# The Team BLD discussion thread!



## Ranzha (Nov 28, 2010)

Yes, it's finally here. I've wanted one of these for awhile, and upon noticing there wasn't anything, I decided to make my own thread.

Here is the Team BLD discussion thread. Here, you discuss...well...Team BLD. Fairly simple concept, I could imagine. You can discuss codes, regulations, anything. Keep it calm and collected, as to provide the ambiance as described in the forum rules, yada yada.

*Team 3x3x3 Blindfolded Proposed Regulations*
These were adapted from Vincent Sheu's proposed regulations, here.

[/spoiler]







Discuss.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Nov 28, 2010)

Has anyone ever had this? You're solving, and your caller walks away without you noticing. When you realize you haven't had any calls for about 20 seconds you pull off the blindfold and everyone's laughing at you.
Conny @{


----------



## Robert-Y (Nov 28, 2010)

I wonder how fast people can do team BLD solves without using any codes, just one move at a time e.g. "R, U, x'" etc...


----------



## Cubenovice (Nov 28, 2010)

I am currently trying to team BLD with my daughter where she is calling the colors of my Old Pochmann buffer pieces.

This is part of my devious plot to teach her BLD without she realising it ;-)
She is already using some codes for the pieces. If she doesn't know the code she tells the colors and asks the code for it.

We are not quite there yet as breaking into new cycles and dealing with flipped corners are difficult for her to describe.
Perhaps a challenging approach BUT... If she can *tell* me all the info she understands Old Pochmann.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 28, 2010)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> picture



Helmet + Camera = Win



Robert-Y said:


> I wonder how fast people can do team BLD solves without using any codes, just one move at a time e.g. "R, U, x'" etc...



Yes, I could imagine that being quite fast as well, especially with a good names for moves. Here's something I've been thinking of:

Consonants for sides: L, R, F, B, T(op), K (bottom)
(T instead of U to have a consonant, and K instead of D because D can be confused with B)

Vocals for angles:
- quarter turn clockwise: A as in Obama
- quarter turn counterclockwise: I as in "*i*nverted" (not as in "w*i*ne")
- half turn: U as in "tw*o*" (or "Br*u*ce")

So for example R U2 R' F U F' becomes RaTuRi FaTaFi. This way it's fewer syllables so should be faster to say, plus every move having the same sound length might be better for rhythm. Also should make it easier to remember more moves for the cross. I think at least for cross and for special cases in F2L this would be good, could be combined with codes for standard F2L/OLL/PLL cases.

Consonants G, H, J, M/N, S, W, X and Z sound different enough and could be used in addition, for cube turns or double layer turns or slice turns.



Cubenovice said:


> This is part of my devious plot to teach her BLD without she realising it ;-)


 
Clever. I've done team bld with non-cubers using regular bld methods before, but never in order to teach them anything...


----------



## Olivér Perge (Nov 28, 2010)

Stefan said:


> (*T instead of U* to have a consonant, and K instead of D because D can be confused with B)


 
That's a sweet idea! We always have a U as AUF and U as permutation madness with Milán.  

The best PLL case is where you have to do a U turn to setup the U perm and a U turn to solve the LL. It's like: U! No, not that U, that U! Ok, now U! No! U! U prime, U perm and U! No, not that U!


----------



## Stefan (Nov 28, 2010)

Yeah, no two codes (for single moves or move sequences) should be so easy to confuse. You could say "perm U", "perm F", "orient W", etc. Or have word-codes for sequences, maybe starting with the step initials, e.g., *F*rank/*F*ork/*F*az/etc for *F*2L and Puke(=Uperm)/Pun(=U'perm)/Pork/etc for PLL. Not really necessary, but it might make learning them easier.


----------



## cubedude7 (Nov 28, 2010)

Lol XD, who was your caller?


trying-to-speedcube... said:


> Has anyone ever had this? You're solving, and your caller walks away without you noticing. When you realize you haven't had any calls for about 20 seconds you pull off the blindfold and everyone's laughing at you.
> Conny @{


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Nov 28, 2010)

When me and Lorenzo/cubes meet at Cube Meets, we do Team BLD just fo' fun.


----------



## AnnoyingApple (Nov 28, 2010)

Remember Kai's attempt on Team BLD? I'm still itching to know the codes they used.


