Full disclosure

[badderzboy]

One small thing, I've been playing around and there is a minor issue when the opps open say 1♣ artificial where 2♣ is now a natural bid and vice-versa where 1♣ opener is natural and so 2♣ is artificial - any thoughts on how to include this in Full Disclosure? as you can't enter it as both artificial/natural :)

 

Hopefully a useful small tip as well - I was playing with the defence to 1NT - if you play the same defence to 1NT-? as 1NT-P-P-? then save the file after compiliing your defence and then use Notepad to copy and paste your bids and then add PP in each copied line after 1NT in the textline so

*001NTD... becomes *001NTPPD for example and so on...

 

Also if you have any lines partially filled in you wish to remove it is easier to use Notepad to delete the full erroneous line then have then appear as blanks?

 

Steve

[shoeless]

hrothgar to the rescue. I think that idea has more than a lot going for it - it's hot.

[david_c]

I personally think the notion of suit agreement is important, both in terms of defining a system and in terms of information that the opponents rate to care about.

Right ... but something like "agrees ♥" or "♥s are agreed" would be a much clearer way of phrasing this, in my opinion. (And, a blank space would be so much clearer than "♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ NT Def".)

 

I don't think anyone really cares about the difference between "♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ NT" and "♣ ♥ ♠ NT", which I get after a splinter response to 1NT, for example.

[hrothgar]

Hi Fred

 

General question regarding the Full Disclosure file format. From what I can tell, Full Disclosure works by enumerating bidding sequence as a separate entry in the file. [i suspect that all the leaidng YNNNNYN sequences are an attempt to compress the size of the tree and indicate whether a sequence like 1♠ - (P) - 2♣ is the same as the sequence P - (P) - 1♠ - (P) - 2♣, but I'm probably full of it)

 

There are pluses and minus associated with this approach:

 

The big advantage is that the file is relatively easy to read/understand. This means that its relatively easy to develop alternative mechanisms to populate a system file.

 

The big disadvantage is that files could get very large. [There are a LOT of different bidding sequences out there...].

 

Long term, it might be possible to "solve" the size issue by adopting a more complex file format that permits some kind of scripting. Short term I definetely think that "simple" is the way to go. If/when Full Disclosure takes off, you might decide to split the difference and adopt a more complex file format...

[fred]

How do I get rid of the "open squares" in the description box, caused by ctrl-enter.

In other words is there an other method to go to the next line if the line itself is not completed.

 

I prefer this in case of f.e. multi-bids to keep a clear/better view of the different meanings.

 

Marcel

Control-Enter is supposed to work and it seems to be working ok for me without any "open squares".

 

If you e-mail a copy of your file that produces open squares (fred@bridgebase.com) I will figure out what is going on and fix this for the next version. If you do this, please let me know an example bidding sequence that results in the open squares appearing.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Free]

Is it possible to give an explanation to "pass" as 'opening bid'? Not only HUM's need this, but also for example Lorenzo-systems (which use 2X openings as 0-7HCP with 4+X when NV) which are classified as red...

[fred]

Is it possible to give an explanation to "pass" as 'opening bid'? Not only HUM's need this, but also for example Lorenzo-systems (which use 2X openings as 0-7HCP with 4+X when NV) which are classified as red...

For now I suggest you put it in your "system summary" area. There is a reasonable chance I will eventually provide an explicit place for this.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[inquiry]

One small thing, I've been playing around and there is a minor issue when the opps open say 1♣ artificial where 2♣ is now a natural bid and vice-versa where 1♣ opener is natural and so 2♣ is artificial - any thoughts on how to include this in Full Disclosure? as you can't enter it as both artificial/natural :P

Hi Steve,

 

There is no reason to define just one "bidding system" using FD. You can have one when you play against Precison, One when you play against forcing pass, etc.

 

Here is the ID, create your normal system, and save two copies of it,

 

Then create a new one where they open 1♣ forcing. Then describe your bids schedule over that... and then merge this with your normal system.... and call it over forcing club.

 

If your treatment over weak notrump is different than over strong NT, you can do the same... Then eventually, you will swtich systems loaded on BBO depending upon who you sit down against...

 

This is easier than it sounds.

