[nige1]

As Vampyr points out in another thread, players should display convention-cards (according to the rules of Bridge).

• When creating a match or tournament, the TD should have the option of insisting on a convention-card.
• To do this, the TD would simply specify a default card ("SAYC", "Simple Acol", "GIB 2/1" or whatever).
• BBO would automatically assign the default card to those who failed to post their own card.
• The icing on the cake would be if a card triggered an FD feature like StanMaz's BBOAlert.

[pilowsky]

That's a great idea. What is simple Acol?

[nige1]

pilowsky, on 2020-April-29, 22:53, said:

That's a great idea. What is simple Acol?

BBO Stock Convention Card said:

Simple Modern Acol
System Summary
4card majors, weak no-trump, three weak twos
Notrump Openings
1NT 12-14 - 2C Stayman, 2H/S transfers, 2S weak minor
2NT 20-22 - 3C Stayman, 3H/S transfers, 3S minor suit Stayman, 4C Gerber
3NT Gambling
4NT Specific Ace Ask
Major Suit Openings
4 cd suits Limit raises
Minor Suit Openings
4 cd suits Limit raises
2-Level Openings
2C strong, artif, GF (except 2C-2D-2NT)
2D/H/S weak 5-10hcp usually 6-card suit
- 2NT enquires & new suit rebids show high-card feature;
- change of suit forcing
Other important notes
Unusual No Trump - Two lowest unbid suits
1NT rebid - 15-17, followed by 2C checkback
Doubles
Doubles of suits takeout >>3S
Simple Overcalls
Usually 5-card suit
Notrump Overcalls
15-18, system on
Over 1NT Openings
2C shows majors
Jump Overcalls
Weak
Over Takeout Doubles
Pre-emptive raises
2NT shows limit raise
Direct Cuebid
Michaels
Slam Bidding
RKCB 3041
Defensive Carding
Hi-Lo shows even or encouraging
4th highest leads (2nd from bad suits), top of doubleton, MUD,
Ace lead asks for Att, King asks for Count or unblock

[pilowsky]

So you can see how useless this instruction is in online tournaments when at the start of a round Ops announce: we play Acol (or ACOL) or Precision or G__ knows what. All very well at a congress or perhaps a prolonged team match but this is clearly something that:
"to my mind, though I am native here
And to the manner born, it is a custom
More honour'd in the breach than the observance."
Perhaps advanced players with complete knowledge of every nuance of every system will have no problem. I suspect that you are being a little optimistic.

[paulg]

nige1, on 2020-April-29, 19:06, said:

As Vampyr points out in another thread, players should display convention-cards (according to the rules of Bridge).

• When creating a match or tournament, the TD should have the option of insisting on a convention-card.
• To do this, the TD would simply specify a default card ("SAYC", "Simple Acol", "GIB 2/1" or whatever).
• BBO would automatically assign the default card to those who failed to post their own card.

The Laws of Bridge do not use the term convention card, it is system card, and there is no requirement to have them in the Laws itself. It is down to the Regulating Authority (RA) to decide how partnership agreements should be conveyed to the opposition. On BBO the RA is typically the ACBL, EBU, FFB, tournament organiser or table host.

I don't see the purpose of forcing partnerships to adopt a system that they do not know or play. Now there is little chance of the opponents alerting correcting or communicating partnership agreements when they don't know what they are. I guess at least half the pairs who believe they can play SAYC don't know that Jacoby 2NT is part of this system.

I am all for complete disclosure but this proposal will not help and will antagonise a large percentage of the BBO population for no good reason.

[jwccsllc]

nige1, on 2020-April-29, 19:06, said:

As Vampyr points out in another thread, players should display convention-cards (according to the rules of Bridge).

• When creating a match or tournament, the TD should have the option of insisting on a convention-card.
• To do this, the TD would simply specify a default card ("SAYC", "Simple Acol", "GIB 2/1" or whatever).
• BBO would automatically assign the default card to those who failed to post their own card.
• The icing on the cake would be if a card triggered an FD feature like StanMaz's BBOAlert.

There's a fundamental problem with Convention Cards and BBO's inability to let me edit mine (they show up empty) or display opponent's CCs during play of the hand. I have a fairly complete set of CCs linked to my regular partners that should be available to my opponents during play.

My partial solution is to use BBOalert's shortcuts to display a URL to the appropriate CC at the beginning of each round.

[nige1]

paulg, on 2020-April-30, 03:30, said:

The Laws of Bridge do not use the term convention card, it is system card, and there is no requirement to have them in the Laws itself. It is down to the Regulating Authority (RA) to decide how partnership agreements should be conveyed to the opposition. On BBO the RA is typically the ACBL, EBU, FFB, tournament organiser or table host.

