[nige1]

I'm a Turkey voting for Christmas because I often lose my system-card but IMO:

For most events, even club-events, pairs should have two identical cards. I think clubs should keep a supply of simple standard cards .e.g.. Acol, 2/1, Precision, Hybrid club, Forcing pass, local "Standard" system. TDs should carry some around with them. Then players would have less excuse. Beginners and pick-up partnerships might welcome such standard cards. IMO

• Default disclosure rules (e.g. Bidding-box, Stop-card, Alert and System-card rules) should be part of TFLB and
• System-cards should follow a standard WBF format

The worst disclosure problems occur not with locals but with strangers and foreigners. Uniform disclosure-rules and card-formats would reduce such problems. IMO, a pair, using an unmodified standard-card should be accorded more leeway when they misbid or misexplain.

[mgoetze]

What, you want the WBF to ban tournament organisers from allowing the WBF CC in their CoC? How extraordinarily ridiculous.

How about a 3rd poll option: all events.

Edit: The post and poll were massively different when I wrote this.

[mgoetze]

 nige1, on 2012-December-28, 05:51, said:

IMO, a pair, using an unmodified standard card should be accorded more leeway when they misbid or misexplain.

Or, to put it differently, pairs should be punished for attempting to record what they actually play rather than just pretending it's standard when it's not?

[gnasher]

When setting his poll, Nigel kindly allowed me to give multiple answers to each question, so I did.

I can't imagine anyone writing CoC that didn't address the question of what system cards are allowed, or how many are required. Hence for the first two questions the second and third answers are equivalent.

[Bbradley62]

 gnasher, on 2012-December-28, 18:07, said:

I can't imagine anyone writing CoC that didn't address the question of what system cards are allowed, or how many are required. Hence for the first two questions the second and third answers are equivalent.

I can very clearly imagine people writing CoC for something like a unit team league (house bridge that awards masterpoints) without even mentioning convention cards, under the premise that "people know they are supposed to have convention cards", never mind the existence of a WBF convention card that club players may or may not even have seen. (I've never seen one.)

[blackshoe]

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.

[nige1]

 gnasher, on 2012-December-28, 18:07, said:

When setting his poll, Nigel kindly allowed me to give multiple answers to each question, so I did. I can't imagine anyone writing CoC that didn't address the question of what system cards are allowed, or how many are required. Hence for the first two questions the second and third answers are equivalent.

I deliberately edited the poll to permit multiple answers because some choices aren't mutually exclusive. I think the law-book should provide defaults for when COC are incomplete or non-existent. The main point is that TFLB should provide default rules for most things (e.g. tie-splitting rules, and so forth), so that local regulators (eg the ACBL) don't have to cobble together their own variants.

[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.

Since I've never seen one... is a WBF convention/system card sufficiently similar to the ACBL card to satisfy this rule?

[blackshoe]

Unfortunately, no. A WBF CC is a thrice twice folded sheet of paper, so it forms a booklet with six pages, each about 3 inches wide and 8 inches tall. An example, with Bridge World Standard 2001 filled in, is available at The Bridge World's web site. The outside (front and back) and one inside (because of the way the card is meant to be folded) are at the top of the pdf. The remaining inside pages are at the bottom. The eight pages of supplementary notes in between would be printed on separate sheets of paper and kept and provided with the system card. You can imagine how that would go over with the average ACBL member.

The ABF (Australian Bridge Federation) card looks very similar to the ACBL card, at least at first glance, but I'll bet that wouldn't fly here either - after all, it "wasn't invented here".

Note that the WBF card is designed for WBF events - IOW world championship level. I think some National Bridge Organizations have adopted the card as it stands for their own events, but some (many?) have not.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2012-December-29, 12:56
Reason for edit: 'thrice folded' would give eight pages.

[RMB1]

In my experience, forcing a pair to play a standard card without embellishment is entirely counter-productive. You can not change a pair's understandings by putting a piece of paper in front of their opponents. The pair will continue to play with the understandings they had - and the piece of paper you put in front of the opponents will not tell the oppoents anything about the pairs actual agreements and understandings.

[paulg]

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

Unfortunately, no. A WBF CC is a thrice folded sheet of paper, so it forms a booklet with six pages, each about 3 inches wide and 8 inches tall. An example, with Bridge World Standard 2001 filled in, is available at The Bridge World's web site. The outside (front and back) and one inside (because of the way the card is meant to be folded) are at the top of the pdf. The remaining inside pages are at the bottom. The eight pages of supplementary notes in between would be printed on separate sheets of paper and kept and provided with the system card. You can imagine how that would go over with the average ACBL member.

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.

[paulg]

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

Note that the WBF card is designed for WBF events - IOW world championship level. I think some National Bridge Organizations have adopted the card as it stands for their own events, but some (many?) have not.

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.

[paulg]

As someone who plays in three countries during the year with vastly different system cards and regulations, I can see merit in nige1's suggestions for me personally. However I think that at least 99.99% of those people I encounter will find them totally meritless and reduce their enjoyment of the game considerably. I also believe that the vast majority of people who play in multiple jurisdictions are quite happy to make the adjustment and it is not a significant factor in deciding whether to play or not in a new country.

There are many countries where I do not play bridge, but I doubt that they'd like the Laws to address these issues any more than the SBU, EBU or ACBL would.

