Rules

[luis]

This is the Story:

My pd and I have played together for more than 10 years. My pd likes to pick only one card from the bidding box each time he bids because he says he is more confotable in that way. This means that when he bids 3NT he only places the 3NT card on the table or the tray, without all the lower denomination cards.

He always does that never changing the way he uses the bidding box.

He thinks Bocchi does the same, we are not sure.

In a recent tournament an opponent called the TD saying it was unlawful to use the bidding box in this way.

The TD ordered us to use the bidding box in the way the other players did because "somewhere the rules say so".

 

I was very obfuscated so now I'm trying to determine if this is lawful or unlawful, if the TD can rule about this etc etc.

So your opinion and understanding about this is welcome, if you have friends who are experts in the laws please ask them.

 

Thanks for any feedback.

Luis

[inquiry]

I have never seen anyone pick out indiividual cards... but... neither have I seen a rule against it.. .in fact I found this for gold cup events in england...

 

====================

12

3.9.1 Regulations for use of Bidding Boxes

Each player should place the selected call in front of him facing towards the

centre of the table at his turn to call. Subsequent calls should be placed neatly -

and in order - in a row from left to right with every call in sequence visible:

nothing else should be seen and it is a player’s duty to correct any irregularity

instantly: Penalties may be applied if the Tournament Director judges that an

incorrectly exposed call has misled an opponent.

 

(stuff deleted)

 

3.9.2 Call made

A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the

bidding box with apparent intent (but the Director may apply Law 25). Players

must make up their minds before touching any card in the box. Hesitating

between calls while touching the cards, or removing cards from the box and

then replacing them, may impart unauthorised information and be subject to

penalty.

 

3.9.3 Application of the Laws

Calls made using bidding cards are treated under the Laws in the same way as

spoken calls. For example, a call may be changed without penalty under Law

25A only if:

 

a) the change is solely due to a player having taken out the wrong bidding

card in error, and

 

:P he changes, or attempts to change it instantly when he realises that a

wrong card has been removed by mistake/ In other words, it may be possible to correct a mechanical accident; it is not permitted to change your mind about a call deliberately selected once it has been made.

 

Note that the fact that the card may have been released does not, in isolation,

mean that it is too late to change the call under Law 25A - points (a) and (B)

above refer.

 

===================

 

The use of the word... A wrong card, and The wrong bidding card, can be used to argue that they mean a single card. In fact they might mean that card and all cards behind it... see the portion in blue, which suggest "hiding" the bids not made when placing cards on table.

[Al_U_Card]

I know of several quality players who ALWAYS pick a card at a time. I have never heard of a ruling problem.

[Guest Jlall]

Some excellent players who pick up 1 card at a time:

 

Zia

David Grainger

Nagy Kamel (a BBO star)

Others I cannot think of.

 

I would ask the director to show me where in the laws it says this is illegal. As long as your partner bids in the same manner EVERY time, there is no problem to me.

[luis]

Some excellent players who pick up 1 card at a time:

 

Zia

David Grainger

Nagy Kamel (a BBO star)

Others I cannot think of.

 

I would ask the director to show me where in the laws it says this is illegal. As long as your partner bids in the same manner EVERY time, there is no problem to me.

Thanks for the names Justin

I asked the TD exactly what you said, where in the laws it says it is illegal to bid this way?

He said "I'm sure it is somewhere" he also told us we had to bid in the way he said or he would start 3imp penalties per board we played bidding unlawfully.

The opponent refused to pass the tray unless pd bids had all the lower denomination cards placed behind.

I kindly asked my pd to bid in the way the TD asked us to bid and then find if somewhere will have to write us an apology or if we should write them an apology instead.

Of course I called the TD when I was about to open 1 club asking him if that would cost me 3 imps since there was nothing below 1 the 1 club card, in such a case I would open something else.

I also asked if the opponents besides telling us how to bid and play a system without a Cc had other rights that I should know.

In short words I'm so obfuscated :-)

[Guest Jlall]

Behind screens it's much easier to bid 1 card at a time too. Passing the tray when someone bids 7N can be difficult, sometimes the top bids slide to the side while being passed. I think the director was WAY out of line.

[luis]

Behind screens it's much easier to bid 1 card at a time too. Passing the tray when someone bids 7N can be difficult, sometimes the top bids slide to the side while being passed. I think the director was WAY out of line.

We had once an incident where a 6♠ bid didn't pass the tray and 6♥ reached the other side ending in a fouled board. I usually pick the cards in the conventional way because I don't want to sort the cards back in the bidding box. But when we play with screens and the cards are plastified I pick one at the time because otherwise you have a problem with the screen. I can't even imagine what this opps and Td would say if they know I use plastified cards in a different way than normal cards!!

