[Bbradley62]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-28, 18:24, said:

If it awards masterpoints in the ACBL, it is not necessary to include convention system card requirements in the specific CoC, because the General CoC apply to all such events in the ACBL. IMO, of course.

ACBL Conditions of Contest said:

CONVENTIONS AND CONVENTION CARDS
4. Official ACBL convention cards or convention cards which are similar must be used at all ACBL sectional or higher-rated events.

Is there another regulation that applies to club-level games, since this one doesn't appear to?

[blackshoe]

In various places, such as the ACBL Handbook of Regulations, the ACBL has written that clubs are supposed to follow ACBL regulations. If you call the club department at HQ, they'll tell you that clubs can do what they want. but they're supposed to publish whatever regulations are in effect. In practice, clubs do what they want, they don't publish anything, and the ACBL doesn't care. That's been my experience, anyway.

BTW a club game is an ACBL event, if it gives ACBL masterpoints. The General CoC is titled "ACBL GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTEST FOR ALL EVENTS", and says, at the beginning of paragraph two "These conditions apply to all events".

[mgoetze]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-29, 00:26, said:

Unfortunately, no. A WBF CC is a thrice folded sheet of paper,

Funny, I only fold mine twice.

The German Bridge Federation accepts two different kinds of convention cards (depending on the event), one of which is a translated version of the WBF card. Unfortunately, the German regulations (unlike the WBF, assuming the aforementioned 76-page booklet forms part of the regulations) do not waste a single word on how these convention cards are to be completed. This makes for some incredibly badly completed convention cards, so much so that in events prescribing them I sometimes very much wish that the smaller convention card format had been allowed instead. Expecting every club player to read a 76-page booklet might be overkill, however. Also, some of it is not very international (for instance the ban on calling 2nd and 4th leads "2nd and 4th leads").

[gnasher]

mgoetze, on 2012-December-29, 12:32, said:

Also, some of it is not very international (for instance the ban on calling 2nd and 4th leads "2nd and 4th leads").

If you get international visitors from both Poland and England, it seems quite sensible not to allow this description, since it means different things in the two countries.

[blackshoe]

mgoetze, on 2012-December-29, 12:32, said:

Funny, I only fold mine twice.

Noted. Correction made to my original post.

mgoetze, on 2012-December-29, 12:32, said:

The German Bridge Federation accepts two different kinds of convention cards (depending on the event), one of which is a translated version of the WBF card. Unfortunately, the German regulations (unlike the WBF, assuming the aforementioned 76-page booklet forms part of the regulations) do not waste a single word on how these convention cards are to be completed. This makes for some incredibly badly completed convention cards, so much so that in events prescribing them I sometimes very much wish that the smaller convention card format had been allowed instead. Expecting every club player to read a 76-page booklet might be overkill, however. Also, some of it is not very international (for instance the ban on calling 2nd and 4th leads "2nd and 4th leads").

A while back, my partner and I modernized our Standard American card. One of the modernizations was that we began treating a 2 over 1 response as GF. We called our system "Modern American". We were duly informed (by an opponent, but she's also a club owner and a pretty decent director) that we were misleading people with that name, and that we must call our system "2/1". Of course, the "2/1 Game Forcing" box right below the system name line was checked, but apparently she didn't look that far. Didn't seem like that big a deal to me, but we changed the card. I think that if your preferred nomenclature would be confusing to your opponents, you should use something they're more likely to understand. On that note, I gather that what you would call "2nd and 4th" is what the booklet calls "second from a bad holding, fourth from an honor" rather than their preferred "second best from short, fourth from long". I don't know how "international" the latter is, but I wouldn't know what you meant by "second and fourth" in any case. <shrug>

It seems to me that the idea behind the WBF card is to provide as much disclosure as possible in the space of one "standard" (A4 or "Letter") sheet*. In contrast (again, my opinion) cards like the ACBL's are designed to provide a minimum of disclosure, and rely on "actively ethical" players to provide full disclosure verbally, if the opponents don't ask questions. I much prefer the WBF approach in principle, but a compromise somewhere in between (The EBU card?) might be preferable to either extreme.

