Bidding boxes

[chrisam]

Does anyone know the answer to this query: I help to coach a dozen or so ladies each week and one lady told me that it is ‘illegal’ to use the bidding cards in a player’s box to keep a note of the final contract by placing the appropriate card at 45 degrees in the box. I can find no record of this on the web. Could you please advise? Many thanks, kind regards, Christine

[sanst]

It's dependent on your jurisdiction. Over here, in Holland (Europe, not Michigan) you can have note with contract, declarer and lead, but it shouldn't be readable by those who still have to play the board. You can ask the others what the contract is. But you should not put a bidding card in such a position that others can see what contract you're playing, so not in the middle of the board or sticking out of the bidding box.

[blackshoe]

Law 40B2{d}: Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player is not entitled to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique during the auction period and play.

[fromageGB]

But the use of bidding boxes is an aid to memory. By this law, surely a call, once made and perhaps followed by the next player's call, should be removed and placed back in the box.

 

Do we not also have trumps laid down in dummy on the right?

 

Do we not write down the contract on our score cards if we so wish?

 

If laws are so inconsistent it is easy to see why they are ignored. We have a player at the club whose memory is fading, and the contract is always displayed for her (and all). I see no problem with this.

[dickiegera]

Law 40B2[d] Are you allowed to count on your fingers during the play of the hand?

[weejonnie]

Law 40B2[d] Are you allowed to count on your fingers during the play of the hand?

If a defender then there may be UI considerations.

 

I think you are allowed your fingers provided you do not use them - after all the game would be a lot harder if all players had their fingers and thumbs amputated before being allowed to play.

 

The law is vague - the main result is to provide entertaining stories of a London Bridge Club. I would say that (in the EBU) the club is the RA - and so can specify what aide-memoires are allowable. For instance: in supervised novice sessions, it would probably be a good idea to allow the contract to be displayed - this actually is only a time saver since anyone can ask at their turn to play what the contract is and if it is doubled/ redoubled.

 

Certainly in the EBU the procedures on Bidding boxes (Blue book) state that all calls "should be returned to their boxes" at the end of the clarification period.

 

I think a TD should use his or her common sense. Writing down the contract and opening lead before the first trick is quitted, is probably OK - provided the scorecard is not referred to again. Deliberately arranging dummy to convey information is, IMHO not permitted (other than the trump suit), as a) it is a memoire b) dummy is providing UI to declarer and c) dummy cannot participate in the play.

[blackshoe]

The use of bidding boxes during the bidding is prescribed by the RA, so Law 40B2{d} does not preclude it.

[barmar]

But the use of bidding boxes is an aid to memory. By this law, surely a call, once made and perhaps followed by the next player's call, should be removed and placed back in the box.

 

Do we not also have trumps laid down in dummy on the right?

 

Do we not write down the contract on our score cards if we so wish?

 

If laws are so inconsistent it is easy to see why they are ignored. We have a player at the club whose memory is fading, and the contract is always displayed for her (and all). I see no problem with this.

During the bidding period (and for a limited time after) players are entitled to a review of the bidding. So having all the bidding cards out doesn't give them any information they're not entitled to.

 

And during the play, players are entitled to find out what the contract is. So an indicator of the contract doesn't give them anything they can't find out.

 

So these are exceptions to the general law against memory aids.

[weejonnie]

During the bidding period (and for a limited time after) players are entitled to a review of the bidding. So having all the bidding cards out doesn't give them any information they're not entitled to.

 

And during the play, players are entitled to find out what the contract is. So an indicator of the contract doesn't give them anything they can't find out.

 

So these are exceptions to the general law against memory aids.

One concern I have is that if players move a card in the bidding box so that the one showing the final contract is readily visible then certain unscrupulous players may acquire 'extraneous information', and if an innocent player is involved then "I was going to the toilet and couldn't help noticing that table 13 were playing in 6♥" is much more EI than just seeing that hearts were displayed on the right (when the contract could be NT)

[ahydra]

Apart from the possible offerings of UI to other tables (though players should really be focused on their own table only anyway), I don't see what harm this does, given that at any point the player can ask what the contract is.