----------



## Ranzha (Nov 28, 2010)

Good to see this thread coming along.
I think it'd be good that after awhile, in the original post, I'd add in a regulation list at the top and whatnot. I think this will benefit any incoming Team BLDers and give them insight on how exactly Team BLD is to be executed.
This does mean that the regulations will be agreed upon here. You guys up for that?

Okay, so when Nathaniel first sat down in the seats at Stanford EPGY Winter 2010, we didn't know what we were going to do. We had never tried TBLD, let alone with each other.
So we tried stuff out, and it wasn't working because of recognition issues.
Because of this, we worked out recognition issues over Skype calls and through a collaborative Google doc.
One major thing I think that a lot of people don't realize is that it's tough to do TBLD because of recognition. Additionally, the caller has to be accustomed to calling things like F2L. The caller and solver must agree upon how to go about performing TBLD before it can actually be done, unless solves are called without codes.
For instance, in a video my father shot of TBLD at Stanford EPGY '10, Nathaniel (the caller) called an anticlockwise U-perm. He recognized like this:





But I recognize like this:





They're the same case, but from different angles. So I performed my alg for the solved-on-B version, and ended with a Z-perm because of this issue. This wastes valuable time if you're competing in Team BLD as an unofficial event. I think that every pair of Team BLDers should create a spreadsheet with sheets detailing how to call triggers (such as Nathaniel's "derp", R U R'), how to call OLL (both for 2-look and for full), and how to call PLL (like how I recognize T-, J-, L-, Ra-, Rb-, F-, E-perm with corner swap on the right side), such as THIS SPREADSHEET.

For OLL, it gets stupid sometimes. That's why you make a table in Word and convert to PDF, as it is on our OLL sheet.

With the tools to do Team BLD, then it gets down to practice. Practise on Skype! It's fun! But it's aso dangerous: if the caller calls something WRONG, it's a DNF. xP

--Ranzha


P.S.


Stefan said:


> Helmet + Camera = Win


 
Oh, thanks. ^_^
Stanford EPGY Winter 2010. Funfunfun. But we missed the finals due to Nathaniel's nubbery. But whatevs. We woulda gotten second to Lucas and Sherrey, iirc.
But the camera was angled too high. I still have the failed recordings.



Stefan said:


> Vocals for angles:
> - quarter turn clockwise: A as in Obama
> - quarter turn counterclockwise: U as in Bruce
> - half turn: I as in Mississippi
> ...



From what you posted, wouldn't it be RaTiRu FaTaFu?


----------



## Stefan (Nov 28, 2010)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> From what you posted, wouldn't it be RaTiRu FaTaFu?


 
*****, yeah. The example is correct, the definition is wrong, I'll go back and fix it. The reasoning was "A" as the alphabet's first letter describing the usually first described angle, "I" reminding of "*i*nverted" or "pr*i*me", and "U" reminding of "tw*o*" (I chose U rather than O because the sound differs more from A and because of how you pronounce "two").

Coincidentally, you'd then say "Tu" like "two" for U2, which I find nice.

Stuff like "derp" for R U R' might still be better for F2L, though, I admit. But I do think that at least for cross, it could be good, because that is more chaotic and it is memorized before executed.


----------



## lorki3 (Nov 28, 2010)

Mats and I have our own method, its called the family method. XD
Its for the F2L. Every slot has someone of your family. For example: FR slot is your brother/sister. The "broken pair" R U R' is always a woman, also from different angles.
And the already made pair R U' R' also from different angles is always a man.
I'm not going to explain everything but you will probaly understand.

Thijs


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 28, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Coincidentally, you'd then say "Tu" like "two" for U2, which I find nice.
> 
> Stuff like "derp" for R U R' might still be better for F2L, though, I admit. But I do think that at least for cross, it could be good, because that is more chaotic and it is memorized before executed.


 
I like this, but I would vote to move it to a new thread to discuss spoken notation.

I'd also like to note that HIJK is a really good, simple BLD system, and it would be nice not to have a conflict with K(=RUR').


----------



## Ranzha (Nov 30, 2010)

I'm think of telling Nathaniel of thie HIJK thing. It's quite straightforward, as it assigns one letter per slot. I'm liking this idea. However, if doesn't solve basic edge control cases such as (R' F R F'), and for this reason I'll stick to my personal calling for those.

The tough thing I can imagine is calling OLLs. From my OLL page in the original post, there are some basic OLLs for the easier-to-execute cases we both know. Are there any defined systems to calling OLL?


----------



## Toad (Nov 30, 2010)

2look.


----------



## Yes We Can! (Nov 30, 2010)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> Has anyone ever had this? You're solving, and your caller walks away without you noticing. When you realize you haven't had any calls for about 20 seconds you pull off the blindfold and everyone's laughing at you.
> Conny @{





cubedude7 said:


> Lol XD, who was your caller?


 
Yeah, who was he? xD


----------



## scylla (Nov 30, 2010)

what are the rules for team BLD?


----------



## Sakarie (Nov 30, 2010)

scylla said:


> what are the rules for team BLD?


 
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Team_Blindfolded

I hope you enjoy taking the adventurous expedition to the Wiki before your next question!


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 4, 2010)

Proposed regulations for Skype Team BLD:

So basically, here’s how it goes. You solve as you would in normal Team BLD, which I posted my proposed regulations for above.
Obviously, it’s unofficial. There is no event, no judges, no main judges. Please use your own discretion to decide the outcomes of solves and such. No one likes liars.
Here’s how it goes:
--Skype is opened.
--Both people sign in, and each have a cube of their own to use.
--A Skype call is initiated, without webcam. Webcam may not be used for solving. It’s not necessary. Personally, I think it gets in the way.
--The executor copies a scramble from qqTimer (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/922195/qqTimer.html or other sister sites) or a scramble-providing timer which does not display what the scramble looks like.
--The team scrambles their cubes and run a quick check of the validity of the scramble (such as, “Is there a green-orange in UF?”). In the event that the scrambles are wrong, the executor must provide a new scramble.
--The executor dons the blindfold.
--The team has fifteen seconds to inspect (discretion of the dictator).
--The caller and executor may exchange verbal notes during the inspection phase.
--The executor starts the timer and performs the opening moves.
--The dictator applies the opening moves to his cube and dictates the solve step-by-step to the executor.
--It is the responsibility of the team to settle algorithm disputes and codes.
--When the cube is supposedly solved, the executor stops the timer and takes off the blindfold.
--If the cube is solved, it’s a success. If else, consult Article 10 in the WCA regulations (http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/).
--At any point may a scramble be repeated, but only once, if the executor wishes to become the dictator and vice versa. The better of the two results from the single scramble is the final time.

Now I'll segue into something supacool.

Nathaniel and I just got a 45.32 average of 5 on Skype Team BLD.

[9:54:18 PM] Ranzha Vliefodo Emodrach: R D2 U2 B2 F D B R2 F2 R B L' R' F2 D' F' L' F L' D' R L F2 R' U'
[9:56:18 PM] Ranzha Vliefodo Emodrach: 46.77.
[9:56:19 PM] Ranzha Vliefodo Emodrach: D F B2 L' D2 F2 D2 L B' D F2 R B' U D B' R U' R' B2 F2 R' L2 D2 L2
[9:58:22 PM] Ranzha Vliefodo Emodrach: 45.39.
[9:58:27 PM] Ranzha Vliefodo Emodrach: R B2 U2 D2 R2 U2 F D2 B' F' D' U' R' B2 R F2 D' F2 D' F U2 L R' U D.
[10:00:50 PM] Ranzha Vliefodo Emodrach: 43.33.
[10:01:04 PM] Ranzha Vliefodo Emodrach: R' L2 F2 D2 L2 U' B D' F' L B2 R2 D U2 R' L2 U' F R2 L2 F' U B2 R2 B.
[10:03:46 PM] Ranzha Vliefodo Emodrach: 1:14.96
[10:04:00 PM] Ranzha Vliefodo Emodrach: R F L2 R' U F U D' L' D' R' L B2 U2 B' R2 F' D2 F' B' L2 D' R2 B' D'
[10:05:55 PM] Ranzha Vliefodo Emodrach: 43.80.
[10:06:02 PM] Ranzha Vliefodo Emodrach: current avg5: 45.32 (σ = 1.22)

Nathaniel dictated, and I executed.
Remember, this is over Skype. Too bad there's no film. D=


----------



## Bryan (Dec 4, 2010)

Why not put regulation discussions in the WCA forum?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 4, 2010)

Bryan said:


> Why not put regulation discussions in the WCA forum?


 
Because it's Skype?

What I mean by this is that the rules might not be necessarily the same, so putting them on the WCA may lead to confusion concerning people there thinking this is to be an official event.


----------



## Bryan (Dec 4, 2010)

StachuK1992 said:


> Because it's Skype?
> 
> What I mean by this is that the rules might not be necessarily the same, so putting them on the WCA may lead to confusion concerning people there thinking this is to be an official event.


 
Well, the first post isn't Skype. I figured it was discussion on how TeamBLD should be done in order to make it an official event. No harm in discussing proposed events.


----------



## Toad (Dec 4, 2010)

Surely it's not a good idea to be able to repeat the same scramble with switched roles? If you've just dictated the solution to someone you'll likely be able to remember a lot of it while you're then solving it...


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 4, 2010)

Mhmm. Perhaps we can get some basics here and then transfer the ideas there so we have something to back ourselves up with.
I would love for this to be an official event!


----------



## Erik (Dec 4, 2010)

I have some suggestions for the regulations for how they are proposed in your TBLDregs.docx file: (btw who made this?)

2c: _"Team Blindfolded implements a “Mean of 3” system as opposed to an “Average of 5” system."_ *Why* mean of 3, Team BLD wouldn't take that long... if you think the round will take too long then just make it a combined final (one of your first two attempts must be under x:xx to get an avg).

4d: _"At no point during inspection is the dictator allowed to touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve."_ I don't see the purpose of this really. At most competitions where we did unofficial Team BLD the caller was allowed to pick up the cube to inspect, after all the caller has to inspect the cube, not the executor.

4e: _"The dictator is allowed only to stand, where the executor is allowed to sit and stand as he wishes."_ This does not make sense to me. I don't understand what you want with this. I understand it as something that the caller has to stand near the executor (?). I think the caller should be free to stand where he/she wants.

4g: _"The competing team is allowed to make notes, but only in a verbal manner."_ As far as my view on Team BLD goes, it is build up on two principles:
- the caller can't make moves
- the solver can't see the cube
Why make the restriction of only verbal ways of communicating? It is much more challenging to invent a system where a tap on the right shoulder would mean something for instance. I am wondering why this boundary was made.


----------



## Toad (Dec 4, 2010)

The key decision for me is whether or not the solver is allowed to talk or not?

I don't know which I prefer, both options make sense for various reasons. What do people think?


----------



## That70sShowDude (Dec 4, 2010)

I completely agree on the not being able to switch roles choice. That's a horrible idea in my opinion.
I also think that the solver should also remain muted during the entire inspection/solve. I look at talking and sight as the same thing. Neither should be used.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 4, 2010)

I wish for only the caller to speak.
Tapping, also, would be allowed.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 4, 2010)

My comments, from scanning the thread:

- Could we not use the unnecessarily brutal names "dictator" and "executor"? I propose "caller" and "solver."
- I think both should be allowed to talk. The solver is allowed to point, so there is interactive communication; allowing both to talk is like allowing both hands during inspection: Not much different, easier on beginners, and easier to enforce.
- I would prefer the caller not to be allowed to touch the puzzle, but I think that's just personal preference.


----------



## riffz (Dec 4, 2010)

I would prefer if both could talk. It's easier to enforce, and in competition settings where it's noisy and busy, I think the solver should be allowed to ask the caller to repeat themselves, or ask for clarification.


----------



## Kian (Dec 4, 2010)

My brother and I never let the solver speak. I think it's more fun this way, it provides some added difficulty in explaining yourself. But to each his or her own, I guess.


----------



## Bryan (Dec 4, 2010)

The solver is the one with their hands on the timer and they're blindfolded at the end of inspection, but the team is suppose to ensure the light is green.

Since this would be a new event and different enough from the existing stuff, why not eliminate inspection? 

Also, you should've written the document in a way that references the existing rules, and just notes where stuff is different. 

Don't put in regulations what happens for no-shows. That should be reserved for the organizer. If I'm on a tight-schedule, I do not want to do a bunch of extra work changing entries and scorecards because your full team didn't show up. If a full team doesn't show up and they forfeit, nothing would be recorded in the results. "DNS" is for when you don't finish and average of 5 or mean of 3, not when you don't start one. 

Disallowing talking would be tough. A5a allows a competitor to communicate with the judge during the solve, so that could be a passive way to communicate with the caller. And really, what benefit is gained by banning this?


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 5, 2010)

MASSIVE POST.



Bryan said:


> Why not put regulation discussions in the WCA forum?



Those were proposed regulations. It's not an event yet. If Team BLD isn't an event next year (or following years) but certain competitions hold it unofficially, it's better to have some standard way of doing things.



randomtoad said:


> Surely it's not a good idea to be able to repeat the same scramble with switched roles? If you've just dictated the solution to someone you'll likely be able to remember a lot of it while you're then solving it...


 
For Skype, I don't see the major difference. Nathaniel and I do it all the time. The thing is, it's the job of the second solver to be solving according to what the second caller calls.



Erik said:


> I have some suggestions for the regulations for how they are proposed in your TBLDregs.docx file: (btw who made this?)



I did. I just adapted some regs from the WCA forum thread and added what I thought was necessary. It’s quite crude, in my opinion.



Erik said:


> 2c: _"Team Blindfolded implements a “Mean of 3” system as opposed to an “Average of 5” system."_ *Why* mean of 3, Team BLD wouldn't take that long... if you think the round will take too long then just make it a combined final (one of your first two attempts must be under x:xx to get an avg).



I proposed a mean of 3 for time’s sake. It’d take even less time as a mean of 3 than an average of 5 (but that’s obvious. xP) My logic behind this is that for those competitors who aren’t accustomed to Team BLD when they register for it for a competition (for instance, as in the case of Nathaniel and me) , it’ll most likely take longer, mainly due to a lack of resolution for potential recognition issues.



Erik said:


> 4d: _"At no point during inspection is the dictator allowed to touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve."_ I don't see the purpose of this really. At most competitions where we did unofficial Team BLD the caller was allowed to pick up the cube to inspect, after all the caller has to inspect the cube, not the executor.



I was considering this. On a personal note, I like the idea of having the caller inspect hands-on. I’ll change it.

4e: _"The dictator is allowed only to stand, where the executor is allowed to sit and stand as he wishes."_ This does not make sense to me. I don't understand what you want with this. I understand it as something that the caller has to stand near the executor (?). I think the caller should be free to stand where he/she wants.

Oh. This. I’ll omit it. It’s not necessary. They may stand and sit as they please. I have a feeling the overall consensus would be that the caller stands, and the solver can sit or stand.

4g: _"The competing team is allowed to make notes, but only in a verbal manner."_ As far as my view on Team BLD goes, it is build up on two principles:
- the caller can't make moves
- the solver can't see the cube
Why make the restriction of only verbal ways of communicating? It is much more challenging to invent a system where a tap on the right shoulder would mean something for instance. I am wondering why this boundary was made.[/QUOTE]

I didn’t take this into account. I’ll revise to prohibit written notes only, instead.



Lucas Garron said:


> My comments, from scanning the thread:
> 
> - Could we not use the unnecessarily brutal names "dictator" and "executor"? I propose "caller" and "solver."
> - I think both should be allowed to talk. The solver is allowed to point, so there is interactive communication; allowing both to talk is like allowing both hands during inspection: Not much different, easier on beginners, and easier to enforce.
> - I would prefer the caller not to be allowed to touch the puzzle, but I think that's just personal preference.


 
I am changing the names to “caller” and “solver.” I just wanted to see reactions. xD
All in good fun.



Bryan said:


> The solver is the one with their hands on the timer and they're blindfolded at the end of inspection, but the team is suppose to ensure the light is green.
> 
> Since this would be a new event and different enough from the existing stuff, why not eliminate inspection?



I saw this and I thought to myself, “Is inspection necessary?” Considering that this doesn’t require memorization as a normal BLD solve would and that there is sighted participation, I’m going to keep inspection in the proposed regulations.



Bryan said:


> Also, you should've written the document in a way that references the existing rules, and just notes where stuff is different.



Okay. Will do. 



Bryan said:


> Don't put in regulations what happens for no-shows. That should be reserved for the organizer. If I'm on a tight-schedule, I do not want to do a bunch of extra work changing entries and scorecards because your full team didn't show up. If a full team doesn't show up and they forfeit, nothing would be recorded in the results. "DNS" is for when you don't finish and average of 5 or mean of 3, not when you don't start one.



About the no-shows, yeah. I see. I’ll omit. Discretion of main judge.



