[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]

barmar, on Sep 9 2005, 02:48 PM, said:

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]

badderzboy, on Sep 9 2005, 08:23 AM, said:

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]

badderzboy, on Sep 10 2005, 11:05 AM, said:

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]

hrothgar, on Sep 10 2005, 01:01 PM, said:

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]

Echognome, on Sep 10 2005, 09:26 AM, said:

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]

hrothgar, on Sep 10 2005, 01:08 PM, said:

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]

hrothgar, on Sep 10 2005, 02:01 PM, said:

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

[luke warm]

fred, on Sep 10 2005, 08:42 AM, said:

~snip~So if the prospect of a file format change is preventing some people from really working with FD, don't worry about this. ~snip~

great job, fred... i'd already put in several layers but had stopped because of this possibility... now i can start back

[cherdano]

fred, on Sep 4 2005, 04:40 PM, said:

badderzboy, on Sep 4 2005, 12:33 PM, said:

Fred, have you thought of creating a web-page in Bridgebase where standard cards can be downloaded ?

Yes, we will certainly create such a web page (and also make it possible to download various FD files through BBO itself).

I am not sure if members of the BBO staff and going to get involved in creating these files themselves. I hope that groups of volunteers will form for this purpose.

I think it would be really really great if there wasn't only a website where you can download systems, conventions etc., but also a community site where you could upload these. (Maybe the forums could be used for this by allowing this file typ to be uploaded?)

Further up the thread you talked about creating files together in an open source spirit. Open source always works MUCH better when it is very easy for people to get involved. If they just can easily put up their favourite pet convention somewhere for other people to download, they may do it. Or they may have created their own "BBO adv but no Cappelletti" from the "official" BBO adv system description, and put it up for others to share.

In fact, I bet this is all you would need to do to make the above volunteer work happen within a matter of days.

Arend

[stev_hav]

IMO, the current (1.0.5) file format of "full disclosure" (hereafter FD) needs to be enhanced in three areas:
A. Promised distributions.
B. Promised HCP ranges.
C. Opponents' conventions.

1N (P) 2C (P)
2D (P) 2N (P)
3N (all pass)

Opponents, and especially opening leader, tend to have two questions:

1. Is responder promising at least one 4-card major?
2. What HCP does 1N promise?

(2) is so common that ACBL procedures require immediate "announcement", by responder, of the promised HCP.
(1) depends primarily upon bidding side's agreements as to an immedate 2N response.

Current FD format, as to agreements concerning length in specific suits other than the actually-named one, appears inadequate. Transfer responses to NT openings, two-suited overcalls, etc., tend to promise such length; this can be disclosed ONLY in the "comment" area.

[fred]

stev_hav, on Sep 10 2005, 04:35 PM, said:

IMO, the current (1.0.5) file format of "full disclosure" (hereafter FD) needs to be enhanced in three areas:
A. Promised distributions.
B. Promised HCP ranges.
C. Opponents' conventions.

1N (P) 2C (P)
2D (P) 2N (P)
3N (all pass)

Opponents, and especially opening leader, tend to have two questions:

1. Is responder promising at least one 4-card major?
2. What HCP does 1N promise?

(2) is so common that ACBL procedures require immediate "announcement", by responder, of the promised HCP.
(1) depends primarily upon bidding side's agreements as to an immedate 2N response.

Current FD format, as to agreements concerning length in specific suits other than the actually-named one, appears inadequate. Transfer responses to NT openings, two-suited overcalls, etc., tend to promise such length; this can be disclosed ONLY in the "comment" area.

I think the "comments" area is the appropriate place for this info.

You are right that the opponents will want to know this stuff, but they will see what they need to know even if that information was entered as a comment.

In fact, I think most people would prefer to read "promises 4-card major" to:

4-4
0-4
0-5
0-5

OR

0-4
4-4
0-5
0-5

There are additional reasons for the current design. I suggest you have a look at the 3rd post on the 1st page of this thread.

Remember that the primary purpose of this program is to provide info for online bridge players/kibitzers. They don't care if someone actually typed in "15-17" or selected "15" in one listbox and "17" in another. They just want to see the info.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[pigpenz]

another suggestion:
it would be nice if you could use the control shift keys to select a groups of bids that have the same meaning , or ven better if we could use the mouse.....
say for instance:
1NT pass
being able to select at the same time both 3♣/3♦ as invitational as an example

or say 1Major and all bids that would be a splinter, it would save alot of time and def make things easier.