[hrothgar]

Hi All

I think that everyone will agree that the Full Disclosure application will provide the greatest value to the user base if we can provide "system files" documenting standard systems like SAYC, BWS, BBO Advanced, Polish Club, MOSCITO and the like...

I'd like to suggest that we should have a bit of discussion regarding standard "methods" to describe bids. It might make things easier on the end users if system files followed a standard format.

Consider the followign example: Suppose that I need to describe a 1♠ opening. In theory I could describe this using the following format

1. Minimum length of the spade suit
2. Strength (preferred metric + range)
3. Restrictions

however, other might prefer

1. Strength (preferred metric + range)
2. Minimum length of the spade suit
3. Restrictions

Personally, I don't have any strong preferences. However, I do think that some degree of standardization is better than none.

Anyone else have thoughts?

[Echognome]

Good idea Richard. Standardisation will help not only the users in deciding how to format their files, but also in actual implementation as people will become used to where to look for the information.

I am fairly indifferent as to the standard format, but perhaps we should think through all of the relevant fields people will be interested in.

For example, strength in terms of hcp (or other metrics), promised length in relevant suits, strong negative inferences*, relevance to previous bids (perhaps shown in length above), etc.

* I don't want to open up Pandora's box on this, but it is relevant to the idea of full disclosure. I am only suggesting those inferences that one would say at the table.

[inquiry]

Fred's call for volunteer(S) to help create the base systems should to a long way... i guess we should create "JACOBY 2NT", "JACOBY TRANSFER", etc conventions that can be MERGED into systems as well. I think the problem will be deciding what the base system is... anyone who loads the base could, of course, modify it to suit their needs.

[luke warm]

can i suggest that all volunteers contact one person (whether ben or someone else) with a note telling what system they're volunteering to enter? that way maybe, for example, if you have 3 folks working on bbo advanced, they can work on different parts at the same time, then incorporate all files at some later date

same for moscito... richard, ron, fredrick are 3 who i know play it all the time, if they decided to work on this it might be easier if they each choose different areas... would seem to cut down on the amount of work any one person would have to do

i'll volunteer to start on a bbo advanced, if you want... major suits, minor suits, or nt, etc... if i do 1nt and someone else 1h, then i can do 1s and someone 1c, etc... don't know if that makes sense or not

edit: you can also have one person in charge of checking/editing each section as it's completed, if there are enough volunteers...

This post has been edited by luke warm: 2005-September-10, 14:53

[stev_hav]

inquiry, on Sep 10 2005, 06:52 PM, said:

Fred's call for volunteer(S) to help create the base systems should to a long way... i guess we should create "JACOBY 2NT", "JACOBY TRANSFER", etc conventions that can be MERGED into systems as well. I think the problem will be deciding what the base system is... anyone who loads the base could, of course, modify it to suit their needs.

Where did Fred actually come out and request volunteers? He mentioned an intention to do so in his original post, but I haven't seen a post which actually contains such a request.

I'm definitely willing to help create a system file, but I would like to be fairly certain that I'm working on a unique section of it.

One possible way to subdivide the effort would be to set up sections corresponding to each heading in the "Bridge Base Advanced" summary. Some sort of agreement, concerning file naming conventions, would probably be helpful; so that the name carried a little information about file content. (BBO_ADV_1C1D, BBO_ADV_1H1S, BBO_ADV_1T, . . ).

IMO, would probably be wise to agree upon a "coordinator", whose responsibilities would include merging individual contributors' work into a "combined" version.

[mgoetze]

FWIW, I have started on a FD file for Blue Club as set out in "the book". If anyone else is interested in helping out, drop me a line.

[hrothgar]

I'm working on a system file for MOSCITO based on a combination of

1. My notes
2. Some of Pauls new stuff (I like some of the new tweaks over the 1♦ opening)
3. Klinger's Keri structure for NT openings

With this said and done, I think that its premature to be doing extensive work on system files before agreeing to common standards regarding how we should represent information...

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Sep 10 2005, 09:52 PM, said:

Fred's call for volunteer(S) to help create the base systems should to a long way... i guess we should create "JACOBY 2NT", "JACOBY TRANSFER", etc conventions that can be MERGED into systems as well. I think the problem will be deciding what the base system is... anyone who loads the base could, of course, modify it to suit their needs.

Being able to merge modules is all fine and good, however, I suspect that most folks are going to be interested in "off the shelf" systems that they can select with the same amount of effort required in loading a convention card...

Here is a prioritized list of the systems that I think need to designed and coded:

1. Standard American: 5 card majors, 15 - 17 NT opening
2. 2over1 game force
3. Polish Club (WJ2005)
4. Standard English

Please note: I consider SAYC to be an abomination before the lord. I would rejoice in seeing a stake thrust through its dark heart and see SAYC once more confined to a cold, dark grave. Recall that SAYC was designed as a set of system regulations and not as a well designed/integrated system.

In an ideal world, we might be able to use the introduction of "Full Disclosure" to promote a better variant of Standard American (BBO Basic or some such)

[inquiry]

stev_hav, on Sep 10 2005, 10:34 PM, said:

inquiry, on Sep 10 2005, 06:52 PM, said:

Fred's call for volunteer(S) to help create the base systems should to a long way... i guess we should create "JACOBY 2NT", "JACOBY TRANSFER", etc conventions that can be MERGED into systems as well. I think the problem will be deciding what the base system is... anyone who loads the base could, of course, modify it to suit their needs.

