[bluejak]

The Law makes a restatement legal. So, if a regulation does not give a method for restatement using bidding cards then there is no doubt that a verbal restatement is legal. It is a matter of Law.

[blackshoe]

Blujak's right on the legality question — and I don't really buy that a verbal restatement "spoils the purpose of using bidding cards", which is as I understand primarily to minimize the possible transmission of UI during the auction via inflection or wording.

[barmar]

pran, on Apr 6 2010, 04:56 PM, said:

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.

A regulation about how to bid does not automatically extend to the method of restating the auction.

BTW, my partner WILL ask for the bidding cards to be left out if he wants a review with explanations of a complex auction. The times when he asks for a review after the cards have been put away seem like cases where he just wants to confirm an early bid by the opponent. I.e. he wants to lead an unbid suit, but isn't sure whether opener bid 1♣ or 1♦.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Apr 6 2010, 02:48 AM, said:

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.

Maybe ostracize is too strong a word. I meant that you can express disapproval of their behavior in various ways. Kind of like how some people react to card snappers.

But like I said, it seems like it would rarely come to this. If everyone else leaves their cards out, what kind of player would deliberately go against the flow?

The hard thing would be changing habitual practices. If ACBL decided to adopt this regulation, it might take years to become commonplace.

[duschek]

barmar, on Apr 7 2010, 02:09 AM, said:

The hard thing would be changing habitual practices. If ACBL decided to adopt this regulation, it might take years to become commonplace.

We have had this regulation in Denmark for almost 10 years now. I have yet to see a league player (myself included) who follows it consistently as a matter of habit.

[nige1]

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?

I hope those who agree with JDonn are in the minority. I think simple protocols should be specified in the law book; so that, no matter in what club or country you play, the game is recognizably the same.

Such protocols aren't just a matter of common sense. People get into habits. They tend to prefer regulations to which they are accustomed. Even if they seem riduculous to others. Cumulatively, such local practices subject strangers and foregners to an unfair and unnecessary disadvantage. Exampes abound: Stop card regulations are a recently debated instance.

Yes Vampyr if the WBF incorported their Coc into the law-book as a default, that might be a start. Although, I would prefer the rules to be simpler, more comprehensive and suitable for ordinary players.