[uday]

Is there no risk in allowing this? Is this not analogous to a person

 

- saying "I double" at your table, while his partner assures you that he always uses "I double" , not "double"

 

- moving his bidbox in an intricate motion each time he makes a call, while his P assures you that there is no code ?

 

- folding his head on his arms every time he is dummy, and drumming his fingers on his forearm in some pattern, while his partner assures you he is only composing new beats ?

 

 

I think anytime there is variation from the norm, the opps feel queasy. They have no idea what the viariance might mean; they have no history to work with.

 

Do the players we named earlier *never* pick up more than one card? How do we know ? What does it mean when they do ?

[Guest Jlall]

Is there no risk in allowing this? Is this not analogous to a person

 

- saying "I double" at your table, while his partner assures you that he always uses "I double" , not "double"

 

- moving his bidbox in an intricate motion each time he makes a call, while his P assures you that there is no code ?

 

- folding his head on his arms every time he is dummy, and drumming his fingers on his forearm in some pattern, while his partner assures you he is only composing new beats ?

 

 

I think anytime there is variation from the norm, the opps feel queasy. They have no idea what the viariance might mean; they have no history to work with.

 

Do the players we named earlier *never* pick up more than one card? How do we know ? What does it mean when they do ?

I think "the norm" is defined by the person, not by the bridge community. For instance, I never use the stop card. Many others don't either. This is not a problem as long as I *NEVER* use the stop card. Similarly, pulling 1 card at a time is something the players I mentioned do every time. We can't "know" that they do this every time, but if they bid more than 1 time against their opponents, they would have to bid the same way or the opponents could catch them. If they do, then there's no chance they are cheating by just pulling 1 card.

[pclayton]

I pull out one at a time - I think I saw Bruce Ferguson do it this way. Its a lot cleaner and doesn't make that menacing 'thud' as you pull out the 1/2" stack of 40 or so laminated cards to place '7N' on the table.

 

And there's nothing nicer than owning a 6 card stack and lightly placing the single red card on the table. The sound it makes is, quite, deafening. :P

 

It is a hassle to put the cards back if you've had a long auction, but its OK. I've never been accused of cheating, but I have had some well-meaning opponents 'instruct' me of how to use the bidding box.

[luis]

Is there no risk in allowing this? Is this not analogous to a person

 

- saying "I double" at your table, while his partner assures you that he always uses "I double" , not "double"

 

- moving his bidbox in an intricate motion each time he makes a call, while his P assures you that there is no code ?

 

- folding his head on his arms every time he is dummy, and drumming his fingers on his forearm in some pattern, while his partner assures you he is only composing new beats ?

 

 

I think anytime there is variation from the norm, the opps feel queasy. They have no idea what the viariance might mean; they have no history to work with.

 

Do the players we named earlier *never* pick up more than one card? How do we know ? What does it mean when they do ?

If you assume that pulling one card a a time can be cheating then I think it is quite a stupid way of cheating since it is very evident.

Do you also see if players pick the cards with the right or left hand? Do they eat candies while playing? When? Can a TD forbid you from eating candies? Forbid you from holding your head with your hand? Can they forbid women from touching their hair?

As long as what you do is not unlawful you could ban a lot of stupid things if you fear cheating through secret communications.

[paulg]

Every time I've kibbed Bocchi over the last three years he has selected a single card from the bidding box.

 

Paul

[kenberg]

When I am NS and my EW opponents pull out single bid cards I stifle an urge to say "you are going to get those back in order when you finish, aren't you?". It seems they always do and beyond that I can't imaging why anyone cares. In theory you could be altering your style to send secret messages but in fact if you are not using screens there are many similar ways to cheat. For example, sometimes I place my stack carelessly and need to square them up afterwards, sometimes I am more careful. This is not a signal to partner about how many hearts I have in my hand. Anyway, you stipulate that the style is not being altered and a suspicious opponent can request discreet checking of this assertion.

 

I am totally unqualified to say anything about what the rules actually are and to tell you the truth I plan to remain in this state of blissful ignorance.

[LH2650]

The ACBL has regulations for nearly everything, including the use of bidding boxes. These can be found in the usual place. The relevant statement is:

 

A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the

bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or

maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made.

 

You are legal in Zone 2.

[McBruce]

People pull one card from the box because they get in the habit when playing in events that use screens. In such an event, one needs to place the card on a tray that can be slid under the screen, and the opening during the auction is quite small -- a stack of cards may not fit, or worse, slide off as the tray is moved.

