Defensive vs. pass open

[csdenmark]

Playing offensive with pass-systems is no problem - as 3-4 seat openings are to be used. Pass openings themselves are manually alerted.

 

Quite different it is to play defensive to a pass-opening. Here FD displays offensive bidding where it ought to be defensive. This means everything is turned upside-down. As long as user-rate for FD is very low it causes few problems. Playing 'Silny Pas tourney' it is really a problem. Several of the poles playing Mapasso, Lambda and BezNazwy are good at alerting using script-files. Some of them has migrated into the advanced form using FD application. Ironically such creates problems because the pass opening is not available in FD.

 

The emulation only works for offensive bidding but is pure rubbish in defensive.

 

The simple solution to the problem would of course be to see to that pass-opening would be an option in FD. I would very much like to have an indication whether it is going to come or I will need to create special convention cards which have the bids turned upside-down and therefore the need constantly to switch convention card for every deal.

[aelred]

'Silny Pas tourney' - when is this running? I'd like very much to watch.

 

aelred

[csdenmark]

'Silny Pas tourney'  - when is this running? I'd like very much to watch.

 

aelred

Until now wednesdays 21.30. Now Jacek has changed something - not sure what it is. Something about team- or pair tournaments. He do a lot of work for Polish Bridge Federation - I hope to be able to find out what he he is doing some day. Until then I just enjoy.

 

Please contact Jacek (jb65)

 

If you can read polish language then check here: http://www.berek.com.pl/sso.htm

[MarceldB]

see here the english page

[Gerben42]

I have implemented a fully working Forcing Pass system in FD, including defensive bidding. Here is how it works:

 

In defensive bidding you specify under "any dealer" the responses to Pass after interference, for example

 

Pass 13+ (1H) 1S

 

Now in addition the defensive bidding is the real defensive bidding with dealer specified as 1st seat.

 

If you specify it like this it works like a charm!

 

Here is a small sample:

 

*001C1H=NYYYYYY4487 - 10, unbalanced

*001C1S=NYYYYYY4487 - 10, unbalanced\\0 - 3 !S

*001CP=YYYYYYYAny GF

*001CD=YYYYYYY0 - 3 any

*001C1D=YYYYYYY5084 - 6 any

*001C1N=NYYYYYY47 - 10, balanced

*001DD=YYYYYYY0 - 6 any

*001DP=YYYYYYYAny GF

*001D1H=NYYYYYY4487 - 10, unbalanced

*10P=YYYYYYY7 - 10 any

*10D=YYYYYYY0 - 6, 0 - 4!S

*001SP=YYYYYYY7 - 10 any

*001SD=YYYYYYY0 - 6 any

*001S1N=YYYYYYY64+!H unbalanced

*001S2C=YYYYYYY6084+!S 0-3!H unbalanced

*001H1S=NYYYYYY2580 - 6

*001HP=YYYYYYY7 - 10 any

*001HD=YYYYYYY0 - 6, 0 - 4!S

*001H1N=YYYYYYY64+!H, unbalanced

*001H2C=YYYYYYY6084+!S, 0-3!H, unbalanced

*101CD=NYYYYYYTO

*101C1D=NYYYYYY358

*101C1H=NYYYYYY358

*101C1S=NYYYYYY358

*101CPPD=YYYYYYYTO

*101DD=YYYYYYYTO

*101D1H=NYYYYYY358

*101D1S=NYYYYYY358

*101DPPD=YYYYYYYTO

*101H2C=NYYYYYY358

*101H1N=NYYYYYY315 - 18

*101H1S=NYYYYYY358

*101HD=YYYYYYYTO

*101H2D=NYYYYYY358

*101HPPD=YYYYYYYTO

*101SD=YYYYYYYTO

*101SPPD=YYYYYYYTO

*101S1N=NYYYYYY315 - 18

*101S2C=NYYYYYY358

*101S2D=NYYYYYY358

*101S2H=NYYYYYY358

[DrTodd13]

Well. I'm not sure what you've done Gerben. Let's say I sit down to play against 2/1 so I load a FD card for my own system. Now, those opps leave and forcing pass opps sit down and now I have to load a separate FD. Don't I need pretty much the same offensive part in each FD but only the defensive stuff matters? Anyway, the fundamental problem is that sure FD let's you specify a defense but it pretty much assumes standard bidding. Facing a non-standard system it is quite useless. To be useful, you would have to have a way of defining several possible meanings for one bid and you select the correct meaning based on the meaning of the opps bid. This is quite impossible in FD given the continuing textual nature of the description.

 

I'm more and more convinced that we need to establish a bridge language with well-defined rules of grammar such that you can do things like determine whether a system is consistent or not by determining whether descriptions overlap. Then you can say things like "If opps are using X or Y for a given opening bid then here is my defense. If they are using Z then this other thing is my defense.

[Gerben42]

That problem already arrives when opps play a weak NT. As for now the program cannot distinguish between weak and strong NT.

[DrTodd13]

Yes. That is the same problem. I don't fault Fred for not doing anything about it because the problem is exceedingly difficult. I know of a language that can be used to express hand types but the language is so cumbersome and so verbose that no one would ever use it. Is there a simpler grammar that is equivalent to the one that I know of that might be usable? I don't know.