System cards again

[nige1]

Can this suggestion be considered and implemented? Before the first bid is made by either pair (other than a PASS may be), at least in tournaments where players register as a pair, the bidding box should go live only after the basic convention box is checked, say Precision or SAYC. It is too frustrating to see 1C, 1D and 2C, 2D opened without this explanation. Often, requests for amplification are met with a deafening silence.

1. For both F2F and On-line play, it is now simple to adopt/adapt an on-line version of most systems (at both basic and sophisticated levels). Should the law-book make system-cards compulsory?
2. You are usually fairly familiar with methods played by local partnerships. It's harder to understand the methods of strangers and foreigners; and it's hard to disclose your methods to them. It would be much easier to locate/disclose information, If all system-cards conformed to internationally standard formats. IMO, the ideal would be for the law-book to mandate one standard format. But perhaps top-level players would need a more detailed variant.
3. To facilitate on-line disclosure, a program like full-disclosure could automatically announce (to opponents) the meaning of your calls. To enable this the WBF should mandate that system-cards conform to a standard format, like that suggested by Kungsgeten.

Edited to include a 3rd option, addressing Pescetom's concerns.

[pescetom]

1. For both F2F and On-line play, it is now simple to adopt/adapt an on-line version of most systems (at both basic and sophisticated levels). Should the law-book make system-cards compulsory?
2. You are usually fairly familiar with methods played by local partnerships. It's harder to understand the methods of strangers and foreigners; and it's hard to disclose your methods to them. It would be much easier to locate/disclose information, If all system-cards conformed to internationally standard formats. IMO, the ideal would be for the law-book to mandate one standard format. But perhaps top-level players would need a more detailed variant.

 

I voted yes for both, obviously. But that is not the end of the question.

 

I don't think it is 'simple' (although very useful) to adopt an on-line version of a system card for F2F play. How should it work? It needs agreement on every player (or at least table) having a tablet/phone, the right to consult it, the way to access the card of the opponents, the necessary restrictions on what else the player/device can do together, etc. My RA promised system card access in its own Android app two years ago but has still not yet delivered.

And that still leaves the problem of how to access/verify system notes, which surely should be hyperlinked to the system card in some way, and readable at a F2F table without paper. We need a standard, which should be easy to respect (an html page for system card and linked .pdf files for each convention, or whatever) and supported by a website for non-technical players.

Plus of course the question of national language versions and possible automatic translation.

 

Not so say it can't be done, of course it can and should be done. But it's not simple and somebody in WBF needs to roll their sleeves up.

[Vampyr]

1. For both F2F and On-line play, it is now simple to adopt/adapt an on-line version of most systems (at both basic and sophisticated levels). Should the law-book make system-cards compulsory?
2. You are usually fairly familiar with methods played by local partnerships. It's harder to understand the methods of strangers and foreigners; and it's hard to disclose your methods to them. It would be much easier to locate/disclose information, If all system-cards conformed to internationally standard formats. IMO, the ideal would be for the law-book to mandate one standard format. But perhaps top-level players would need a more detailed variant.

 

The WBF has a standard card format. It is called the WBF card, and in fact you know this Nigel. This card is not supported by BBO, and neither is the EBU card, which I think represents a very good compromise between simplicity and thoroughness.

[hrothgar]

The following only really makes sense for an online environment (and I am sure that many people will critique this idea even for that), however, I am beginning to believe that the "convention card" or the system card should be configured by the opposing partnership.

 

Ultimately, the player or individual who is viewing a convention card is in the best position to determine stuff like

 

1. Where on the screen should various fields be displayed

2. How much level of detail do they want to see

 

Arguably, the best way to proceed is that the partnership playing system foo create some kind of system file that displays a comprehensive set of information about the methods that they are playing. In turn, the opposing pair's convention card would interrogate the system file and then generate they display that those player's are most comfortable with.

[pescetom]

The WBF has a standard card format. It is called the WBF card, and in fact you know this Nigel. This card is not supported by BBO, and neither is the EBU card, which I think represents a very good compromise between simplicity and thoroughness.

 

 

I haven't tried playing with the EBU card, but with 4 rather than 2 pages it looks more thorough than immediate: I think the WBF card is a reasonable compromise. Neither is very suitable for on-line consultation which is what nige1 was discussing.

[Vampyr]

I haven't tried playing with the EBU card, but with 4 rather than 2 pages it looks more thorough than immediate: I think the WBF card is a reasonable compromise. Neither is very suitable for on-line consultation which is what nige1 was discussing.

 

No, it is the EBU card that is the compromise, as it is not that dense and laid out so that you can easily find what you are looking for. The BBO and ACBL, of course, cards are truly hopeless. With the WBF card it is more difficult to find what you are looking for. Well, in real life anyway because there is lots of tiny text and the card looks as if it was dipped in ink. But if it was scalable and the text wrapped around correctly, it would be usable. It is certainly the most thorough; I have found that the major problem is legibility.

