Keep those bidding cards out!

[paulg]

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]

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]

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]

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.

  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. :o

 

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]

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]

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.

 

:(

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.