[the hog]

Wayne_LV, on Jan 3 2007, 01:05 PM, said:

I have spent litterally 100's of hours working with the FD editor to document different systems I like to play. Actually searching for a combination of bids I think will work in a simple enough structure for mere mortals to play.

What I think bridge needs as much as anything is a standard system.  SAYC was initially to be that standard system that you can agree to play and go to it without further discussion.

Like most good things, the "standard" SAYC system has been tinkered with so much that it is difficult to define what it really is.

I see FD is a fantastic tool that requires you to decide what bids mean when you open the bidding, when ops open the bidding, when ops interfere, when partner overcalls, etc, etc, etc.  It forces you to define your system ... not to the Nth degree, but pretty completely.  What I see missing is not the fault of FD.  What I see missing is the lack of a standard system that has basic bids clearly defined.  Such as single raise of a major = 3+ support and 6-9 dummy points ... sounds simple but the BBO Standard card says 3+ support and 6-10.  Which is standard?
How bout double raise of a major.  Does it show 4+ trumps, 3+ trumps, 10-11 pts, 11-12 pts, 10-12 pts?  A point here and a point there can make a big difference.

Filling out an FD card forces you to be a bidding system designer.  Sure there are places you can look up this bid and that bid, but many is the time you cannot find 2 websites that define a bid the same way.

The goal of a standard system (SAYC or whatever) should be a simple but workable system players can learn well and play without a bottle of rum handy.

I don't think splinter bids (major and minors) or Jacoby 2NT fit the bill of simple.

In the 'good old days", any bridge argument could be settled by using Goren's Bridge Complete and what that book said was final for most players.

Today, there is no one recongnized bridge authority whos word is law.  And I think the game is much worse for the lack of that authority.

I understand the game has changed. But has it changed for the better?  It is still the same game where high cards or trump cards win tricks and contracts most often must be fullfilled to get a decent score.

If the current trend continues players will open with 0 points and open in the suit in which they are void.  All natural bids will be outlawed.

I know most artificial bids must be alerted, but ops can alert and explain every bid they make, but unless you know the system they are playing it is of little value to know what a particular bid means.

How many systems do you need to know to play good bridge today?  More than the one you and partner play, for  sure.  You best know all the ones you are likely to face.  I think this is both a daunting and unreasonable task to impose on most players.

The vehicle requirements for an Indy driver are not the same as those of a little old lady that goes to the market once a week and chuch on Sunday.

Could we have a model A Ford please and let the pros drive the Ferraris?

I think you are trolling here. We have been through this discussion many times. Let me just point out again that Bridge is a game of bidding and then of playing cards. There is nothing in hte rules that says one should take precedence over the other.

Should you wish to argue for a form of the game in which a limitation is placed on X conventions, I think you could then also legitimately argue for a game which places limitations on endplays. One argument is as logical as the other, especially given that the standard of cardplay has improved immeasurably in the last 25 years or so.

Incidentally - "If the current trend continues players will open with 0 points and open in the suit in which they are void. All natural bids will be outlawed."

Been there....FP systems open with a fert, Delta has an opening to show a singleton/void.

[awm]

On the other hand, since bridge is a game of bidding as much as playing the cards, it seems like if we're going to allow players to look at their system notes (or convention cards, or FD displays) during the bidding, it would be only fair to also let them look at their encyclopedia of card combos during the play.......

Part of the game is being able to remember things (or figure them out) under pressure. I think as soon as we start allowing outside memory aids we change the nature of bridge substantially.

[glen]

Wayne_LV, on Jan 2 2007, 10:05 PM, said:

Filling out an FD card forces you to be a bidding system designer.

That explains FD's current popularity

[the hog]

awm, on Jan 3 2007, 01:29 PM, said:

On the other hand, since bridge is a game of bidding as much as playing the cards, it seems like if we're going to allow players to look at their system notes (or convention cards, or FD displays) during the bidding, it would be only fair to also let them look at their encyclopedia of card combos during the play.......

Part of the game is being able to remember things (or figure them out) under pressure. I think as soon as we start allowing outside memory aids we change the nature of bridge substantially.

Yes, I agree with this. I am totally against anyone looking at their own convention card. Any pair's CC should only be visible to the opps

[glen]

The_Hog, on Jan 2 2007, 11:29 PM, said:

Yes, I agree with this. I am totally against anyone looking at their own convention card. Any pair's CC should only be visible to the opps

I believe players should have the option of whether their opponents can use the FD aid of seeing the meanings of their own bids, or not. We would not allow the players to see their FD meanings, as we do not consult our notes during play (albeit partly because our notes are a bit of a mess, since not in FD format). I don't mind players consulting their notes in casual play, but I believe tourney players should follow the bridge laws as they stand now.

As to the CC being visible, the top part (names/general approach) needs to be visible to all so one can check it is there.

