FD filling the CC automatically possible?

[Kaapo]

I was playing at a partnership bidding table and my partner, new to FD, asked the following question: Does FD include the explanations into the bss file as soon as they are encountered in the bidding?

 

I haven't found such a feature, but it might be quite nice. You'd explain a bid once and next time FD would explain it automatically. Sort of like web browsers remembering typed-in addresses. Maybe in a future version?

[hrothgar]

This has been suggested in the past:

 

I'd argue that this might be the "best" way for regular partnerships to build new Convention files. The file will very quickly converge on an optimal information density. This is a prentious way of saying that "important" information which is used frequently will get added quicker than less important information.

 

As I recall, Fred liked this idea. (Always a good thing if you want support)

However, its unclear if/when this feature would get added.

[inquiry]

It is easy enough to have open as a "working" FD file the FD file you are using. When an unexplained bid occurs, alert it normally, and then, fill out that bid on your working card, and if the auction is slow enough fill out a few of the follow ups.

 

It isn't exactly automatic, but it gives you something to do. If it is a really serious game, you might instead want to spend your time thinking about your next bid, but I find this method fairly easy to do.

[david_c]

I'm not convinced this is workable. Some possible problems:

 

- The explanations you give at the table might not be suitable for an FD file. You might want to give more detail in your FD file than you can fit into an alert at the table.

 

- It might be difficult to review your input later. In particular, your partner might want to know what you've typed. That can't happen at the table because it would conflict with self-alerting.

 

- FD has the ability to store different meanings for sequences depending on position and vulnerability. So either you have to give the same explanation again when the same bid comes up at a different posistion/vulnerability, or you have to have some way of telling FD when your explanation applies (which is time-consuming and interferes with trying to play the hand).

 

- Even if FD can record your explanations, it doesn't get information about the disposition, min/max length etc. (Note: I don't care for this information actually and would prefer FD files to contain just the "description", but while it's here we might as well be consistent about using it.)

[hrothgar]

>The explanations you give at the table might not be suitable for an FD file.

>You might want to give more detail in your FD file than you can fit into an

>alert at the table.

 

Not sure whether I agree with this. Why would you want to provide different levels of information in an FD file than at the table? If the information set is appropriate for one, it should be appropriate for another. (OK, I can see some arguments based time constraints, but this is a different issue)

 

>It might be difficult to review your input later. In particular, your partner might

>want to know what you've typed. That can't happen at the table because it would

>conflict with self-alerting.

 

So review it later

 

>Even if FD can record your explanations, it doesn't get information about the

>disposition, min/max length etc

 

Right now, I don't think that FD can record your alerts. If your going to make the changes to permit this, it would also make sense to pop up FD so that you could edit a complete description.

[pigpenz]

i have tried using FD in a couple of acbl tourneys and didnt really know if it was any better for the opps or not.

[inquiry]

i have tried using FD in a couple of acbl tourneys and didnt really know if it was any better for the opps or not.

99.9% of your opponents would not see the FD description yet. Only the enlightened souls who have come here and downloaded the beta. All that will change when the next full release that of the program occurs so everyone's version will be FD aware

[barmar]

>The explanations you give at the table might not be suitable for an FD file.

>You might want to give more detail in your FD file than you can fit into an

>alert at the table.

 

Not sure whether I agree with this. Why would you want to provide different levels of information in an FD file than at the table? If the information set is appropriate for one, it should be appropriate for another. (OK, I can see some arguments based time constraints, but this is a different issue)

I think the time constraint was precisely his point. When you're in the midst of bidding, you usually want to jot off a terse explanation, often just the name or abbreviation of a convention (e.g. "NMF"). But when you're leisurely filling out an FD card, you have time to describe the bid in detail.