[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-10, 16:20, said:

ACBL Bidding Box regulations do not say anything about putting the bidding cards back in the box. Custom here is that people start putting the bidding cards away as soon as they think the auction will include no more bids or doubles.

Too true. And I might add, also when they hope partner will make no more bids or doubles.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-11, 12:44, said:

Too true. And I might add, also when they hope partner will make no more bids or doubles.

Ah, right. I never realised that this was an extra advantage of the English procedure.

[Xiaolongnu]

Excuse me seniors, have a question here. I say seniors cos I just started directing recently, so regardless of age all of you are my seniors (: The question is, isn't it a little dubious that this should happen in the first place? That is, imagine, the 1S bidder, saw a green card on the table, without seeing the opponent taking it out of the bidding box and putting it there.

I'm assuming there are no screens and trays, otherwise dealer would certainly have objected to pushing the tray across the screen. Therefore, everyone should be able to see clearly everyone else's actions and reactions. I can't imagine how the 1S bidder could have taken the pass to be a call made, when he did not see the card come out of the bidding box, especially when dealer is still arranging his cards (although that is not a very sound argument, sometimes people do pass before arranging their cards when they see no honours). It seems more likely to me that it was simply a BOOT. Otherwise, he might even have known or suspected what happened, and deliberately taken advantage of it, which would have been 23. I know that this is a potentially "groundless accusation", but I could not picture how 1S bidder could have logically believed the pass to be intended. Just for discussion purposes. I am not implying any kind of attempt to cheat or anything.

[Vampyr]

Xiaolongnu, on 2011-November-12, 04:53, said:

That is, imagine, the 1S bidder, saw a green card on the table, without seeing the opponent taking it out of the bidding box and putting it there.

I'm assuming there are no screens and trays, otherwise dealer would certainly have objected to pushing the tray across the screen. Therefore, everyone should be able to see clearly everyone else's actions and reactions. I can't imagine how the 1S bidder could have taken the pass to be a call made, when he did not see the card come out of the bidding box,

The fact that you can see everyone's action does not mean you are paying attention. You might, for example, have been sorting your own hand. It is pretty common for second-in-hand to realise that it is his own turn to bid only after he has seen RHO's pass card out on the table -- and how often has the player sat there vacantly, not having noticed that a pass on his right has been made. When using bidding boxes, players should expect to be able to rely on the evidence of the cards.

[Cascade]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-November-11, 12:11, said:

Normal in the EBU is that they're put away when the partner of the face down opening leader says "No (further) questions".

What is the basis of this comment?

Quote

Communication between partners during the auction and play shall
be effected only by means of calls and plays.

Law 73A1

Quote

Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in
which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures,
questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and
explanations given or not given to them.

Law 73B1

[aguahombre]

What is the basis of Cascade's post? Cyber was merely describing when the bid cards go back into the box normally. That practice is not communication, and it is time for play of the hand to begin.

The ACBL custom described by Blackshoe might well be communication, though.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-November-13, 12:39

[RMB1]

Cascade, on 2011-November-13, 12:09, said:

Quote

Normal in the EBU is that they're put away when the partner of the face down opening leader says "No (further) questions".

What is the basis of this comment?

Cyberyeti was explaining when bidding cards are picked-up. What he is describing is common practice and conforms to our regulations.

The basis of his comment is observation of bridge in England, which coincides with my observation.

What is the basis of your question?

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2011-November-13, 12:39, said:

Cyberyeti was explaining when bidding cards are picked-up. What he is describing is common practice and conforms to our regulations.

It is best practice, too, as opening leader's partner is able to ask questions about the auction while the bidding cards are still visible. And while the dummy is not, as declarer may be subconsciously influenced by the sight of the dummy.

[Cascade]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-13, 12:34, said:

What is the basis of Cascade's post? Cyber was merely describing when the bid cards go back into the box normally. That practice is not communication, and it is time for play of the hand to begin.

The ACBL custom described by Blackshoe might well be communication, though.

A comment is not required by law as far as I can tell. It could be construed as communicating with your partner. It just seems a whole lot better to me to say nothing unless you need to ask a question. By making extraneous remarks to the table you open yourself up for criticism.

[AlexJonson]

Cascade, on 2011-November-13, 13:52, said:

A comment is not required by law as far as I can tell. It could be construed as communicating with your partner. It just seems a whole lot better to me to say nothing unless you need to ask a question. By making extraneous remarks to the table you open yourself up for criticism.

The 'no (more) questions' comment gives a clear indication that the opening lead can be faced.

In my experience this practice is universal in the EBU, so no UI is communicated.