Bryan said:


> Disallowing talking would be tough. A5a allows a competitor to communicate with the judge during the solve, so that could be a passive way to communicate with the caller. And really, what benefit is gained by banning this?



I agree with this. Let both people talk. =D Additionally, talking to each other can clear up dastardly


----------



## Toad (Dec 5, 2010)

I'm just gonna put this out there that I think the way all you guys are currently doing Skype teamBLD is ridiculous and not even close to how teamBLD would be run as an official event. We need to make very clear what discussion relates to teamBLD and what relates to Skype teamBLD in this thread 'cos I'm getting pretty confused


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 5, 2010)

randomtoad said:


> I'm just gonna put this out there that I think the way all you guys are currently doing Skype teamBLD is ridiculous and not even close to how teamBLD would be run as an official event. We need to make very clear what discussion relates to teamBLD and what relates to Skype teamBLD in this thread 'cos I'm getting pretty confused


 
Okay.

So like, I'll make a thread?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 5, 2010)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> I am changing the names to “caller” and “solver.” I just wanted to see reactions. xD
> All in good fun.


If that's how you're going to treat this, I'd rather not have you in charge of the discussion for potential official regulations. 

Right now, this thread is rather idiosyncratic. I would prefer something more like the way Chris handled the Speffz discussion.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 7, 2010)

bobbyfearfactor said:


> Would there have to be some kind of judge that would have to hold a piece of paper in between the solver's face and the puzzle the entire time?


 
No. After reading the WCA forum's thread on it, I've decided to leave it out.



Lucas Garron said:


> If that's how you're going to treat this, I'd rather not have you in charge of the discussion for potential official regulations.
> 
> Right now, this thread is rather idiosyncratic. I would prefer something more like the way Chris handled the Speffz discussion.


 
I see your logic. I didn't want to propose these as potential official regulations. I just wanted to propose some system, open to suggestions.


NOTE: If anyone out there more experienced than me (well, that's basically everyone out there, to mention it) wants to take over from here, I'd be glad. I think it'd be better for someone like Lucas to propose a system for Team BLD, considering his experience level.


----------



## Bryan (Dec 7, 2010)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> No. After reading the WCA forum's thread on it, I've decided to leave it out.


 
I think that's one of the major issues with TeamBLD is this problem. I can't simply be ignored because it's difficult to find a solution if it's going to be an official event.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 11, 2010)

Bryan said:


> I think that's one of the major issues with TeamBLD is this problem. I can't simply be ignored because it's difficult to find a solution if it's going to be an official event.


 
An option would be to have a piece of paper taped to the blindfold as a facemask. Each team would supply their own facemask.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Dec 13, 2010)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> An option would be to have a piece of paper taped to the blindfold as a facemask. Each team would supply their own facemask.


 
Would/do you and Nath carry that big sheet of doom with you and use it as a key guide? Or are you both bad-ass to memorize that death sheet?


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 28, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> Would/do you and Nath carry that big sheet of doom with you and use it as a key guide? Or are you both bad-ass to memorize that death sheet?


 
Memorize it, obviously. It's not that bad. xD
Derp = R U R'
Hurp = R U' R'
Hurp Derp = (cancel)
Big derp = R U2 R'.
It makes logical sense.


----------



## PandaCuber (Dec 11, 2011)

Get thiss thread going again! 

How can I practice TeamBLD, without the other member? 

Ive tried going on websites that put your text into words, but they dont pronounce the <'>. 

Thanks


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 25, 2011)

PandaCuber said:


> Get thiss thread going again!
> 
> How can I practice TeamBLD, without the other member?
> 
> ...


 
The best way I've found is while you're solving, say what you're going to do before you do it.
For instance,
B2 F' D F2 L U2 F2 B2 U' L D2 U' L F R' D2 B' L B D2 L2 U F' B' L

Spoken // Moves
B2 R' F' L' F cross done // B2 R' F' L' F x2
spin twice M F M' D2 frontpairs // y2 M F M' D2 F2 R' F2 R
spin hurp U push left // y R U' R' U L U L'
butterfly // R U2 R' U' R U R'
push // R' U' R
spin back headlights // y' R U2 R' U' R U' R' U' R U R' U R U2 R'
spin A-bad // y x R2 D2 R U R' D2 R U' R


----------

