FD co-czars

[luke warm]

hey ben and wayne, are you guys gonna let us know what you need? also, do you prefer to have FD files done piecemeal (ie, bergen raises stand alone) or what? thanks and good luck

[inquiry]

hey ben and wayne, are you guys gonna let us know what you need? also, do you prefer to have FD files done piecemeal (ie, bergen raises stand alone) or what? thanks and good luck

We need help, and a lot of it!!! Right now, we are looking for volunteers, but we will be contacting people begging for help if not enough people step up. We already have a few volunteers, and we have already twisted some arms to get lead developers on a few bidding systems.

 

What we are going to try to do is come up with standard versions of popular bidding systems in FD flle format. These will be loaded automatically in the next (or future) release of BridgeVu software. The idea is that if someone wants to play, say SAYC, they could pick the SAYC FD file and have it explain their bids.

 

Clearly most people will want to "tweak" the standard versions. Take the simple auction 1H-P-3H in standard american (natural) framework. Most non-tournment players might expect that to be game forcing, most people with tournament experience might expect that to be limit raise, and many others playing things like Bergen raises will take that as weak and preemptive. So how do we describe this in the "standard" FD format becomes somewhat of an issue.

 

We are going to put together teams of people to help with the development of each of these completed FD covention cards. The initial task is to create a completed FD file with as much detail as possible. This might be the work of one dedicated person of several people working on different aspects of the system and then merging the files. Once we have an intial draft, we will want to have it peer reveiwed by others interested in that system (and by Wayne and myself). During this process, we will correct any errors, add any missing sequences, etc. Wayne and I will have to settle any disputes on what should be include or excluded, and then the FD file will be ready for uploading to all BBO members.

 

The concept here is to develop "complete" systems for the very common systems. Clearly this means SAYC and 2-over-1. We may have to create two versions of each of those. We will also one popular systems like French standard, Italian standard, precison, polish club, acol, and maybe things like Bridge World Standard, etc.

 

In addition we need to develop a list of conventions that can easily be added to any bidding system. These will include things like Bergen Raises (or should it be "reverse bergen"?), drury, Jacoby 2NT, keri, etc. Each of these will need the same vetting process where once the FD file is created, we have volunteers willing to help review and comment on the "accuracy" and completeness of the FD file.

 

Another part of the process will be to try and make the FD files consistent in formatting. This means, selecting the distributional clues (suit legnth) and appropriate meaning of the bid from the list of attributes (constructive, signoff, etc) provided by the software. That is, each bid should be identified as one of the follwing: Non-forcing. Constructive, Invitational, forcing, forcing to game, slam try, preemptive.

 

There are some fuzzy areas here. I think non-forcing should be used on bids that are more likely to be passed than not. Constructive on bids that are more likely to hear partner bid than pass. Invitiational on bids that ask partner to bid on with max for bidding. Forcing implies just one round, forcing to game is "weaker" force than slam try.

 

So if in SAYC one player opens 1♦, we should mark that as "constructive" rather than non-forcing (and one has to be checkeD).

 

If partner responds 1♥, this is more than constructive, in that it is clearly forcing one round, so F1 (WBF abbreviation) would be ok, but just check "forcing". By a passed hand, it might be marked as constructive, however, as an example of what I have in mind.

 

Afert 1♦=Pass=1♥=Pass, the following rebids might be marked as...

 

1♠ = Constructive, 4(+)♠, not forcing (I happen to play forcing)

1NT = non-forcing, BAL, 11-14 hcp,

2♣ = constructive, 4+♣

2♦ = non-forcing, 5+♦

2♥ = non-forcing, 3+♥

2♠ = forcing or forcing to game, depends upon agreement

3♣ = forcing to game?

3♦ = Constructive

3♥ = invitational

3♠ = mark GAME FORCE and show 0-1♠, and put SPL for splinter and say 4♥ on the description somewhere.