 

Do you like the WBF card?

[nige1]

Do you like the WBF card?

Almost any format that was a universal standard would be better than none. Many people find the WBF and EBU cards confusing but either could be used as a reasonable basis. If everybody's card had the same basic layout, with experience, we would all become familiar enough with it to know how to complete it and where to look. And peripatetic pairs would need to complete only one card. For strangers and foreigners, especially on-line and in international competition, this would be a step forward.

[pescetom]

No, it is the EBU card that is the compromise, as it is not that dense and laid out so that you can easily find what you are looking for. The BBO and ACBL, of course, cards are truly hopeless. With the WBF card it is more difficult to find what you are looking for. Well, in real life anyway because there is lots of tiny text and the card looks as if it was dipped in ink. But if it was scalable and the text wrapped around correctly, it would be usable. It is certainly the most thorough; I have found that the major problem is legibility.

 

Do you like the WBF card?

 

I like the WBF card in that it could be a lot worse. I agree with your criticisms however, it is not very legible or immediate although quite logical and thorough. It could be improved quite simply with a little attention to presentation (lighter cell borders, use of colour and bold font, text wrap etc) as in the FIGB equivalent.

 

But all of these cards are essentially designed for printing on paper, not for consultation on-line.

[pescetom]

To facilitate on-line disclosure, a program like full-disclosure could automatically announce (to opponents) the meaning of your calls. To enable this the WBF should mandate that system-cards conform to a standard format, like that suggested by Kungsgeten.

 

Edited to include a 3rd option, addressing Pescetom's concerns.

 

Thanks and again I agree but think you underestimate the technical difficulty.

BBO gave up on full disclosure too easily, but they did have a point that the sheer workload of analysing and manually documenting all possible system developments was beyond even most committed partnerships.

I have looked at what is necessary to automate a system card with BBOAlert and reluctantly decided to defer the effort until I have a more committed partner.

Beginners and individual tournaments could live with (and learn from) a standard drill-down system definition, which would be fine.

But it's harder to imagine advanced pairs dotting every i and crossing every t, even for an uncontested auction.

Maybe for higher level play we need a different approach, based (at least partly) on machine observation of our actual bidding.

[hrothgar]

 

Maybe for higher level play we need a different approach, based (at least partly) on machine observation of our actual bidding.

 

Back when Fed was first implementing Full Disclosure I argued that he needed to add a "learning mode".

 

BBO needed to be able to observe the alert strings that people typed in and then add them to the convention file.

This way you only need to input a given sequence once

 

The system should converge to something useable relatively quickly.

Your common sequences will get populated quickly, the relatively obscure ones more slowly.

[johnu]

I haven't tried playing with the EBU card, but with 4 rather than 2 pages it looks more thorough than immediate: I think the WBF card is a reasonable compromise. Neither is very suitable for on-line consultation which is what nige1 was discussing.

It would take a little work, but any of the convention cards could be rewritten for online display with different sections on separate tabs in a single window.

 

e.g.

 

Tab 1 - Opening bids and conventional responses

Tab 2 - NT auctions

Tab 3 - Defensive bids and competitive auctions

Tab 4 - Leads and carding

 

There is no reason to have a large monolithic card where it is hard to read and to find things that was designed to fit on a sheet of paper in the online world.

 

You could have more detail on an online designed card, and still have the card be much more readable than one based on a paper version.

[Vampyr]

Thanks and again I agree but think you underestimate the technical difficulty.

BBO gave up on full disclosure too easily, but they did have a point that the sheer workload of analysing and manually documenting all possible system developments was beyond even most committed partnerships.

I have looked at what is necessary to automate a system card with BBOAlert and reluctantly decided to defer the effort until I have a more committed partner.

Beginners and individual tournaments could live with (and learn from) a standard drill-down system definition, which would be fine.

But it's harder to imagine advanced pairs dotting every i and crossing every t, even for an uncontested auction.

Maybe for higher level play we need a different approach, based (at least partly) on machine observation of our actual bidding.

 

If you put in the basics, and add a little each time you play together, it will be easier than you think to get at least a BBO o ACBL card reasonably well filled in. You could of course, start with BBO 2/1GF card and change it as needed.

 

It would take a little work, but any of the convention cards could be rewritten for online display with different sections on separate tabs in a single window.

 

e.g.

 

Tab 1 - Opening bids and conventional responses

Tab 2 - NT auctions

Tab 3 - Defensive bids and competitive auctions

Tab 4 - Leads and carding

 

There is no reason to have a large monolithic card where it is hard to read and to find things that was designed to fit on a sheet of paper in the online world.

 

You could have more detail on an online designed card, and still have the card be much more readable than one based on a paper version.

 

Maybe this message should be sent to the developers of RealBridge rather than posted on these forums.