*Plus, I must admit, an unlimited number of supplementary sheets.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2012-December-29, 08:00, said:

Have you ever actually played bridge outside the UK?

Yes

gnasher, on 2012-December-29, 08:00, said:

The WBFLC has limited time and money, and there are many real problems with the existing Laws. I'd like them to use their resources on dealing with these problems, rather than those conjured up by your imagination.

gnasher, on 2012-December-29, 08:00, said:

The problem you are trying to solve really doesn't exist

paulg, on 2012-December-29, 06:03, said:

In essence there is not a problem to be solved here. However the solution proposed will alienate almost everyone. This is nonsense.

StevenG, on 2012-December-29, 07:16, said:

Are these foreigners a figment of Nigel's imagination? I never see any.

OK message received

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-29, 13:27, said:

On that note, I gather that what you would call "2nd and 4th" is what the booklet calls "second from a bad holding, fourth from an honor" rather than their preferred "second best from short, fourth from long". I don't know how "international" the latter is, but I wouldn't know what you meant by "second and fourth" in any case. <shrug>

I don't know so much about "fourth from long"; but I do know that "second best from short", ie a doubleton, is what causes most of the problems when this description is used.

[mgoetze]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-29, 13:27, said:

On that note, I gather that what you would call "2nd and 4th" is what the booklet calls "second from a bad holding, fourth from an honor" rather than their preferred "second best from short, fourth from long". I don't know how "international" the latter is, but I wouldn't know what you meant by "second and fourth" in any case. <shrug>

In Germany, "2nd and 4th" is a method wherein you may lead the 2nd or the 4th highest card from your holding. In England, "2nd and 4th" is a method wherein you may lead the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th highest card from your holding.

[blackshoe]

Now I think on it, any lead convention in the form "mth and nth" must be a misnomer, because it's illegal to lead two cards at the same time.

[paulg]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-29, 13:27, said:

It seems to me that the idea behind the WBF card is to provide as much disclosure as possible in the space of one "standard" (A4 or "Letter") sheet*. In contrast (again, my opinion) cards like the ACBL's are designed to provide a minimum of disclosure, and rely on "actively ethical" players to provide full disclosure verbally, if the opponents don't ask questions. I much prefer the WBF approach in principle, but a compromise somewhere in between (The EBU card?) might be preferable to either extreme.

The homogeneous natural of ACBL bridge means that its system card takes a number of short cuts that work well for the vast majority of ACBL members. I prefer the WBF card but it takes a long time to complete it properly - I think Michael Rosenberg said it was more than 48 hours for the fairly natural system he played with Zia, which in practice meant more than a couple of weeks!

The old EBU and current SBU card (which are the same save the logo) do a good job in an environment where there is a variety of systems.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-29, 11:02, said:

In various places, such as the ACBL Handbook of Regulations, the ACBL has written that clubs are supposed to follow ACBL regulations. If you call the club department at HQ, they'll tell you that clubs can do what they want. but they're supposed to publish whatever regulations are in effect. In practice, clubs do what they want, they don't publish anything, and the ACBL doesn't care. That's been my experience, anyway.

BTW a club game is an ACBL event, if it gives ACBL masterpoints. The General CoC is titled "ACBL GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTEST FOR ALL EVENTS", and says, at the beginning of paragraph two "These conditions apply to all events".

I don't think that's true. Clubs are not actually part of the ACBL. They're more like franchises -- independent entities that pay fees so their members can earn ACBL masterpoints. And they're given quite a bit of autonomy. Most "ACBL events" are what we generally refer to as tournaments (sectionals, regionals, and NABCs), although there are some that are run by clubs: STACs and NAP/GNT qualifiers.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-December-29, 22:47, said:

I don't think that's true.

