A Chancy Chimp

4 Pages
←
1
2
3
4
→

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

A Chancy Chimp SB gets shafted

#41 pescetom

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 7,890
Joined: 2014-February-18
Gender:Male
Location:Italy

Posted 2019-February-20, 15:41

Vampyr, on 2019-February-20, 14:37, said:

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.

Vampyr, on 2019-February-20, 14:37, said:

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.

#42 barmar

Group: Admin
Posts: 21,585
Joined: 2004-August-21
Gender:Male

Posted 2019-February-21, 10:37

Vampyr, on 2019-February-20, 14:37, said:

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, ...."

#43 pran

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,344
Joined: 2009-September-14
Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2019-February-21, 12:03

barmar, on 2019-February-21, 10:37, said:

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

#44 barmar

Group: Admin
Posts: 21,585
Joined: 2004-August-21
Gender:Male

Posted 2019-February-22, 11:03

pran, on 2019-February-21, 12:03, said:

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.

#45 barmar

Group: Admin
Posts: 21,585
Joined: 2004-August-21
Gender:Male

Posted 2019-February-22, 11:09

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.

#46 lamford

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,444
Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2019-February-22, 13:16

barmar, on 2019-February-22, 11:09, said:

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!

I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar

#47 weejonnie

Group: Full Members
Posts: 801
Joined: 2012-April-11
Gender:Male
Location:North-east England
Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2019-February-22, 16:40

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.

No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.

#48 pran

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,344
Joined: 2009-September-14
Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2019-February-22, 17:27

weejonnie, on 2019-February-22, 16:40, said:

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:

#49 blackshoe

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 17,693
Joined: 2006-April-17
Gender:Male
Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-February-22, 20:02

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean

#50 barmar

Group: Admin
Posts: 21,585
Joined: 2004-August-21
Gender:Male

Posted 2019-February-23, 22:38

lamford, on 2019-February-22, 13:16, said:

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.

#51 lamford

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,444
Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2019-February-27, 06:00

pran, on 2019-February-22, 17:27, said:

Any doubled contract :lol:

But not redoubled

I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar

#52 lamford

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,444
Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2019-February-27, 06:06

barmar, on 2019-February-23, 22:38, said:

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.

I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar

#53 barmar

Group: Admin
Posts: 21,585
Joined: 2004-August-21
Gender:Male

Posted 2019-February-27, 10:25

lamford, on 2019-February-27, 06:06, said:

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.

#54 blackshoe

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 17,693
Joined: 2006-April-17
Gender:Male
Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-February-27, 17:49

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.

#55 pescetom

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 7,890
Joined: 2014-February-18
Gender:Male
Location:Italy

Posted 2019-February-28, 15:43

blackshoe, on 2019-February-27, 17:49, said:

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.

#56 weejonnie

Group: Full Members
Posts: 801
Joined: 2012-April-11
Gender:Male
Location:North-east England
Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2019-February-28, 18:18

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.

#57 pescetom

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 7,890
Joined: 2014-February-18
Gender:Male
Location:Italy

Posted 2019-March-03, 13:39

weejonnie, on 2019-February-28, 18:18, said:

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.

#58 pran

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,344
Joined: 2009-September-14
Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2019-March-03, 14:14

weejonnie, on 2019-February-28, 18:18, said:

pescetom, on 2019-March-03, 13:39, said:

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.

#59 pescetom

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 7,890
Joined: 2014-February-18
Gender:Male
Location:Italy

Posted 2019-March-03, 14:28

pran, on 2019-March-03, 14:14, said:

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.

#60 nige1

5-level belongs to me

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 9,128
Joined: 2004-August-30
Gender:Male
Location:Glasgow Scotland
Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2019-March-03, 16:39

pescetom, on 2019-March-03, 14:28, said:

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:

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.
An electronic game reduces law-breaking opportunities. On-line rules already seem simpler and better than face-to-face rules.

Guthrie.tech

4 Pages
←
1
2
3
4
→

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

BBO Discussion Forums: A Chancy Chimp - BBO Discussion Forums

A Chancy Chimp SB gets shafted

#41 pescetom

#42 barmar

#43 pran

#44 barmar

#45 barmar

#46 lamford

#47 weejonnie

#48 pran

#49 blackshoe

#50 barmar

#51 lamford

#52 lamford

#53 barmar

#54 blackshoe

#55 pescetom

#56 weejonnie

#57 pescetom

#58 pran

#59 pescetom

#60 nige1

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Delete Post

Skin and Language

Execution Stats

BBO Discussion Forums: A Chancy Chimp - BBO Discussion Forums

A Chancy Chimp SB gets shafted

1 User(s) are reading this topic 0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Delete Post

Skin and Language

Execution Stats

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users