 

This last one shows that the code availabe isn't perfect. No splinter option, no fragment option, a lot of trouble describing 2NT bids (usual, scramble, good/bad, strong raise, constructive raise). So the abbreviations from WBL will be needed. I think we might have occassion for these (and maybe more)...

 

ASK = asking bid

BAL = balance

WK = weak

PRE = preemptive

SPL = splinter

CUE = cue bid

HCP = high card points

MAX = maximum

NEG = negative

MIN = minimum

FJ = Fit jump

FNJ = Fit not jump

VUL = vulnerable

NVUL = not vulnerable

4SF = fourth suit forcing

WJO = weak jump overcall

WJS = weal jump shift

NF = non-forcing

F1 = forcing one round

FG = Forcing to Game

ST = slam try

UNT = unusual notrump

P/C = pass correct

2SUITS = two suited overcall, then describe suits, this is not WBF, other than UNT I am looking for better way to show 2-suited abbreviation

 

Also, we need to decide on a uniform agreement on the distinction between a puppet and a relay. I think within the context we have, a RELAY seaks more infomation and a puppet just ask partner to make a specific bid, and a transfer shows the next suit (which is different from a puppet which promises nothing).

 

So, for example, Jacoby transfer promsing hearts would be transfer, lebehnshol asking partner to bid 3♣ is a puppet (since it doesn't promise clubs), but rubenshol would be a transfer. A puppet will be the bid, so in lebehnshol, 2NT is puppet (not the following 3C bid).

 

A relay will be a bid that ask for partner to describe his hand, while an asking bid ask for SPECIFIC infomation. RKCB would be an asking bid, but some bids that ask for (say) both distribution and losers at the same time, will be a relay.

 

I think in creating these files, we should strive to have the distribution part filled in as accuarately as possible as auctions go along, clearly, when you bid a suit, you can show the expect legnth, but when other suits are known also, we should include that in the text line as well. For example, I use Revere flannery by responder, so 2♥ to a minor shows 4+♥, but also 5+♠. Clearly showing 4+♥ using the suit legnth option on FD is not enough, because info about spades is also provided. So the diistributional clues have to be added to the text description where possible (using format... S-H-D-C). So that for me, 1C-2H would include on text line WK 2SUIT 5♠+-4♥+(xy), to indicate something like that (actually exactly like that). Maybe instead of WK (for weak), we might include the expected hcp range, 3-8 HCP, 2SUIT 5♠+-4♥+(xy).

 

It would be nice the the TEAM developing each FD file tries to stick to consitend formatting and abbreviations. This way, people whose primary language is not english will still understand the automatically generated information.

 

So, in a nutshell. We need people to step up and help generate the initial FD files (we call these Teams, an SAYC team, a BBO Advanced team, etc). We need people to volunteer to review the FD files these team create for 1) accuracy, 2) completeness, 3) formatting, and report on their finding. I would like at least four or five knowledgeable people (especially people withe teaching experience, but is not a requirement) to step up for the reviewing process.

 

Wayne and I will review the files and comments and make any final corrections to the FD file before it is "approved".

 

Ben

[stev_hav]

It would be nice the the TEAM developing each FD file tries to stick to consitend formatting and abbreviations. This way, people whose primary language is not english will still understand the automatically generated information.

 

So, in a nutshell. We need people to step up and help generate the initial FD files (we call these Teams, an SAYC team, a BBO Advanced team, etc). We need people to volunteer to review the FD files these team create for 1) accuracy, 2) completeness, 3) formatting, and report on their finding. I would like at least four or five knowledgeable people (especially people withe teaching experience, but is not a requirement) to step up for the reviewing process.

 

Wayne and I will review the files and comments and make any final corrections to the FD file before it is "approved".

 

Ben

Use of "consistent formatting and abbreviations" appears desirable for reasons entirely unrelated to some participants' unfamiliarity with English.

