[jjbrr]

The_Hog, on Mar 19 2010, 08:28 PM, said:

Well, it is a valid point. I have experienced this in other countries as well - the half filled out system card by expert pairs and a bit of a happy go lucky attitude about it.

Regional pairs, elite pairs....does it really matter? Having a correctly filled out cc is just respecting the opps is it not? Before Josh regards this as another example of anti Americanism, please note that i did say I have experienced it in a number of countries. Try even gettting a cc, any cc, in Poland for example.

I agree. I would like to see penalties assessed to people who can't take the few minutes it takes to fill in their CC. Seems like it should be a simple thing and there's no excuse for not doing it.

Of course, then we'd have threads about how so and so is pathetic for calling the director about it.

[aguahombre]

I might add that there are areas of the RM Card which, if filled out neatly on a computer would probably be less clear to read. An example would be the check boxes for attitude, count and suit-pref. they put clearly readable "1", "2" and "3" in the check boxes to show priority.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on Mar 20 2010, 03:03 AM, said:

I might add that there are areas of the RM Card which, if filled out neatly on a computer would probably be less clear to read. An example would be the check boxes for attitude, count and suit-pref. they put clearly readable "1", "2" and "3" in the check boxes to show priority.

And a computer would not be able to put a "1", "2" and "3" there?

Rik

[gwnn]

this

is the correct link (no ellipsis).

Anyway how can you write an URL here without it turning automatically into a link?

[nige1]

Currently, some jurisdictions specify local-format system-cards. These cards disadvantage strangers and foreigners, who are most in need of disclosure aids.

IMO, the lawbook should mandate a system-card protocol. This should include a universal system card format (if only as a default, that local jurisdictions may over-ride). It could be the current WBF card. Perhaps, however, with more thought, the WBFLC could do even better

• Mandatory pre-alert section.
  
• Optional sections for detailed high-level agreements.
  
• Apart from these sections, the card should be as orthogonal as possible, that is, there should be only one place for each item of information, so you would always know where to look.
  
• Local jurisdictions would provide completed templates for locally popular systems.
  
• The WBF would provide an intelligent on-line editor to help complete and check the card.

Players would soon become accustomed to the new format and wouldn't have to struggle with unfamiliar formats when they travelled abroad.

[ArtK78]

gwnn, on Mar 20 2010, 06:02 AM, said:

this

is the correct link (no ellipsis).

Anyway how can you write an URL here without it turning automatically into a link?

I fixed my prior post so that the URL is now a hyperlink. The explanation is in the prior post.

However, your "correct link" does not work.

[Vampyr]

jjbrr, on Mar 20 2010, 02:19 AM, said:

But it begs the question of why this isn't in the law forum, which I believe I already addressed as well.

I had thought about putting this question in the laws forum, but I thought that I would have a better chance of getting an answer in a more widely-read forum. I should have thought that this was the kind of regulation a player would be very familiar with, if only to avoid getting into trouble (I was once fined 0.5 VP because one of my footnotes was misnumbered).

By the way, the phrase you are looking for is "raises the question".

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on Mar 20 2010, 09:31 AM, said:

By the way, the phrase you are looking for is "raises the question".

Since the question had been raised before, and unanswered before, "begs" was correct. You "unbegged" (answered) after the second request.

but perhaps this belongs in a different forum, also

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on Mar 20 2010, 05:07 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Mar 20 2010, 09:31 AM, said:

By the way, the phrase you are looking for is "raises the question".

Since the question had been raised before, and unanswered before, "begs" was correct. You "unbegged" (answered) after the second request.

Sorry, this is not correct.

[fromageGB]

At least with a convention card you have an opportunity to write something that describes what you do. Not so with announcements. Here in EBU-land I am compelled to announce "weak" when my partner opens 2M on a 5 card suit and 9 to 11 HCP. If that is not misleading, what is?

[TMorris]

Out of interest, can you not announce this as "weak to intermediate"?

[blackshoe]

If I'm not mistaken, the technical answer to that question is "no". Announcements are supposed to made as specified in the regulations, not modified even in an attempt to be helpful.

[TMorris]

ok thanks. I just remember seeing somewhere that you could say this. I thought it was in the Laws forum but could well have been mistaken.

[gnasher]

If you want to know what the rules are, a good starting point is to read them.

EBU Orange Book said:

Announcements – Two of a Suit Openings
5 D 1 A natural opening bid of two of a suit is announced by stating the range into which it falls, from the following categories. Partner of the opener says the words shown.
(a) “Strong, forcing” (b) “Strong, not forcing”
(c ) “Intermediate” (d) “Weak”
5 D 2 It is possible to play a wide-ranging opening that covers more than one category, in which case the announcement should say so. Examples are:
(a) “Intermediate to strong, forcing” or (b) “Weak to Intermediate”

So yes, you may announce it as "weak to intermediate"

[bluecalm]

LOL OP !

Meckwell have one of the best convention cards out there. Most pairs don't fill basic details while they give quite detailed explanation of basic sequences in their system (this at least is true for their WBF conventino card).

As someone already noted their ACBL (as well as WBF) convention card actually says "Mixed" for 1H-3H.