 

ahydra

[blackshoe]

Do you really think we should start violating laws on the basis that "it's not doing any harm"?

[ahydra]

That's not what I said. And as per barmar's comment I'm not at all convinced this is an infraction.

 

ahydra

[blackshoe]

Barry didn't say it wasn't an infraction, he said that in his opinion it doesn't matter if they break this law. You can agree with him if you like. I don't.

[barmar]

Once upon a time a common bridge accessory was a device called a "trump indicator". It didn't show the whole contract, just what suit is trump. But if these were considered legal, I don't see why this practice wouldn't be.

 

I suspect they were mostly used in social bridge, not duplicate. And of course, the Laws have been revised numerous times since those were in use, although I suspect the rule against memory aids has been around for many revisions.

[pran]

Once upon a time a common bridge accessory was a device called a "trump indicator". It didn't show the whole contract, just what suit is trump. But if these were considered legal, I don't see why this practice wouldn't be.

 

I suspect they were mostly used in social bridge, not duplicate. And of course, the Laws have been revised numerous times since those were in use, although I suspect the rule against memory aids has been around for many revisions.

 

[...] After it is too late to have previous calls restated (see B), declarer* or either defender, at his own turn to play, is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled.

{*Declarer may enquire at his turn to play from dummy or from his own hand.}

So the laws explicitly allow "aids to memory" about the actual contract, but nothing more.

[gordontd]

So the laws explicitly allow "aids to memory" about the actual contract, but nothing more.

No, they explicitly allow you to ask and to be told, but not to have "aids to memory".

[pran]

No, they explicitly allow you to ask and to be told, but not to have "aids to memory".

When bid boxes were introduced regulations used law 41C as foundation for allowing all bid cards to remain visible during the auction and to allow the bid card showing the contract to remain visible with Declarer.

 

I suppose you do not want bid cards be hidden during the auction and only made visible at the request of a player in turn to call?

[blackshoe]

Sven, you quoted part of 41C, and that part only applies during the play. Which part applies during the auction, and what does it say?

[pran]

Sven, you quoted part of 41C, and that part only applies during the play. Which part applies during the auction, and what does it say?

41B of course. It says the same except that it applies to the entire auction, not only to the final contract.

[blackshoe]

41B is part of 41C?

[pran]

41B is part of 41C?

HUH ?????????

Before the opening lead is faced, the leader’s partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction [...]

After it is too late to have previous calls restated (see B), declarer or either defender, at his own* turn to play, is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled.

[gordontd]

When bid boxes were introduced regulations used law 41C as foundation for allowing all bid cards to remain visible during the auction and to allow the bid card showing the contract to remain visible with Declarer.

 

I suppose you do not want bid cards be hidden during the auction and only made visible at the request of a player in turn to call?

The basis for allowing auctions using bidding boxes is not Law 41, whether C or B, but:

Law 18F. Different Methods

Regulating Authorities may authorize different methods of making calls.

[pran]

The basis for allowing auctions using bidding boxes is not Law 41, whether C or B, but:

Law 18F. Different Methods

Regulating Authorities may authorize different methods of making calls.

Yes, and Law 41 B and C were the foundation for the new regulation not introducing any kind of conflict with the existing laws.

 

That is for instance why all bid cards except the final contract shall be returned to the bid box once the opening lead is made.

[gordontd]

That is for instance why all bid cards except the final contract shall be returned to the bid box once the opening lead is made.

Except in most jurisdictions that it not what the regulations say!

[pran]

Except in most jurisdictions that it not what the regulations say!

That was the argument (and understanding) when bid boxes were introduced.

 

(I don't care what regulations say about this today)