Convention cards(cc)
#1
Posted 2003-February-13, 10:03
I know very well they are very difficult to read for opps. and often for artificial systems, where they are most needed, the convention cards on BBO dont work at all. Pity for that - I hope very much the layout will be changed. To state most of the bids as "other" provides very little, if any, relevant information.
Playing strong pass systems like Lambda, Beznazwy, Regres etc. it is completely impossible to give any info about the "pass-opening" where the 2-3 next bids are of crucial importance for opps.
I would very much like to have a cc-layout available which will enable me to give relevant information.
Claus - csdenmark
#2
Posted 2003-February-13, 12:20
#3
Posted 2003-February-13, 12:53
We have over 25,000 members and probably well less than 100 of these like to play systems (such as strong pass) that are difficult to describe using the convention cards that we currently have.
In order to modify the convention cards so that "every" possible system could be represented, we would need something more complex than the WBF template. That would make life easier for the few "extreme scientists" that we have, but it would provide a great deal of unnecessary "noise" for the vast majority of the people who play on our site.
In my viewm one of the strengths of the convention card facility as it currently stands is that it is simple for almost everybody to fill out and to reference.
I am sure the convention card facility will be improved at some point in the future, but this is not exactly high priority. The only people who ever complain about the convention card are the few "extreme scientists" and those that want a convention card that looks exactly like the ACBL convention card (which is not going to happen).
Meanwhile, there are several other possible improvements that are requested again and again by our members (such as implementing tournaments). We will concentrate whatever development resources we have on doing the things that will benefit as many of our members as possible. If we get more requests about convention cards, then its priority will go up, but I don't think that is going to happen.
Hope this makes sense to you the scientists out there.
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
#4
Posted 2003-February-13, 13:04
First and foremost, I agree with Fred that there are a number of features more important than implementing convention card editors. [I'd love to see an option for team matches]. With this said and done, from my perspective, significant improvements could be made to BBO by making a relatively simple set of enhancements to the Convention Card utility.
I 've started a separate thread in the forum for suggested feature set improvements.
Short term, players always have the option to supplement the existing convention card utility with their own web pages:
As an example
http://web.mit.edu/~...O%20simple.html
#5
Posted 2003-February-13, 15:04
#6
Posted 2003-February-13, 15:41
I will state that in terms of CC's BBO is better than ACBL.com, which requires a great deal of typing to even attempt to articulate your system. I simply offered WBF's CC because in essence that's a standard for serious bridge players...
#7
Posted 2003-February-13, 17:37
You are correct that the WBF convention card is a reasonable standard for serious players, but only if you define "serious" as the top .1% or so of all bridge players.
I would bet that the majority of BBO members have never played "live" duplicate bridge before, let alone seen a WBF convention card. Even some accomplished tournament players find the WBF convention card to be intimidating (like me for example).
I certainly would like serious players to feel welcome and play on our site, but catering to them at the expense of the masses seems like a bad idea to me.
Besides, serious players should be able to get along just fine without a serious convention card. Non-serious opps will not look at the convention card anyways and serious opps can ask if they really want to know what a bid means.
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
#8
Posted 2003-February-13, 18:55
Speaking of CC's, do you like/dislike the current ACBL CC? Is there some thing(s) that you'd like to see changed in it?
#9
Posted 2003-February-14, 00:53
Quote
Speaking of CC's, do you like/dislike the current ACBL CC? Is there some thing(s) that you'd like to see changed in it?
I believe that the existing ACBL card suffers from one significant defect. It is incredibly difficult to describe any kind of strong club system using the ACBL card, let alone a system that uses artificial bids.
However, I think that a more significant question is whether we want to continue with a relatively limited display format such as flat text when hypertext is available. I don't think that the best designed flat text convention card can compare to the display capabilities of hypertext.
#10
Posted 2003-February-14, 03:24
I think the ACBL CC gets the job done for the vast majority of ACBL members. As such, it is hard (for me at least) to be too critical of its design. I suspect that a radical change in the format of the ACBL CC would upset a lot of ACBL members.
On a slightly different subject, I think the ACBL practice of "announcements" is a complete monstrosity that should be completely eliminated (I am not holding my breath on this).
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
#11
Posted 2003-February-14, 03:59
I like the fact that a short club is announced, but not a short diamond opening (a la Precision) - I've had players get skiddish when I open a Precision 1D on a 4-4-1-4 handtype (in Key Lime Precision, we do not have a 2 level bid to show a shortage of diamonds). I think that requires an alert regardless of whether it's forcing or not.