That seems to be a quibble, Paul.

• The subject was to the rules of Bridge, which include regulations as well as laws.
• Regulating authorities tend to insist on convention-cards (aka system-cards).
• Vampyr complains about the dearth of convention-cards in EBU on-line events.

paulg, on 2020-April-30, 03:30, said:

I don't see the purpose of forcing partnerships to adopt a system that they do not know or play. Now there is little chance of the opponents alerting correcting or communicating partnership agreements when they don't know what they are. I guess at least half the pairs who believe they can play SAYC don't know that Jacoby 2NT is part of this system. I am all for complete disclosure but this proposal will not help and will antagonise a large percentage of the BBO population for no good reason.

• Opinions differ as to whether we should enforce the rules of Bridge
• But most of us need to improve our disclosure
• And convention-cards can help

[pescetom]

paulg, on 2020-April-30, 03:30, said:

It is down to the Regulating Authority (RA) to decide how partnership agreements should be conveyed to the opposition. On BBO the RA is typically the ACBL, EBU, FFB, tournament organiser or table host.

I don't see the purpose of forcing partnerships to adopt a system that they do not know or play. Now there is little chance of the opponents alerting correcting or communicating partnership agreements when they don't know what they are. I guess at least half the pairs who believe they can play SAYC don't know that Jacoby 2NT is part of this system.

I am all for complete disclosure but this proposal will not help and will antagonise a large percentage of the BBO population for no good reason.

As often happens, I think nige1 has a good point but perhaps made it too bluntly.
Yes it is up to the RA (another WBF concept that online play brings into question), but usually they do decide that a system card is obligatory.
In any case there are good arguments for obliging partnerships to follow some documented agreement, of their own design or not.

The real problem with all this on BBO is that the available "standard" systems are almost useless as standards: SAYC is obsolete, ineffective and complex,
GIB 2/1 (misleadingly named "2/1") is obsolete, effective but even more complex, Simple ACOL is comprehensible to about 10% of the BBO population.
Add in that it is not easy to create and use a custom card (only the obsolete flash client seems to really support it and the documentation is meagre)
and that BBO itself gave up prematurely on self-alerting systems and is doing nothing to support BBOAlert, and the situation is difficult as I see.

[hrothgar]

You can lead a horse to water
You can't make it drink

Or, in this case, post whatever convention cards you want
It doesn't mean that people's bids will be in any way consistent with them

In order to get anything like this to work, you need to focus on efforts to standardize people's bidding
In turn, this requires conscious long term efforts around teaching methods to beginners

Trying to layer on some technical fix ain't going to work

[Vampyr]

The EP you have decided that convention cards are compulsory. You can amend them during play, so after a couple of sessions the card should be reasonably accurate. And with self alerts, inaccuracies would be cleared up.

[Vampyr]

jwccsllc, on 2020-April-30, 13:17, said:

There's a fundamental problem with Convention Cards and BBO's inability to let me edit mine (they show up empty) or display opponent's CCs during play of the hand. I have a fairly complete set of CCs linked to my regular partners that should be available to my opponents during play.

My partial solution is to use BBOalert's shortcuts to display a URL to the appropriate CC at the beginning of each round.

Why are your CCs not showing up?

[nige1]

Poll added to OP.

[Vampyr]

Definitely no to the question, a card can be “imposed” on a pair but there is no way to enforce that they will even look at it.

[pescetom]

nige1, on 2020-April-30, 16:50, said:

Poll added to OP.

I voted other.
If it was simple to modify and employ a convention card with the current client I would have voted yes.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2020-April-30, 23:51, said:

Definitely no to the question, a card can be "imposed" on a pair but there is no way to enforce that they will even look at it.

IMO, insisting on convention-cards for all competitors is a good rule. Vampyr gave the impression that she would prefer all opponents to have a convention card, in EBU events. Nobody can "force" players to look at their convention-cards, before play. But a TD can penalize a pair whose non-compliance with their convention-card results in disclosure issues for opponents. Individual competitions work better if all competitors play the same system. At pairs and teams, pick-up partnerships can also benefit from having a card imposed on them, as a default.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2020-May-01, 08:08, said:

IMO, insisting on convention-cards for all competitors is a good rule. Vampyr gave the impression that she would prefer all opponents to have a convention card, in EBU events. Nobody can "force" players to look at their convention-cards, before play. But a TD can penalize a pair whose non-compliance with their convention-card results in disclosure issues for opponents. Individuals work better if all competitors play the same system. At pairs and teams, pick-up partnerships can also benefit from having a card imposed on them, as a default.

