search

mycroftw / conv-cards

Convention cards using GRB CCE
1 stars 2 forks source link

Two Faces Convention Card, WIP #73

Closed GerMalaz closed 1 year ago

GerMalaz commented 2 years ago
mycroftw commented 2 years ago

I think this is a very interesting idea. I can't accept it as stands (even with the boxes fixed) because the goal of this project is to produce ACBL convention cards, and this doesn't do that. It produces a fringe idea - possibly a very good idea, but a fringe one - and I can't "change over" to this without violating the entire intent.

However, I am very interested in a second stylesheet that does this, especially if we can create it in such a way as to minimize the "double the effort" needed to keep them up. Pick which one you want, and go.

But anything that goes into the basic style sheet has to be at least stylistically recognizable as "the 2022 ACBL convention card", and anything that stops people from making a "2022 ACBL convention card the normal way" has to be at best an option (hence my rework of your "order signals instead of checking primary". Which was also a great idea, thank you for it!)

And yes, I know I've made a few "executive decisions", like swapping the order of 1m response: line and the extra line (which I'd expect would be used for style of opener) and "if you don't use this bit, I'll give you something useful instead" for 1NT and 1NT defences. But those (in my opinion, maybe I can make a version that is "strict" in case) don't exceed the "homemade cards are okay as long as they are sufficiently similar to the correct card" . Enforcing "two pages" does.

Having said that, if you/we do go down this path, I think changing default text size from \scriptsize to normal is probably the first goal - sure get more room, but minimize the people needing magnifying glasses too.

Again, thanks for the ideas!

mycroftw commented 2 years ago

If I get some more CFT, I'll look into (node.east)ing the boxes again and see how irregular it turns the formatting. Or perhaps the opposite - fix the checkboxes, and (node.west)ing the text - might work better, and frankly would be more like the intent (node and legend, rather than text and "legend box").

If it works well, it's more tikzic (clearly associating the box with its text), and will scale much more trivially to your idea.

GerMalaz commented 2 years ago

Thank YOU for picking them up. I don't know Latex to implement them decently.

I do disagree on enforcing two pages not being an ACBL card, though. After all, the CCs are given to opps folded, effectively having two pages. This would not have a scorecard inside, but otherwise be identical (or close enough as you describe above). But then, there are regulations, and this may be non-compliant.