[aguahombre]

I know this is done, and I usually like it when I see it, but in ACBL and in other jurisdictions:

Is it lawful and proper to make up and use a Convention (system) Card which only has what you play on it? If so, does it have to have the sections in the same place as the sanctioned card type for that jurisdiction?

I have seen some Cards which were expertly done over using the ACBL Card, but blanking out all inapplicable check boxes --leaving room to add clarifications.

I have seen some others which resemble a poorly planned fire drill.

I know there are separate summary sheets, etc. Am asking about the actual required Card.

[jeremy69]

Regulations in England say that you must use an approved card but may use a computer generated equivalent (but it must include the same information in substantially the same format) so a version which substantially differed would breach our regulation 4B.

[blackshoe]

From The ACBL Codification, Chapter 12:

Quote

Individually prepared convention cards, including those computer generated, are approved for use at ACBL sanctioned events provided:
1. The card is approximately the same size as the current ACBL Convention Card;
2. The card follows the same general format as the current ACBL Convention Card;
3. The card has all alertable conventions and treatments marked in red and all announceable conventions and treatments marked in blue  (highlighting is sufficient);
4. The card is properly completed as to General Approach and names of the partnership; and
5. There are two properly filled-out cards physically available to peruse.

[Vampyr]

When I played regularly in the ACBL, I used a computer-generated card and deleted check-boxes and lines for things I didn't use. That did leave more room for explanations and descriptions of things, but they needed to be very concise and tiny.

I think that the main problem with the ACBL card is its size. It is less than half the size of the EBU and WBF cards. Maybe one of the reasons ACBL players tend to not to consult their opponents' cards is because there is so little in the way of detailed descriptions that can be written on them.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on Mar 20 2010, 11:48 AM, said:

When I played regularly in the ACBL, I used a computer-generated card and deleted check-boxes and lines for things I didn't use. That did leave more room for explanations and descriptions of things, but they needed to be very concise and tiny.

Yeh, I did this at one time, too. Then I switched to the OKB CC, filled in things where I could, but left the unchecked boxes intact. The reason was incessant questions about "first discard", etc. where the whole section was gone because we have no special agreements about them.

So, now they can see the section, and that we have checked nothing in it. It makes them happy.

[Phil]

Homemade cc's are a pet peeve of mine. CC's are for the opponents, not some vane description of your strong club.

Wheni need to know your carding, your 2 bids or your NT ranges, it should not take me a lot of time to find this information. Or it should not be typed in some 6 point font.

[blackshoe]

If a homemade card is legible, complete, and otherwise complies with the rules established by the RA or TO, opponents have no legitimate beef, IMO, whoever the card is "for".

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on Mar 20 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

If a homemade card is legible, complete, and otherwise complies with the rules established by the RA or TO, opponents have no legitimate beef, IMO, whoever the card is "for".

yeh, well maybe Phil is one of the opps who were annoyed when I eliminated a section he was looking for --and then had to ask to make sure.

It is a valid point, anyway ---that home-made cards should perhaps not delete whole areas...but rather leave them in place and unused.

[blackshoe]

It did occur to me earlier that one should probably not (on the ACBL card anyway) delete any of the carding agreements, since it's quite common to look and see that nothing new is indicated, so they must be playing whatever default is preprinted. That's a little different from say rearranging the 1NT area because you play an artificial 1NT opening and neither the opening bid nor the responses fits into the preprinted assumptions. Or from rearranging the minor suit opening area because you play strong club, or the 2-bids area because you want more room to describe your third and fourth seat weak twos.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on Mar 20 2010, 04:05 PM, said:

It did occur to me earlier that one should probably not (on the ACBL card anyway) delete any of the carding agreements, since it's quite common to look and see that nothing new is indicated, so they must be playing whatever default is preprinted. That's a little different from say rearranging the 1NT area because you play an artificial 1NT opening and neither the opening bid nor the responses fits into the preprinted assumptions. Or from rearranging the minor suit opening area because you play strong club, or the 2-bids area because you want more room to describe your third and fourth seat weak twos.

ok, so now use your influence to recommend more specific CC regulations to the powers that be, and I will continue to NOT delete any sections, just work around them --until you are successful.

[blackshoe]

Don't hold your breath.

[aguahombre]

Was only half joking