[nige1]

helene_t, on Mar 30 2010, 06:17 AM, said:

In England and Denmark we let the bidding cards stay on table until the opening lead has been faced up and I think that is a very good. The auction hasn't ended before the opening lead has been faced up because declarer still might correct the explanation of a call so that the last opp to pass can make a call.

IMO basic rules about bidding boxes (like the Denmark/UK rules) should be included in the law-book, itself. A useful default, although, as for other laws, chauvinistic regulators would be allowed concoct local variations to keep foreigners at a disadvantage.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Mar 31 2010, 08:08 PM, said:

The other thing I noticed was this:

Quote

Except when screens are in use, a player must say "Alert" out loud when tapping the alert strip of the bidding box.

To which my reaction is mostly "what alert strip?" (People tend not to put them in their little slot in the bidding box, even when they're available).

Lots of people actively take the strip out of the slot, because they find that it gets in the way of pulling bidding cards out of the box. I don't have this problem myself (I think it has to do with how you position the box, and maybe the length of your arm), and actually find that the alert strip sitting diagonally in the box, and sticking out the side as a result, gets in the way, so I always put it back IN the slot.

What many people do when the alert strip isn't in its slot is that they pull the strip out of the box and tap it on the table. Also, most bidding boxes also have an Alert card, and taking the card out and displaying it prominently is considered equivalent to tapping the strip. The spirit of the regulation is that you're required to do something something audible (say "alert") and something visible (tap or display the alert strip or card) to ensure that the opponents are aware of the alert. Any reasonable and obvious substitute for tapping the alert strip is considered acceptable.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on Apr 1 2010, 05:30 AM, said:

IMO basic rules about bidding boxes (like the Denmark/UK rules) should be included in the law-book, itself. A useful default, although, as for other laws, chauvinistic regulators would be allowed concoct local variations to keep foreigners at a disadvantage.

There already is a useful default, in the WBF General Conditions of Contest. This includes when a call is considered made and how to use the Alert and Stop cards. It doesn't, however, include instruction on when the bidding cards should be removed. It is possible to correct this omission.

You frequently say, Nigel, that there should be a "useful default" in the Law book, but the WBF regulations exist, and some countries use them.

To me, it seems better to have regulations to do with bidding systems and general practice in the WBF CofC than enshrined in the Laws, because the former is more flexible and can adapt more easily to changes in technology or discovery of more effective practice.

Can you please explain why you think that it is so terrible to have these regulations available in the WBF's documents instead of in the Laws? And would you please stop saying that there is not a worldwide default, because there is.

As has been mentioned before, people who go off to play in foreign tournaments will nearly always be people who are quite capable of finding out about, and adapting to, the destination bridge culture. Sure, I have gotten things wrong in international play, but I would not expect, or want, the foreign bridge regulations to be adapted to suit me when I visit, instead of suiting the people who play there all the time.

If you have had negative experiences in international play, I sympathise, but I really do think that such experiences are the exception rather than the rule. Give it another try, and you might be pleasantly surprised.

[nige1]

nige1, on Apr 1 2010, 05:30 AM, said:

IMO basic rules about bidding boxes (like the Denmark/UK rules) should be included in the law-book, itself. A useful default, although, as for other laws, chauvinistic regulators would be allowed concoct local variations to keep foreigners at a disadvantage.

Vampyr, on Apr 2 2010, 07:44 AM, said:

There already is a useful default, in the WBF General Conditions of Contest. This includes when a call is considered made and how to use the Alert and Stop cards. It doesn't, however, include instruction on when the bidding cards should be removed. It is possible to correct this omission.
You frequently say, Nigel, that there should be a "useful default" in the Law book, but the WBF regulations exist, and some countries use them. To me, it seems better to have regulations to do with bidding systems and general practice in the WBF CofC than enshrined in the Laws, because the former is more flexible and can adapt more easily to changes in technology or discovery of more effective practice. Can you please explain why you think that it is so terrible to have these regulations available in the WBF's documents instead of in the Laws? And would you please stop saying that there is not a worldwide default, because there is. As has been mentioned before, people who go off to play in foreign tournaments will nearly always be people who are quite capable of finding out about, and adapting to, the destination bridge culture. Sure, I have gotten things wrong in international play, but I would not expect, or want, the foreign bridge regulations to be adapted to suit me when I visit, instead of suiting the people who play there all the time. If you have had negative experiences in international play, I sympathise, but I really do think that such experiences are the exception rather than the rule. Give it another try, and you might be pleasantly surprised.

