[nige1]

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.

[jules101]

Do all jurisdictions allow well completed WBF forms?

I seem to remember some discussion that EBU didn't accept these at Brighton, so badly partially completed hand written scrawls are preferable?

[blackshoe]

Quote

Presumably, however, the WBF can insist that all local regulators also allow the WBF card.

They can. If they do, I'll bet that the ACBL, at least, will ignore them.

[paulg]

nige1, on 2011-January-02, 18:26, said:

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.

The WBF is permitted in Scotland and used by many of the top players. In such a small community this has resulted in most players, whatever their standard, being reasonably comfortable reading the card even if they do not use it themselves.

The same is not true in England. And I imagine that most of the English visitors to Scotland are slightly disadvantaged as they are not used to the WBF card. The WBF card is more thorough but some of the information is less easy to read that the traditional convention cards that have been in use - leads and signals are a specific example of this.

Although the WBF card provides more space for fuller disclosure, it does not always help. My WBF card is almost completely full; there is a lot of details provided; but some have complained that it does not highlight what is important and what are basic methods are. Of course all that information is there (and I have tried to make it more readable), but the WBF card is not a simple solution.

It is also complex to complete. Michael Rosenberg talked about the number of days it took to complete properly. The WBF tool does provide hints but is an awkward tool to use. Most tend to use the Word or Excel templates.

So, in summary, I think it should be left to the RA as to the use of the WBF card.

[mgoetze]

Germany actually prescribes a format which looks exactly like the WBF one for higher league play. They don't, however, specify any requirements for the content. Last year, I checked the convention cards for the top league and estimated that 2 pairs (out of about 30) had ever looked at the WBF booklet on how to fill out the convention card. Which doesn't matter - you can write whatever you like on the convention card and it's perfectly legal here.

[bluejak]

When I played in an event recently where I was expected to have a WBF card I was given a link to a template to fill in the card. I found it completely beyond me and had to use a standard EBU card instead.

No doubt the WBF can try to bully RAs into doing what they want. While it may make life easier for foreigners and top players to use the WBF card I believe it will be more difficult and less suitable for club players. I think it is important to run bridge for the majority of players, not the minority, like myself, who play in different countries. I do not find any difficulty in the various regulations in other countries.

[nige1]

paulg, on 2011-January-03, 04:34, said:

The WBF is permitted in Scotland and used by many of the top players. In such a small community this has resulted in most players, whatever their standard, being reasonably comfortable reading the card even if they do not use it themselves. The same is not true in England. And I imagine that most of the English visitors to Scotland are slightly disadvantaged as they are not used to the WBF card. The WBF card is more thorough but some of the information is less easy to read that the traditional convention cards that have been in use - leads and signals are a specific example of this. Although the WBF card provides more space for fuller disclosure, it does not always help. My WBF card is almost completely full; there is a lot of details provided; but some have complained that it does not highlight what is important and what are basic methods are. Of course all that information is there (and I have tried to make it more readable), but the WBF card is not a simple solution. It is also complex to complete. Michael Rosenberg talked about the number of days it took to complete properly. The WBF tool does provide hints but is an awkward tool to use. Most tend to use the Word or Excel templates. So, in summary, I think it should be left to the RA as to the use of the WBF card.

Thank you Paul. I shan't attempt to use the WBF card-editor but I will study the WBF notes.

• The main beneficiiaries of standardisation would be the increasing number of players who travel among different jurisdictions. Even I make occasional forays into England and Wales and I hope to visit America, sometime.
• IMO, players would be more likely to comply with system-card rules if they had to complete only one card, in a standard way, and the law-book specified how to do it and how to use it.
• Having moved back to Scotland, I've noticed that most Scottish players are now accustomed to the more complex WBF card and can easily find their way round it.
• I agree with Paul, however, that the WBF card is capable of improvement and simplification. Before imposing the WBF card on RAs, the WBF could spend a month or so consulting with them and cannibalising the best features from local cards. For example, the EBU card has several good ideas.
• If everybody used the WBF card, there would be a greater incentive to produce default WBF cards for all basic systems and a good system-card editor based on expert-system software, to automate it's completion.
• Another advantage of a card editor program is that it can be restricted to a standard vocabulary and simple syntax, for accurate machine-translation between languages This would help to ensure that each different language version of your card contained the same information. (Pity that law-makers don't consider this before each new edition of the law-book) .
• The WBF could also consult with the programmers who write amazing software currently available on-line, like Full disclosure, so that it could be adapted

• to print out a full WBF card and conversely,
• to read a full WBF card as input and disclose relevant parts of it, automatically, on-line.

[jh51]

In NABC events, the WBF convention card is specifically prohibited, as I found the following in a daily bulletin:

Each player must have an ACBL convention card filled out and on the table. Please note that other types of convention cards, such as the WBF convention card or homemade cards that do not sufficiently resemble the ACBL convention card, are not acceptable substitutes.

Elsewhere I found that the general conditions of contest for ACBL events reads as follows:

Official ACBL convention cards or convention cards which are similar must be used at all ACBL sectional or higher-rated events.

Based upon the remarks I found for NABC, I would assume that WBF convention cards are sufficiently different from ACBL convention cards to exclude then from use in ACBLE sectional or higher-rated events.

[blackshoe]

Yes, they're much more thorough (assuming they're filled out properly). The ACBL card is one side of a 9"X9" (roughly) sheet - the other side has a private score record printed on it. The card uses checkboxes for common agreements, and frequently has no room for uncommon ones. But I suspect that the biggest problem with the WBF card is "not invented here" syndrome.