Placement of suits at notrump

[lexlogan]

Our local directors have been attending some training by a retired lady that used to direct our ACBL Sectional tournaments. I assume she has a regional or national rating as director. Anyway, she informed them that the practice of placing the suit led against notrump on the right (where trumps would normally go) constitutes an illegal memory aid. I think this is an absurd perversion of a law that is intended to prevent a player from, for example writing down the cards everyone has played. Does anyone agree with her interpretation? Let it be noted that the common practice of keeping the bidding cards on the table during the auction likewise provides an aid to memory; we could force players to pick up their bids after displaying them briefly, simulating spoken bidding. Given that the suits must be placed in some order and the Laws specify what to do when there is a trump suit and are conspicuously silent about notrump contracts, I'm not buying this interpretation. I doubt it was what the lawmakers intended.

[sanst]

I don't know about ACBL, but in Holland you're allowed to write down cntract, declarer and lead, provided it's not visible for those that still have to play the board. This information can also be seen on the screen of the Bridgemate II scoring system. I don't think that the Dutch Bridge Union, or the makers of a scoring system that's also used in WBF tournaments, would go against the Laws. The practice of puting the lead suit on the right doesn't add anything to the information you're allowed to have at the table, so it doesn't seems illegal to me.

[1eyedjack]

The comparison with leaving the bidding cards out during the auction is flawed. At your turn to call you can legally ask for the auction to date to be repeated in full (Law 20B). So leaving the bidding open provides no information beyond that to which the players are legally entitled.

 

Likewise, during the play, at your turn to play you can ask for limited information about the contract, including what are trumps (Law 41C). So positioning the trump suit is consistent with information lawfully entitled.

 

Technically I would say that an aid during the play of the suit that was led is not matched by corresponding laws. That said, I can imagine forgetting which spot card was led, but forgetting which suit? If they need that reminder you are beating them anyway.

 

Where I was brought up it was customary to place Clubs on the left if it is NT, trumps on the right (and Clubs not on the left) in a suit contract. I have not seen that widely replicated outside my circle of experience.

[Vampyr]

I don't know about ACBL, but in Holland you're allowed to write down cntract, declarer and lead, provided it's not visible for those that still have to play the board. This information can also be seen on the screen of the Bridgemate II scoring system. I don't think that the Dutch Bridge Union, or the makers of a scoring system that's also used in WBF tournaments, would go against the Laws. The practice of puting the lead suit on the right doesn't add anything to the information you're allowed to have at the table, so it doesn't seems illegal to me.

 

The difference is that you are not allowed to look at the lead on your scorecard or the Bridgemate, so the information is not available during the actual play of the hand.

[sanst]

The difference is that you are not allowed to look at the lead on your scorecard or the Bridgemate, so the information is not available during the actual play of the hand.

in Holland you're explicitly allowed to look at these notes, not the score card.

[Vampyr]

in Holland you're explicitly allowed to look at these notes, not the score card.

 

What notes do you mean? A note that says what card was led? That is illegal.

[Siegmund]

As the others have said... I think the director's statement about using the order of suits as a memory aid is universally accepted. The law is plenty clear: NO aids to memory, calculation, or technique, beyond those things you are explicitly allowed to know.

 

It's quite rare to see any accusations made of using this type of illegal information, by the declaring side at least.

[Trinidad]

in Holland you're explicitly allowed to look at these notes, not the score card.

Are you really sure about that?

 

The NBB (Dutch Bridge League) encourages people to enter the contract into the bridgemate (to prevent later disputes about the contract). Of course, it is natural to enter the opening lead at the same time. However, as far as I know there is no NBB document that allows you to review what you entered in the bridgemate during the play.

 

Rik

[sanst]

Are you really sure about that?

 

The NBB (Dutch Bridge League) encourages people to enter the contract into the bridgemate (to prevent later disputes about the contract). Of course, it is natural to enter the opening lead at the same time. However, as far as I know there is no NBB document that allows you to review what you entered in the bridgemate during the play.

 

Rik

Sorry, in Dutch: Wedstrijdreglement NBB art. 7.3. This is an addition to the Laws and applies to all matches organised by the bridge union and the affiliated clubs (art. 2.1).

[jallerton]

Are you really sure about that?

 

The NBB (Dutch Bridge League) encourages people to enter the contract into the bridgemate (to prevent later disputes about the contract). Of course, it is natural to enter the opening lead at the same time. However, as far as I know there is no NBB document that allows you to review what you entered in the bridgemate during the play.

 

Rik

 

How does this procedure prevent disputes about the contract? Does East (or West) have to press the OK button to agree the contract before the bidding cards are put away and the main play period starts?

[sanst]

How does this procedure prevent disputes about the contract? Does East (or West) have to press the OK button to agree the contract before the bidding cards are put away and the main play period starts?

No. If properly done N says what is being entered and, if necessary, the others object. But quite often, it's done at the end of the play..

[lexlogan]

Sorry, in Dutch: Wedstrijdreglement NBB art. 7.3. This is an addition to the Laws and applies to all matches organised by the bridge union and the affiliated clubs (art. 2.1).

 

"Het is spelers toegestaan aantekening te houden van het contract, de leider, het resultaat, de score en de uitkomst. Deze aantekeningen mogen niet zichtbaar zijn voor spelers die het spel nog moeten spelen."

 

An automated translation:

 

"It is allowed to keep players tally of the contract, the leader, the result, the score and the outcome. These notes may not be visible to players still have to play the game."

[Vampyr]

"Het is spelers toegestaan aantekening te houden van het contract, de leider, het resultaat, de score en de uitkomst. Deze aantekeningen mogen niet zichtbaar zijn voor spelers die het spel nog moeten spelen."

 

An automated translation:

 

"It is allowed to keep players tally of the contract, the leader, the result, the score and the outcome. These notes may not be visible to players still have to play the game."

 

It is not entirely clear that this means that player may (illegally) look at this tally during a hand.

[helene_t]

It is not entirely clear that this means that player may (illegally) look at this tally during a hand.

This. That the list includes the score may suggest that it is about previous hands.

 

However, this Dutch document suggests that they are talking about using the information during the play since there is a reference to 40C3a which disallows memory aids unless the SO decides otherwise.

[1eyedjack]

It is not entirely clear that this means that player may (illegally) look at this tally during a hand.

Quite the contrary. To me it seems clear that this means that they may NOT look at it during a hand.

[barmar]

Quite the contrary. To me it seems clear that this means that they may NOT look at it during a hand.

What it actually seems to be saying is that you can't allow other contestants to see your private score if it contains hands that they haven't yet played ("players still have to play the game"). It's not clear that it addresses the player consulting their own private score.

 

But since the Laws don't allow memory aids, and local regulations can't contravene the Laws, that means you can't consult this to remind yourself of details that the Laws don't allow, like the opening lead to the current hand.

[helene_t]

What it actually seems to be saying is that you can't allow other contestants to see your private score if it contains hands that they haven't yet played ("players still have to play the game"). It's not clear that it addresses the player consulting their own private score.

 

But since the Laws don't allow memory aids, and local regulations can't contravene the Laws, that means you can't consult this to remind yourself of details that the Laws don't allow, like the opening lead to the current hand.

Emphasis mine.

 

This is not true:

Unless permitted by the RegulatingAuthority a player is not entitled

during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory,

calculation or technique.

[barmar]

Good catch.

 

But I don't see where that regulation gives permission to the player to look at his tally about the current hand, since he "still has to play the game".

 

That clause is typically only invoked in special types of games, like Individuals, where it's common for one player to say "I'll play your CC", and he's then allowed to consult it. Or games with an enforced CC. Or beginner games.

[helene_t]

That clause is typically only invoked in special types of games, like Individuals, where it's common for one player to say "I'll play your CC", and he's then allowed to consult it. Or games with an enforced CC. Or beginner games.

Yes I agree with this. I wonder if those who wrote the Dutch regulations really had consultation of the sheet during play in mind.

 

One for the pet peeve thread: It is really amazing so murky bridge laws and regulations sometimes are written. Ken Rexford's signature comes to mind. It shouldn't be an exercise in forensics or cryptology to interpret legal documents.

[1eyedjack]

One for the pet peeve thread: It is really amazing so murky bridge laws and regulations sometimes are written. Ken Rexford's signature comes to mind. It shouldn't be an exercise in forensics or cryptology to interpret legal documents.

Although not applicable to the example in this thread, I think that some of the problem is that a select few officials who wield considerable power do not always agree with some of the Laws as they have been written and seek to impose their own interpretations that warp the strict meaning of those Laws to fall more in line with their personal agenda, confident that, given their position of power, their interpretations will not be (successfully) challenged.

[sanst]

If the use of memory aids is not permitted, why is it obligatory to place trumps on the right hand side of the dummy? Instead, the law makers should have ordered the cards of the dummy to be placed in a row in random order. Also, played cards should be placed in such a way that it's not possible to keep track of tricks won and lost.

[1eyedjack]

If the use of memory aids is not permitted, why is it obligatory to place trumps on the right hand side of the dummy? Instead, the law makers should have ordered the cards of the dummy to be placed in a row in random order. Also, played cards should be placed in such a way that it's not possible to keep track of tricks won and lost.

I have already explained this in my previous response. Some specific memory aids are permitted by the laws. See Law 41C that addresses your first point. And Law 65 prescribes the arrangement of completed tricks.

[mycroft]

To add to the chorus answering the original question: it is illegal to have an agreement to put dummy down in any order not specified by the Law that transmits or retains information not allowed to declarer otherwise; that explicitly (in the ACBL at least) includes "put opening leader's suit on the left". In practise, it's a "go ahead, prove it" situation; but it is an illegal aid to memory. So is canting the contract in your bidding box (even though that information is allowed to you at any time you are allowed to act, you're not allowed it globally).

 

Do people do it? Yes. Do we care? Generally, no. I will explain that the process is illegal when I hear about someone doing it, or someone asking partner to do it; but frankly, compared to the other UI transmitted by the pairs that do that, it's ignorable.

 

I would be surprised if the Dutch allowed access to the contract and in particular the opening lead during play of the hand universally. It would be legal to make such a regulation, but it would be unusual.

 

There's a Law that describes how dummy is required to be laid out, which certainly does pass information (but how many people flower or short-side overlap dummy and don't get called on it, or gripe when asked to fix ♥QKJ74 (or even ♥KQ564)?) But that's required by Law. I have a very specific method of putting down dummy, because one of my partners has very bad eyesight, and he wants it that way: [trump]SHDC. But that doesn't pass any information he isn't entitled to know (that my hearts are in fact hearts and not diamonds), so it's legal. There are those who freak if dummy isn't colour-separated; I'll break my habit when partnering one of those, but again, it doesn't pass any UI.

[shyams]

Isn't the contract authorised (or available) information to both sides during the play?

 

If I recall, declarer or either defender can ask "What is the contract?" at any time in the play. If I am correct, can dummy leave the final contract denomination (plus a dbl or redbl card, if applicable) from his/her bidding box onto the table for all to see? Where in the laws does it say such an overt display of this information is disallowed?

 

As we all know, in online play, one can see not only the contract but the entire bidding sequence any time during the play. And we accept it/are used to it.

[barmar]

One point about the memory aids provided by dummy's layout and the placement of quitted tricks is that it's equally available to both sides, so it doesn't give either side an unfair advantage. That's probably one of the reasons why the Laws prescribe specific procedures there. I think- trumps on declarer's left comes from rubber bridge. And early days of bridge had those fancy "trump indicators", which also came from whist. So these practices that are prescribed in the laws are derived from longstanding traditions about the way the game is played, and it wasn't felt necessary to remove them in duplicate.

 

I guess there's never been common practice for how dummy is laid out in notrump contracts, so nothing got promulgated in the Laws.

 

Lots of people try to alternate the suit colors in dummy. I suppose that could also be considered illegal participation in the play, by assisting declarer in not confusing adjacent suits.