[DrTodd13]

awm, on Jan 2 2007, 07:29 PM, said:

On the other hand, since bridge is a game of bidding as much as playing the cards, it seems like if we're going to allow players to look at their system notes (or convention cards, or FD displays) during the bidding, it would be only fair to also let them look at their encyclopedia of card combos during the play.......

Part of the game is being able to remember things (or figure them out) under pressure. I think as soon as we start allowing outside memory aids we change the nature of bridge substantially.

Yes, outside memory aides would change the nature of the game. The only question is whether this would be for the better or for the worse. People are already complaining that there are so many conventions that they can't remember them. Even in my very complicated systems I often choose to make parallel sequences to ease memory work even though I know said sequences are sub-optimal. Systems can only get so complicated before the memory load makes it unprofitable to add anything else. I just think that one avenue of bridge development might be to see what people could do if the memory limitation wasn't there. It might be less enjoyable but it also might be part of the solution to re-energize the game and reverse the trend of diminishing numbers.

Your point about card combos is well taken and at first the idea seemed ridiculous but honestly now that I've thought about it, I don't think the nature of the game would be changed that much by allowing card combos to be looked up. That is only a small part of playing the hand. Inferences from the bidding, planning of entries, endplays, squeezes, coups...these make a great card player. If somebody stood up and rattled off the best way to play some suit combination given 1, 2, 3, 4 entries would you think that person was a great card player? Personally, I would keep card play as it is because there is a fundamental difference between that and bidding. In bidding you have to deal with a partner and can't make stuff up on the fly. In card play, you can laboriously compute the best way to play a suit combination in isolation.

[csdenmark]

Here we are dealing with, as done several times before, with the basic indiscrepances of outdated bridge laws. WBF is to blame for that and nobody else. It would be wise to address that organization.

To rally the probably only tournament organizer on BBO with intensions to obey those laws makes no sense.

They have to deal with indescrepances between:

• Concealed partnership
  
• Mis-information
  
• Memory aid

The salomonic solution ACBL has chosen is to be soft on memory aid giving priority to the 2 other.

Please be free to argue for a different prioritation to the problem. Such will make sense but will not solve the problem.

If you want to do something about the problem you must address the persons responsible for the mess. Those are not online and have no knowledge of the real problem. Therefore they have no legitimazy.

Sad to say - even for offline bridge they seems unqualified. They need to come up with revisions for taking advantage of modern information technology.

[cherdano]

Jlall, on Jan 2 2007, 11:49 PM, said:

I don't understand how FD can be legal in ACBL tourneys. YOU GET TO SEE WHAT YOUR PARTNERS BIDS MEAN!!! AS WELL AS WHAT PARTNER WILL THINK YOUR BIDS MEAN!!!

I don't know of any ACBL tournament in real life where if I made a bid and said "17 points, 3 spades, 5 hearts, 2 diamonds, 3 clubs" out loud to the table that this would not cause me to get barred from the event. I have real issues with the fact that people can see what their partners bids mean. If they play a system and they can't remember it, they should be forced to suffer the consequence. The fact that with FD I can play TOSR without even knowing TOSR is very amusing to me. I have a hard time believing that something such as FD can be allowed in these tournaments.

BTW I think FD would be a great application if only the opponents could see the alerts.

Actually I think there is one reasonable exception to this: Individual tournaments with a prescribed system.

I keep meaning to run a BBO adv-only individual tournament.

[csdenmark]

Wayne_LV, on Jan 3 2007, 05:05 AM, said:

I have spent litterally 100's of hours working with the FD editor to document different systems I like to play. Actually searching for a combination of bids I think will work in a simple enough structure for mere mortals to play.

What I think bridge needs as much as anything is a standard system.  SAYC was initially to be that standard system that you can agree to play and go to it without further discussion.

Like most good things, the "standard" SAYC system has been tinkered with so much that it is difficult to define what it really is.

I see FD is a fantastic tool that requires you to decide what bids mean when you open the bidding, when ops open the bidding, when ops interfere, when partner overcalls, etc, etc, etc.  It forces you to define your system ... not to the Nth degree, but pretty completely.  What I see missing is not the fault of FD.  What I see missing is the lack of a standard system that has basic bids clearly defined.  Such as single raise of a major = 3+ support and 6-9 dummy points ... sounds simple but the BBO Standard card says 3+ support and 6-10.  Which is standard?
How bout double raise of a major.  Does it show 4+ trumps, 3+ trumps, 10-11 pts, 11-12 pts, 10-12 pts?  A point here and a point there can make a big difference.

Filling out an FD card forces you to be a bidding system designer.  Sure there are places you can look up this bid and that bid, but many is the time you cannot find 2 websites that define a bid the same way.

The goal of a standard system (SAYC or whatever) should be a simple but workable system players can learn well and play without a bottle of rum handy.