[mjj29]

Cascade, on 2011-November-13, 12:09, said:

What is the basis of this comment?

Law 73A1

Law 73B1

L41A/B:

L41B said:

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, or request explanation of an opponent’s call (see Law 20F2 and
20F3) ...

How are you to determine whether or not either your partner or declarer has
questions and whether or not you should face your lead if you don't ask them ("Any questions?")
and they don't tell you that they do not ("No questions" or "Go ahead")?

[pran]

Cascade, on 2011-November-13, 13:52, said:

A comment is not required by law as far as I can tell. It could be construed as communicating with your partner. It just seems a whole lot better to me to say nothing unless you need to ask a question. By making extraneous remarks to the table you open yourself up for criticism.

A very common misunderstanding when the opening lead is made face down is that this is for the purpose of avoiding an opening lead out of turn. And very often I have heard Dummy or Declarer in this situation saying "yes, it is your lead" (or words to that effect) or just nod.

That is none of their business!

The opening lead is made face down after LHO has asked his questions (if any) about the auction and before partner may ask his questions (if any). This way nobody can have any reason to suspect LHO choosing his opening lead based on questions asked by his partner at this time.

The "permission" to face the opening lead is to be given by RHO and nobody else; it is a signal that RHO has no (more) questions to ask.

[Cascade]

pran, on 2011-November-13, 17:56, said:

A very common misunderstanding when the opening lead is made face down is that this is for the purpose of avoiding an opening lead out of turn. And very often I have heard Dummy or Declarer in this situation saying "yes, it is your lead" (or words to that effect) or just nod.

That is none of their business!

The opening lead is made face down after LHO has asked his questions (if any) about the auction and before partner may ask his questions (if any). This way nobody can have any reason to suspect LHO choosing his opening lead based on questions asked by his partner at this time.

The "permission" to face the opening lead is to be given by RHO and nobody else; it is a signal that RHO has no (more) questions to ask.

This practice is not explicit in the laws.

Again my common experience is that "no questions" or the like is not the norm in the games that I play in. It seems superfluous. I do not recall ever making such a statement.

It should be self evident whether a player has a question or not. The player either asks a question or does not.

[mjj29]

Cascade, on 2011-November-13, 18:07, said:

This practice is not explicit in the laws.

Again my common experience is that "no questions" or the like is not the norm in the games that I play in. It seems superfluous. I do not recall ever making such a statement.

It should be self evident whether a player has a question or not. The player either asks a question or does not.

Fair enough, it is my experience in the UK. It seems polite. I always make such a statement (-;

Matt

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-November-13, 17:56, said:

A very common misunderstanding when the opening lead is made face down is that this is for the purpose of avoiding an opening lead out of turn. And very often I have heard Dummy or Declarer in this situation saying "yes, it is your lead" (or words to that effect) or just nod.

That is none of their business!

The opening lead is made face down after LHO has asked his questions (if any) about the auction and before partner may ask his questions (if any). This way nobody can have any reason to suspect LHO choosing his opening lead based on questions asked by his partner at this time.

The "permission" to face the opening lead is to be given by RHO and nobody else; it is a signal that RHO has no (more) questions to ask.

I have never heard or seen anything like what you describe in your first paragraph.

I disagree with your last paragraph, as declarer is also permitted to ask questions before the opening lead is faced. The fact that 99% of declarers don't know this and the 1% that do almost never ask questions does not change the law.

[pran]

Cascade, on 2011-November-13, 18:07, said:

This practice is not explicit in the laws.
[...]

Laws 41B and 41C

[barmar]

Cascade, on 2011-November-13, 18:07, said:

Again my common experience is that "no questions" or the like is not the norm in the games that I play in. It seems superfluous. I do not recall ever making such a statement.

My experience ACBL games is that at least 90% of players do it.

[Cascade]

pran, on 2011-November-14, 04:09, said:

Laws 41B and 41C

Those laws say nothing about RHO giving permission - oral or otherwise - for the opening lead to be faced. Surely LHO can listen and face the lead when the questions have ceased without an instruction from RHO.

[mjj29]

Cascade, on 2011-November-15, 05:10, said:

Those laws say nothing about RHO giving permission - oral or otherwise - for the opening lead to be faced. Surely LHO can listen and face the lead when the questions have ceased without an instruction from RHO.

So, you place the lead face down and wait.... for how long, to check whether your partner has no questions, is thinking about what questions to ask or perhaps wasn't paying attention and didn't notice your lead?

[blackshoe]

Bridge players aren't known for their patience, so how about say 4.2 milliseconds?