Where did Fred actually come out and request volunteers? He mentioned an intention to do so in his original post, but I haven't seen a post which actually contains such a request.

I'm definitely willing to help create a system file, but I would like to be fairly certain that I'm working on a unique section of it.

One possible way to subdivide the effort would be to set up sections corresponding to each heading in the "Bridge Base Advanced" summary. Some sort of agreement, concerning file naming conventions, would probably be helpful; so that the name carried a little information about file content. (BBO_ADV_1C1D, BBO_ADV_1H1S, BBO_ADV_1T, . . ).

IMO, would probably be wise to agree upon a "coordinator", whose responsibilities would include merging individual contributors' work into a "combined" version.

Well.... let's consider what he did was make an announcement that he was going to callfor volunteers..... sort of a Pre-call as it was. I think a lot of people have their own versions created...so when the call comet to "help" with 2/1 or SAYC, or whatever, plenty of people might submit their versions. So what will probably be needed is a group of people to review what was submitted for accuracy with "standards" (whatever that is).

But some of the stuff being created is too weird to be "standard".. i have been playing with FD longer than most people and have quite an extensive FD including offensive and defensive bidding. I would never submit that, simply because it is clearly not standard. I will make MISIRY FD available to anyone wanting to try it out, say in bidding room or something.

Ben

[stev_hav]

hrothgar, on Sep 10 2005, 05:47 PM, said:

I'd like to suggest that we should have a bit of discussion regarding standard "methods" to  describe bids.  It might make things easier on the end users if system files followed a standard format.

Consider the followign example:  Suppose that I need to describe a 1♠ opening.  In theory I could describe this using the following format

1.  Minimum length of the spade suit
2.  Strength (preferred metric + range)
3.  Restrictions

however, other might prefer

1. Strength (preferred metric + range)
2. Minimum length of the spade suit
3. Restrictions

Personally, I don't have any strong preferences.  However, I do think that some degree of standardization is better than none. 

Anyone else have thoughts?

I definitely agree that the system-file format needs to be standardized, and that there should be specific methods for recording some additional information. Minimum and maximum expected strength, complete distribution, etc., restrictions/negative inferences, etc., ranking among the higher-priority candidates.

I have already made a posting to this effect, to which Fred replied on 9/10 05:14. (in "Full disclosure"). Briefly summarized, he feels that such information belongs within the "comments" area; due at least partially to opponents' convenience in reading the information. And that his posting of 9/2 07:26 more fully explains his reasoning.

Whether or not I totally agree, it does appear that Fred has developed and published a functional editing facility, and that his primary interest at this time is in being able to display the resulting files in actual BBO play.

It appears more constructive, at this time, to concentrate efforts upon actual development--in the current format--of a fairly-comprehensive system file. Bridge Base - Basic would be one good candidate. Due to its relative simplicity, system-file length (and effort to create) would be minimized; all of its methods are relatively-well understood.

In the interests of developing a usable version with minimal delay, perhaps best to begin by defining only uncontested sequences. Hopefully, leading to actual display of something meaningful, in actual BBO play, in the relatively-near future.

One logical approach, to involving multiple developers, would be to allocate the various opening bids to different individuals:
A. One of a minor.
B. One of a major.
C. NT openings.
D. 2C opening.
E. Preemptive openings.

I'm definitely interested in contributing to system-file development . . others' comments?

[bestguru]

I agree strongly that we need standards. I think the best way to accomplish this is to have the editor enforce the standards whenever possible. A good candidate for this is disjunctions. Some seperate the terms with a new line, others an "or", and others an "V". It would be be easier to enter and easier to view if the editor allowed handled it with a branch.

[hrothgar]

The other thing that we really need is some input from the folks who actually do all of the teaching... Anyone have good contacts in the BIL?

[Echognome]

Don't forget to add that we are going to need a lot of people working on competitive bidding and this is where the idea of "standard" is going to become tricky as the number of permutations are that much greater.

E.g. 1♠ - (2♣) - 2♥ - ?

X/2NT/3♣/3♦/3♥ = ?

(1♦) - P - (1♠) - ?

X/1NT/2♦/2♠/2NT = ?

You get the idea.

Also, if you want to add things like overcall structure, power doubles, raptor etc it will just add to the mix.

[badderzboy]

Hi all,

One of the answers to standardisation is to agree on a text or convention card and use that as the baseline for each system.

In terms of conventions then perhaps the set on www.annam.co.uk or bridgeguys is the baseline version and obviously open to discussion.

EG the English Bridge Union has a PDF on Standard English Acol which details the system and the initial continuations with opener's / responders hand and as such may be the appropriate text on Standard English.

It is not the form of Acol I play and it has some interesting bids like Baron 2♠ over 2NT showing a raise to 2NT or balanced 18+ no 4 card major! where slam in minor poss 4-4 but if thats the baseline so be it!

You can always create addendums to merge in like Benji Acol 2 bids and 4 way transfers.

The tool already sets the no. of cards expected so the rest of the text needs to be
Point range or Min/Max etc - there is a danger of overkill in the explanation should ACOL 1♥ be

4+ Hearts 11*-19 points may be 4 if 4 spades and 4432 balanced 15+ or 4144 any pt count may be less than 11HCP if meets rule of 20.
or

4+ Hearts 11*-19 points ?

Final thought is there any way to put dummy/comment lines into the .BSS files?

Steve