BBO advanced FD file - is anyone using it?

[cherdano]

The progress on the FD file seems to have stalled a little, mostly due to lack of volunteer help for the FD czars Ben and Wayne. After talking a bit with Ben, we decided that I will give it another try with the BBO advanced FD file, so I will take care of the file for now.

 

I will post more thoughts on the file another time (there are a lot more decisions in such a file than I could have thought of), but for now I am interested whether it actually has been used.

 

Arend

[csdenmark]

I think you ought to have an option that the file(the system) is obsolete. I have voted never because I don't play that kind of systems at all. May cause a bit of biase in your poll.

[david_c]

I voted "once or twice": I'm only happy using it when playing with people I know from the forums. The problem is that although 2/1 is widely played on BBO, the detailed system called "BBO advanced" is not.

[Dwingo]

I voted a Few times. I noticed a few discrepancies in the BBO Advanced FD file, not matching with the BBO Advanced Notes available on BBO.

 

This was some time back. I will try and recollect and post it here or send you a Private message, so that you can do the editting.

[hrothgar]

I think that its worthwhile to differentiate between the contents of a Full Disclosure file and way in which that file is going to be used.

 

As I have noted in the past, once a Full Disclosure file has been created, it can be used for a wide variety of purposes. Automating alert strings during tournaments is the most obvious use for an FD file. However, from my perspective, the most significant role that FD will play is as a cheat-sheet for players learning new bidding systems. (Mark my words, 5 years from now, people won't be able to market a new book on bidding without providing a comprehensive FD file to accompany it)

 

From my perspective, the level of specification of an FD file very much depends on how people intend to use it. If I am teach players a new bidding system, be it BBO Advanced, Standard English, or MOSCITO I want to provide players with "system in a can". I want to provide a single, complete/comprehensive system that they can go out and practice with. I recognize that many systems have a wide number of optional components. Players who are learning MOSCITO could just as easily adopt Keri over NT openings, Scanian NT responses, or 4 way transfers. The gains or losses aren't that significant. Even so, if I am teaching MOSCITO I should probably make a decision and select one of these structures are the basis for my lessons.

 

In contrast, players who intend to use FD as a tool to disclose their methods to third parties have a very different set of requirements. Many established partnerships like to customize their methods. Accordingly, these players require mechanisms to create their own FD files. Its possible that these players might go to the trouble of learning to used the FD editor, however, I have my doubts. The easiest way to support these players is to design "modular" FD systems. Players would select a baseline system like 2/1 GF with a 15-17 NT or Polish Club and then add a set of modules that reflected their own system preferences.

 

From my own perspective, the FD application in its current incarnation is appropriate for instructional use. I think that FD is a wonderful tool for players who want to learn a new bidding system. With this said and done, I don't think that FD is really ready for prime time as a replacement for Convention Cards. Plain and simple, the FD application is too complicated for anyone except for power users. The vast majority of players on BBO aren't going to bother learning how to use the FD editor. The GUI is still very primitive.

 

I think that its very important to note that having an incomplete/broken FD application is a VERY GOOD THING. In theory, Fred and Uday could have spent enormous amounts of time and effort trying to anticipate every possible need and build/release a perfect FD application. My personal suspicion: If they had gone this route, we'd never see FD released this decade. If and when it finally did ship, it still wouldn't work "right". I like software development models in which you through something imperfect out into the market, see where the rough edges are, sand these down, throw on some duct tape here or there, and slowly cobble together something great. If and when the system is looking good, you can consider a more formal design with a nice streamlined architecture and what have you.

 

My recommendation in the short term is to look at what you have available today and see how it can best be used. If you accept the “theory” that I lay out above, one point should be perfectly clear. You are talking to the wrong set of people. Bridge players - especially the bridge players who frequent this forum – aren't the target user base for the this incarnation of the FD application. Rather, the user base is bridge TEACHERS. There is a set of individuals out there who spend a lot of time and effort promoting different bidding systems. At this stage in its development, the success of FD depends on integrating the application into the didactic process. You need to identify the key decision makers and bring them on board.

 

In a similar fashion, lets assume that its 12 months down the road and BBO has released a new version of FD which is more suitable for use by individual partnerships. There's a nice GUI (Maybe it looks a lot like the existing ACBL convention card with check marks that players can use to select different conventions) Lots of different bidding modules are available. Here, once again, its going to be necessary to figure out how to ensure that players start using the system. As I have said many times in the past, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. In this case, I suspect that the critical point of contact is going to be the different sponsoring organization. If individual sponsoring organization start requiring the use of the FD application you'll start seeing more players using FD. (More importantly, if sponsoring organizations start to penalize players who DON'T provide a level of disclosure consistent with that provided by FD you'll really see change). Once again, this requires identifying the “real” user base for the application.

 

Personally, I suspect that if BBO is successful in introducing the FD application into the teaching programs and the major tournaments, it will quickly diffuse throughout the rest of the playing environment.

[david_c]

In contrast, players who intend to use FD as a tool to disclose their methods to third parties have a very different set of requirements.  Many established partnerships like to customize their methods.  Accordingly, these players require mechanisms to create their own FD files.  Its possible that these players might go to the trouble of learning to used the FD editor, however, I have my doubts.  The easiest way to support these players is to design "modular" FD systems.  Players would select a baseline system like 2/1 GF with a 15-17 NT or Polish Club and then add a set of modules that reflected their own system preferences.

Totally agree. The standard system files need to become more modular.

 

Some of this can be done with conventions. For example, rather than including Capp in the main part of the file, it would be much better IMO to include this as a convention. Then I could change this to something decent much more easily. Also (and perhaps more importantly) it would mean I could see at a glance what defence to 1NT was being used by looking at the list of conventions, rather than having to wade into the file. [At the moment it's included in the system summary, but I do not think this is what the system summary is best used for.]