 

At least IMO, it appears that the current/1.1.8 format will need to be enhanced; to transmit additional relevant information. Assuming that no such enhancement will be available in the near future, the best place to house such information is in the "description" field.

 

It might well be advisable to adopt a convention, to the effect that "recommended" abbreviations be placed at the beginning of the description field, separated by commas and terminated by a delimiter. Everything after the semicolon being entirely free-form. In and of itself, this would result in abbreviations being displayed first; in the most-visible location.

 

If consensus, as to the recommended list could be arrived at, development of audit software would be a quite-straightforward matter. In its simplest form, this would merely verify that the beginning of the description field--up to the delimiter--was consistent with the recommended list. In addition to promoting consistency, this would be quite helpful if a subsequent version of FD provided explicit support for some recommended-list entries.

 

Such software could also verify that everything preceding the description was validly formatted and internally consistent. Specifically including verification that all bidding sequences are both themselves legal, and consistent with previously-specified sequences. An auction (opponents silent) beginning with 1S-1N-2S should logically be preceded by 1S-1N.

 

A requirement, that all submissions pass audit-software validation, would appear to be quite desirable.

[hrothgar]

A requirement, that all submissions pass audit-software validation, would appear to be quite desirable.

The more compexity and rigidity you add, the less likely that people will use the functionality...

[luke warm]

ok, so if i understand what ben said it's ok for different volunteers to work on different areas of the same system, at the same time... for example, i can (have) done 'reverse' bergen raises, including jacoby 2nt, for a 2/1 system

 

now ben, do you prefer the .bss file emailed to you or posted in a central location on the forums in plain text?

 

the advantage of posting them is you can save them with your own file name rather than having to risk some conflict with one of your own

[david_c]

All these abbreviations worry me a little. They're great for people who are already familar with the WBF abbreviations, but most BBO users aren't - wouldn't they have problems understanding what "F1" meant?

 

 

The more compexity and rigidity you add, the less likely that people will use the functionality...

But it might still be sensible to make the "official" BBO FD files conform to some standard, while allowing more flexibility for files created by the users.

[keylime]

Admittedly, the WBF syntax is very loaded and I think counterproductive.

 

Right now as I am working on the Precision FD CC's, I am using verbage like "forcing", "limit raise or better", and "puppets to". I think this is a superior way of getting the intent (which after all is "full disclosure") across to the players.

[stev_hav]

All these abbreviations worry me a little. They're great for people who are already familar with the WBF abbreviations, but most BBO users aren't - wouldn't they have problems understanding what "F1" meant?

 

 

The more compexity and rigidity you add, the less likely that people will use the functionality...

But it might still be sensible to make the "official" BBO FD files conform to some standard, while allowing more flexibility for files created by the users.

I fully agree that the proposed list of abbreviations is rather lengthy, and that many BBO users are likely to be unfamiliar with it. Even so, the advantages of consistency do appear to be substantial.

 

Very-possibly best that Inquiry review his list; remaining consistent with the WBF abbreviations as far as possible, but adding new ones where necessary. Then post the revised list "for review and comment"; allowing others to propose revisions and/or additions.

 

Once a consensus were arrived at, a convention to the effect that "official" FD files follow it in a consistent manner could be adopted. With fairly-straightforward modifications to BBO and/or FD, optional display of the spelled-out form could be supported. Allowing--at individual-user option--brevity for more-familiar entries, and completeness for less-familiar ones. In some cases, especially for less-experienced players, even the spelled-out form might not be entirely clear. As appropriate, "expanded" explanations--as long as a full paragraph--could be developed and published.

 

Altho the initial version of the list should be "as complete as practicable", subsequent additions could be handled without significant difficulty.

[Echognome]

I personally think you can try to have the best of both worlds.

 

In terms of the stock convention cards for the masses (and say individual tourneys... ding ding ding), having verbose definitions in plain english seems best. Perhaps we can play around with ideas for the standard language on that.

 

In terms of users own pet systems (I have a couple of my own), I think we should try to stick to uniform abbreviations as much as we can. I see nothing wrong with adopting the WBFs nomenclature.

[Dwingo]

Since the FD files can be opened by any Text Editor like Word, I would suggest that the creator of the FD file use the WBF syntax to make it easier for them to create such files.

 

Once these files are sent to the FD Czar, then Ben / Wayne can use the Find and Replace function of Word to replace all the WBF abbreviations into their fuller form.

 

For eg. FJ in these FD files would be replaced by FJ ( Fit Jump). Once all the default systems available in the BBO server uses the abbreviated and expanded nomenclature together, then over a period of time, all users will soon be able to recognise and understand these abbreviations, even when the expanded text is not available in the FD's created by other users for their pet systems/conventions.

 

As more and more people are aware of this Find and Replace function in Word, it shouldn't be too very difficult to get this message across to stick to this format of Abbreviation ( Expansion).

 

Godwin

[inquiry]

A couple of issues,

 

1) Those wanting to submit FD-versions of conventions shoud email them to me or cascade. Having a good list of conventions will be important, because one of the goals will be to create vanilla versions of different bidding systems to which users can add their favorite conventions. These conventions will go through a similar vetting process.

 

2) Ideally, most of the abbreviations given above will not have to be used. That is, most of the time, you can choose one of the options from the pick list provided within FD itself. For example, "forcing" and "forcing to game", which should make F1 and FG unnecessary. But if you are going to abbreviate "strong" or "maximum" or "minimum" or preemptive, then using standard abbreviatons are important. Of course, if you have written out preemptive, no problem.

[hrothgar]

Personally, I am strongly in favor of creating a "standard" list of abbreviations.

People are going to use abbreviations. Its best if they were all on the same page, so to speak.

 

Being my normal lazy self, I very much approve of boot strapping off the WBF's existing nomenclature. If you accept that some kind of abbreviations are desirable, there seems to be a lot of advantages and few problems with adopting an existing standard.

 

I agree with people who note that using the WBF system will require some effort on the part of players to learn the nomenclature. However, the same will hold true regardless of what system gets used. Defining a standard is the best way to minimize the amount of work required.

[nickf]

The use of the term FD-Czar reminds me of an amusing conversation I had with an American lawyer while backpacking through Fiji in late 1989.

 

That year, President Bush appointed William Bennett (correct me if I'm wrong) as the government Drug Czar. Steve, my US lawyer acquaintance, was dumbstruck at the use of 'czar'

 

"No one has czars anymore", he proclaimed.

 

Maybe you had to be there.

 

nickf

sydney

[badderzboy]

Hi all,

 

One area to consider is defensive bidding and coping with interference.

 

This is a seperate option in FD but I can't see how to pull in defensive bidding cards?

 

These aren't necessarily part of any system although there are exceptions of course

 

For example I play 1♦ - DBL - new suit as non-forcing with XX and jump bids forcing but I suspect many don't ?

 

Others play it forcing but it is system independent.

 

The same thing applies to Fit-jumps and so on?

 

Any thoughts out there?

 

Steve

[stev_hav]

Hi all,

 

One area to consider is defensive bidding and coping with interference.

 

This is a seperate option in FD but I can't see how to pull in defensive bidding cards?

 

These aren't necessarily part of any system although there are exceptions of course

 

For example I play 1♦ - DBL - new suit as non-forcing with XX and jump bids forcing but I suspect many don't ?

 

Others play it forcing but it is system independent.

 

The same thing applies to Fit-jumps and so on?

 

Any thoughts out there?

 

Steve

Somewhat related, it appears that the number of "reasonably forseeable" sequences, which might logically be specifically mentioned in an FD file, is quite large. Assume the following--somewhat over-simplified--conditions:

A. Vulnerability is irrelevant.

B. Only sequences in which the dealer (North) opens the bidding are considered.

C. Both sides are playing identical versions of SAYC, using only a minimal list of conventions (Stayman, 2-suit transfers, 2nt forcing major raise, 2c strong/2d waiting, negative doubles, unusual NT, Michaels, Blackwood).

 

North will choose one of--at least--ten different calls with significant frequency. East will then choose one of--at least--twelve different alternatives (pass, double, minimal or single-jump overcall).

South will then choose from some five alternatives, after which West will choose from some five.

 

Implying that some 3000 first-round sequences should be regarded as "reasonably forseeable". Assuming that each player has as few as two logical-alternative calls on the second round, we now have a total of 48,000 such sequences. Attempting to manually key any such volume into FD, let alone issues related to reviewing, distribution, etc., appears rather impractical.

 

Undisputed that only a relatively-small percentage, of all "reasonably forseeable" sequences, occur with any significant frequency. It seems probable--altho I have done no relevant calculations/research--that the highest-frequency 1-2000 sequences would occur in 99+ percent of all relevant auctions. In other words, the remaining 46-47000 sequences would occur in less than 1% of auctions; and could be, at least for the purpose of initial FD creation, safely disregarded.

 

It appears that some "guidelines", as to selection of sequences which need to be actually included in FD files, need to be established.

[stev_hav]

Hi all,

 

One area to consider is defensive bidding and coping with interference.

 

This is a seperate option in FD but I can't see how to pull in defensive bidding cards?

 

These aren't necessarily part of any system although there are exceptions of course

 

For example I play 1♦ - DBL - new suit as non-forcing with XX and jump bids forcing but I suspect many don't ?

 

Others play it forcing but it is system independent.

 

The same thing applies to Fit-jumps and so on?

 

Any thoughts out there?

 

Steve

Somewhat related, it appears that the number of "reasonably forseeable" sequences, which might logically be specifically mentioned in an FD file, is quite large. Assume the following--somewhat over-simplified--conditions:

A. Vulnerability is irrelevant.

B. Only sequences in which the dealer (North) opens the bidding are considered.

C. Both sides are playing identical versions of SAYC, using only a minimal list of conventions (Stayman, 2-suit transfers, 2nt forcing major raise, 2c strong/2d waiting, negative doubles, unusual NT, Michaels, Blackwood).

 

North will choose one of--at least--ten different calls with significant frequency. East will then choose one of--at least--twelve different alternatives (pass, double, minimal or single-jump overcall).

South will then choose from some five alternatives, after which West will choose from some five.

 

Implying that some 3000 first-round sequences should be regarded as "reasonably forseeable". Assuming that each player has as few as two logical-alternative calls on the second round, we now have a total of 48,000 such sequences. Attempting to manually key any such volume into FD, let alone issues related to reviewing, distribution, etc., appears rather impractical.

 

Undisputed that only a relatively-small percentage, of all "reasonably forseeable" sequences, occur with any significant frequency. It seems probable--altho I have done no relevant calculations/research--that the highest-frequency 1-2000 sequences would occur in 99+ percent of all relevant auctions. In other words, the remaining 46-47000 sequences would occur in less than 1% of auctions; and could be, at least for the purpose of initial FD creation, safely disregarded.

 

It appears that some "guidelines", as to selection of sequences which need to be actually included in FD files, need to be established.

There appears to be a fundamental problem in this area.

 

As best I am able to determine, it is necessary to assume one--and only one--opposing agreement concerning any given call. Opponents' 1c openings have to be assumed either "natural in principle", or "forcing"; bidding side's agreements concerning double, 1nt, and 2c tend to be significantly different.

 

Short-term, about all that can be done is to make an assumption as to opponents' agreement.

 

It may, sooner or later, be desirable to develop a list of frequently-encountered conventions, and to accept specification of this on both bidding side's and opponents' calls. Bidding side could then specify one meaning for "double" over a natural 1c, and an entirely-different meaning over a forcing 1c.

[badderzboy]

Hi all,

 

One area to consider is defensive bidding and coping with interference.