I think the CC if you're playing SAYC or a decent 2/1 is ok - it's when you go off the beaten path so to speak is where you might encounter some trouble. However it's much better than most NBO's CC where you have to write a lot more content to protray the same meanings as a little box marked does on our card.
#12
Posted 2003-February-14, 14:14
I ask because my fiance and I play a strong club, weak NT, 4 card major, majors first always system. I've gone through and created the appropriate CC, and we alert non-natural or unexpected bids, but it would be great to be able to have typed ahead of time what the common bids mean, like "1 spade is 12-15 hcp, 4+spades, could have longer minor", and have the opps easily access that information. Frequently, it seems our CC goes unlooked at, and we have to manually type the explanation. Worse, opps may be unaware of bids not alerted, such as natural signoffs over 1NT.
As it is, I always pre-alert opps with this: "Vanya and I play a strong club system, with weak NT and 4 card majors, and always open majors before minors." I still worry about being able to provide proper disclosure to opps not familiar with this sort of system. Although most bids are natural, there are common situations where I would like to provide opps with more complete information about our agreements.
Thanks!
John
#13
Posted 2003-February-15, 02:47
Please don't take this criticism too seriously, but in the words of the immortal bard, some BBO members 'doth protest too much' about the features BBO can provide, i.e. CCs and past tourney hands. The BBO site is so far and above any other site on the Net that it is impossible for me to comprehend how anyone can find anything other than praise to send to you. You and your staff have done more to promote not only Bridge, but a sense of peace and well-being among all the peoples of this imperfect world. If our so-called world leaders would only find a common place for agreements as we have to discuss bridge differences like BBO's chat rooms, what a wonderful world this could be. Thank you, Tom
#14
Posted 2003-February-15, 04:16
Quote
Please don't take this criticism too seriously, but in the words of the immortal bard, some BBO members 'doth protest too much' about the features BBO can provide, i.e. CCs and past tourney hands. The BBO site is so far and above any other site on the Net that it is impossible for me to comprehend how anyone can find anything other than praise to send to you. You and your staff have done more to promote not only Bridge, but a sense of peace and well-being among all the peoples of this imperfect world. If our so-called world leaders would only find a common place for agreements as we have to discuss bridge differences like BBO's chat rooms, what a wonderful world this could be. Thank you, Tom
Thanks for your ongoing support, Tom. I am glad you like BBO so much already, but we definitely plan to continue to improve the software. The pace of change has been slow during the past 6 months or so as I have been involved in another project (one that actually makes money). Good news is that this project is almost finished and I will seen be devoting most of my waking hours to BBO once again.
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
#15
Posted 2003-February-15, 04:32
Quote
This approach does not work well if the opponents are using methods that require written defenses.
As an example, most American players are not familiar with conventional preemptive openings such as a multi-2D or a Wilkosz 2D.
I believe that the current WBF policy that allows players to consult written defenses to conventional opening bids represents an appropriate compromise. Players get to play what they want. The opposiing partnership are able to guaruntee that they are both referencing the same set of defensive methods.
However, this requires some written mechanism to provide the opponents with written defenses.
A hypertext based convention card seems the best way to accomplish this.
#16
Posted 2003-February-15, 04:37
Quote
On a slightly different subject, I think the ACBL practice of "announcements" is a complete monstrosity that should be completely eliminated (I am not holding my breath on this).
I think that announcements are a mixed bag.
In an online playing environment, where partner doesn't see announcements, I think that these are a significant enhancement to the game.
For face to face play, announcements seem good in theory, but are problematic in practice. Too few people have any understanding what should [and should not] be announced. Accordingly, the system causes problems.
#17
Posted 2003-February-15, 08:42
#18
Posted 2003-February-15, 08:47
Quote
Wow
I disagree with this one completely.
First, it would seem to directly contradict the Laws of Bridge which specifically forbid mechanical aids.
More significantly, I love to pay complex methods. However, even I draw a line at the point that players can't remember what they're playing.
Simply put, if you cant remember your methods, you probably shuld be playing something simpilier.
#19
Posted 2003-February-15, 08:59
Also, the ACBL needs to institute the rule that many European NBO's have and mandate the handing of CC's before a round begins.
#20
Posted 2003-February-15, 10:01
I posted a new version of my MOSCITO convention card at
http://web.mit.edu/~...www/MOSCITO.htm
Based on user feedback I wanted to accomplish a couple things. First, I wanted to add additional information such as defensive carding, leads, etc.
Second, I moved the extremely detailed system information to a secondary link.
As always, comments are appreciated.

Help