 

I think that when a TD is not sure what to rule in a case like this, you will have better luck explaining that partner ALWAYS does it this way -- that is the key point. Claiming that it is legal because Bocchi does it is not likely to sway a club TD who may not know who Bocchi is.

 

I think a better decision as TD would be to let the player use the bid-box as he likes, as long as he is consistent. Cheating should never be publicly implied, and this TDs ruling does suggest some untoward suspicion.

 

We do however, insist on some conformity in bridge: few places will allow players to post-mortem in another language with cards from the next deal in their hands, for example. It really isn't that difficult to conform here, and since most of us play at least 98% of the time without screens, there seems no reason to introduce into your game an unusual action that raises questions. Your partner has to stop himself from self-alerting when playing without them, so taking clumps instead of plucking singles is just another non-screen adjustment he has to make.

 

A point in favour of the TD: clubs and tournament organizers spend serious money on bid-box cards and a 'plucker' is going to add slightly more wear to the cards when he puts them back. If everyone were to do it this way, bid-box cards would need to be replaced more often, and we would pay more in entry fees as a result.

[McBruce]

Of course I called the TD when I was about to open 1 club asking him if that would cost me 3 imps since there was nothing below 1 the 1 club card, in such a case I would open something else.

I also asked if the opponents besides telling us how to bid and play a system without a Cc had other rights that I should know.

In short words I'm so obfuscated :-)

The TDs decision may be wrong here. But I would CERTAINLY give you a disciplinary penalty (at least 3 IMPs, perhaps more) for making a comment like that. I'm afraid I'm seeing a lot of "we got robbed, so we're going to misbehave" in some of your later comments here, Luis. You need to understand that this is unacceptable behavior on your part, and the TDs earlier decision is not an excuse.

 

I used to look at all 13 of my unsorted cards and then one by one place them face down on the table in a single pile, in the right-to-left order I wanted to see them when sorted, instead of the more normal method of moving them about in my hand. I have done this so often that it is a reflex now and I spend less time sorting that most. I put the cards on the pile starting usually with low diamonds (low clubs if I have a red suit void) and ending with high spades. Pick the pile up--sorted!

 

A very good player once called the TD. The TD asked nicely if I could refrain from sorting my way. I decided to make the single pile on my chest instead of on the table, and the opponent may have noticed this but decided not to call the TD again. (Since then I have made it easier by growing a fair-sized gut to help me!) Anyhow, the player came up to me after the game and apologized -- and in the several years since the incident has done some very kind things for me.

 

I could have fought it. I could have demanded that the TD show me a Law that forbade my sort method. But it was so simple to conform--and I really was more distracting (and a bit slower) when the pile of sorted cards went on the table.

 

I bet if you nicely ask Bocchi or Ferguson or any other pro to play bidding cards in the normal fashion because the plucking method is distracting, they would comply and not carp about it.

[whereagles]

Luis, when a person says "somewhere in the rules", the correct reply is: "please quote the law nr." If the person is unable, go on with bidding the way you want.

 

If the Director penalizes you for doing this, he'll only be making a fool of himself, because any Appeals Committee will stand by you.

[mycroft]

I seem to follow the trend here - it's legal. It drives me around the *#%M@@& twist, and it seems to take forever for dummy to come down after a 3+round auction, but it's legal.

 

I don't know why it bothers me. It just does. I'm guessing "pretentious little git" is high up on my (unspoken, probably even unthought) list of reasons. That's My Failing, not my opponent's, however. I'm sure my "see if I can slouch *all the way* under the table" habit, and I know my "I'm thinking, so my leg twitches" habit, affect others the same way - and I know I don't do them to cause that reaction. So I should just get over it. I am sure I will, in time.

 

Apologies for the (even obscured) language - I didn't realize my opinion was so emphatic until I tried to write without. Too much Terry Pratchett, I am guessing.

 

Michael.

 

[Edit: One thing I know - I have never seen anyone who uses this style do *anything* different from hand to hand. Which is more than I can say for most of the "normal" bidders around here.]

[luke warm]

Of course I called the TD when I was about to open 1 club asking him if that would cost me 3 imps since there was nothing below 1 the 1 club card, in such a case I would open something else.

I also asked if the opponents besides telling us how to bid and play a system without a Cc had other rights that I should know.

In short words I'm so obfuscated :-)

The TDs decision may be wrong here. But I would CERTAINLY give you a disciplinary penalty (at least 3 IMPs, perhaps more) for making a comment like that.

good, that way when he went to the appeals committee they'd have to publicly say what a poor job you were doing, first with the illegal bidding box ruling and then by penalizing him when he was simply seeking to conform to a verbatim statement you had made

[McBruce]

1. Disciplinary penalties are not subject to appeal. Law 91A.

 

2. Appeal Committees don't say anything publicly except the decision and how it was reached.

 

3. I stated earlier that I would not have handled the situation the way the TD did, yet you indicate it was me who made the ruling.

 

I think you need to reread this thread before criticizing my comments blind. I think a lot of bridge players need to rethink their attitudes when a TD gets a call wrong. The correct way to proceed is to play on and make a note to discuss it with the TD, or with the Club Manager or D-I-C later. The wrong way is to humiliate the TD into realizing the ruling was wrong. I do not believe Luis was 'simply seeking to conform to a verbatim statement.' His question was rhetorical--he was trying to show up the TD. It's possible he made a lighthearted joke out of it, but it didn't read like one. His comment violated L74A1, L74A2, L74B2, L74B5, L74C4, and probably (since he indicated he would open something other than 1♣ if that was disallowed) another half dozen Laws concerning unauthorized information.

 

An appeal on whether it is legal to pluck bid-box cards is unrealistic (which is a nicer word than the one I originally typed). Whatever way the AC rules, the score is not going to change. It is even debatable whether an AC can be called, since the dispute concerns only Laws and regulations (L93B1). Even if the AC is called, in situations where an appeal without merit can be costly, the appealing side is going to be getting out their wallets before the testimony is over:

 

"OK, we've heard what happened. So what score adjustment are you seeking?"

 

"None."

 

"None? Get out your wallet."

[zasanya]

I have played many tournaments and I have officiated as TD in only 1 tournament and that too because regular TDs were participating in the event and I was the only acceptable person.

I noticed something strange which corroborates the views expressed by McBruce.

I always had excellent equations with all -repeat -all players participating, but that changed when I was officiating and even my best friends were hostile to begin with and became more so when I tried to put some discipline into the procedings.Some of them even went out of their way to irritate me in manners similar to what luis did.(No offense meant luis)

I was very disturbed and shared these thoughts with one of my friends who is one of our most respected TDs and he responded ,"Do you remeber last month's Indian Gymkhana Open? I gave a ruling on your table which you didnt like and you called me thrice afterwards for absolutely trivial reasons."

This leads me to think that

1)All players consider TDs as hostile.

2)They go out of their way to create mountains out of molehills for nothing just to spite the TD especially if she has made a decision which they disagree with.

I have resolved that henceforth I will go out of my way to help the TD whether I like his decisions or not.

I further suggest that all players should officiate as TD at least once.

[luke warm]

I think you need to reread this thread before criticizing my comments blind.  It's possible he made a lighthearted joke out of it, but it didn't read like one.  His comment violated L74A1, L74A2, L74B2, L74B5, L74C4, and probably (since he indicated he would open something other than 1♣ if that was disallowed) another half dozen Laws concerning unauthorized information.

first of all, i know it wasn't *you* who made the original ruling, but you did state what you'd do if you *had* made it and if luis then made the statement he made... that's a hypothetical, and i just continued it... it wasn't "blind" at all... 2nd of all, if you were that TD, continuing the hypothetical, and you made the statements luis reported ("i don't know where it is but i'm sure it's against the rules") you *should* be called to task

 

i realize that many TDs are volunteers, but volunteering to do something doesn't relieve the volunteer from doing it correctly... the TD should have said "play on, i'll find out and get back to you" instead of making the ridiculous ruling he made

 

The wrong way is to humiliate the TD into realizing the ruling was wrong.  I do not believe Luis was 'simply seeking to conform to a verbatim statement.'  His question was rhetorical--he was trying to show up the TD. 

 

maybe he was, i don't know... you'd agree that to think so would be subjective, i'm sure... as for humiliating the TD, bullshit... the TD humiliated *luis* by in effect leaving open the possibility that he and his partner were cheating... that's what pisses me off the most, and you worry about humiliating the poor TD...

 

"OK, we've heard what happened.  So what score adjustment are you seeking?"

 

"None."

 

"None?  Get out your wallet."

 

i admit i'm no expert on AC actions, but is an appeal considered to be without merit if there is no score adjustment due? if that's the only criteria, i agree it would be silly to appeal... but there should be some redress available

[mikestar]

I think you need to reread this thread before criticizing my comments blind.  It's possible he made a lighthearted joke out of it, but it didn't read like one.  His comment violated L74A1, L74A2, L74B2, L74B5, L74C4, and probably (since he indicated he would open something other than 1♣ if that was disallowed) another half dozen Laws concerning unauthorized information.

first of all, i know it wasn't *you* who made the original ruling, but you did state what you'd do if you *had* made it and if luis then made the statement he made... that's a hypothetical, and i just continued it... it wasn't "blind" at all... 2nd of all, if you were that TD, continuing the hypothetical, and you made the statements luis reported ("i don't know where it is but i'm sure it's against the rules") you *should* be called to task

 

i realize that many TDs are volunteers, but volunteering to do something doesn't relieve the volunteer from doing it correctly... the TD should have said "play on, i'll find out and get back to you" instead of making the ridiculous ruling he made

 

The wrong way is to humiliate the TD into realizing the ruling was wrong.  I do not believe Luis was 'simply seeking to conform to a verbatim statement.'  His question was rhetorical--he was trying to show up the TD. 

 

maybe he was, i don't know... you'd agree that to think so would be subjective, i'm sure... as for humiliating the TD, bullshit... the TD humiliated *luis* by in effect leaving open the possibility that he and his partner were cheating... that's what pisses me off the most, and you worry about humiliating the poor TD...

 

"OK, we've heard what happened.  So what score adjustment are you seeking?"

 

"None."

 

"None?  Get out your wallet."

 

i admit i'm no expert on AC actions, but is an appeal considered to be without merit if there is no score adjustment due? if that's the only criteria, i agree it would be silly to appeal... but there should be some redress available

An appeals commitee has no power to overrule a director on a point of law, however it may suggest that the director chnage his ruling.

 

Appealing a ruling on law that resulted in no score damage is frivolous; if damage occured because director missapplied the law, this is not frivolous--while the AC cannot overturn, its suggestion might induce the director to change his decision and a player can ask for this relief.

 

An AC is the wrong venue for an appeal on a pure point of law. The case should be submitted to the Sponsoring Organization's appropriate department.

[McBruce]

mikestar: first of all, i know it wasn't *you* who made the original ruling, but you did state what you'd do if you *had* made it and if luis then made the statement he made... that's a hypothetical, and i just continued it... it wasn't "blind" at all... 2nd of all, if you were that TD, continuing the hypothetical, and you made the statements luis reported ("i don't know where it is but i'm sure it's against the rules") you *should* be called to task

 

TDs--some more than others--make faulty rulings. Virtually all of them are correctable and there are proper ways to go about doing so which do not include facetious and sarcastic public statements. The point I am trying to make is that the faulty ruling does not condone the sarcasm--one does not excuse the other, ever. It's the same principle as the one I make at the start of every online individual I run: a poor bid or play by your partner resulting in a bad score does not give you the 'right' to get even with hurtful comments. A lot of bridge players would be better off learning and following this principle than learning a new convention.

 

maybe he [Luis] was [trying to show up the TD], i don't know... you'd agree that to think so would be subjective, i'm sure... as for humiliating the TD, bullshit... the TD humiliated *luis* by in effect leaving open the possibility that he and his partner were cheating... that's what pisses me off the most, and you worry about humiliating the poor TD...

 

Of course the TD didn't handle this very well. Neither did Luis. He had many other options available--discussion later, a polite request to find the Law before continuing, a request for the TD to review his ruling as play continued, anything civil like that probably would have gotten the result wanted.

 

I don't believe that he took the statement 'play bidding cards as the other players do' and seriously interpreted that as a bizarre prohibition from opening 1♣. You are excusing his actions to an extreme extent if you believe his comments could be interpreted 'subjectively' as innocent. Once again, you need to reread. Go back to the first post and you will find that there was no mention of possible cheating made. The opponent who called simply said that he thought playing the cards that way was against the rules. Nobody accused anyone of cheating; nobody implied it. If Luis thought there was an implication of cheating, he should have said so at the time.

 

As for the Law that nobody can find, it is not exactly hidden:

 

LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE

 

A. Proper Attitude

 

[...]

 

3. Conformity to Correct Procedure

 

Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing.

It's a bit of a stretch--but not totally contrary to Law--to decide that the word 'uniform' means no deviation from the normal manner of making bid-box calls; thus, no plucking. Maybe the Laws or the SO regs need some clarification here to allow players to use one method for screens and another for non-screens.

[guggie]

Oops I must confess that when I see someone taking one card out of the bidding box I assume it is a beginner :angry:

 

I greatly would miss the almost erotic (oops, am I allowed, Ben?) feeling of taking the whole pack. Hmmm.

Taking just the 7NT card would by far not give me the same thrill.

 

By the way, i like a neat row of bidding cards, so during the thinking process, I continually rearange the cards to make them on a row, and equidistant and so on and so on. Could easily be cheating, because I do it only when I really am concentrating.