I'm Scottish. Scotland is an enlightened jurisdiction that is trying to adopt WBF conditions of contest. It works well and I wish more countries would follow our good example. Problems arise, of course, where the WBF Coc is geared to international competition with expert players and, as Vampyr points out, does not cover common situations that arise in ordinary play without screens. In any case, it is a separate document and legislators have to opt in to it. I wish there were a single comprehensive book of rules to provide a level playing field for play in most countries. Although Bolshy chauvinistic legislators could still opt out of it.

[bluejak]

Also, of course, legislators who do not agree with you.

For example, one of the reasons I do not like playing in Scotland as much as I did is because of the dreadful alerting rules. It is not a matter of being bolshy: it is a matter of Scotland getting them wrong.

[paulg]

nige1, on Apr 2 2010, 02:07 PM, said:

I'm Scottish. Scotland is an enlightened jurisdiction that is trying to adopt WBF conditions of contest ...

The enlightened folks in Scottish bridge have realised that it is pretty silly for a small country to try and write everything themselves. It is small NBO with a small membership charge that has no paid administrators. So they have decided to beg, borrow or steal negotiate with other larger bodies to use their standards.

These include bluejak's hated WBF Alerting and (I believe) bidding box regulations. I expect the EBU White Book will be making an appearance soon. System regulations are being reviewed and will probably be very similar to another country. For our trials I happily take material from the EBU. USBF, WBF, EBL and others.

My point is that we are enlightened because we are not trying to do everything ourselves, not because we are using something from the WBF in a specific case.

Paul

[aguahombre]

Mbodell, on Mar 30 2010, 12:26 AM, said:

I like this for explanation because if the partner of the opening leader has questions even saying "please leave the bidding cards out" before the lead can transmit UI or lead to feelings that UI might be being transmitted to the opening leader.

Also, the other nice side effect, is that it stops the bad habit of the turbo tap or the second person to pass just picking up their bids instead of passing. It seems like at least once a week I have an auction where my opponents want to assume the auction is over but I want to double or sac and they start picking up the auction assuming the auction is done before it is.

So you sort of get a 2 for 1 benefit of adopting the leave the bidding cards out until the opening lead is faced. Of course, if you don't use bidding cards but instead write the auction out on paper that would work too to preserve the auction.

This post, way back on the first page, seems to convey most of the good reasons why leaving them out would be a good thing.

Perhaps, Jan or someone could incorporate Mbodell's thoughts into their presentation to the C&C.

Another would be the annoying habit of the defenders waiting until the cards are put away, then asking what the contract is, and by whom and who is on lead.

[barmar]

I wish it were common to keep the bidding cards out here in the ACBL. My regular partner seems to ask for a review at least half the time when he's on opening lead. I think I'm guilty of it about 5% of the time.

[pran]

This is not really a matter of regulation although regulations are a favourable means to advice how to comply with certain laws.

Law 20C2:
Declarer** or either defender may, at his first turn to play, require all previous calls to be restated*. (See Laws 41B and 41C). As in B the player may not ask for only a partial restatement or halt the review.

As such restating is best done using the bidding cards I consider the proper time to retract the bidding cards being when it is too late for any player to request a review of the auction, i.e. when play of the first trick is completed.

I fully recognize that the bidding cards are commonly retracted with the last pass of the auction, but then any player has the right to require all bidding cards used in the auction to be restated.

[blackshoe]

I don't think so, Sven. Either way, you'd certainly get some very strange looks around here if you asked for the bidding cards to be put back out. Probably get a TD call, too, unless it was a case of 1NT-P-3NT-auction's over, or something similar.

[jdonn]

So just to clarify, am I the only one who doesn't like the idea of keeping them out until the lead?

[peachy]

jdonn, on Apr 5 2010, 10:55 AM, said:

So just to clarify, am I the only one who doesn't like the idea of keeping them out until the lead?

No, you are not alone.
Seven rounds of Precision bidding, or a long auction where both sides bid, then leave them out. But that already happens by common courtesy/common sense. Do we need yet another rule, add more pages to the rule books...

[blackshoe]

peachy, on Apr 5 2010, 03:01 PM, said:

But that already happens by common courtesy/common sense.

At expert level, maybe. I don't think I've ever seen it at a club game.

Quote

  Do we need yet another rule, add more pages to the rule books...

Yeah, it will take at least 20-30 pages to write this rule into the regulation.

Doesn't matter how long the rules are, anyway. Players don't read them. They're much more likely to remember an adverse ruling they got forty years ago in a quite different situation, and argue (loudly and vociferously) that the TD making the current ruling is full of crap because of it.

