Summary vs contents

[barmar]

Yesterday I used an FD card for the first time. Hrothgar and I played in a tourney and used the BBO Advanced card.

 

I noticed on the System Summary page that it said Wolff Signoff. I occasionally play these, but not often enough that I remember it well, so I wanted to make sure my understanding matched what was on the card. So I drilled down in the sequences 1m-1M-2NT, and it said "No continuations are defined".

 

So why is this convention listed in the summary if it's not actually in the card? Did the summary just come from the older system notes? How can one easily tell which conventions are really in the card?

[csdenmark]

Yesterday I used an FD card for the first time.  Hrothgar and I played in a tourney and used the BBO Advanced card.

 

I noticed on the System Summary page that it said Wolff Signoff.  I occasionally play these, but not often enough that I remember it well, so I wanted to make sure my understanding matched what was on the card.  So I drilled down in the sequences 1m-1M-2NT, and it said "No continuations are defined".

 

So why is this convention listed in the summary if it's not actually in the card?  Did the summary just come from the older system notes?  How can one easily tell which conventions are really in the card?

You are assumed to know what you have agreed - thats the simple answer.

 

FD has 2 options which it is able to serve:

• Convention card - Opening + initial response is normal and sufficient for that
  
• System description - deep as possible of course
  

What to be preferred depends really about in which way you will accept ordinary bridge rules to be violated. There is no good solution to that until World Bridge Federation will be able to acknowledge that their rulings based on lack of knowledge about modern information technology is harmful to lovers of the game.

[helene_t]

The CC probably also specifies some kind of Blackwood without actually including all those sequences in which a 4NT bid occurs (so that you can see if it's Blackwood or quanti).

 

The problem is combinatoric explotion. There are just too many sequences including Wolff (or Blackwood) so it's not practical to include them as sequences.

[cherdano]

Yesterday I used an FD card for the first time.  Hrothgar and I played in a tourney and used the BBO Advanced card.

 

I noticed on the System Summary page that it said Wolff Signoff.  I occasionally play these, but not often enough that I remember it well, so I wanted to make sure my understanding matched what was on the card.  So I drilled down in the sequences 1m-1M-2NT, and it said "No continuations are defined".

 

So why is this convention listed in the summary if it's not actually in the card?  Did the summary just come from the older system notes?  How can one easily tell which conventions are really in the card?

The summary is mostly copied from the system notes of BBO advanced, written by (I think) Fred and Sheri. They are meant to define the system, the FD card will only make as much as possible of that explicit.

 

Arend

 

P.S.: At some point I will find more energy to extend to BBO adv FD file, but things like new minor forcing etc. are a little more urgent than Wolff sign-off.

[hrothgar]

The few weeks have seen a several discussions about the FD application and ways in which it could be improved. From what I can tell, the main enhancement that people want is an improved editor that will allow casual players to view and build an FD card with relatively little effort.

 

Here's is one possible implementation. In theory, it should be possible to design a graphical user interface modeled after any one of a number of existing physical convention cards. For example, the front end for ACBL events could be designed to look like the following:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1c/ACBLConventionCard.png/564px-ACBLConventionCard.png

 

Players could go through the convention card and click on different conventions. Each time that they selected a convention it would automatically enable or disable a specific fragment of an FD script. For example, if I selected the check box for “Bergen raises” (or, alternatively, reverse Bergen raises) the appropriate script would be generated automatically. In theory, this type of functionality would

 

a. Provide a very simple/intuitive editor

b. Allow players to quickly scan a convention file and see what that are/are not playing

 

Easy enough in theory, however, in practice we face two very big problems.

 

The first of these is technical in nature. The system that I describe presumes that bidding systems are modular in nature. Players can click on a button and replace “Bergen raises” over a 1M opening with “Intermediate Jump Shifts”. In practice, I'm not sure where these lines can be drawn. Bidding systems aren't all neat and compartmentalized. There is an awful lot of feedback between different parts of the system. Case in point: Lets look at a simple example like the response structure over a 1NT opening: By default, a 2NT response is natural and invitational and (typically) denies a 4 card major. Lets assume instead that I switch to 2NT = transfer to Diamonds. By changing the definition of this 2NT response, I also impact the hand types that get forcing into the Stayman sequences. This same issue is going to crop up again and again and again and again throughout a bidding system. I'm not sure whether there is any easy way to handle this problem. I welcome suggestions if anyone has some....

 

While the first problem is daunting, I think that it pales in comparison to the second issue. For whatever reason, most online bridge players don't seem to give a rat's ass about disclosure. No one cares. There are easy editors available for the old style convention cards. No one bothers to use them. Frankly, this is just a more pronounced version of what we see in most face to face games. How many people at a typical “physical” ACBL tournament bother to complete a convention card? When I was last playing very few people bothered outside of Flight A. Those who did have a card kept them in their laps or used them as a coasters. Nothing is going to change until the sponsoring organizations decide that they want to get serious about enforcing regulations.

 

Here's a couple conclusions that I've taken from this all:

 

1. My impression is that the bulk of the players on BBO play in fairly ephemeral partnerships. “Serious” players play in a few well established, well oiled partnerships. However, most people are playing in a pickup game. In order for these folks to adopt the FD system, we MUST integrate the application into formal education systems. We need to encourage the development of standards. I'd love to see a system in which the ACBL designed a single, well integrated FD file documenting Standard American and then used this as the basis for its teaching programs. In a similar fashion, the EBL could document “Modern Acol”, the Polish WJ2007, what have you. Right now, we actually have some good convention cards out there, but I don't think that there are any formal teaching programs that integrate these into the curriculum. Long term, we need to educate people to understand that the benefits associated with making sure that you and your partner are on the same page outweigh the joy of agreeing to play Etruscan cue bids or whatever.

 

2. As for the well oiled partnerships... These are the folks that are going to need some kind of editing capability. I'm not sure what the best way to support them would be. Some kind of auto-learning feature is one obvious option. Alternatively, some of these folks will (presumably) build competencies with the existing editor. What I do know is that we'd be better off if organizations like the ACBL allowed these types to actually get some benefits from using the FD system.

[csdenmark]

I think it will be no news Richard I applaud your comments here. I have been advocating this for a year now and until december last year you have always opposed. You are very welcome of course.

 

You are not completely right that nobody cares. Some cares - but I dare not publicly point to them. I hope you can find them yourself. But ordinary users are not keen about the memory aid problem and I think they are right so. It is the solution for ACBL(Gwen) and it is going to be the way for rules to be modified. The sooner the better if WBF intend to avoid to be undermined.

 

We will have enhancements for FD as soon the user rate is going to exceed 60%. Until then we have to accept persons claiming good computer skill levels in general but novices if they are asked to invest time for learning.

[hrothgar]

I think it will be no news Richard I applaud your comments here. I have been advocating this for a year now and until december last year you have always opposed. You are very welcome of course.

Claus - There is a VERY big difference between what i am suggesting and the bulk of your postings.

 

Your posting have always focused on authority and force. The ACBL or the WBF or BBO or whatever must REQUIRE the use of Full Disclosure.

 

I'm arguing quite the opposite. First and foremost, I noted that organizations like the ACBL and the WBF don't enforce convention card regulations in face-to-face events. These groups have a much more formal presence in the face-to-face venue. Players treat the game much more seriously. And still, the organizations don't do anything. Its laughable to believe that these groups will suddenly start to enforce these types of norms in the wild and wooly world of online bridge.

 

In short, I may have mentioned force as a possibility, but I don't believe for a moment that this will ever happen.

 

The bulk of my posting focus on education system and trying to ensure that consumers start to recognize the benefits associated with standardization. This approach is diametrically opposed from your typical rants.

[csdenmark]

I think it will be no news Richard I applaud your comments here. I have been advocating this for a year now and until december last year you have always opposed. You are very welcome of course.

Claus - There is a VERY big difference between what i am suggesting and the bulk of your postings.

 

Your posting have always focused on authority and force. The ACBL or the WBF or BBO or whatever must REQUIRE the use of Full Disclosure.

 

I'm arguing quite the opposite. First and foremost, I noted that organizations like the ACBL and the WBF don't enforce convention card regulations in face-to-face events. These groups have a much more formal presence in the face-to-face venue. Players treat the game much more seriously. And still, the organizations don't do anything. Its laughable to believe that these groups will suddenly start to enforce these types of norms in the wild and wooly world of online bridge.

 

In short, I may have mentioned force as a possibility, but I don't believe for a moment that this will ever happen.

 

The bulk of my posting focus on education system and trying to ensure that consumers start to recognize the benefits associated with standardization. This approach is diametrically opposed from your typical rants.

The ACBL or the WBF or BBO or whatever must REQUIRE the use of Full Disclosure

No - They must enforce the basic of their laws to be obeyed - this means that concealed partnerships are unacceptable. Using FD or any alternative I care less but FD and ZONE cc are elegant relation database tools. They are both well suited for the job.

 

In short, I may have mentioned force as a possibility, but I don't believe for a moment that this will ever happen

For ACBL it is enforced but they have not required the remedies or they may have been turned down to be able to see to their rules to be applied automatically. The day that happens my guess will be it will be the end for all tournies laizzes faire on disclosure.

 

The bulk of my posting focus on education system and trying to ensure that consumers start to recognize the benefits associated with standardization. This approach is diametrically opposed from your typical rants

No it is not - it is in fact exactly the same. I advocate that 95% of the players need nothing else than default cards. Only bad will is the reason for the low user rate. I also advocate that players can only play systems for which they have tools available for disclosure. I would very much welcome BBO to modify software to see the stars would be shining stars preventing them from playing with stars using cencealed partnership agreements.

[csdenmark]

The few weeks have seen a several discussions about the FD application and ways in which it could be improved.  From what I can tell, the main enhancement that people want is an improved editor that will allow casual players to view and build an FD card with relatively little effort. 

 

Here's is one possible implementation.  In theory, it should be possible to design a graphical user interface modeled after any one of a number of existing physical convention cards.  For example, the front end for ACBL events could be designed to look like the following:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1c/ACBLConventionCard.png/564px-ACBLConventionCard.png

 

Players could go through the convention card and click on different conventions.  Each time that they selected a convention it would automatically enable or disable a specific fragment of an FD script.  For example, if I selected the check box for “Bergen raises” (or, alternatively, reverse Bergen raises) the appropriate script would be generated automatically.  In theory, this type of functionality would

 

a.  Provide a very simple/intuitive editor

b.  Allow players to quickly scan a convention file and see what that are/are not playing

 

Easy enough in theory, however, in practice we face two very big problems.

 

The first of these is technical in nature.  The system that I describe presumes that bidding systems are modular in nature.  Players can click on a button and replace “Bergen raises” over a 1M opening with “Intermediate Jump Shifts”.  In practice, I'm not sure where these lines can be drawn.  Bidding systems aren't all neat and compartmentalized.  There is an awful lot of feedback between different parts of the system.  Case in point:  Lets look at a simple example like the response structure over a 1NT opening:  By default, a 2NT response is natural and invitational and (typically) denies a 4 card major.  Lets assume instead that I switch to 2NT = transfer to Diamonds.  By changing the definition of this 2NT response, I also impact the hand types that get forcing into the Stayman sequences.  This same issue is going to crop up again and again and again and again throughout a bidding system.  I'm not sure whether there is any easy way to handle this problem.  I welcome suggestions if anyone has some....

 

While the first problem is daunting, I think that it pales in comparison to the second issue.  For whatever reason, most online bridge players don't seem to give a rat's ass about disclosure.  No one cares.  There are easy editors available for the old style convention cards.  No one bothers to use them.  Frankly, this is just a more pronounced version of what we see in most face to face games.  How many people at a typical “physical” ACBL tournament bother to complete a convention card?  When I was last playing very few people bothered outside of Flight A.  Those who did have a card kept them in their laps or used them as a coasters.  Nothing is going to change until the sponsoring organizations decide that they want to get serious about enforcing regulations.

 

Here's a couple conclusions that I've taken from this all:

 

1. My impression is that the bulk of the players on BBO play in fairly ephemeral partnerships. “Serious” players play in a few well established, well oiled partnerships.  However, most people are playing in a pickup game.  In order for these folks to adopt the FD system, we MUST integrate the application into formal education systems.  We need to encourage the development of standards.  I'd love to see a system in which the ACBL designed a single, well integrated FD file documenting Standard American and then used this as the basis for its teaching programs.  In a similar fashion, the EBL could document “Modern Acol”, the Polish WJ2007, what have you.  Right now, we actually have some good convention cards out there, but I don't think that there are any formal teaching programs that  integrate these into the curriculum.  Long term, we need to educate people to understand that the benefits associated with making sure that you and your partner are on the same page outweigh the joy of agreeing to play Etruscan cue bids or whatever.

 

2. As for the well oiled partnerships...  These are the folks that are going to need some kind of editing capability.  I'm not sure what the best way to support them would be.  Some kind of auto-learning feature is one obvious option.  Alternatively, some of these folks will (presumably) build competencies with the existing editor.  What I do know is that we'd be better off if organizations like the ACBL allowed these types to actually get some benefits from using the FD system.

As far as I remember your pictured convention card is the one used on Swan Bridge. Or perhaps more correct the one they have available but dont use. It is available for anybody who signs up there. It is not loadable to a table but it is loaded on a web-site to which you can point via a web-site link in prealert. I think we will agree it is not going beyond opening + initial response. The problem is people want full system descriptions. They will do nothing for it themselves. As soon they detect somebody has done the job they claim violation of rules due to memory aid.

 

Barmar who started this thread wanted explanations to be continued for a default card deeper than openers rebid. This means at least 2 steps deeper than ordinary convention cards.

 

I think you have modified your post Richard - I think it would have been unable for me not to have seen this big image in your post.

[hrothgar]

I think you have modified your post Richard - I think it would have been unable for me not to have seen this big image in your post.

I forgot to link the image in the original post.

 

For the record, this is the "standard" ACBL convention card.

No idea whether Swan used it or not.