Talk:Slam-seeking conventions

Disagree with merge
Again. Duja 09:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC) ...rationale: are you going to merge all Grand slam forcing, Josephine, Cuebid, Asking bid, ... once those articles are written into this big one? And how are you going to cross-link them? We have categories here for categorizing stuff, not all related concepts should be stumbled into big articles (with necessarily awkward nems). We have a categorization here for this sort of stuff. I support creating one article for summary of all slam-seeking (and other) conventions (Bridge convention article should have some kind of classification), but then only cross-link articles which are completely unrelated, with different authors, external links, sources etc. Duja 09:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I am not really sure why you object, consider this:
 * Because that's the opposite of normal lifetime of articles. Here, articles grow and grow until their paragraphs become too big and deserve a topic of their own. Then they got split. We had History of France which grew, then got split to Frankish Empire, France in the Middle Ages, Early Modern France, etc. The reader can get an overview reading the "main" article, and then dwelve into details if he/she wants. He doesn't get all lumped together, and fight his way through the book-like article. The articles you merged weren't very long indeed, but I'd rather have them expanded than lumped together. My point is: we had a good organization of topics, and articles themselves needed expansion. When you came, we have only a bad organization and the topics themselves still need expansion. Duja
 * I humbly suggest that this is not very welcoming language, indeed it appears to be very much your POV stated as though it was fact. I ask again ... why isn't there a bridge project? Abtract 14:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You ask how I will cross-link; surely that is simply by redirecting?
 * These are very closely related topics.Abtract
 * I disagree with "very". The only thing Splinter bid and Blackwood have in common is that they're used for slam investigating. Maybe I'd like to classify conventions into "asking" and "telling" ones. Or "modern" and "old" ones etc. Hypotetically, how can I write a classification like: "asking conventions are Asking bid, Blackwood, and telling conventions are Splinter bid and Cue bid" when all four links will redirect the reader to a big one, which even contains non-related stuff? Duja 11:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A reader, even a casual one, will gain by seeing other conventions with a shared objective in the same article. Abtract
 * No he will not. . Duja
 * Nothing has been lost because I have simply transferred the articles into this one.Abtract
 * Readability. Cross-linking among articles. Again, this is hypertext. See below. Duja
 * I have added further sections for which there was no pre-existing article Abtract
 * It's good. I'm not advocating dleation, but reorganization.Duja
 * This article can hardly be described as big, whereas the others (except Blackwood) would of necessity be rather small.Abtract
 * Big is anything over 4 kB. What's wrong with small on-topic articles?
 * The Table of contents makes it very easy to read only that section of the article required ... or to read related sections.Abtract
 * Even better does an overview, with links to main smaller articles. Duja
 * The combined article makes an interesting read as well as being a useful reference source; once it has been further refined it will make a solid article
 * This is an alphabetically sorted encyclopedia, not a magazine. So does an interesting overview with links to smaller articles make a useful reference source. Again, when I search for Blackwood, I want Blackwood. Not an article which starts with Adam and Eve. Duja
 * I am unsure what your reference to "with different authors" means. Surely articles do not have one author they have many? Abtract
 * I mean convention authors, and conventions' external links. Duja
 * When I click on e.g. "Splinter bid" I want an article about splinter bid. I don't want to search table of contents in the redirected-to article just to find the topic I want to.Duja

I agree the name is a little awkward; can you suggest a more elegant one? Abtract
 * Yes, reset the things into previous state and put a classification as a chapter in Bridge convention article, with links to individual articles, instead of dumping all together.Duja 11:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments: I look forward to reading the views of others. Abtract 10:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but please read this and this web site. Also: which of the reasons stated in Merging and moving pages were fulfilled? Duja


 * Wiki reasons for merging:

