Have FD complete itself as you play?

[brian_m]

Filling out an FD card is a bit daunting, especially if you have a system where the openers vary with seat and vulnerability (and I'm not just talking about a 1NT opener).

 

Would it be possible to interface FD to the BBO client to such an extent that FD would capture any explanation made in the standard bidding box for any sequence which is currently undefined?

 

IMO, if you could do that, you would greatly expand the use of FD.

[DrTodd13]

Whole-heartedly agree. First, you should be able to set in your options whether you want this enabled because you don't want this for some standard FD card like SAYC. Otherwise, it should probably ask you each time if you want to add it to the FD card but in general I have always wanted this ability.

[csdenmark]

Filling out an FD card is a bit daunting, especially if you have a system where the openers vary with seat and vulnerability (and I'm not just talking about a 1NT opener).

 

Would it be possible to interface FD to the BBO client to such an extent that FD would capture any explanation made in the standard bidding box for any sequence which is currently undefined?

 

IMO, if you could do that, you would greatly expand the use of FD.

Makes no sense Brian. Unless your methods varies for each of your openings you only need 1 entry. Fx. if your variations are between 13-17HcP, you just state that and check for artificial plus an info that variations are acc. to vuln and position. Else you can just use the copy/paste option.

 

Please note FD is a convention card aimed to help your opponents easily to understand your methods to be able to judge their perspectives for their values. This means that nobody asks you to go any further than opening + initial response.

 

Your proposal will only cause anger and frustration if people suddenly see themselves confronted with a lot of obsolete explanations caused by mistakes. They have already problems to handle and to understand the present options.

 

The reason for lack of use is not complications in writing sequences but in their interpretation of serious bridge. Please remember 95% of all players plays nothing but standard, perhaps with some variations of special conventions. They all have a set of default convention cards which they lack knowledge to understand.

[brian_m]

No, the variations aren't just between the HCP ranges. Our 2D, 2H and 2S openers, for example, have one meaning in 1st and 2nd seat unless at unfavourable vulnerability, and a totally different meaning in 3rd and 4th or 1st and 2nd unfavourable. Needless to say, that means all the responses are different, too. As I said, I was *not* just talking about a variable range on a 1NT opener. If you still think that this can be combined into a single entry, then let's take the 2D opener as an example. 1st and 2nd except unfavourable, it shows 4-10 HCP with 4+ diamonds and 4+ cards in a major, suits at least Qxxx if only 5 cards. If we're unfavourable or it's a 3rd or 4th seat opener, then it's a weak 2 in a major or a constructive 3 level opener in a minor. OK, over to you...

 

And as for your assertion that "nobody asks you to go further than an opening and an initial response", then I have to ask you - what evidence do you have for this claim? We have a lot of relays, and it would be no bad idea, IMO, to be able to go to at least opener's rebid.

 

Those of us who don't play a "standard" system spend a lot of time keying in explanations (well, those who know their ethical obligations do, anyway). If the tool is there to automate this task, why not make use of it?

 

As regards the problems caused by "obsolete" explanations, and people who don't know enough to use the system, then the answer seems obvious to me, switch it off by default. Then those who WANT to use the system can enable it and do so. Those who know nothing about it will remain in blissful ignorance.

 

I claim no knowledge of either the BBO client code or the FD code. I have no idea how much effort this idea would take to implement. That's why I made the suggestion. You think it "makes no sense at all", while DrTodd13 "whole-heartedly agrees". Sounds to me like 2-1 in favour so far.

[csdenmark]

"Switch it off by default" - yes that would be necessary. The problem by that we know because entry of constested actions works in that way and several have reported they dont know that feature. Maybe the word 'constructive' is not the best one for that - but so it is.

 

It is so that nobody asks you to go any deeper than what is used for ordinary convention cards. Opps. rarely has anything to use the exact meaning of relays for. I normally write explanations in full length until step responses. For such the feature for attaching conventions can be used but I dont do that myself.

 

I understand you need a lot of entries. Such are complicated to write. Bocchi-Duboin 2001 also has a lot of such. 2-3 hours then it is over. I am sure you already have entered all what you need for your own system so I still doubt there will be any gains in adding more options.

 

The day more will be serious about their bridge I think it will be worth to consider seriously about your proposal.

[skaftij]

I think this is a very good idea for the pair that wants to have a detailed FD card.

[pclayton]

If you have the option of augmenting a FD card as you go, this makes sense.

[nige1]

Filling out an FD card is a bit daunting, especially if you have a system where the openers vary with seat and vulnerability (and I'm not just talking about a 1NT opener).

 

Would it be possible to interface FD to the BBO client to such an extent that FD would capture any explanation made in the standard bidding box for any sequence which is currently undefined?

 

IMO, if you could do that, you would greatly expand the use of FD.

Clever and useful!