Defining a Lexicon

[hrothgar]

As I've noted in past threads, I think that the Full Disclosure application would benefit from the implementation of conditional logic. For example, I would like to be able to vary my NT defense based on whether the opponent's opened a 10-12 HCP 1NT, a 16-18 1NT opening, or a ROMEX 1NT opening.

 

From my perspective, the most obvious implementation scheme would be to tag bids with a unique identifier. In turn, specific defenses could be linked to individual identifiers. Furthermore, I'd argue that this system would work best if players adopted a standardized mechanism to assign identifiers to different bids. Computers are very stupid creatures. Unfortunately, they don't necessarily understand that "10-12 HCP 1NT", "10-12 Notrump", and "Mini-notrump" are all different ways to describe the same opening bid.

 

Promoting a standardized vocabulary (or lexicon) would probably make all of our lives quite a bit easier. I'd like to explore the limits of this approach by brainstorming how we might classify different 1NT openings. Any and all suggestions are more than welcome:

 

I'll toss out the first ball: I'll argue that "natural" NT openings should be identified as follows "Minimum range - Maximum range NT". As an example "10 - 12 HCP NT" would be a valid identifier. Equally significant, I'd argue that 10+ - 12 HCP NT" would NOT be a valid identifier. Identifiers are meant to be parsed by computers and not people. While it is right and proper to provide information about tendencies to upgrade or downgrade suitable hands in the information presented to the opponents, I don't think that its necessary to bundle this in to the identifer. (Does any out there change their defense to mini NT openings based on whether the opponent upgrade a suitable 9 count?)

 

I'd contrast this system for identifying natural NT openings, with a structure for identifying conventional openings. One of the givens in disclosure is that players should provide verbal descriptions of bids rather than just giving the name of the convention. However, this would seem to be a counter example. I'd arge that a 2♦ that promises 4 Spades and 5+ Diamonds should be identified as "Flannery".

 

Furthermore, the task of promoting a standardized lexicon can be made easier by adding appropriate functionality to the BidEdit application. Ideally, the BBO server would maintain a masterlist of different identifier associated with a given bid. (These could be sub-divided based on whether the bid was flagged as natural or artificial). When players enter a new bid

[cherdano]

From experience with computer standards, languages etc. there is IMO one clear lesson for tries like this:

 

This won't work at all, unless FD immediately enforces that bids are described in this uniform technology.

 

So I am not saying that your idea won't work, just that it won't work without support inside the bidedit program.

 

Arend

[hrothgar]

From experience with computer standards, languages etc. there is IMO one clear lesson for tries like this:

 

This won't work at all, unless FD immediately enforces that bids are described in this uniform technology.

 

So I am not saying that your idea won't work, just that it won't work without support inside the bidedit program.

 

Arend

I agree with Arend's basic point: Life would be much easier if the Lexicon is supported (eforced?) by primary editors used to create BSS files.

 

Here's where things get complicated: Which bids require an identifier? We don't want to burden folks with the requirement that they create an identified for every bid in their system (lord knows that creating a complete FD system is bad enough). At the same time, we'd like players to be able to create flexible defense.

 

My gut tells me that that identified should be required for

 

1. All 1NT openings

2. All 2♣ openings

3. All conventional openings

[DrTodd13]

I looked into this topic extensively a few months back. A system is generically a tree shape where the number of children of a node corresponds not only to the number of valid possible calls at that point in the auction but if the call corresponds to interference by opps then every possible meaning they could assign to that bid. In this sense, 10-12 is different from 10-13 or 11-12 or 10-11 or 10+-12 (which is just another way of saying that you aren't strictly using Milton work count but aren't explicitly telling the opponents what you do use). You could theoretically want a different defense against all these but practically you wouldn't. So rather than have large duplicate subtrees as part of the overall system tree, I was working on a way to link one subtree with another subtree so that you would only have to enter that subtree once.

 

The problem is very nasty. If you try to keep it simple then there will always be cases that you can't handle and people will complain. If you do what is actually required to accurately capture what people's agreements are then it is so complicated that nobody would use it. A textual description is never going to allow you have one defense for one kind of NT and another defense for another kind of NT.