I know you think I am pain with my merges but I want what you want - really good bridge articles that will enable readers to grasp the contextual elements of each topic rather than simply picking up scraps of info as they go alone. Remember that one of the disadvantages of any reference book is that you have to know what to look up before doing so; my approach is to make life simple for the innocent reader by having broad articles that cover many linked subsets. Abtract 13:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject." - maybe not, unless of course the subject is "slam-seeking conventions"
 * "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there doesn't need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability." - Blackwood and Gerber are very closely related subjects (the only difference being the actual bids).
 * "If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. " - Cue bids, Splinter bids, Grand slam force, NT quantitative bids are (or would be if they existed) very short articles that make sense to be merged if only so that a reader looking for one of them can see that there are options which may be better for their purpose than the one they originally sought info on.
 * "If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it." - I contend that there is a story to be told that can only be comprehended fully by seeing these conventions within the overall context of an article such as this. It is only by reading Blackwood that one can appreciate how Gerber offers a better solution in certain circumstances. Cue bids cannot be fully appeciated without knowing that more traditional methods (Blackwood and Gerber) give no value to voids, thus occasionally missing laydown slams. Similarly, how can a reader appreciate the value of splinter bids unless he is aware that it will often be used to indicate whether or not partnership values are being wasted before embarking on the search for a slam (perhaps using cue bidding or more traditonal methods?
 * I know we have the common goal (and I apologize if I'm too harsh on occasion, you know, I can be pretty stubborn being a Bosnian :-D ). But we have to have a principle. If you merged all slam-related conventions, then you'll want to merge all Category:Bridge squeezes as well, don't you? Then you'll get a looooong article. But see the "main" article Squeeze play (bridge): it has an introduction and at the end it has a classification with links to "sub-articles". I do feel that we lacked such "summary" articles, and I encourage you (and myself) to write them more. What I don't approve is that all the contents are lumped together. Blackwood convention was not so short article (especially if we added various voidvoods, foowoods and numerous variants). Grand slam force, Cue bid and Asking bid can also be potentially large subjects with all the variations, examples, etc. I agree that there's not as much to tell about Gerber and Splinter, but you can't decide on case by case basis&mdash;"This one's small, where could I merge it?". If you want a similar precedent, see also Chess opening and Category:Chess_openings. Neither of the articles in that category are terribly long, but they're not merged together in one long article just because "they would have a bigger comprehension value" that way.Duja 14:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * At the risk of violating WP:OWN and WP:BITE, we had a certain principle here before you arrived. And, as a reader of the article, I disagree that having all the stuff in one place improves comprehension and "referenceability"&mdash;quite the contrary. What makes you think that readers always want a comprehensive article? Further, this is meant to be primarily referential site, not primarily educational one. You're not supposed to learn bridge step-by-step using either The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge or Wikipedia. There are categories, there are "See also"'s, and other navigational tools.Duja 14:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK thanks - I did enjoy own and bite. I suggest the following:
 * Leave it all merged for 7 days.
 * If a concensus appears in that time we act on it.
 * If no one else seems very interested, then I will not fight you on de-merging Blackwood back to a separate article if you still want to do it.
 * Whether we de-merge the other short articles let us discuss again in 7 days but I remain doubtful because by the time we have written a summary of Grand slam force, it will be virtually as long as the article itself. However again I will not fight you if you are still keen.
 * When (if) we de-merge anything we should do it by taking the section from this article rather than reverting the original article so that we preserve recent edits.
 * Abtract 14:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, I know I was harsh and that I was on the verge of wp:own and wp:bite... Sorry, but I couldn't help but be annoyed. If we had a wikiproject, we could indeed have agreed such things in advance instead of arguing the same arguments for the second time (and an additional reason for my being bitter is that I felt we would argue them again on the same subset of articles). As for the last point, it goes without saying (I apologize if I previously made some "collateral damage" on the way of revertion). Duja 15:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK OK it's too hot to argue further; you have made it look quite nice so let's leave it as it is and just make it even more informative. Abtract 12:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC).

Culbertson 4–5NT and Asking bids
Article lacks Culbertson's 4–5 NT, which was used for years not only by Culbertson system players, but by British Acol players also.

Article incorrectly claims Goren invented the Asking bid, also a Culbertson invention. He introduced it into his system in 1936.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Command v cooperative conventions
Quite a few words are allocated to this distinction in the article. Although it sounds as though it may be ok I wonder if it is actually original research, because a) I have never heard of it (not a very good reason I agree) and b) the official enc of br makes no mention of such ideas (a much better reason) - indeed a "command bid" is defined as one where the partner must make a specific response. Are there any citations for this usage I wonder? Abtract (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly didn't invent the idea; but I did search for a way of expressing the distinction clearly between two styles of convention. The idea has been around since the 1930s, and quite a few discussions touch upon it. I will search for a suitable reference. I was driven by your initial reaction, which along the lines that the term co-operative might violate NPOV, whereas it had been meant as a neutral adjective. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK good luck, although I can find no reference to it. I won't edit it out for a few days but the more I read it the more convinced I become that it cannot be right ... a command bid, just by virtue of its name, must mean a bid that tells partner what to bid and this is how the 'off enc of br' defines it; the conventions we have here are more of the question and answer type of bid eg blackwood which asks a question that has several alternative answers so it cannot be a command. Anyway I await with interest your citations. Abtract (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm, well, maybe command is not the right word. Blackwood is a directive system in which control of the outcome is in one place only, viz:
 * N 1S
 * S 3S


 * N 4NT = how many aces have you?
 * S 5D = one ace


 * N 5S or 6S = decision made.


 * Compare:


 * N 1S
 * S 3S


 * N 4D = cue bid
 * S ?? = this bid is open; a return cue or a decision to bid 4S or 6S are all possible.


 * Control of the outcome here rests with whichever partner decides to take it. All the suit slam methods fall into one of these two camps. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes yes I quite understand but that makes my point ... original research unless citations to support this type of analysis and the names you give it, otherwise it should be omitted. I'm not convinced it adds much in any event. Abtract (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's give it a rest. This was the passage:
 * "Various bidding conventions have been devised to establish whether these conditions exist. The conventions may be either command or co-operative in style. In a command convention the initiator requires partner to make specific replies, so that the initiator may place the contract. In a co-operative convention information is given by both partners, and either may place the contract."

Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)