[fred]

One small thing, I've been playing around and there is a minor issue when the opps open say 1♣ artificial where 2♣ is now a natural bid and vice-versa where 1♣ opener is natural and so 2♣ is artificial - any thoughts on how to include this in Full Disclosure? as you can't enter it as both artificial/natural :)

The "qualify" field is intended for this purposes (ie to create new branches of the bidding tree depending on the meaning of an opp's bid).

 

Note that this field is only enabled for opps' bids so either "contstructive" or "we open" must be set to "off" in order to sue it.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Al_U_Card]

Fred - are you accepting suggestions for alternative names than "full disclosure"? Don't really like the name......

Yes please feel free to suggestion new names. I am not crazy about "Full Disclosure" either (but it is starting to grow on me).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Might I suggest CDD = Call Definition Directory?

[badderzboy]

Hi Fred,

 

Just been looking at the Viewer side in 1.0.4,

 

Couple of things I've observed.

 

If you go into Viewer - Show System Summary stays over the 4♣/4♦ bid if you define that far? and obscures them and you can't select it (it highlights but no action) only the bids underneath.

 

When you drill into a bid there is no 'return' or cancel button so you have to drill into the bid and select 'cancel & up' to go back.

 

If you select a particular dealer position in the viewer it does not default to the standard 'any' view if no particular dealer specfic bids are defined.

 

Also, unrelated to 1.0.4 but when you merge a file in it overwrites the system definition with the new one can this be optional(tick-box perhaps) so people can merge in conventions w'out over-writing their base system?

 

Finally a suggestion which may be easier said than done is to be able to click into the bidding boxes to rollback to that point and to add in opps biddings etc rather than use the constructive and we-open options to get to the right place ?

 

Will keep playing with it

 

 

Cheers

 

Steve

[barmar]

Fred, when you announce new versions, can you put the link to the software download directly in the new message, rather than forcing us to go through the link to the original post? It's one cut-and-paste for you, saving the rest of us lots of extra clicks.

[fred]

Fred, when you announce new versions, can you put the link to the software download directly in the new message, rather than forcing us to go through the link to the original post? It's one cut-and-paste for you, saving the rest of us lots of extra clicks.

No problem. I will do that in the future.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

Hi Fred,

 

Just been looking at the Viewer side in 1.0.4,

 

Couple of things I've observed.

 

If you go into Viewer - Show System Summary stays over the 4♣/4♦ bid if you define that far? and obscures them and you can't select it (it highlights but no action) only the bids underneath.

 

When you drill into a bid there is no 'return' or cancel button so you have to drill into the bid and select 'cancel & up' to go back.

 

If you select a particular dealer position in the viewer it does not default to the standard 'any' view if no particular dealer specfic bids are defined.

 

Also, unrelated to 1.0.4 but when you merge a file in it overwrites the system definition with the new one can this be optional(tick-box perhaps) so people can merge in conventions w'out over-writing their base system?

 

Finally a suggestion which may be easier said than done is to be able to click into the bidding boxes to rollback to that point and to add in opps biddings etc rather than use the constructive and we-open options to get to the right place ?

 

Will keep playing with it

 

 

Cheers

 

Steve

Thanks for your comments.

 

I know about the 4C/4D problem - I thought I would put out an early version of the "viewer" to get feedback before go to the trouble of cleaning up stuff like this.

 

You can use the up arrow key on your keyboard to go back (or click in the auction diagram). Agree I should make this easier (or more obvious).

 

The thing about the dealer position is intentional. Remember that the viewer's main purpose is to allow BBO members to browse the system files that they encounter when playing/kibitzing. If someone wants to examine his opps 3rd seat openings (for example) it is best that the screen not be filled with information that pertains to opening bids in other posiitons.

 

About the merge thing, your file will not change unless you save it (or say "yes" when the program asks if you want to save your changes). I think this is an OK way to handle the situation you describe.

 

I like your suggestion. I will give it some more thought and probably add this functionality in some form or another. Thanks!

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Echognome]

Great work Fred!

 

As a smile minor point, it would be great if there was an "else" option or "all other" option for dealer and vulnerability. For example, we play 1NT in 3 different ranges. One range for 1st/2nd NV, one for 3rd NV, else another range for all others. It would be great if the program could recognise all of the other positions into one setting. (Perhaps it does this anyway when you select "any", if the specified vulnerability and position take precedence.)

