[barmar]

pran, on 2018-December-17, 04:14, said:

I do request lead card registrations (for the benefit of later studies of the boards), but I do not let any information like "Lead card error" be given to the table as this will not IMHO serve any real and legal purpose.

If the error isn't reported until the end of the hand, as Peter says, why is that an issue?

[barmar]

jhenrikj, on 2018-December-17, 08:14, said:

Then you must disable the lead card registration because now you "allow" north to have a written reminder of what the lead card was.

Do you also prohibit players from writing the lead on their personal scores?

Anyway, Bridgemates clear the screen after a few seconds, so North would have to fiddle the the device to remind themselves. This would be pretty obvious to others at the table.

[weejonnie]

661_Pete, on 2018-December-15, 03:19, said:

That's a good point. I shall ask our club chairman about that - but I guess the move would be unpopular. It's part of human nature: players like to know "how well did we do?" just after a hand.

With paper travellers this problem would be far less likely to occur, seeing as the traveller would be tucked in a pocket in the board, and less likely to get mixed up. But although there are still some EBU affiliated clubs using paper (what are EBU rules about this?), most use Bridgemates these days.

I don't think the EBU has any rules on travellers - other than they should be available during the correction period for players to check that they have been filled in accurately.

You can, of course get mixed-up travellers - and the same laws would apply re extraneous information. However I don't think there would be a penalty for EW (or the side that didn't take the incorrect traveller out of the board) since they had no opportunity to check that the traveller was the correct one - I mean - who would ask - "Do you agree that this is the traveller for board xx before I open it up". (The TD will have to check that the pair took the traveller out of the wrong board rather than the travellers were put in the incorrect boards (as happens more often when players mess around at the end of the round)).

[PeterAlan]

pran, on 2018-December-17, 04:14, said:

I do request lead card registrations (for the benefit of later studies of the boards), but I do not let any information like "Lead card error" be given to the table as this will not IMHO serve any real and legal purpose.

One useful, real and legal purpose is to highlight timeously cases where the wrong declarer may well have been entered, especially when this is (one of) the wrong pair.

[pran]

PeterAlan, on 2018-December-17, 19:20, said:

One useful, real and legal purpose is to highlight timeously cases where the wrong declarer may well have been entered, especially when this is (one of) the wrong pair.

There is no problem with correcting such errors after the play, but there is a problem with warning the players that they (for instance) are about to play a board incorrectly once it is too late to do anything about it other than to complete the play.

[PeterAlan]

pran, on 2018-December-18, 02:42, said:

There is no problem with correcting such errors after the play, but there is a problem with warning the players that they (for instance) are about to play a board incorrectly once it is too late to do anything about it other than to complete the play.

I don't understand your point. Are you still under the illusion that the lead card warning would be given before play is finished?

My point about detecting an incorrect entry of the declarer is that it's much better to do so at the time rather than much later, if at all.

[PeterAlan]

pran, on 2018-December-18, 02:42, said:

There is no problem with correcting such errors after the play, ...

A more general point is that it's better to correct entries on Bridgemates themselves, and to prevent errors arising before scores are sent to the Bridgemate server, because that preserves the integrity of Bridgemate's .BWS data file.

If you make corrections within the scoring program instead then you would have to repeat them if you needed to reload the scores from the Bridgemate file (unless the scoring program enabled you to re-synchronise the two AND you had actually done so correctly).

[jhenrikj]

barmar, on 2018-December-17, 09:52, said:

Do you also prohibit players from writing the lead on their personal scores?

Anyway, Bridgemates clear the screen after a few seconds, so North would have to fiddle the the device to remind themselves. This would be pretty obvious to others at the table.

According to law it's forbidden to write down any notes to aid your memory. So it's against the law to write down the lead before the play is completed. After that it's perfectly ok. So yes, I will tell players writing it down when play starts they are not allowed to do that.

[pran]

PeterAlan, on 2018-December-18, 04:54, said:

A more general point is that it's better to correct entries on Bridgemates themselves, and to prevent errors arising before scores are sent to the Bridgemate server, because that preserves the integrity of Bridgemate's .BWS data file.

If you make corrections within the scoring program instead then you would have to repeat them if you needed to reload the scores from the Bridgemate file (unless the scoring program enabled you to re-synchronise the two AND you had actually done so correctly).

Our Swedish scoring program (Magic Control?) synchronises the database (.bws - file) automatically whenever rectifications are made through the program, no problem.

[pran]

PeterAlan, on 2018-December-18, 04:14, said:

I don't understand your point. Are you still under the illusion that the lead card warning would be given before play is finished?

I don't know and I don't care. We do not use it.
My concern is about all kinds of unnecessary possibilities for break of security.

PeterAlan, on 2018-December-18, 04:14, said:

My point about detecting an incorrect entry of the declarer is that it's much better to do so at the time rather than much later, if at all.

What does it matter? You cannot effectively correct it during the play unless it is a simple typo (in which case it makes absolutely no harm anyway), so there is no hurry until the play is completed.

[blackshoe]

jhenrikj, on 2018-December-18, 05:41, said:

According to law it's forbidden to write down any notes to aid your memory. So it's against the law to write down the lead before the play is completed. After that it's perfectly ok. So yes, I will tell players writing it down when play starts they are not allowed to do that.

