Memory Aids really barred?

[aguahombre]

"We are not looking for petty ideas which could be argued from an overly pedantic approach..."

 

If the above quote from the Forum Summary applies, please forgive or move or delete or whatever.

 

Unless I have missed another section of the Laws, it seems that 40C3a is the only place where they mention the restriction on using memory (or technique) aids in the bidding or play; and Law 40 is a section referring to "partnership understandings".

 

Should not this restriction on use of aids to memory be placed in some more general part of the Laws so that it would clearly apply to other situations? Odds calculations? taking notes during the play?

[bluejak]

"We are not looking for petty ideas which could be argued from an overly pedantic approach..."

 

If the above quote from the Forum Summary applies, please forgive or move or delete or whatever.

To clarify: that comment made, I believe, by me, is not really primarily designed for this forum, but for the other three. We have recently had some threads where people take a Law, say that the normal interpretation is wrong, and come up with some idea or other. This does not lead to consistency in giving rulings nor understanding them, which is what the other three forums are really for.

 

But this forum is different. Suggestions that do not agree with agreed interpretations, or changes, or similar, are on-topic here.

[barmar]

Unless I have missed another section of the Laws, it seems that 40C3a is the only place where they mention the restriction on using memory (or technique) aids in the bidding or play; and Law 40 is a section referring to "partnership understandings".

 

Should not this restriction on use of aids to memory be placed in some more general part of the Laws so that it would clearly apply to other situations? Odds calculations? taking notes during the play?

In general, section titles are not supposed to be used to interpret the Laws within the sections. So even though the section is titled "Partnership Understandings", 40C3a is not considered to be restricted to that context.

 

Although this does often lead to some confusion about just what players are supposed to have committed to memory in the first place. The scoring tables, the current score in a Swiss or barometer contest, all the Laws, etc.? Something is only a memory aid if you were expected to have the information in memory in the first place. But some other Laws make it clear that it's not just partnership understandings; for instance, you're not allowed to ask for a recap of the auction after your turn to play to trick 1, so you're obviously supposed to remember that.

[aguahombre]

The wording refers to memory or technique. My question is slightly beyond whether the powers that be want us to be using a calcuator at the table, or writing down the cards played; and we do know that the titles of sections are not part of the Laws in the section.

 

Should not rules like this one be, for clarity and organization purposes, be put elsewhere since they apply to more than just partnership understandings?

[blackshoe]

There was a move to completely reorganize the law book at the last iteration. Somebody or other put the kibosh on it.

[pran]

There was a move to completely reorganize the law book at the last iteration. Somebody or other put the kibosh on it.

Grattan did actually draft a reorganized law book for the 2007 revision, but as you say, the decision was to maintain the current structure with as little changes as possible to the law numbers.

Leading to such anomalies as for instance Laws 56, 88 and 89. :(

[axman]

There was a move to completely reorganize the law book at the last iteration. Somebody or other put the kibosh on it.

 

The referenced provision was proposed to be 'moved' to the violation of system section.

[awm]

To give a funny example...

 

I am color blind. There are some sets of boards where the vulnerability is marked by red (vulnerable) or green (not vulnerable) and the shades used are such that I cannot distinguish them.

 

I have not committed the vulnerability of each board to memory, so I do not know off the top of my head who is vulnerable on board 9 (for example). Am I permitted to look at my scoresheet in order to determine the vulnerability, or would this be an illegal "aid to memory"? Does it matter that a player with normal vision would be able to read the vulnerability directly from the board itself? Does it matter that looking at my scoresheet might also inform me of things like the IMP table and my current "state of the match"?

 

My impression is that the "aid to memory" is generally applied to things like a pair's conventional agreements or which cards have been played during a hand... and not to things like the IMP table, the vulnerability, and the partnership's results on previous boards. But it's never been written in a 100% clear way.

[aguahombre]

The referenced provision was proposed to be 'moved' to the violation of system section.

Hmm, it would seem to be more appropriate under Proprieties, or general does and don'ts.

[blackshoe]

To give a funny example...

 

I am color blind. There are some sets of boards where the vulnerability is marked by red (vulnerable) or green (not vulnerable) and the shades used are such that I cannot distinguish them.

 

I have not committed the vulnerability of each board to memory, so I do not know off the top of my head who is vulnerable on board 9 (for example). Am I permitted to look at my scoresheet in order to determine the vulnerability, or would this be an illegal "aid to memory"? Does it matter that a player with normal vision would be able to read the vulnerability directly from the board itself? Does it matter that looking at my scoresheet might also inform me of things like the IMP table and my current "state of the match"?

 

My impression is that the "aid to memory" is generally applied to things like a pair's conventional agreements or which cards have been played during a hand... and not to things like the IMP table, the vulnerability, and the partnership's results on previous boards. But it's never been written in a 100% clear way.

 

If you made your color blindness known, and asked what the vulnerability is on a board, no decent player would do anything other than tell you what it is. And no decent TD would rule you have used an illegal aid to memory, even if you looked up the vulnerability on your score sheet.

 

How general is 40C3a intended to be? I don't know either. Certainly it applies to aids in bidding. Possibly it applies to other things, but where do we draw the line?

[aguahombre]

How general is 40C3a intended to be? I don't know either. Certainly it applies to aids in bidding. Possibly it applies to other things, but where do we draw the line?

That is the first I have seen questioning whether memory or technique aids might be acceptable in certain circumstances. Aside from concessions to the visually handicapped, are there any memo's, etc from the higher-ups on this?

 

I just assumed the Law was misplaced, not that it was vague.

[bluejak]

I think that looking at your score-sheet is probably illegal, though carrying a blank score-sheet to see the vulnerability is probably ok.

 

But do not confuse how a competent TD will rule and what the rules actually say. Competent TDs make allowances for lots of things, like players who are elderly, infirm, and have problems of various sorts. The EBU has a regulation which basically says the TD may do anything he sees fit if necessary [as he sees it] for someone with an incapacity.

 

Incidentally, I have commented at various times over the years how stupid people are to use red and green for vulnerability because of the well-known colour blindness problem. Red and white, or red and no colour whatever, are far more satisfactory.

[Vampyr]

I think that looking at your score-sheet is probably illegal, though carrying a blank score-sheet to see the vulnerability is probably ok.

 

 

Surely you are allowed to look at your own score whenever you wish?

 

I think that looking up the vulnerability is fine, but I am not too sure about looking at the IMP table. Seems illegal to me.

[bluejak]

I have always tended to assume that looking at your own score is not legal. Of course, usually you have the current contract [and perhaps the lead] written so this is an aide memoire.

[iviehoff]

I have always tended to assume that looking at your own score is not legal. Of course, usually you have the current contract [and perhaps the lead] written so this is an aide memoire.

Once you have written some information relevant to the hand in progress on the scoresheet, it becomes an aide-memoire. But before that?

[aguahombre]

Once you have written some information relevant to the hand in progress on the scoresheet, it becomes an aide-memoire. But before that?

Don't forget the "or technique" part. Barry Crane, for instance, could estimate quite accurately his matchpoint results of all previous boards. If he used the card during a hand to decide whether he needed one more swing, that might be a violation of 40C3a (assuming the law even existed back then).

[barmar]

Don't forget the "or technique" part. Barry Crane, for instance, could estimate quite accurately his matchpoint results of all previous boards. If he used the card during a hand to decide whether he needed one more swing, that might be a violation of 40C3a (assuming the law even existed back then).

I've interpreted the "technique" part to refer to something like a probability table, which would help you decide whether finesse or drop has better odds. Or the chapter of the Bridge Encyclopedia on how to play card combinations.

 

Looking at your estimated scores would just be a memory aid, in my opinion. The knowledge of when to shoot is in his mind, he just needs to be reminded of the state of the match.