Then we disagree.

[barmar]

The ACBL Club Director's Handbook and Handbook of Rules & Regulation, Chapter 4 specifically say that clubs have wide lattitude in allowing/banning conventions and alerting requirements. I don't see any specific mention in either of them to the General Conditions of Contest, but there are a number of places where they distinguish ordinary club games from games that are part of wider events, noting that the latter must conform to the more general CoC. They recommend following regular ACBL guidelines, probably because it's less confusing to players to have different procedures in different levels of play, but don't require it.

[blackshoe]

All I can say is that I was told by someone at HQ, I don't remember who, that "clubs are supposed to follow the regs, except they have wider latitude regarding conventions" (paraphrase, not an exact quote, since I didn't write it down). Maybe my informant was mistaken. <shrug>

[Cascade]

paulg, on 2012-December-29, 02:53, said:

[/size]
I also cannot imagine their joy when they discover that the seventy-six (yes, 76!) page guide to completing the WBF card is not searchable despite being a PDF document.

Sorry I dont have a link but i am pretty sure there is a searchable version available.

Indeed I found a word version on my machine so no doubt google could find one on the web somewhere.

[blackshoe]

Blank templates in both Word and Excel format, among other things, are available from Ecats Bridge.

[bluejak]

paulg, on 2012-December-29, 03:08, said:

Scotland has its own system cards that look very much like the old English ones, save the logo has been changed. However any system card is permitted as long as they provide reasonable disclosure of your methods: I have even seen people using the ACBL card. As Scotland is a small place and WBF cards are required for national trials, it is common to see them in use in national tournaments and at the bigger clubs. I even use mine at the local small club where few have system cards. Familiarity breeds contempt and I don't think anyone in Scotland is intimidated by the WBF card unless they actually have to complete one.

This seems a healthy situation but it would harder for a larger NBO to achieve.

My impression in England is that players are very much intimidated by WBF cards: they do not know their way around one but they never think to call the TD and find out whether they are legal, which they aren't in the vast majority of English events.

StevenG, on 2012-December-29, 07:16, said:

Are these foreigners a figment of Nigel's imagination? I never see any.

I play around the world, and do not find a lot of difficulty in finding my way around the local cards. But I would expect simple club players to suffer.

mgoetze, on 2012-December-29, 15:21, said:

In Germany, "2nd and 4th" is a method wherein you may lead the 2nd or the 4th highest card from your holding. In England, "2nd and 4th" is a method wherein you may lead the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th highest card from your holding.

In England, 2nd and 4th is a description of small card leads, and never includes the 1st. Since the only normal leads in England all include low from Hxx, the 3rd part of the leads tends not to matter.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-December-31, 11:25, said:

In England, 2nd and 4th is a description of small card leads, and never includes the 1st.

How about from a doubleton?

[mycroft]

I played a KO against the Canadian Women's team one regional, and they had just come back from Tunisia. They said they *had* an ACBL card, but their WBF card was there and "so much more useful", so if we wanted it, we could use it.

Since I was very used to WBF cards and my partner was a Pure Math student, they were right, and off we went.

(We also agreed, given that we were both playing (effectively) K/S, that we didn't have to Announce our NT range).

But in general, the WBF card is in fact insanely time-consuming to make (properly - oddly enough, the natural players (and certain Poles) are usually the most incomplete) and very difficult to understand until you're used to it. So for the random club players, yeah.

Coming from the ACBL, however, I so miss the "things you should know about our system" section.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2012-December-31, 11:41, said:

How about from a doubleton?

Humph.

Of course, it is the same thing: "everyone" plays top from a doubleton as well as bottom from Hxx, so 2nd and 4th refers to the bits that are likely to change. It is, of course, only a name. Personally, I say 4th and 2nd which seems to give the flavour of it a bit better.