paulg, on 2011-January-01, 06:37, said:
How many people at the congress had put the meaning of a passed hand double of 1NT on their CC?
mgoetze, on 2011-January-01, 06:46, said:
Just out of curiosity, does the EBU actually specify anywhere what proper completion of a convention card entails? In Germany, there are no regulations whatsoever on this subject, so you can pretty much fill up your CC with whatever you want...
bluejak, on 2011-January-01, 10:02, said:
Well, me for one. But I see what you mean: I expect a lot of people have an arrangement but do not show it. But it is improper to do so. This is not like a call on the third round of the auction: there is a box for Defence to 1NT opening and there is no excuse for not filling it in properly.
mjj29, on 2011-January-02, 05:38, said:
Incidentally, I also don't have the meaning of a passed-hand double on my card and there is no room to add it. The box isn't very big there, particularly when you also have to (according to the aformentioned orange book) disclose that a penalty double might be based on a running suit not just points. I've already also filled all the supplementary notes.
bluejak, on 2011-January-02, 07:30, said:
If you play an artificial defence to 1NT and do not put it on your SC I really am amazed and disappointed. This is a clear breach of regulation. The OB is at pains to point out that defences to 1NT and two-suited defences must be described in full.
campboy, on 2011-January-02, 09:54, said:
Despite which the sample CC in the OB does not say how Messrs Smith and Jones play a passed-hand double of a weak 1NT. (My CCs for partnerships where I've discussed the meaning of a passed-hand double do have it on, FWIW.)
jallerton, on 2011-January-02, 12:13, said:
It depends on the size of your writing/font size. On the EBU cards, because I play the same defence to strong and weak NTs, by combining these boxes and writing small, I just have room to explain the meanings of initial actions by non-passed and passed hands. However, there is not room for me to show the responses to these initial actions. I show these responses on my WBF card, which has rather more room. Unfortunately, the EBU does not encourage full written disclosures of agreements; in most EBU events (including the Year End Congress) it expressly bans the use of WBF convention cards.
I wish the law-book specified default rules about system-cards, bidding-boxes and so on. It may be hard for the WBF to stop each RA designing a different local SC layout. Presumably, however, the WBF can insist that all local regulators also allow the WBF card. As jallerton points out this would allow better disclosure. It would also reduce the handicap imposed on strangers and foreigners, who are most in need of effective disclosure.
Is there a program, that asks a series of pertinent questions, basing later questions on earlier answers, so that it can efficiently and adequately complete a WBF card? For example, the first questions would be about basic system and from that it could fill lots of defaults that you could over-ride later.
I found this
WBF SC editor for Windows Vista but I'm reluctant to try it on windows 7, without recommendation from somebody who uses it. It's all a bit academic for me, because I like many players, I can't read small fonts.