 

This is a seperate option in FD but I can't see how to pull in defensive bidding cards?

 

These aren't necessarily part of any system although there are exceptions of course

 

For example I play 1♦ - DBL - new suit as non-forcing with XX and jump bids forcing but I suspect many don't ?

 

Others play it forcing but it is system independent.

 

The same thing applies to Fit-jumps and so on?

 

Any thoughts out there?

 

Steve

Somewhat related, it appears that the number of "reasonably forseeable" sequences, which might logically be specifically mentioned in an FD file, is quite large. Assume the following--somewhat over-simplified--conditions:

A. Vulnerability is irrelevant.

B. Only sequences in which the dealer (North) opens the bidding are considered.

C. Both sides are playing identical versions of SAYC, using only a minimal list of conventions (Stayman, 2-suit transfers, 2nt forcing major raise, 2c strong/2d waiting, negative doubles, unusual NT, Michaels, Blackwood).

 

North will choose one of--at least--ten different calls with significant frequency. East will then choose one of--at least--twelve different alternatives (pass, double, minimal or single-jump overcall).

South will then choose from some five alternatives, after which West will choose from some five.

 

Implying that some 3000 first-round sequences should be regarded as "reasonably forseeable". Assuming that each player has as few as two logical-alternative calls on the second round, we now have a total of 48,000 such sequences. Attempting to manually key any such volume into FD, let alone issues related to reviewing, distribution, etc., appears rather impractical.

 

Undisputed that only a relatively-small percentage, of all "reasonably forseeable" sequences, occur with any significant frequency. It seems probable--altho I have done no relevant calculations/research--that the highest-frequency 1-2000 sequences would occur in 99+ percent of all relevant auctions. In other words, the remaining 46-47000 sequences would occur in less than 1% of auctions; and could be, at least for the purpose of initial FD creation, safely disregarded.

 

It appears that some "guidelines", as to selection of sequences which need to be actually included in FD files, need to be established.

There appears to be a fundamental problem in this area.

 

As best I am able to determine, it is necessary to assume one--and only one--opposing agreement concerning any given call. Opponents' 1c openings have to be assumed either "natural in principle", or "forcing"; bidding side's agreements concerning double, 1nt, and 2c tend to be significantly different.

 

Short-term, about all that can be done is to make an assumption as to opponents' agreement.

 

It may, sooner or later, be desirable to develop a list of frequently-encountered conventions, and to accept specification of this on both bidding side's and opponents' calls. Bidding side could then specify one meaning for "double" over a natural 1c, and an entirely-different meaning over a forcing 1c.

It is possible to have multiple replies to opposing bids depending on their meaning.

 

You need to use qualify text box on the screen where you enter the bids meaning.

 

Steve

[hrothgar]

Undisputed that only a relatively-small percentage, of all "reasonably forseeable" sequences, occur with any significant frequency.  It seems probable--altho I have done no relevant calculations/research--that the highest-frequency 1-2000 sequences would occur in 99+ percent of all relevant auctions.  In other words, the remaining 46-47000 sequences would occur in less than 1% of auctions; and could be, at least for the purpose of initial FD creation, safely disregarded.   

 

It appears that some "guidelines", as to selection of sequences which need to be actually included in FD files, need to be established.

Here's a rather simple solution to this problem:

 

Each and every day people play thousands upon thousands of Boards on BBO. A rather large percentage of these boards get saved into an nice searchable database called BridgeBrowser.

 

It should be quite easy to use BridgeBrowser to create a tree that displays the frequency of different bidding sequences. This can be used for both competitive and non-competitive auctions.

 

There are problems with this method. Bridge Browser doesn't understand bidding context. It doesn't understand whether a 1C opening on a 4=3=2=4 19 count is a Precision 1C, a Polish Club, or natural 1♣. Ideally you'd want to partion this into separate trees.

 

Even so, if you are genuinely worried about this stuff, I think that this is the best way to apporach it.