Trick One BIT

[pescetom]

Memories of my first tournament event emerge. After some pause, pard meekly says 3N (with cards a little sparse for the action) closing the bids. The defense is withering, but sufficient that 3N makes. At this time I start recording the contract and the opponents become vociferous that it was 2N. The TD rules 3N after listening to whatever was said. Appeal! A most miserable 3 hours ensued. Contemporaneous records perhaps would have avoided the conflagration.

 

This is a different issue and I agree that some official record of the contract should be made before the opening lead is faced. I have been told many times here that such disputes are extremely infrequent but that continues to not be my experience. Bridgemate and similar electronic control schemes could solve this problem but unfortunately are rarely configured to do so and there is no support in Law or Regulations.

[blackshoe]

I'm suggesting they could be illegal memory aids in that there is no control over what they write down or to stop them reading it during play. But more than anything else I'm suggesting that writing things down during play is not part of the game or in the spirit of the game and violates the requirement to pay due attention to play, therefore TDs (and RAs) would do well to not tolerate it IMO.

I think this goes way too far. For one thing, if it's not part of the game, why does virtually every player I see, except some top players playing with a regular partner, write down the contract at some point (most often immediately after the final pass; in some cases after the play)? If it's not in the spirit of the game, please explain how it is not. As for "due attention to the play" I'll agree that sometimes someone is writing stuff when he should be leading or putting down the dummy, and sometimes the opening leader and declarer have ignored the hapless RR in third seat and the opening lead is faced, the dummy put down, and declarer played from dummy to the first trick before third hand gets around to consider his defense, not to mention his play to trick one. But that last, at least, is unusual (except, perhaps, if it's RR in third seat). But I don't think I would sanction a player for paying insufficient attention to the game just because he's writing down the contract.

[pescetom]

I think this goes way too far. For one thing, if it's not part of the game, why does virtually every player I see, except some top players playing with a regular partner, write down the contract at some point (most often immediately after the final pass; in some cases after the play)?

If it's part of the game, how come many players take no notes at all and no player I see in this country ever writes down anything once the lead is faced? There is plenty of time between the end of the auction and the start of play to write down the contract and you can always ask the defender on lead to wait a moment if necessary.

 

If it's not in the spirit of the game, please explain how it is not.

The need to pay due attention expressed by the Laws is a pretty obvious pointer - you should not be doing things extraneous to playing the board, like making notes or using a smartphone. You should be busy doing your best to obtain a good score in full respect of the Laws.

[axman]

This is a different issue and I agree that some official record of the contract should be made before the opening lead is faced. I have been told many times here that such disputes are extremely infrequent but that continues to not be my experience. Bridgemate and similar electronic control schemes could solve this problem but unfortunately are rarely configured to do so and there is no support in Law or Regulations.

I would not be so sure that compulsion is the appropriate metric. Good regulation facilitates, the nanny state rarely is good regulation. As such, it's a decent idea that if nit picking is to be the rule, there'd better be good reason for it.

[blackshoe]

If it's part of the game, how come many players take no notes at all and no player I see in this country ever writes down anything once the lead is faced? There is plenty of time between the end of the auction and the start of play to write down the contract and you can always ask the defender on lead to wait a moment if necessary.

Players who take no notes presumably don't see a need to do so. Perhaps they've never had an adverse ruling on a dispute about what the contract was. On your second point what do these players do when the opening lead is faced while they're in the middle of writing something down? Players here might write down the contract, and then pause attentively while waiting for the lead to be faced so they can write that down. Unless they're slated to be dummy, I don't see any problem at all with that. As for asking the defender on lead to wait, I don't understand your point. First you say writing stuff down is "not part of the game", then you say "ask opening leader to wait before… what, leading, or facing the lead? I don't get it.

 

The need to pay due attention expressed by the Laws is a pretty obvious pointer - you should not be doing things extraneous to playing the board, like making notes or using a smartphone. You should be busy doing your best to obtain a good score in full respect of the Laws.

Who said anything about using a smartphone? As for the rest, I don't think writing down the contract, or the contract and the opening lead, constitutes not paying due attention to the game.

[barmar]

I doubt that many players outside this discussion have ever thought one way or the other about the legality of players taking notes like this. They're virtually all doing it to help them when reviewing the hands later, not during the play, and no one would begrudge them doing this. It seems to be totally unrelated to "the spirit of the game", because it's not actually part of the game.

 

Of course there are lots of players who don't do this, because they don't go over their hands much after the game. Some people are more studious than others.