 

There are various other areas where you may vary your treatments by position or vulnerabilities. For example preempts or defensive bidding.

 

Thanks again for this great program.

[badderzboy]

Fred,

 

How likely is the file format to change?

 

Also when putting a team together it may also be worth people putting together a set of common conventions to allow people to merge them in.

 

Eg for Std Acol I created a Benji merge in for the 2 bids now you need a merge in for Ogust or Feature asking 2NT and so on.

 

Things like Jacoby 2NT would be interesting - so many variants but sites like www.annam.co.uk have a reasonable set of common conventions we could adopt as a baseline version of each common convention people could generate?

 

Steve

[hrothgar]

I'm working on a system file for MOSCITO and ran into a question about nomenclature:

 

Assume for the moment that you play fit showing jumps over a major suit opening.

For example, a 3♣ response systemically promises 6-7 clubs and 3 card support for partner's major. I'm really not comfortable describing this bid as natural, however, artificial also doesn't seem to fit precisely.

 

Would it be worthwhile to change the descriptor from "artificial" to "conventional". or is this just another example where I'm being overly anal?

[hrothgar]

Minor comment

 

Assume for the moment that you have a bidding sequence in which the minimum and maximum suit length is the same.

 

Full Disclosure displays this option as 3-3♠s which looks a bit strange

I consider this a show-stopper...

[fred]

How likely is the file format to change?

It is not unlikely that the file format will change, but enough people have invested enough time in their files that I will provide a file conversion utility should it prove to be necessary.

 

So if the prospect of a file format change is preventing some people from really working with FD, don't worry about this. However, it is still possible to lose work if the program crashes or corrupts your files. I don't think this is very likely as nobody has reported any problems like this in a while, but it is still a good idea to make backups of the files that you care about.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

I'm working on a system file for MOSCITO and ran into a question about nomenclature:

 

Assume for the moment that you play fit showing jumps over a major suit opening.

For example, a 3♣ response systemically promises 6-7 clubs and 3 card support for partner's major. I'm really not comfortable describing this bid as natural, however, artificial also doesn't seem to fit precisely.

 

Would it be worthwhile to change the descriptor from "artificial" to "conventional". or is this just another example where I'm being overly anal?

I might choose to leave out the word "overly" :)

 

No seriously, you raise a good point and other people have made other good suggestions about the names I use for other things and the entries that are contained in the "dispositions" listbox.

 

I will give all of this some more serious thought before too long and most likely make some changes in this area.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

Great work Fred!

 

As a smile minor point, it would be great if there was an "else" option or "all other" option for dealer and vulnerability. For example, we play 1NT in 3 different ranges. One range for 1st/2nd NV, one for 3rd NV, else another range for all others. It would be great if the program could recognise all of the other positions into one setting. (Perhaps it does this anyway when you select "any", if the specified vulnerability and position take precedence.)

 

There are various other areas where you may vary your treatments by position or vulnerabilities. For example preempts or defensive bidding.

 

Thanks again for this great program.

I like this idea, Echo - thanks!

 

I will have to think about how best to do this and I may not have a chance to work on the implementation right away, but I agree that this would be a useful feature.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

Minor comment

 

Assume for the moment that you have a bidding sequence in which the minimum and maximum suit length is the same.

 

Full Disclosure displays this option as 3-3♠s which looks a bit strange

I consider this a show-stopper...

Agree that this is silly. I will make sure to change it in the next version. Thanks for noticing this and reporting it.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

Hi Fred

 

I think that I found a "real" bug.

 

Assume for the moment that a user creates a new entry: For example I define a 1♥ opening that only applies in 1st seat. Later on I decide that this was a mistake and want to define a 1♥ opening that applies in 1st or second seat.

 

Is there any way to delete the original 1♥ opening?

[fred]

Hi Fred

 

I think that I found a "real" bug.

 

Assume for the moment that a user creates a new entry: For example I define a 1♥ opening that only applies in 1st seat. Later on I decide that this was a mistake and want to define a 1♥ opening that applies in 1st or second seat.

 

Is there any way to delete the original 1♥ opening?

Not currently. Adding a "delete" (or maybe "cut") command is on my list of things to do.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[badderzboy]

Hrothgar,

 

The easiest way currently is to open the file in a text editor and delete the relevant line

 

Steve