 

But the way that conventions are treated at the moment comes nowhere close to what could be achieved with a truly modular approach.

[cherdano]

Richard's point about teachers is a very good one, I hadn't thought about that.

 

Actually, what I had in mind as a target group for the BBO advanced file are mostly pickup or infrequent partnerships between two intermediate+ to expert players, who are happy to play a rather straightforward 2/1 system.

 

By the way, the work Ben has put into this file is really amazing. About 2100 bids are defined, and BBO-adv is the 2nd largest of all the FD files (only BBO ITA is bigger).

 

It sounds right that the BBO-adv files should use standard conventions where that is possible. I don't think that's urgent, I think I could easily break out e.g. the NT-system into a separate convention file whenever I would want to do that. However, I don't think it's so easy to get this right. Let's say, you want to add puppet stayman as a convention. This would apply to 2N, 2C-2x-2N, but also to 2C-2D-2H-2S-2N if playing Kokish, or 2D-2M-2N if playing some Multi with strong balanced hands, etc. OTOH, I haven't found out yet what selecting "RKCB 1430" as convention actually has as effect.

 

I am also not sure how the "Manage convention" utility handles clashes. Really, the convention list should know some conventions are mutually exclusive.

 

Arend

[david_c]

However, I don't think it's so easy to get this right. Let's say, you want to add puppet stayman as a convention. This would apply to 2N, 2C-2x-2N, but also to 2C-2D-2H-2S-2N if playing Kokish, or 2D-2M-2N if playing some Multi with strong balanced hands, etc.

Right, this is one of the limitations of the way conventions work at the moment. Ideally, you would be able to link to a convention from any part of the tree, so for example after defining some 2NT bid you could then tell FD, "for continuations, see Puppet Stayman convention". What we have at the moment is that conventions are rooted at a particular point - this works in most cases, but occasionally you want more flexibility.

[csdenmark]

Modules might be a good way but I doubt it is any miracle cure. I could think of 10-15 modules for Stayman with/without different transfers etc. All depends of how big or small the modules are going to be.

 

I think it is much more important to distinguish between 2 different purposes for which FD is excellent.

 

1. Full or near to full system description

 

2. An eletronic convention card

 

 

Full or near to full system description

Mainly used for information between players of a system. Might very well be a description of private interpretations. Will of course serve as an excellent convention card too. Those who have asked for option to print FD description seems to use FD for such.

 

An eletronic convention card

Here it is important to bear in mind the purpose of a convention card. It is to avoid gigolo-bridge and to inform opps. in a way they will be able to take care of their options. For that normally only opening and initial response are needed. Occasionally it may be helpful a step deeper, fx. definition of Ogust.

 

Basically I think the level of description(2) as in old txt-format is sufficient for default cards. To go deeper will mostly create too much problems for casual partnerships which are the most common ones online.

[david_c]

I think it is much more important to distinguish between 2 different purposes for which FD is excellent.

 

1. Full or near to full system description

 

2. An eletronic convention card

 

 

Full or near to full system description

Mainly used for information between players of a system. Might very well be a description of private interpretations. Will of course serve as an excellent convention card too. Those who have asked for option to print FD description seems to use FD for such.

 

An eletronic convention card

Here it is important to bear in mind the purpose of a convention card. It is to avoid gigolo-bridge and to inform opps. in a way they will be able to take care of their options. For that normally only opening and initial response are needed. Occasionally it may be helpful a step deeper, fx. definition of Ogust.

 

Basically I think the level of description(2) as in old txt-format is sufficient for default cards. To go deeper will mostly create too much problems for casual partnerships which are the most common ones online.

I agree word for word with what Claus has just said. I think there is a need for a "minimal" 2/1 file, suitable for pick-up partnerships, which does not go into too much detail. Pick-up partnerships do not have detailed agreements, and they should be able to find a FD file which does not claim that they have.

 

In particular, I agree with Claus when he says normally only opening and initial response are needed.

[luke warm]

is it possible to 'unmerge'? i like the modular idea (have for a long time).. that way you can add conventions to a base system subject to your partner at the time... however, it would be a stronger feature if you could then unmerge... this would seem to be true in most all cases, but especially regarding defensive bidding... DONT with 1 pard, woolsey with another, etc... just merge it in then take it out

[hrothgar]

is it possible to 'unmerge'? i like the modular idea (have for a long time).. that way you can add conventions to a base system subject to your partner at the time... however, it would be a stronger feature if you could then unmerge... this would seem to be true in most all cases, but especially regarding defensive bidding... DONT with 1 pard, woolsey with another, etc... just merge it in then take it out

I suspect that some kind of unmerge functionality will be necessary, but not for the reason that you think.

 

Think of any one of a number of different convention card programs that allow players to create electronic convention cards for their partnerships. (For example, there are a wide number of applications designed to create ACBL compliant convention cards)

 

These editors are display a graphical version of the ACBL CC on the screen. Players are able to click on check boxes to select (or de-select) individual conventions. For example, the section on the convention card documenting the structure over 1NT opening has a checkmark that players can use to indivdate whether they are playing Jacoby transfers. A second checkmark is used to define whether you're playing 2NT as a transfer to clubs.

 

I suspect that the FD application will eventually support more than one type of GUI. One version will be some evolutionary offshoot of the BidEdit application that we have available to today. These GUI will be used by Power Users to customer their own complex FD files. A second version of the GUI will be based off a graphical CC editor, much like the ones available today. This version will be more appropriate for casual partnership.

 

With this said and done, regardless of how easy you make the system, I believe that compliance will ultimately depend on regulations from the sponsoring organizations.