Your conclusion only follows from your premise if you add the additional premise that anyone who writes down the lead is doing so to aid his memory during the play.

[barmar]

jhenrikj, on 2018-December-18, 05:41, said:

According to law it's forbidden to write down any notes to aid your memory. So it's against the law to write down the lead before the play is completed. After that it's perfectly ok. So yes, I will tell players writing it down when play starts they are not allowed to do that.

There's no law against writing it down. The law is against using it to remind yourself during the play.

I sometimes write it down at the beginning when I see that North didn't enter it into the device, so I can help them at the end.

[PeterAlan]

pran, on 2018-December-18, 07:30, said:

I don't know and I don't care. We do not use it.
My concern is about all kinds of unnecessary possibilities for break of security.

What does it matter? You cannot effectively correct it during the play unless it is a simple typo (in which case it makes absolutely no harm anyway), so there is no hurry until the play is completed.

Pran, I think you continue to misunderstand much of what I've said, but no matter: we'll leave it there. Best wishes.

[sanst]

barmar, on 2018-December-18, 10:04, said:

There's no law against writing it down. The law is against using it to remind yourself during the play.

I sometimes write it down at the beginning when I see that North didn't enter it into the device, so I can help them at the end.

The RA can allow players to use memory aids (Law 40B2d). The Dutch union allows players to make a note on declarer, contract and lead and use this during the play. This information should be kept from other players. Hardly anyone seems to know this, but it can be quite useful for players with memory problems.

[weejonnie]

sanst, on 2018-December-19, 03:31, said:

The RA can allow players to use memory aids (Law 40B2d). The Dutch union allows players to make a note on declarer, contract and lead and use this during the play. This information should be kept from other players. Hardly anyone seems to know this, but it can be quite useful for players with memory problems.

You are always entitled at your turn to play to be advised of the contract and if (but not by whom) it was doubled (or redoubled) 41C - so the only extension is the opening lead.

[barmar]

sanst, on 2018-December-19, 03:31, said:

The RA can allow players to use memory aids (Law 40B2d). The Dutch union allows players to make a note on declarer, contract and lead and use this during the play. This information should be kept from other players. Hardly anyone seems to know this, but it can be quite useful for players with memory problems.

That's an interesting allowance.

In my experience here in the US, this clause it primarily used in special types of games. In particular, individuals often allow players to consult the CC, since it would be unreasonable to require everyone to memorize a CC that was handed to them the moment they sat down with a new partner.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-December-19, 09:59, said:

That's an interesting allowance.

In my experience here in the US, this clause it primarily used in special types of games. In particular, individuals often allow players to consult the CC, since it would be unreasonable to require everyone to memorize a CC that was handed to them the moment they sat down with a new partner.

I imagine the reason that the Laws set the default of no consultation is not so much to retain the memory aspect of the game but to avoid creating UI - if partner looked at his CC before passing one could infer that he has a certain level of strength, u.s.w.

You could impose them to always consult the CC, but I guess that rule would not last long.

[pran]

pescetom, on 2018-December-19, 11:43, said:

I imagine the reason that the Laws set the default of no consultation is not so much to retain the memory aspect of the game but to avoid creating UI - if partner looked at his CC before passing one could infer that he has a certain level of strength, u.s.w.

You could impose them to always consult the CC, but I guess that rule would not last long.

There is a common misunderstanding that creating UI is illegal.

However, except as specified in

Law 20 said:

G. Incorrect Procedure
1. A player may not ask a question if his sole purpose is to benefit partner.
2. A player may not ask a question if his sole purpose is to elicit an incorrect response from an opponent.

no law has that effect. (Note the words "sole purpose" in each of the clauses!)

Instead Law 16 is very explicit that it is the responsibility of the player who receives UI to avoid using this to his advantage.

[pescetom]

Yes I realise that law 16 works that way, thanks. My point was that if it is enforced rigorously in this case the partnership reading their own CC may be heavily constrained by the need to avoid using the UI available.

[barmar]

pran, on 2018-December-19, 14:26, said:

There is a common misunderstanding that creating UI is illegal.

This is true, but it's still a good idea to avoid creating UI when possible, and the Laws allude to this in a number of places. When UI is available, partner's actions may be constrained; if there are multiple LAs, the one that's consistent with the UI becomes illegal.

This is the subject of one of the questions in this month's "Ruling the Game" column in the Bulletin. If you're in the pass-out seat, the Laws give you the right to ask questions about the auction before passing. But unless it's going to affect your bid, it's best to wait until partner has made their face-down lead. Otherwise, your question creates UI, and this might limit partner's options when leading. Law 20F1 says you have the right to ask questions, but Law 16 may apply as a result.

I'm sure someone is now planning to insert the usual response "But now partner has the UI that your hand is such that the answer to the question wouldn't affect the decision about passing." This may be true, but in the vast majority of cases this UI doesn't demonstrably suggest anything. E.g. if partner has been passing throughout the auction, he probably didn't have any other call at the end, so the fact that he passes without asking about the auction conveys no new information.