[A2003]

It looks like there is some overall modification necessary to use effectively with current advancement in the bidding system.
Everyone uses the name of the convention anyway.
If further explanation is necessary, Just ask?

Suggestion to ACBL convention card modification:
On the second page, remove the 20pt VP scale, 30 pt scale, International matchpoint scale.
Use this space to list the use of allowed conventions.
REGULARLY NEEDED CONVENTIONS--
This space can also be used for system Notes, if left blank.

This will allow the players to learn the conventions and systems.
This will also explain what is allowed and what is not allowed conventions.

ACBL website should list/explain the convention agreements, approval for each of the allowed convention per CHART.
Any Deviation from convention agreements can be tracked, if necessary.

Quicker partnership agreements can be reached.

Examples of the conventions List.
Other-___________________________
2N Stopper-Ask after Weak 2-Bid, Bergen Raises, Blackwood, Cappelletti, Cheapest Minor 2nd Negative, Checkback Stayman, Constructive Raises, Cue Bids, Cue Raises, DONT, DOPI/DEPO, Flannery, Flannery Defense, Forcing 1NT, Forcing 2D Stayman, Fourth Suit Forcing, Gerber, inverted Minors, Jacoby 2NT, Jacoby Transfer, Jordan 2NT, Landy, Lebensohl, Limit Raises, Michaels, Negative Doubles, Negative Doubles After 1NT Opener New Minor Forcing, New Suit By Responder Forcing, Preemptive Jump Raises, Responsive Doubles, Roman (12-15) 2D, Roman (17-20) 2D, Stayman, Strong Artificial 2C and responses, Support Double, Support Redouble, Texas Transfer, Two Over One, Unusual NT, Weak 2-Bid, Weak Jump Overcall, Grand Slam Try, Help Suit Game Try.

[blackshoe]

Many of the conventions on your "other" list are already on the ACBL CC.

The card is (deliberately, I think) designed to accommodate what most people play, and to make difficult describing what few people play, or perhaps what the ACBL would like to discourage.

If I were going to redesign it, the first thing I'd do is get rid of the score card on the reverse side. Then I would require that CCs be exchanged between opponents (give yours to your RHO) at the start of the round, and not returned until the end. The second thing I'd do is make better use of the space available - including the extra space on the inside. The third thing I'd do is make it less difficult to show unusual meanings for (in particular) opening bids, or less popular variants of certain conventions (two-way checkback instead of NMF or two-way NMF comes to mind).

[JoAnneM]

And all this card reading is supposed to take place in the how many minutes they give us to play the hands? I am not talking about the generous time limits we see at the vugraphs.

[TimG]

It's not a matter of having to read the entire card, but rather becoming accustomed to looking at the appropriate section and reading rather than asking a question. I agree that in ACBL-land there is a deep set tendency to ask rather than look and it would take a huge effort to change this habit.

As for the original suggestion, I don't think there should be any effort to add convention names to the convention card (or is that system card), inside or out. The card should be a mechanism to make disclosure simple and efficient rather than a tool for partnership discussion.

[blackshoe]

When I lived in England, the CC regulation required the exchange of cards as I described. I found it very useful, although I never spent a lot of time studying each card - there was a section on the front labelled "things opponents need to know" or some such which gave a summary of unusual stuff. A quick glance was usually enough. If something came up during a hand, of course one could still ask questions. But I found that if the card was well filled out, asking questions generally took longer than checking the card.

I was a bit non-plussed when I came back to the US to find people jealously keeping their cards close - although I did and do understand that a lot of that is because the score is kept on the same sheet - which is why I'd get rid of it there.

Agree with Tim's last - and "system card" is technically correct, now. Old habits die hard.

[kenrexford]

Long ago, I suggested that there should actually be two different ACBL Convention Cards.

Card A would be a "natural" card, very similar to what we actually have. Sort of appropriate and tailored for Standard American, K-S, 2/1 GF, Acol, and similar systems. Might get rid of some strong-club relevant boxes and spaces and make room for more standard-related boxes.

Card B would be a "strong club" card, which would be different in major respects. For instance, there would be a separate box for 1♣ openings and responses and another box for 1♦ openings and responses. The "major openings" might have boxes to check for "4-card" "5-card" and "canape." (I would probably just drop down under NT Openings to have each of these three (club, diamond, majors) spread the entire page, stacked on top of each other. Other parts would be tailored to a strong club style.

Something like that.

The obvious reason for anyone ever playing a strong club approach is that the ACBL CC is hopelessly inept at describing system, when these systems are perhaps the greatest reason for people actually picking up convention cards.

No one seemed to like my idea.

[jjbrr]

I like your idea, Ken. In theory it's a good solution. In practice I think people won't want to let go to what they're familiar with. Kind of like how people don't announce NT ranges still.

[hrothgar]

I also think that this is a really good idea

[mtvesuvius]

I'd fully support that... ACBL CCs are such a pain to fill out playing precision... I think I make more cross marks than agreements.

[awm]

It seems possible that someone could design such a card. If stuff is mostly in the same place (i.e. notrump openings top right, defenses to opponents openings on the left) then no one will complain if you take such a card to an ACBL event.

