mycroft Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 If it came across that badly, then I really need to watch this. Thank you, Vampyr, for pointing it out. It wasn't intended to be angry; it was intended to be "okay, we've all been saying things assuming you actually understood Full Disclosure. It's clear that that assumption was wrong. Let me phrase it as elementary as possible, so I don't miss anything else. Unfortunately, when I do that, sometimes it sounds over the top, so sorry if it does." It seems that even after that attempt at explanation, it sounded OTT. That was not my intent, and I sincerely apologize. What I should have said was "when you're asked how short, tell them. It has to be a specific number, not a range. If you don't know how short your suit could possibly be, please work that out so you can answer the question." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 The ACBL CC seems to take a strange form. Why not check "Natural" or "Conv" and have a space to write in the minimum length - it seems bizarre to have 3 checkboxes for 5 possible answers. In general I think that the checkboxes are a poor idea anyway, since you will necessarily not be using many of them, so they just waste space that you could use to describe what you are playing. When I used to use this card, I found that the only way to remove the unused boxes was to edit the card in bitmap format, which was a real pain and took ages for each different card. But that was many years ago and I expect that things have changed for the better.I think the intent was to have checkboxes for the most common cases, to make them easy to see. A written number is not as easy to recognize at a glance. Also, the checkboxes allow them to do the appropriate color coding, to indicate which cases are alertable or announceable. With more space, the 0-2 and Conv checkboxes could be followed by a "Details" text field that would get more specific. The design of a one-sided CC is a series of compromises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paua Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 OP's 1C "could" have 0-2 if short. It could have more. I am sure he is deeply apologetic for posting something confusing. If he had said, "could be 0-2", we would be able to get on with our lives. The announcement regulation is the culprit causing all the waste of time at the table and here. Lose the word "short", as with other names or adjectives, and require the announcement to state how short it could be. Bravo ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paua Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Do you know of anyone who has made their template available for others' use? I have mine as a blank spreadsheet, based on the New Zealand simple CC.I find Word a pain in the ass for this sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paua Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 When people are in search of education, giving them a rebuke instead will only discourage them and others from seeking help. Agree entirely. Don't assume that everyone posting or reading this forum is a qualified and experienced director. That is not who the forum is for, surely, although I get the feeling that some here consider that the plebs shouldn't be allowed to speak. And careful with the abbreviations please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 When people are in search of education, giving them a rebuke instead will only discourage them and others from seeking help.But, OP seemed proud of his "it's on the convention card" response, and deserved to be slapped up-side the head for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Nonsense. If the information required is on the card, it's perfectly acceptable to refer an opponent to that card. If he refuses to look at it, then fine, give him a verbal answer — but then he's the one in the wrong, not you. Especially if he's rude about his refusal, as (IME) many players are.I am not at all happy about this. I have a right to not just ask a question, but to get a verbal answer. I think you are the one who is rude and in the wrong by not answering. Of course, it depends on how it is done. If someone says "It is a bit complicated, but it is quite clear on the card" or "I am not sure: safer if you look at the card" then that is fine, of course. But just referring someone to the card is just rude. Apart from anything else, with rare exceptions, stuff on the card is less detailed than a verbal explanation. Another point is that there are a number of basic means of disclosure. One is via SCs: one is by question and answer. If I choose question and answer, I expect an answer. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 The design of a one-sided CC is a series of compromises.Frankly, I think that designing a CC on one side of an 8 1/2 by 9 1/2" piece of paper is a serious error, not just a series of compromises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Frankly, I think that designing a CC on one side of an 8 1/2 by 9 1/2" piece of paper is a serious error, not just a series of compromises.Probably. That in itself was probably a compromise -- they wanted to combine the CC and personal score. I've never really understood why, and I've complained to ACBL about it. Team game score sheets use both sides for scores, I don't understand why pair game score sheets don't. Maybe because there are lots more single-session pair games (e.g. all club games) than team games. But most people in established partnerships don't fill out a new CC each time, so that side of the score sheet gets wasted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 Probably. That in itself was probably a compromise -- they wanted to combine the CC and personal score. I've never really understood why, and I've complained to ACBL about it. Team game score sheets use both sides for scores, I don't understand why pair game score sheets don't. Maybe because there are lots more single-session pair games (e.g. all club games) than team games. But most people in established partnerships don't fill out a new CC each time, so that side of the score sheet gets wasted.Back in 1956, I think it was, when Alex Groner wrote "Duplicate Direction" he said "and you can even write your conventions on the back of your score card!" Which leads me to believe that the score card came first, and the ACBL stuck the CC on the back of it. It's always amused me that you can buy "score sheets" with no CC on the other side, but that rather than print another score sheet there, the ACBL (or Baron-Barclay now, I guess) just leaves it blank. And they're more expensive than the score sheet/CC combination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 I've never seen those one-sided score sheets. They're probably more expensive simply because they're not as popular. I wrote to the Bulletin at least 5 years ago suggesting two-sided score sheets, and they pubished it. With so many companies trying to be "green" these days, I'm really annoyed they still haven't done it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 It's always amused me that you can buy "score sheets" with no CC on the other side, but that rather than print another score sheet there, the ACBL (or Baron-Barclay now, I guess) just leaves it blank. And they're more expensive than the score sheet/CC combination.We could have some fun with the opponents. Instead of using the back of a scoresheet from a previous session, we could dummy-up some silly results which appear to be an incomplete scorecard for this session. Let em try to cop a board :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 It's always amused me that you can buy "score sheets" with no CC on the other side, but that rather than print another score sheet there, the ACBL (or Baron-Barclay now, I guess) just leaves it blank. And they're more expensive than the score sheet/CC combination.It seems I was wrong about this, at least in part. 100 CC-with-score-sheet costs $3.00, but you can get bulk discounts. 500 costs $2.39x5= $11.95. The score-sheets-on-one-side are described as "Western style", are 5 1/2" by 5 1/2" (so smaller than the CC) and cost $7.95, so they are a bit cheaper. No bulk discount on those. Even the largest bulk discount on the CCs only brings the price for 500 down to $8.20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 I read this "two-sided" conversation and boggled, as we've been using two-sided pairs sheets for years. Well, benefits of living in Canada, I guess:http://canadianbridgesupplies.com/convention-cards/convention-cards-form-1240d-500-sheets-view-for-bulk-discounts/ I seem to recall the "remarks" form double-sided as well, but I can't see them at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.