I don't think splinter bids (major and minors) or Jacoby 2NT fit the bill of simple.

In the 'good old days", any bridge argument could be settled by using Goren's Bridge Complete and what that book said was final for most players.

Today, there is no one recongnized bridge authority whos word is law.  And I think the game is much worse for the lack of that authority.

I understand the game has changed. But has it changed for the better?  It is still the same game where high cards or trump cards win tricks and contracts most often must be fullfilled to get a decent score.

If the current trend continues players will open with 0 points and open in the suit in which they are void.  All natural bids will be outlawed.

I know most artificial bids must be alerted, but ops can alert and explain every bid they make, but unless you know the system they are playing it is of little value to know what a particular bid means.

How many systems do you need to know to play good bridge today?  More than the one you and partner play, for  sure.  You best know all the ones you are likely to face.  I think this is both a daunting and unreasonable task to impose on most players.

The vehicle requirements for an Indy driver are not the same as those of a little old lady that goes to the market once a week and chuch on Sunday.

Could we have a model A Ford please and let the pros drive the Ferraris?

I am very pleased to read your post Wayne. Sorry I didnt read it first time I saw because - oh you know!

I think your comments nails something important - that standard systems must be rather simple, consistent and easy to use - aimed for all interested in solid social bridge without problems and misunderstandings. I would welcome BBO default cards to be modified in that way.

Another important thing you point to is the ability to have an overview - a general understanding - of a system. FD does not pay much attention to that - in fact the space for that has recently been reduced. I think it is a high priority topic and I would be much in favour of some sophisticated performance regarding this.

I would like to comment your last phrase Could we have a model A Ford please and let the pros drive the Ferraris? This is not and will never be my intensions. I want to drive a Ferrari because I think it is the best tool available. If the Professionals also want to take advantage from the best tools available - my choice looks like to be able to go for something. I have no interest in handicapping myself.

[barmar]

Jlall, on Jan 2 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

I don't think it's to stop cheating. I personally would never look at notes during an auction but I can't help it when FD just pops up. I don't even want to look. Sure if I'm playing for fun with some friends in an unknown partnership, but not in a tournament.

Justin, I believe there's a checkbox in the Convention Card options that controls whether you see the explanations of your partner's bids. So if you don't want to be tempted, turn off the option.

I believe the justification for turning it on by default is that most players are not familiar with FD or the systems on the default cards. During this introductory period we're erring on the side of UI to avoid MI.

[barmar]

IMO, unless you're playing a system prescribed by others (e.g. an indy where everyone is required to play SAYC), you should not be permitted to review your own CC. One of the skills that I feel bridge challenges players on is the ability to tailor their system to their mental skills, and this is an important part of the game.

[csdenmark]

barmar, on Jan 4 2007, 08:52 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jan 2 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

I don't think it's to stop cheating. I personally would never look at notes during an auction but I can't help it when FD just pops up. I don't even want to look. Sure if I'm playing for fun with some friends in an unknown partnership, but not in a tournament.

Justin, I believe there's a checkbox in the Convention Card options that controls whether you see the explanations of your partner's bids. So if you don't want to be tempted, turn off the option.

I believe the justification for turning it on by default is that most players are not familiar with FD or the systems on the default cards. During this introductory period we're erring on the side of UI to avoid MI.

No thats not the reason. The reason is as I explained earlier the problem about outdated laws and imcompetent mangement of WBF. They dont care and probably have no knowledge about online bridge. As described those 2 kinds are on decisive points very different. The rules therefore must be different too - especially they must be updated to be fit for today, which in practice is the situation as it has been for at least 10 years now.

The reason for showing partners bids is thats the only real way to avoid mis-information. It is so on all playgrounds - because those are created by men keen about taking care of core values in bridge.

The 3 problems are:

Concealed partnerships

Mis-information

Memory aid

are not possible to handle correct according to laws at the same time. You simply need to modify the laws. Unfortunately it is so that lawyers traditionally has never needed to care about the society they are living in. Until 5 years ago all of those in Denmark were small lawfirms only. The auditers has started merging into big companies 15 years ago and the lawyers has now started the same as it is no longer possible for them to catch up with iformation technology and education in any other way. So a little light we have - but very unsatisfactory to wait for the last ones I think.

Justin is one of those who ought to know that. Many seems to have fun to show ignorance or lack of knowledge - they are not to be taken serious.

ACBL(Gwen) do the right thing - to be soft on memory aid. That rule make no sense in a modern society with information technology. Neither in off-line nor in on-line.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Jan 4 2007, 11:19 PM, said:

ACBL(Gwen) do the right thing - to be soft on memory aid. That rule make no sense in a modern society with information technology. Neither in off-line nor in on-line.

Claus:

You, DrTodd, and anyone else who wants to already have an option to play bridge without any memory aids.

