I think I was right to call TD

[blackshoe]

According to law it's forbidden to write down any notes to aid your memory. So it's against the law to write down the lead before the play is completed. After that it's perfectly ok. So yes, I will tell players writing it down when play starts they are not allowed to do that.

Your conclusion only follows from your premise if you add the additional premise that anyone who writes down the lead is doing so to aid his memory during the play.

[barmar]

According to law it's forbidden to write down any notes to aid your memory. So it's against the law to write down the lead before the play is completed. After that it's perfectly ok. So yes, I will tell players writing it down when play starts they are not allowed to do that.

There's no law against writing it down. The law is against using it to remind yourself during the play.

 

I sometimes write it down at the beginning when I see that North didn't enter it into the device, so I can help them at the end.

[PeterAlan]

I don't know and I don't care. We do not use it.

My concern is about all kinds of unnecessary possibilities for break of security.

 

What does it matter? You cannot effectively correct it during the play unless it is a simple typo (in which case it makes absolutely no harm anyway), so there is no hurry until the play is completed.

Pran, I think you continue to misunderstand much of what I've said, but no matter: we'll leave it there. Best wishes.

[sanst]

There's no law against writing it down. The law is against using it to remind yourself during the play.

 

I sometimes write it down at the beginning when I see that North didn't enter it into the device, so I can help them at the end.

The RA can allow players to use memory aids (Law 40B2d). The Dutch union allows players to make a note on declarer, contract and lead and use this during the play. This information should be kept from other players. Hardly anyone seems to know this, but it can be quite useful for players with memory problems.

[weejonnie]

The RA can allow players to use memory aids (Law 40B2d). The Dutch union allows players to make a note on declarer, contract and lead and use this during the play. This information should be kept from other players. Hardly anyone seems to know this, but it can be quite useful for players with memory problems.

You are always entitled at your turn to play to be advised of the contract and if (but not by whom) it was doubled (or redoubled) 41C - so the only extension is the opening lead.

[barmar]

The RA can allow players to use memory aids (Law 40B2d). The Dutch union allows players to make a note on declarer, contract and lead and use this during the play. This information should be kept from other players. Hardly anyone seems to know this, but it can be quite useful for players with memory problems.

That's an interesting allowance.

 

In my experience here in the US, this clause it primarily used in special types of games. In particular, individuals often allow players to consult the CC, since it would be unreasonable to require everyone to memorize a CC that was handed to them the moment they sat down with a new partner.

[pescetom]

That's an interesting allowance.

 

In my experience here in the US, this clause it primarily used in special types of games. In particular, individuals often allow players to consult the CC, since it would be unreasonable to require everyone to memorize a CC that was handed to them the moment they sat down with a new partner.

 

I imagine the reason that the Laws set the default of no consultation is not so much to retain the memory aspect of the game but to avoid creating UI - if partner looked at his CC before passing one could infer that he has a certain level of strength, u.s.w.

 

You could impose them to always consult the CC, but I guess that rule would not last long.

[pran]

I imagine the reason that the Laws set the default of no consultation is not so much to retain the memory aspect of the game but to avoid creating UI - if partner looked at his CC before passing one could infer that he has a certain level of strength, u.s.w.

 

You could impose them to always consult the CC, but I guess that rule would not last long.

There is a common misunderstanding that creating UI is illegal.

 

However, except as specified in

G. Incorrect Procedure

1. A player may not ask a question if his sole purpose is to benefit partner.

2. A player may not ask a question if his sole purpose is to elicit an incorrect response from an opponent.

no law has that effect. (Note the words "sole purpose" in each of the clauses!)

 

Instead Law 16 is very explicit that it is the responsibility of the player who receives UI to avoid using this to his advantage.

[pescetom]

Yes I realise that law 16 works that way, thanks. My point was that if it is enforced rigorously in this case the partnership reading their own CC may be heavily constrained by the need to avoid using the UI available.

[barmar]

There is a common misunderstanding that creating UI is illegal.

This is true, but it's still a good idea to avoid creating UI when possible, and the Laws allude to this in a number of places. When UI is available, partner's actions may be constrained; if there are multiple LAs, the one that's consistent with the UI becomes illegal.

 

This is the subject of one of the questions in this month's "Ruling the Game" column in the Bulletin. If you're in the pass-out seat, the Laws give you the right to ask questions about the auction before passing. But unless it's going to affect your bid, it's best to wait until partner has made their face-down lead. Otherwise, your question creates UI, and this might limit partner's options when leading. Law 20F1 says you have the right to ask questions, but Law 16 may apply as a result.

 

I'm sure someone is now planning to insert the usual response "But now partner has the UI that your hand is such that the answer to the question wouldn't affect the decision about passing." This may be true, but in the vast majority of cases this UI doesn't demonstrably suggest anything. E.g. if partner has been passing throughout the auction, he probably didn't have any other call at the end, so the fact that he passes without asking about the auction conveys no new information.

[pran]

This is true, but it's still a good idea to avoid creating UI when possible, and the Laws allude to this in a number of places. When UI is available, partner's actions may be constrained; if there are multiple LAs, the one that's consistent with the UI becomes illegal.

 

This is the subject of one of the questions in this month's "Ruling the Game" column in the Bulletin. If you're in the pass-out seat, the Laws give you the right to ask questions about the auction before passing. But unless it's going to affect your bid, it's best to wait until partner has made their face-down lead. Otherwise, your question creates UI, and this might limit partner's options when leading. Law 20F1 says you have the right to ask questions, but Law 16 may apply as a result.

 

I'm sure someone is now planning to insert the usual response "But now partner has the UI that your hand is such that the answer to the question wouldn't affect the decision about passing." This may be true, but in the vast majority of cases this UI doesn't demonstrably suggest anything. E.g. if partner has been passing throughout the auction, he probably didn't have any other call at the end, so the fact that he passes without asking about the auction conveys no new information.

Quite right.

 

But be aware that almost any action taken or not taken in a particular situation creates UI in some way:

The fact that you ask a question creates UI to partner.

The very question you ask creates UI to partner.

The fact that you do not ask a question creates UI to partner.

The fact that you hesitate creates the UI that you have something to consider.

The fact that you do not hesitate creates the UI that you have nothing to consider.

And so on.

 

In most cases the UI created is irrelevant and can safely be ignored, but it is still there.

[blackshoe]

This game is just too damn hard! :lol: