A Chancy Chimp

[blackshoe]

It seems like the question is whether, when someone fails to follow the rules of the game, the director should exercise his discretion to rule "no harm, no foul". But the director is bound by the laws and regulations in force (Law 81B2) so I don't see how the answer can possibly be other than "no" unless the regulations in force allow him to do so. This might be possible in a club, but it seems to me that most clubs don't publish written regulations on anything, much less something like this. So again, I don't see how the answer can be anything other than "no".

[lamford]

I presume that the attempted lead was made in the manner described in Law 41 - ChCh first made a faced down lead (Law 41.A) and then after any review of the auction / questions (Law 41.B) ChCh faced the opening lead (Law 41.C). As Lamford is always Scrupulously accurate in his write-ups, I am sure that he would have mentioned if there was a deviation from this procedure.

The only question that RR ever has about the auction is "what is the contract and who is declarer?", and ChCh was keen to lead quickly in case RR led out of turn, a frequent "habit" of his for which he never seems to get a PP. If ChCh had led face down and then there had been a review of the auction, I would have stated this. So, no, there was no "separate action" of a face-down lead and OO concluded the auction had not ended.

[lamford]

Presumed declarer's LHO in the pass-out seat making an opening lead when correct procedure is to first produce a closing PASS is IMHO covered by "such as".

Quite possibly, but the implied sentence "such as making a faced opening lead AND then making a faced opening lead" would be nonsense even by the WBFLC standards.

[Tramticket]

The only question that RR ever has about the auction is "what is the contract and who is declarer?", and ChCh was keen to lead quickly in case RR led out of turn, a frequent "habit" of his for which he never seems to get a PP. If ChCh had led face down and then there had been a review of the auction, I would have stated this. So, no, there was no "separate action" of a face-down lead and OO concluded the auction had not ended.

 

So there is another infraction to be considered? And given that this is acknowledged as a frequent habit it would seem that a severe PP should be applied? Maybe similar in magnitude to the IMPs gained on the hand?

[lamford]

So there is another infraction to be considered? And given that this is acknowledged as a frequent habit it would seem that a severe PP should be applied? Maybe similar in magnitude to the IMPs gained on the hand?

If you applied a penalty for failure to lead face-down, you would be applying about 6 PPs per round. Asking "Any questions" after an auction like 1NT-3NT and leading face down is often bypassed. And I have NEVER seen a PP given.

[Tramticket]

If you applied a penalty for failure to lead face-down, you would be applying about 6 PPs per round. Asking "Any questions" after an auction like 1NT-3NT and leading face down is often bypassed. And I have NEVER seen a PP given.

 

I'm not proposing that a PP be given for every offence. Just this once should be enough to set an example and remind players of their responsibilities! :)

[pran]

I am still wondering:

What is the players in this club used to about

- The progress and closing of the auction

- How the opening lead is made

 

and in particular: What deviations from "correct procedures" are commonly experienced?

[lamford]

I am still wondering:

What is the players in this club used to about

- The progress and closing of the auction

- How the opening lead is made

 

and in particular: What deviations from "correct procedures" are commonly experienced?

The auction is almost always closed either by a pass card being placed, pointed to or the cards removed. None of that happened here. I invariably adopt the last of these, and both the WBF and EBU indicate that is a completely acceptable surrogate pass. I lead face down if the auction has been more than one bid each but I admit often to leading face up against the auction 1NT-Pass-3NT-All Pass, as the INT bid will have been announced. But always after replacing the cards. As declarer or dummy I usually leave the bidding cards face up, as do others, but not always.

[blackshoe]

I have looked for, but never found, the rule that says that whatever the rules actually say, players can do whatever they want.

[barmar]

I have looked for, but never found, the rule that says that whatever the rules actually say, players can do whatever they want.

By definition, unwritten rules are hard to find. Yet somehow most people seem to "know" them. They get passed on simply by copying what other people do. And most people are cognizant of this, so they don't get OCD about every little detail. It's just a game, not a court of law.

[lamford]

By definition, unwritten rules are hard to find. Yet somehow most people seem to "know" them. They get passed on simply by copying what other people do. And most people are cognizant of this, so they don't get OCD about every little detail. It's just a game, not a court of law.

SB thinks it is just a court of law, not a game.

[pescetom]

As declarer or dummy I usually leave the bidding cards face up, as do others, but not always.

 

I find it curious that declarer and dummy usually leave the bidding cards face up but the defenders do not. What is the logic for this, or how did it come about?

 

Our regulations say nothing in this respect. In practice all players immediately put the bidding cards away.

[lamford]

I find it curious that declarer and dummy usually leave the bidding cards face up but the defenders do not. What is the logic for this, or how did it come about?

 

Our regulations say nothing in this respect. In practice all players immediately put the bidding cards away.

I think defenders often remove the passes, but leave the auction out if they have made a bid. ChCh has been alleged to have removed his bids if RR is on lead and he doesn't want the suit led, and to have left them there when he does, but with other more attentive partners he has no pattern, so it has been difficult to prove, like most of ChCh's misdemeanours.

 

With screens the regulation is:

After all four players have had the opportunity to review the auction (equivalent to the right of having the auction restated) the players replace their bidding cards in their respective bidding boxes

[blackshoe]

People are weird. I've had RHO dither over what s/he expects to be her final pass (I haven't bid yet, my partner has passed throughout, the auction has reached a high level) by reaching for the bidding box, then tapping the table, then saying "um..." and finally taking out a pass card and putting it on the table. I've had them pull the pass card and hold it in the air, not putting it on the table, because I guess then it would take extra effort to pick it back up. Sheesh. It's not hard, people. Just put the damn pass card on the table like you're supposed to do.

[Vampyr]

I find it curious that declarer and dummy usually leave the bidding cards face up but the defenders do not. What is the logic for this, or how did it come about?

 

Our regulations say nothing in this respect. In practice all players immediately put the bidding cards away.

 

The opening leader’s partner may have questions about the auction, which of course he can’t ask until the opening lead is made. This is one of the main reasons or leaving the cards on the table until the OL is faced.

 

In the US, people actually get indignant if you leave the bidding cards out. I quite enjoy when I, as OL’s partner, have questions and require the ds to be restored.

 

Another poster mentioned screen regulations. Unfortunately, in my experience if one of the players on the other side of the screen makes the final pass, both players remove their bidding cards from the tray. This is annoying if you wanted to examine the whole auction.

[pescetom]

The opening leader’s partner may have questions about the auction, which of course he can’t ask until the opening lead is made. This is one of the main reasons or leaving the cards on the table until the OL is faced.

Sure, I was just puzzled why at the same time it was normal/tolerated for defenders to retract the cards. If it should be limited to uncontested auction then it makes a bit more sense.

 

In the US, people actually get indignant if you leave the bidding cards out. I quite enjoy when I, as OL’s partner, have questions and require the ds to be restored.

I suspect that it would cause consternation here too. Not sure the Director would back up a request for physical restoration of the cards.

[barmar]

The opening leader’s partner may have questions about the auction, which of course he can’t ask until the opening lead is made. This is one of the main reasons or leaving the cards on the table until the OL is faced.

 

In the US, people actually get indignant if you leave the bidding cards out. I quite enjoy when I, as OL’s partner, have questions and require the ds to be restored.

It's actually very simple. If you expect to have questions, just say "Please leave the bidding cards out" when the auction is coming to an end. I've never seen anyone complain about this at all.

 

They might get indignant if you just passive-aggressively leave your cards out, expecting them to understand that they're supposed to do the same. That's not our typical procedure, you can't assume they'll understand. "When in Rome, ...."

[pran]

It's actually very simple. If you expect to have questions, just say "Please leave the bidding cards out" when the auction is coming to an end. I've never seen anyone complain about this at all.

 

They might get indignant if you just passive-aggressively leave your cards out, expecting them to understand that they're supposed to do the same. That's not our typical procedure, you can't assume they'll understand. "When in Rome, ...."

That will be illegal communication to your partner! (Informing him before he has selected his opening lead that you have something to ask about).

[barmar]

That will be illegal communication to your partner! (Informing him before he has selected his opening lead that you have something to ask about).

I think the information conveyed by this communication is so minimal that it can be ignored. If the opponents think it influenced his choice of opening lead and they were damaged as a result, they can call the TD (your call, Lamford).

 

The request often happens after an auction with lots of artificial bids that the opponents didn't ask about at the time, so it's rarely a surprise that one or both of the defenders wants explanations.

[barmar]

Not to mention that the player who would want this explanation could legally ask the same questions at their last chance to call during the auction. In that case their partner would hear the actual questions, not just that their partner has questions. If we can live with that, I don't see a problem with "Please leave the bidding cards out".

 

In both cases, it's their partner's responsibility not to take advantage of the UI. This is clearly easier when there's less useful I in the UI.

[lamford]

Not to mention that the player who would want this explanation could legally ask the same questions at their last chance to call during the auction. In that case their partner would hear the actual questions, not just that their partner has questions. If we can live with that, I don't see a problem with "Please leave the bidding cards out".

 

In both cases, it's their partner's responsibility not to take advantage of the UI. This is clearly easier when there's less useful I in the UI.

That works half the time when the defending side make the last pass of the auction, otherwise they do not know the auction is about to end. But if declarer's side makes the last pass of the auction and then puts the cards away immediately, as often happens. I think one can ask "please explain the auction" whether or not the bidding cards have been put away. At some clubs, half the members would not remember the auction, however!

[weejonnie]

Just wondering how the declarer's side can make the last pass of the auction. Even if there was a poot and a defender missed his last pass the last passes are cancelled.

[pran]

Just wondering how the declarer's side can make the last pass of the auction. Even if there was a poot and a defender missed his last pass the last passes are cancelled.

Any doubled contract :lol:

[blackshoe]

Law 20C. Review after Final Pass

1. After the final pass either defender has the right to ask if it is his opening lead (see Laws 47E and 41).

2. Declarer⁶ 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.

6 Declarer’s first turn to play is from dummy unless accepting an opening lead out of turn.

 

Law 20F. Explanation of Calls

…

2. After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction. At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card play understandings. Explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained.

3. Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply.

[barmar]

That works half the time when the defending side make the last pass of the auction, otherwise they do not know the auction is about to end. But if declarer's side makes the last pass of the auction and then puts the cards away immediately, as often happens. I think one can ask "please explain the auction" whether or not the bidding cards have been put away. At some clubs, half the members would not remember the auction, however!

In my experience this is rarely a problem. There's always enough time for one of the defenders to ask everyone else to leave their bidding cards, even if the last bidder doesn't bother to pull out a pass card.