But which card? BBO have 4or5 “default” cards available. Definitely these would be useful for pick-up partnerships. But it seems like a minor issue, since pick-up partnerships are rare.

Regular partners should have a card, even if it takes awhile to modify one of the stock cards. By the way, the format is truly awful, and virtually unreadable. There is no space to even indicate opening leads, and there should be a notes section, so that all of the details, especially in the no-trump opening section, can be put there, with just the basics in the box.

EBU cards are pretty well arranged, with space for relevant agreements and not, like the ACBL card, which uses valuable real estate for things that you don’t play don’t check the box for, plus is one side of less than A4, with basically no room for notes. EBU cards are also a bit easier to navigate then WBF cards. If some blanks were provided for the many Ebu players who are now playing online, it would be much appreciated

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2020-May-01, 12:48, said:

By the way, the format is truly awful, and virtually unreadable. There is no space to even indicate opening leads, and there should be a notes section, so that all of the details, especially in the no-trump opening section, can be put there, with just the basics in the box.

Still better than no card, IMO.

Vampyr, on 2020-May-01, 12:48, said:

EBU cards are pretty well arranged, with space for relevant agreements and not, like the ACBL card, which uses valuable real estate for things that you don't play don't check the box for, plus is one side of less than A4, with basically no room for notes. EBU cards are also a bit easier to navigate then WBF cards. If some blanks were provided for the many EBU players who are now playing online, it would be much appreciated

IMO

• Currently, different RAs require different system-card layouts.
• Foreigners and strangers tend to play systems unfamiliar to local players.
• Also local systems and local card-formats are often unfamiliar to foreigners and strangers.
• Hence basic system-cards should have the same clear simple standard format. everywhere.
• For high-level play, standard format supplementary-sheets should be mandatory.
• The WBF should get together with RAs like the ACBL, EBU (and BBO) to simplify and clarify a universal card.

[paulg]

Vampyr, on 2020-May-01, 12:48, said:

EBU cards are pretty well arranged, with space for relevant agreements and not, like the ACBL card, which uses valuable real estate for things that you don’t play don’t check the box for, plus is one side of less than A4, with basically no room for notes. EBU cards are also a bit easier to navigate then WBF cards. If some blanks were provided for the many Ebu players who are now playing online, it would be much appreciated

I think you are underestimating the value of familiarity.

Generally people in Scotland hate the EBU20B card as being vastly inferior to the EBU20A card. Information is very hard to find and you cannot see all the detail that you need most often on one page, like you could with the EBU20A. The card also seems to waste a lot of space in case you may occasionally open one no trump with a singleton.

Bizarrely players in Scotland are far happier playing against a WBF system card, because it is used far more often here.

But I know EBU players tend to dislike the WBF card, mainly on the grounds of familiarity and especially the carding sections, although those that play here seem to cope well enough.

The ACBL card is not great but it does allow a new partnership to put a system together, of some sorts, in a very short time. Perhaps reflecting a difference that the card is designed for and the fact that it is a large homogeneous community.

I'd be happy enough if everyone adopted the USBF system summary form, which is a form of pre-alert that tells me the key things I should be concerned with. I provide a completely full WBF system card with six pages of supplementary notes, but it is a bit intimidating and it seems that the directors prefer it rather than the opponents.

[Vampyr]

paulg, on 2020-May-02, 01:42, said:

I think you are underestimating the value of familiarity.

I think I am emphasising familiarity.

Quote

Generally people in Scotland hate the EBU20B card as being vastly inferior to the EBU20A card. Information is very hard to find and you cannot see all the detail that you need most often on one page, like you could with the EBU20A.

I do not know the difference between these.

Quote

Bizarrely players in Scotland are far happier playing against a WBF system card, because it is used far more often here.

But I know EBU players tend to dislike the WBF card, mainly on the grounds of familiarity and especially the carding sections, although those that play here seem to cope well enough.

Yes, well I would like the average English player to be accommodated. But even a WBF card would be vAptly superior to the ones provided by BBO. The latters usability could be improved, though, if people put new ideas on separate lines rather than jumble everything together.

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2020-May-01, 12:48, said:

But which card? BBO have 4or5 “default” cards available. Definitely these would be useful for pick-up partnerships. But it seems like a minor issue, since pick-up partnerships are rare.

You either have a different reality from ours or a different perception of it. Whereas in regular f2f club play about 70% of partnerships were more or less stable, online that has dropped well below 50% for us. Add in a few substitutes and that means 45% at most are playing with a regular partner and several are in pure guesswork mode.
Also the BBO "default" cards would be almost useless to our players - I guess the modern ACOL one might be useful in EBU.