There is a world computer bridge championship each and every year.
You can find information about it right here
http://www.ny-bridge...computerbridge/

Go ahead. build your double dummy solver, create the ultimate bidding system, play whatever silly little reindeer games you want.

However, don't expect the rest of us to redefine tounament "Bridge" because you want to play a bidding system that you can't remember...

[csdenmark]

hrothgar, on Jan 4 2007, 11:21 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Jan 4 2007, 11:19 PM, said:

ACBL(Gwen) do the right thing - to be soft on memory aid. That rule make no sense in a modern society with information technology. Neither in off-line nor in on-line.

Claus:

You, DrTodd, and anyone else who wants to already have an option to play bridge without any memory aids.

There is a world computer bridge championship each and every year.
You can find information about it right here
http://www.ny-bridge...computerbridge/

Go ahead. build your double dummy solver, create the ultimate bidding system, play whatever silly little reindeer games you want.

However, don't expect the rest of us to redefine tounament "Bridge" because you want to play a bidding system that you can't remember...

Richard - Richard - Richard. Hope you feel better after the weekend!

[matmat]

what sort of memory aids would you suggest for f2f bridge?

It boggles my mind to think anyone would believe this to be reasonable. First off, you'd have to memorize where in your notes a particular auction is, otherwise you'd take forever to find it in the thick volume and slow down the game more, making it oh so much more fun to play...

[the hog]

Todd, maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying. Are you seriously suggesting that players should be able to consult memory aids?
If so that is an unbelievable suggestion. I, (and you), play very complicated systems. Part of the price of playing those systems is the memory work involved; thats fine and to some extent I enjoy it because it makes me think about bidding sequences. Like Mat, my mind boggles at the suggestion. As Richard suggests, you might as well have your system file of a computer and look up all your continuations.

To Claus - at one point you were talking about driving a Ferrari; to drive a Ferrari without being a danger to yourself and others you need to have advanced driver education. Perhaps the Model T is looking more attractive?

[csdenmark]

matmat, on Jan 5 2007, 01:49 AM, said:

what sort of memory aids would you suggest for f2f bridge?

It boggles my mind to think anyone would believe this to be reasonable. First off, you'd have to memorize where in your notes a particular auction is, otherwise you'd take forever to find it in the thick volume and slow down the game more, making it oh so much more fun to play...

Not so difficult to think of - it is mostly the compact widespread mobil phones of course which will be in line. But also pocket PC - wireless internet - you name it. Such lists and regulations will need to be updatet probably every second year.

Bridge rules were created at a time where you needed books to hold information. You cannot hold libraries at a table - but today you can easily have a library in a mobil phone. I am completely sure nobody will come to the silly idea to create rules like we see them today if they were to be created from scratch today.

Instead of opening for modern technology we see a still more rigid regulatory way to be used. Looking back at those 5 years I have watched Vugraph - still more conformity due to still more restrictions in order to equalize terms for all. The way to do so is to change the rules - to make them healthy.

Ancient rules like those some claims WBF to be valid will let the game die. That is certainly not going to be the last victim for technological progress. I think I will be at the funeral.

But I hope there within short will come some more perspective from some of those who are taking advantage from the modern technology - mainly those playing online of course.

[csdenmark]

The_Hog, on Jan 5 2007, 02:15 AM, said:

To Claus - at one point you were talking about driving a Ferrari; to drive a Ferrari without being a danger to yourself and others you need to have advanced driver education. Perhaps the Model T is looking more attractive?

That simply refers to that I see no point in aspiring for number two. I go for the top. Anything else will be insane in bridge and anywhere else in life I think. - As a good sportsman I certainly accept to be number 2 but my aspirations will always be higher and better. You too I assume!

[the hog]

"Not so difficult to think of - it is mostly the compact widespread mobil phones of course which will be in line. But also pocket PC - wireless internet - you name it. Such lists and regulations will need to be updatet probably every second year.

My God, so now you are having people phone or txt the meanings of their bids via cell phones!!!! I have come to the conclusion that you are having a huge joke with everyone on this site.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Jan 5 2007, 03:23 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jan 5 2007, 02:15 AM, said:

To Claus - at one point you were talking about driving a Ferrari; to drive a Ferrari without being a danger to yourself and others you need to have advanced driver education. Perhaps the Model T is looking more attractive?

That simply refers to that I see no point in aspiring for number two. I go for the top. Anything else will be insane in bridge and anywhere else in life I think. - As a good sportsman I certainly accept to be number 2 but my aspirations will always be higher and better. You too I assume!

The thing is Claus, you aren't ever going to be number one this way.

The person who wrote the double dummy engine that's solving the card play problems is number one.

The person who wrote the bidding AI that's remember and decyphering all the bids is number one

You're just a sack of flesh pushing arround the cards...

Have can get any sense of achievement when you've separated yourself from the game like this?