[dburn]

jdonn, on Apr 5 2010, 10:55 AM, said:

So just to clarify, am I the only one who doesn't like the idea of keeping them out until the lead?

In principle the idea seems sensible; in practice it will require a lot of people to change a lot of habits for what may seem to them no particularly good reason. The question then is whether the game is worth the candle: that is, shall we implement a regulation to the effect that when the bidding has been 1NT all pass, some smartass can call the Director because South put the 1NT card back in the box before West made his opening lead?

For myself, if the auction has lasted for more than a round or so of bidding, or if there is anything in the auction I think the leader should know about before he leads (particularly since barmy alerting regulations may have prevented him from finding out about it before he leads), I will not put my cards away until he has led. As a player, I hope that my partners and opponents would do likewise. As a legislator, I sure as shootin' don't want to write a regulation that compels them to do likewise.

[bluejak]

pran, on Apr 5 2010, 08:38 AM, said:

This is not really a matter of regulation although regulations are a favourable means to advice how to comply with certain laws.

Of course it is a matter of regulation. If the regulations do not say when the cards are to be put away then players cannot be criticised for putting them away whenever they please. If there is no regulation they should be put out again then no player is going to.

cardsharp, on Apr 2 2010, 05:41 PM, said:

nige1, on Apr 2 2010, 02:07 PM, said:

I'm Scottish. Scotland is an enlightened jurisdiction that is trying to adopt WBF conditions of contest ...

The enlightened folks in Scottish bridge have realised that it is pretty silly for a small country to try and write everything themselves. It is small NBO with a small membership charge that has no paid administrators. So they have decided to beg, borrow or steal negotiate with other larger bodies to use their standards.

............

My point is that we are enlightened because we are not trying to do everything ourselves, not because we are using something from the WBF in a specific case.

The principle is good. However choosing a set of regulations that the WBF never use seems dubious - they are regulations for use without screens and the WBF do not run such events. Furthermore, choosing a set of regulations designed specifically for international level play for use in Scottish clubs also seems a poor idea: why not choose a set of regulations designed for club/national play?

[barmar]

bluejak, on Apr 5 2010, 08:26 PM, said:

pran, on Apr 5 2010, 08:38 AM, said:

This is not really a matter of regulation although regulations are a favourable means to advice how to comply with certain laws.

Of course it is a matter of regulation. If the regulations do not say when the cards are to be put away then players cannot be criticised for putting them away whenever they please. If there is no regulation they should be put out again then no player is going to.

It doesn't have to be regulated. In many cases, uniformity can be achieved simply by tradition. People will normally follow whatever the common practice is, it doesn't have to be codified in a rule book.

It's true that if there's no regulation then you can't penalize someone for not following the practice. But players who intentionally flaunt common practice can be ostracized, and they'll learn.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Apr 6 2010, 02:14 AM, said:

It's true that if there's no regulation then you can't penalize someone for not following the practice. But players who intentionally flaunt common practice can be ostracized, and they'll learn.

Ostracized how? You can't refuse to play against them, at least not in the ACBL.

[pran]

bluejak, on Apr 6 2010, 01:26 AM, said:

pran, on Apr 5 2010, 08:38 AM, said:

This is not really a matter of regulation although regulations are a favourable means to advice how to comply with certain laws.

Of course it is a matter of regulation. If the regulations do not say when the cards are to be put away then players cannot be criticised for putting them away whenever they please. If there is no regulation they should be put out again then no player is going to.

And how do you comply with Law 20C when a player requests a review of the auction?

I am not concerned with any penalty or criticism of the player that has put away his bidding cards, but I am very much concerned about how the review shall be handled. Verbal restatements are not the way I fancy when bidding cards have been used in the auction. That will completely spoil the purpose of using bidding cards.

[bluejak]

That is why such a regulation is sensible. A verbal restatement is perfectly legal, and normal in most cases. You are in a world of our own if you think players would put their bidding cards out again.

[pran]

bluejak, on Apr 6 2010, 12:21 PM, said:

That is why such a regulation is sensible.  A verbal restatement is perfectly legal, and normal in most cases.  You are in a world of our own if you think players would put their bidding cards out again.

Maybe that is why I (as defender) say "Please leave the bidding cards on the table" when I anticipate the need for asking questions on the auction.

And yes, the use of bidding cards is a matter of regulation, but once such regulation is in force I do not agree that a verbal restatement is perfectly legal.

However, I realize that it is common practice. Like so many other "we always do it this way" that doesn't make it legal.