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

[gnasher]

 gnasher, on 2012-December-28, 18:07, said:

I can't imagine anyone writing CoC that didn't address the question of what system cards are allowed

Apparently my imagination is deficient. I've just noticed that the regulations of the London Superleague don't address this question.

[gnasher]

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

As someone who plays in three countries during the year with vastly different system cards and regulations, I can see merit in nige1's suggestions for me personally. However I think that at least 99.99% of those people I encounter will find them totally meritless and reduce their enjoyment of the game considerably. I also believe that the vast majority of people who play in multiple jurisdictions are quite happy to make the adjustment and it is not a significant factor in deciding whether to play or not in a new country.

There are many countries where I do not play bridge, but I doubt that they'd like the Laws to address these issues any more than the SBU, EBU or ACBL would.

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

There's also the question of language. Does Nigel expect Spanish players to accept a WBF card written in English, merely because the organisers omitted to specify what convention cards are allowed?

[nige1]

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

Unfortunately, no. A WBF CC is a thrice folded sheet of paper, so it forms a booklet with six pages, each about 3 inches wide and 8 inches tall. An example, with Bridge World Standard 2001 filled in, is available at The Bridge World's web site. The outside (front and back) and one inside (because of the way the card is meant to be folded) are at the top of the pdf. The remaining inside pages are at the bottom. The eight pages of supplementary notes in between would be printed on separate sheets of paper and kept and provided with the system card. You can imagine how that would go over with the average ACBL member.

The ABF (Australian Bridge Federation) card looks very similar to the ACBL card, at least at first glance, but I'll bet that wouldn't fly here either - after all, it "wasn't invented here".

Note that the WBF card is designed for WBF events - IOW world championship level. I think some National Bridge Organizations have adopted the card as it stands for their own events, but some (many?) have not.

Any card-format and guide-lines would need review before being adopted for universal use. A WBF card (like any other card) is just meant to disclose your methods, succinctly, to opponents.

Few ordinary pairs require supplementary sheets For many pairs the card is quite sparse. However, as players become familiar with the WBF format, for any particular agreement, they know were to describe it on their own card and where to find it on an their opponents' card. i.e. for most players a universal standard format is no more palaver than the current local format. Anyway, that is my experience in Scotland.

Conversely, cards tailored for domestic use, make it hard for foreigners to discover the methods of local players and make it even harder for them to fully disclose their own methods.

[StevenG]

 nige1, on 2012-December-29, 06:56, said:

Conversely, cards tailored for domestic use, make it hard for foreigners to discover the methods of local players and make it even harder for them to fully disclose their own methods.

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

[nige1]

 gnasher, on 2012-December-29, 06:37, said:

There's also the question of language. Does Nigel expect Spanish players to accept a WBF card written in English, merely because the organisers omitted to specify what convention cards are allowed?

Language is always a major problem no matter the format of the system-card. I hope many countries would accept a WBF card in English. The use of standard symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations might make that easier. Naturally, however, many people would still prefer cards in their own language. Foreigners would then have to translate their cards to the local language. With careful choice of language, machine translation might be possible.

Anyway only the language would change, the constant structure and format would facilitate conversion and greatly simplify later disclosure communications.

[nige1]

 RMB1, on 2012-December-29, 02:51, said:

In my experience, forcing a pair to play a standard card without embellishment is entirely counter-productive. You can not change a pair's understandings by putting a piece of paper in front of their opponents. The pair will continue to play with the understandings they had - and the piece of paper you put in front of the opponents will not tell the oppoents anything about the pairs actual agreements and understandings.

If players won't provide their own cards, what is a director expected to do? My understanding is that such regulations mandate that the offending pair play according to the standard-card. i.e. there is no intention to provide a further prop for their secretiveness or to further disadvantage their opponents. IMO, the director should treat offenders' apparent use of private agreements as suspected concealed partnership understandings. Anyway, whatever the rules, I can't see any harm in TFLB providing default protocols on such matters.

[gnasher]

 nige1, on 2012-December-29, 07:43, said:

If players won't provide their own cards, what is a director expected to do?

He could fine the offenders for each round that they continue to play without a convention card. That might lead to a swift correction of the deficiency.

Quote

My understanding is that such regulations mandate that the offending pair play according to the standard card.

Yes, but in practice that doesn't happen. Generally the offenders don't even have time to read the standard convention card, so they just continue playing what they already play.

Quote

Anyway I can't see any harm in TFLB providng default rules on such matters.

I can. 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.

Quote

Language is always a major problem no matter the format of the system-card. I hope many countries would accept a WBF card in English. The use of standard symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations might make that easier. Naturally, however, many people would still prefer cards in their own language. Foreigners would then have to translate their cards to the local language. With careful choice of language, machine translation might be possible.

Anyway only the language would change, the constant structure and format would facilitate conversion and greatly simplify later disclosure communications.

Have you ever actually played bridge outside the UK? The problem you are trying to solve really doesn't exist.

Anyone who is sufficiently motivated to travel to a foreign country and play in a bridge tournament is also likely to be capable of understanding and completing the local convention card. If they don't speak the language well enough, they will probably be able to find a cooperative local player to help them fill in the basics. That meets the needs of both disclosure and good manners, without inconveniencing all the local players by expecting them to read an unfamilar convention card in a foreign language.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-December-29, 10:23