[Echognome]

I have an ACBL card I made in Excel. It's not perfect, but it's close enough. I'm sure it can be edited pretty easily. I'm happy to email it to people (with no guarantees of course) as long as I don't get too many requests. Just drop me a private message through the forums with your email address.

[aguahombre]

hrothgar, on Aug 28 2009, 03:34 PM, said:

I also think that this is a really good idea

not announcing nt ranges, or Ken's ideas?

[A2003]

Someone made this convention card
ACBL convention card editor

I find a lot of wasted space in ACBL convention card and could be utilized where I can add useful disclosure statements.

I like Ken's idea of several cards based on the system related cards, where I can write more of my partnership understandings. Alerting the bids can be avoided.

[awm]

A2003, on Aug 28 2009, 06:10 PM, said:

Alerting the bids can be avoided.

I disagree with this. Having a completed convention card is not a substitute for alerting the bids. Opponents often need a "heads up" to look at the card during the auction (even if they already perused it before the beginning of the round). It's also very easy to get caught up assuming a bid is natural; I've seen this happen several times to reasonably good players when there is a failure to alert, even if they "should know" based on a pre-round announcement of system or examination of card.

[JanM]

Several years ago (well, maybe more than several - 10 or 15), I created an ACBL convention card in Word. It actually takes the opposite approach to that being suggested by many of you - it uses a large size font and has minimal words. Things are in the same place as on an ACBL card, but those things that don't apply aren't cluttering the card. We have always received positive comments on the card, things like "it's nice to be able to read the convention card" and so far as I can remember no one has ever objected to the lack of detail. I am happy to give anyone who wants it the card, although at the moment I am unable to edit it because stupid Word won't let me do suit symbols (guess it would be off topic to rant at that!).

The WBF convention card takes the approach of requiring a lot of detail (on the back) and having a section on the front for things that need to be discussed in advance. When it's filled out well, it's very good. But they are rarely filled out well. I've read hundreds of WBF convention cards, virtually all of them prepared for World Championships, where you'd expect people to try to do a good job, and it's always a pleasant surprise to find one that actually puts what belongs there in the "advance disclosure" box - some people include too much, some too little. For that reason, I don't think introducing a similar card in ACBL-land will help.

[debrose]

blackshoe, on Aug 28 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

When I lived in England, the CC regulation required the exchange of cards as I described. I found it very useful, although I never spent a lot of time studying each card - there was a section on the front labelled "things opponents need to know" or some such which gave a summary of unusual stuff. A quick glance was usually enough. If something came up during a hand, of course one could still ask questions. But I found that if the card was well filled out, asking questions generally took longer than checking the card.

I was a bit non-plussed when I came back to the US to find people jealously keeping their cards close - although I did and do understand that a lot of that is because the score is kept on the same sheet - which is why I'd get rid of it there.

I would wholeheartedly support a requirement that CC's be exchanged at the beginning of the round, whether it be a 2-board pair round, a swiss match, or a knockout segment. Though most of the bridge I've played has been in the US, so I should be used to it, I'm still nonplussed by how jealously many players guard those cards.
In WBF tournaments, the personal scoresheets available do not fit inside the convention card, and I think that does tend to have players more inclined to make their CCs readily available.
However removing the printed private score from the inside of the ACBL card, and having a separate scoresheet available, might not help much with the problem. The private scores would have to be a different size and shape. The way it is now, many players have a separate card for scores, but they keep it inside their filled out convention card anyway. And I find the players most reluctant to give up their cards usually have one of those plastic holders, with the system card (often a fancy colorful computer card) on the outside, and a score sheet in the inside. At the last NABC my partner asked her opponent to remove the outside card for the sixteen board segment, rather than keeping it in the holder on her lap (where, by the way, it would be quite easy for the player to look at it herself, but necessary for her opponent to ask for it each time). The director needed to be called to make this happen. In a women's trials a few years ago, the director supported my opponent's right to keep her convention card under her coke can, with her private score inside it, and for me to have to ask for it each time. I didn't like it, but it was that or stop the match and call for a committee so I played on. We could definitely use some clear regulations in this regard, though frankly most experts in the US don't seem to care about any of this, and prefer to just ask questions.

[blackshoe]

I once (at a club game) ran into a player who, after she'd been badgering my novice and very confused partner for several minutes about a call I'd made, superciliously replied to my suggestion that the answer to her questions was written on our card with "I don't look at convention cards. I ask questions." I called the director, but unfortunately, I was dummy, and the director said to me "dummy is not allowed to call the director" and walked away.

[matmat]

blackshoe, on Aug 29 2009, 12:26 AM, said:

I once (at a club game) ran into a player who, after she'd been badgering my novice and very confused partner for several minutes about a call I'd made, superciliously replied to my suggestion that the answer to her questions was written on our card with "I don't look at convention cards. I ask questions." I called the director, but unfortunately, I was dummy, and the director said to me "dummy is not allowed to call the director" and walked away.

how friendly. did your novice p play again?

[blackshoe]

Well, this wasn't the killing blow, but she did eventually quit playing because of things like this.

[shintaro]

blackshoe, on Aug 29 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

Well, this wasn't the killing blow, but she did eventually quit playing because of things like this.

The same thing happens here in blighty and unless 'Jumped on' by TD's at whatever level will never stop

At least EBU have BBB policy now