BBO Discussion Forums: Uniform width of cards in Hand Diagram - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Uniform width of cards in Hand Diagram

#1 User is offline   m5m3a 

  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 2021-September-05

Posted 2022-May-14, 09:08

Here is a recent hand I was dealt; Shown as a Hand Diagram which I prefer over pictures of cards:

AK92
KJ104
3
J987

At first glance it would seem that I have a 5 carder Heart suit because "10" is wider than others.
Same for the letter Q for Queen and K for King.

The problem would be solved if the symbols for the various cards were all of uniform width.
Thanks.

PS I could not cut and paste images, or insert suit symbols in the message.
1

#2 User is offline   jandrew 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 223
  • Joined: 2006-June-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensbury, West Yorkshire, England

Posted 2022-May-14, 12:06

View Postm5m3a, on 2022-May-14, 09:08, said:

Here is a recent hand I was dealt; Shown as a Hand Diagram which I prefer over pictures of cards:

AK92
KJ104
3
J987

At first glance it would seem that I have a 5 carder Heart suit because "10" is wider than others.
Same for the letter Q for Queen and K for King.

The problem would be solved if the symbols for the various cards were all of uniform width.
Thanks.

PS I could not cut and paste images, or insert suit symbols in the message.


Let me assure you that within a few days you will have no problem identifying the number and value of your cards without a second thought.
0

#3 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,152
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2022-May-14, 14:56

View Postjandrew, on 2022-May-14, 12:06, said:

Let me assure you that within a few days you will have no problem identifying the number and value of your cards without a second thought.


Let me assure you that after years some of us still find it a problem at times and an irritation always.
It would be trivial to fix, simply using T.
0

#4 User is offline   pilowsky 

  • pilowsky
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,937
  • Joined: 2019-October-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 2022-May-14, 18:39

The strange part about it is that in order to create a deal the simplest way to do it is to create a range - [A|K|Q|J|T|9|8|7|6|5|4|3|2].
And then use a shuffle function.
It takes additional work to substitute a '10' for a 'T'.
Linus 10orvalds wouldn't approve.
non est deus ex machina; även maskiner behöver lite kärlek.
0

#5 User is online   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,393
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, Canada

Posted 2022-May-15, 10:28

If you think that is the simplest way to do this...I'm sure I screw up just as badly in your area of expertise, I guess.

As opposed to range(13) and translate all of it, or range(2,15) and translate 10 and higher (or 11 and higher) or range(1, 14) and translate 1 and 10/11 up?

But better yet, build the entire hand off a single 96-bit number and "the big book" - no (potentially, and frequently proven, insecure or non-random) shuffle or any other deck manipulation tool necessary.

I don't know what BBO uses (although I know it's not the last one, because in 2000, generating 96 bit random numbers was more of a struggle than it is now, and we've been told that the deal generator can't deal some hands), but I'm pretty certain that "shuffle-and-deal" is harder; and using an at-all-non-numeric "range" is harder yet.

Generating the actual visible symbols from the hand is a different issue, of course, and likely more independent of the generation than you or I would think.

Sure, having a single-width 10 (and perhaps a monospace J) would be a net benefit. Allowing display as T instead of "10" *as an option* would also be a good thing. I'm sure it's a simple matter of programming.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
1

#6 User is offline   tomh42 

  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 2021-October-24

Posted 2022-May-16, 01:09

Since BBO supports multiple languages, I would expect the deal to be based a mathematical representation and the cards only represented by symbols at the point of display. The symbols can then be language dependent. I certainly support the idea of a standard width for each symbol so that the visual display reflects the nature of the distribution.
0

#7 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,152
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2022-May-16, 15:04

View Posttomh42, on 2022-May-16, 01:09, said:

Since BBO supports multiple languages, I would expect the deal to be based a mathematical representation and the cards only represented by symbols at the point of display. The symbols can then be language dependent. I certainly support the idea of a standard width for each symbol so that the visual display reflects the nature of the distribution.


Language dependent is fine, although that is another question and tendentially in conflict with the simplest solution to displaying 10 in standard width: T is fine in English, but in French or Italian a language dependent ten would be D which conflicts with the Queen, maybe a Latin X would solve the issue for all :)

As mycroft said, the choice of ten symbol could be a configurable option.
0

#8 User is offline   m5m3a 

  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 2021-September-05

Posted 2022-June-06, 23:43

Why do we have to change any symbols or graphic representations?
Displaying each card symbol to the same width will suffice, and more easy to do.

BBO already does that to accommodate 9 and 10 carder suits
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users