Qualify Idea

[Gerben42]

Hi, I think I've thought of a way to make FD recognize which of the different "qualify" fields should be taken, for example for different defences to different 1♣ openings etc.

 

Bids of our own side can be qualified with standard strings which have to match exactly, so they can steer what defence the opponents should use.

 

How is this qualification done?

 

Default for bids that have no qualification:

"Natural" for any bid not ticked artificial

"Artificial" for any unqualified bid ticked artificial

Some of the artificial bid descriptions are automatic qualifications also: "Transfer", "Relay".

 

General qualifications:

"Strong artificial"

"Strong"

"Intermediate"

"Weak"

 

A Precision 2♣ will simply get "Intermediate", a Weak Two simply "Weak". A strong NT will simply get "Strong", a Benji 2m will get "Strong artificial".

 

Bids may be ticked artificial but mostly natural in nature, if so the qualification is:

"Could be short"

 

and names of opening bid conventions:

"Multi" with strong options

"Minimulti" without strong options

"Ekren" (applies to 2♦♥♠)

"Polish" for Polish 1♣ opener

etc.

 

For such qualifications, either a defence is available for exact same qualification in opps FD file or not. If not, FD will not alert.

 

Of course if you play an 1♣ opening that is not either "Natural" or "Could be short" or "Strong" or "Polish", then you will not get FD explanations from opponents after those.

 

How to implement this?

I'd say: Make an extra option in the left menu where people can put their own description of a bid. This must be at most 20 characters or so and if it is matched to a qualification in opponent's FD file, the files couple.

[hrothgar]

Hi Gerben

 

I am very much in agreement. I strongly believe that the best way to proceed is to try to define a standard heirarchy for the purpose of qualifying bids.

 

As I noted earlier, in an ideal world, the server could track the frequency of different elements of the heirarchy. In turn, this could be used allocate resources efficiently for devising counter-measures. (I suspect that we're going to want to start working on FD type "suggested defenses" to the Multi-2D, Ekrens 2H and the like)

[Elianna]

Bids may be ticked artificial but mostly natural in nature, if so the qualification is:

"Could be short"

 

Of course if you play an 1♣ opening that is not either "Natural" or "Could be short" or "Strong" or "Polish", then you will not get FD explanations from opponents after those.

There is a slight problem in this, as it seems that one place's "Could be short" is another place's natural. (The main difference was how to treat one that could be 3.) So a person might end up having to go through their FD file to change all these checks depending on whose tournament they're playing in.

[Gerben42]

This problem is actually a fake problem, since 1m showing 3+cards is still natural, even if it might be alertable (as in England or Poland). The point here is which defence is used.

 

Some people use a different defence against 1♣ 2+cards other than 1♣ 3+cards or 1♣ 4+cards (because Brown Sticker overcalls are allowed and / or because it does no longer promise length (WBF definition: 3 or more cards), but since 1♣ 3+cards is "natural", the same defence as that against 1♣ 4+cards is used.

 

That's the point here: You want FD to choose which defence is used.