 

Sure, they could write these notes after the hand is over. But often it's hard to remember what the auction or lead was at that point. Often if we don't enter the opening lead in the electronic scoring device immediately, no one can remember it when we're entering the result later, and we end up pressing the "Skip this step" button (it's easy to remember something like "a low spade", but not the specific spot, and we don't feel like pulling out the player's hand to figure out what it was).

[sanst]

You’re allowed to use memory aids if the RA has given permission (Law 40B2d). The Dutch union has done so. You’re allowed to write down contract, declarer and opening lead - information that should be entered into the Bridgemate at the start of the play. You’re also allowed to consult a defense against BSC’s, including multi 2♦, during the action. Hardly any player is aware of these provisions.

[jhenrikj]

Are you also allowed to consult your notes during play to remember the opening lead?

[sanst]

Are you also allowed to consult your notes during play to remember the opening lead?

Of course you can. Why would you allow to make notes and then forbid to look at these? How would you enforce a prohibition?

[pescetom]

Players who take no notes presumably don't see a need to do so. Perhaps they've never had an adverse ruling on a dispute about what the contract was.

I doubt that is always the explanation. On Saturday I was lucky enough to face Alfredo Versace who has probably had a few adverse rulings in his time but was not taking any notes - probably he just doesn't need to.

 

On your second point what do these players do when the opening lead is faced while they're in the middle of writing something down? Players here might write down the contract, and then pause attentively while waiting for the lead to be faced so they can write that down.

Players here will write down the lead when it is formally registered in Bridgemate or the traveller, which is (here) usually at the end of play. This doesn't cost them anything as they would be writing down the result anyway. And unlike the contract, there is no defensive value in having written down the correct lead, as it can be easily verified in case of dispute.

 

 

As for the rest, I don't think writing down the contract, or the contract and the opening lead, constitutes not paying due attention to the game.

Only if you do it when you should be playing.

[barmar]

Next thing you'll be telling me is that I can't write down my estimates of whether a result was good or bad at the end of the hand.

[pescetom]

Next thing you'll be telling me is that I can't write down my estimates of whether a result was good or bad at the end of the hand.

 

I'm happy for you to write down anything you want when it is not your turn to play, so long as it can not help you play better. I just dislike the idea of you doing something else when you should be playing. But if that's eccentric ok, I can live with that :)

[blackshoe]

I will note that here, we do not put the opening lead into the bridgemate.

[Vampyr]

Sure, they could write these notes after the hand is over. But often it's hard to remember what the auction or lead was at that point. Often if we don't enter the opening lead in the electronic scoring device immediately, no one can remember it when we're entering the result later, and we end up pressing the "Skip this step" button (it's easy to remember something like "a low spade", but not the specific spot, and we don't feel like pulling out the player's hand to figure out what it was).

 

We can’t skip the step when this function is enabled.

 

Of course you can. Why would you allow to make notes and then forbid to look at these? How would you enforce a prohibition?

 

I would be astonished if an RA allowed players to consult their notes to remember the opening lead. You enforce it by asking your opponent to close or turn over his scorecard.

[sanst]

I would be astonished if an RA allowed players to consult their notes to remember the opening lead. You enforce it by asking your opponent to close or turn over his scorecard.

And I’m astonished that you don’t seem to know Law 40B2d.

[barmar]

And I’m astonished that you don’t seem to know Law 40B2d.

You mean the part that says "Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise"? That's typically only employed in special types of games. E.g. a beginner game may relax lots of the rules in 40B2.

[pran]

You mean the part that says "Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise"? That's typically only employed in special types of games. E.g. a beginner game may relax lots of the rules in 40B2.

Of course he means.

 

I am confused - will someone please clarify what this discussion really is about?

 

To me it is clear and obvious that a player may make as many notes about the auction and play as he wants so long as his activity of this kind doesn't interfere with the normal progress of the game.

 

But he may not consult any of his notes until after play of the board is completed (unless the RA for whatever reason has explicitly permitted such consultation.)

[sanst]

You mean the part that says "Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise"? That's typically only employed in special types of games. E.g. a beginner game may relax lots of the rules in 40B2.

That’s not what the law says. It’s unconditional.

[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.

How is this "unconditional"?

[sanst]

How is this "unconditional"?

There are no conditions given; the RA can decide without restrictions that players can use a memory aid and what that aid is.

[blackshoe]

"Unless the RA provides otherwise" is a condition.

[barmar]

"Unless the RA provides otherwise" is a condition.

I think he meant that there are no conditions that limit why or when an RA would avail themselves of this option.

 

And I didn't mean to imply that there are, I was just pointing out that they don't generally do this willy-nilly, even though the Law allows them to. The exceptions allowed in those clauses are typically used sparingly, only in special types of games, and I gave an example of one.