already have a semi-automated alert system for some common sequences although we don't go very deep in the tree. Those who play FP systems are likely to be more proactive about disclosure so in a sense they need "Full Disclosure" less than others. IMO, the FP players (and relayers to a lesser extent) already feel alienated enough so it is not surprising to us that "Full Disclosure" doesn't suit our needs. I understand that it was made with the majority in mind but any system that isn't bound by some specific sponsoring organization's baggage should really be neutral w.r.t. systems, as the laws of duplicate bridge themselves are agnostic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted September 20, 2005 Report Share Posted September 20, 2005 What do you mean by "standard?" If by that you mean are the bids in that system standardized within the context of those who play the system then I would tend to believe that forcing pass systems are more standardized than any of the popular systems. Maybe that is a function of the fact that they aren't popular and therefore you don't have a lot of cooks spoiling the broth, i.e. tinkering with the system. My partner and I already have a semi-automated alert system for some common sequences although we don't go very deep in the tree. Those who play FP systems are likely to be more proactive about disclosure so in a sense they need "Full Disclosure" less than others. IMO, the FP players (and relayers to a lesser extent) already feel alienated enough so it is not surprising to us that "Full Disclosure" doesn't suit our needs. I understand that it was made with the majority in mind but any system that isn't bound by some specific sponsoring organization's baggage should really be neutral w.r.t. systems, as the laws of duplicate bridge themselves are agnostic. Stop Qvetching... At the very least, don't complain "relay players" are feeling alienated. I play LOTS of relay and I'm damn happy that that Fred went and implemented this application. People have been talking about applications like Full Disclosure for years now. I can show you requirements documents that I drafted for OKBridge for similar functionality dating back to the late 90s. ANYONE who wanted to coudl have written this app, yourself included. Fred was the first one who was actually willing to do the work... Regardless, there's a few different ways to develop software projects. One style is based on assumptions of perfect foresight. You try anticipate everything that you need a build a perfect system. The second style is based on evolutionary design. Create something that runs. Throw it out there. Make changes and enhancements as appropriate. I'm a BIG fan of the second method. Its easier to learn from your mistakes than anticipate every contingency. Someday, far in the future, you'll probably want to re-architect the system. But when do so, its based on practical experience. In the mean time, you have some decent code that solving some real world problems. In short, don't bitch because this is not the be and and end all on day one... Going back to your example: Yes, a well defined macro language would make it much easier for me to design Convention Files to support MOSCITO and other relay systems. Being able to define a meaning for your initial pass would be great. Theres a LOT non strong pass systems out there that have interesting definitions for the initial pass. (Think old style Roth-Stone with "conventional psyches" or modern EHAA) You know this. I know this. Fred knows this. However, turning this into a petulant argument about discrimination against unusual systems doesn't help anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts