A Chancy Chimp

[lamford]

Any doubled contract :lol:

But not redoubled

[lamford]

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.

I think pran's point was that asking for the bidding cards to be left out, particularly when you are the partner of the opening leader, gives UI that you are going to have questions, before the lead is chosen. I think that if you always ask, there is no UI, but after, say, 1NT[announced]-(Pass)-3NT-(All Pass), it would be very peculiar to ask for the bidding cards to be left out. Although ChCh does use this tactic to prevent RR leading against the contract on the previous board.

[barmar]

I think pran's point was that asking for the bidding cards to be left out, particularly when you are the partner of the opening leader, gives UI that you are going to have questions, before the lead is chosen.

I understand his point, but as I said, this is rarely an issue.

 

It generally happens after complex auctions with a number of alerts, but no questions were asked during the auction. No one is surprised that the defenders will need explanations after the auction is over. Often it's the opening leader themself who asks for the bidding cards to be left out, so they can get an explanation before selecting their lead.

 

There may be UI, but the import of it is practically negligible, so it's unlikely to influence the opening lead. If you really think it did, you can of course call the TD.

[blackshoe]

It would be a lot simpler if the damn ACBL would just require the bid cards to remain on the table until the opening lead is faced. Yes, I know there will be "teething" problems. I don't care.

[pescetom]

It would be a lot simpler if the damn ACBL would just require the bid cards to remain on the table until the opening lead is faced. Yes, I know there will be "teething" problems. I don't care.

 

Idem for the Italian Bridge Federation.

[weejonnie]

In the EBU

 

3Z C 1 At the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the opening lead has been faced and all explanations have been obtained, after which they should be returned to their boxes. If the hand is passed out then the passes are immediately returned to their boxes.

[pescetom]

In the EBU

 

3Z C 1 At the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the opening lead has been faced and all explanations have been obtained, after which they should be returned to their boxes. If the hand is passed out then the passes are immediately returned to their boxes.

 

It is so obvious that I can't understand why it was not written into the Laws, rather than leaving RAs to get it wrong.

[pran]

In the EBU

 

3Z C 1 At the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the opening lead has been faced and all explanations have been obtained, after which they should be returned to their boxes. If the hand is passed out then the passes are immediately returned to their boxes.

It is so obvious that I can't understand why it was not written into the Laws, rather than leaving RAs to get it wrong.

The laws are concerned with the auction and calls as such, not the method(s) used for calling.

 

Thus any provision that depends on the actual method used is a matter of regulation, not of law.

 

So a clause like "At the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the opening lead has been faced" would be meaningless in the laws for an auction where oral calling is used.

[pescetom]

The laws are concerned with the auction and calls as such, not the method(s) used for calling.

 

Thus any provision that depends on the actual method used is a matter of regulation, not of law.

 

So a clause like "At the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the opening lead has been faced" would be meaningless in the laws for an auction where oral calling is used.

 

I understand that, but accept it up to a point. The bidding box was invented in 1962 (in Sweden [EDIT]), and became near universal soon after.

It would seem more logical to leave RAs to debate the futile legacy problem of oral/written calling, not calling with bidding cards.

Of course now that both bidding cards and playing cards are destined to become history the whole question is somewhat academic, I concede.

[nige1]

I understand that, but accept it up to a point. The bidding box was invented in 1962 (in Norway!), and became near universal soon after.It would seem more logical to leave RAs to debate the futile legacy problem of oral/written calling, not calling with bidding cards.Of course now that both bidding cards and playing cards are destined to become history the whole question is somewhat academic, I concede.

 

IMO Pescetom is correct on both counts:

1. Best practice in aspects of Bridge, currently covered by regulation, (not just bidding-box rules) should instead be enshrined in the law-book. If the WBFLC included its usual opt-out clause then maverick local regulators could still do their own thing but, more players would benefit from sensible default rules.
2. An electronic game reduces law-breaking opportunities. On-line rules already seem simpler and better than face-to-face rules.

[pescetom]

My hope is that the laws quickly evolve to a modular structure, with a kernel for the logic of the game and plugins for each method of play: cards without screens, cards with screens, online. Best practices to do with play (not tournament organisation) mandated in each plugin, as Nigel suggests.

[barmar]

My hope is that the laws quickly evolve to a modular structure, with a kernel for the logic of the game and plugins for each method of play: cards without screens, cards with screens, online. Best practices to do with play (not tournament organisation) mandated in each plugin, as Nigel suggests.

Keep dreaming. The Laws have been evolving much the same way biological evolution happens, by incremental changes. I doubt there's any interest within the WBFLC to do a wholesale redesign.

 

However, there's certainly no reason why they couldn't simply add a few clauses that specify bidding box use, since they've become almost universal.

[gordontd]

The bidding box was invented in 1962 (in Sweden [EDIT]), and became near universal soon after.

This feels like quite an overbid. When I played as a schoolboy in the seventies, they were virtually unheard of here. When I returned to bridge in the mid-nineties, they were fairly widespread but far from "near universal".

[Tramticket]

This feels like quite an overbid. When I played as a schoolboy in the seventies, they were virtually unheard of here. When I returned to bridge in the mid-nineties, they were fairly widespread but far from "near universal".

 

I began at a club in 1988 and no bidding boxes were used. Within a couple of years our players came back from competitions at other clubs (I remember Young Chelsea was mentioned), where they were now using bidding boxes. I guess that our club introduced bidding boxes in about 1990 (give or take a year or two).

[pescetom]

This feels like quite an overbid.

I thought it was only Italy that was so slow to adopt the bidding box - mea culpa.

 

It was invented in 1962 though, by Goesta Nordenson, husband of the international player Britt Nordenson.

[barmar]

I started playing in the late 80's. Bidding boxes were pretty common in tournaments, but not in clubs for at least another decade.