[Flem72]

--and by this I mean: Is a player allowed, during the auction, to look at the scoring tables on the backs of the bidding cards as an aid in deciding among possible contracts?

I've never heard this discussed, and I KNOW there is a law somewhere.

[ArtK78]

Law 40 C. 3. (a) reads as follows:

"Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority, a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique."

This section of the law is concerned primarily with partnership agreements, and discusses convention cards and the like. But I believe that a scoring table would fall under the heading of an aid to memory, calculation or technique.

[pigpenz]

ArtK78, on 2012-March-25, 09:05, said:

Law 40 C. 3. (a) reads as follows:

"Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority, a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique."

This section of the law is concerned primarily with partnership agreements, and discusses convention cards and the like. But I believe that a scoring table would fall under the heading of an aid to memory, calculation or technique.

but that is one of things that Danny Sprung was complaining about when he was doing commentary on the KOs....you can have a card from the opps on how to defense their artificial systems, he feels at that level they should have those agreements already

[ArtK78]

pigpenz, on 2012-March-25, 09:16, said:

but that is one of things that Danny Sprung was complaining about when he was doing commentary on the KOs....you can have a card from the opps on how to defense their artificial systems, he feels at that level they should have those agreements already

The laws specifically delegate the responsibility for making that determination to the Sponsoring Organization. And the ACBL has done so by adopting a Special Election to Law 40. The school of thought seems to be that you are not entitled to anything that helps you remember your own agreements, but you are entitled to everything to help you remember your opponents' agreements. And, if your opponents' agreements include some unusual methods, you are entitled to use memory aids to defend against those methods.

It is this last point that Danny takes issue with, but it is specifically permitted by a Special Election to Law 40 adopted by the ACBL.

Special Election 5 reads as follows:

"Law 40B2(b): Defenses to methods permitted by the ACBL Mid-Chart and/or Superchart may be referred to by any player whenever it would be appropriate to refer to an opponent’s convention card."

An aside: The use of printed defenses provided by your opponents creates certain ethical obligations. If your opponents use one of the calls for which a defense is provided, and you have agreed with your partner to use one of the defenses provided by your opponents, you MUST refer to the printed defenses at your turn to call. If you do not do so, it indicates to all involved that you have nothing to think about, which is UI to your partner. Of course, if screens are in use, this is not a problem.

[aguahombre]

ArtK78, on 2012-March-25, 09:05, said:

Law 40 C. 3. (a) reads as follows:

"Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority, a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique."

This section of the law is concerned primarily with partnership agreements, and discusses convention cards and the like. But I believe that a scoring table would fall under the heading of an aid to memory, calculation or technique.

It certainly seems that those tables on the backs of the bid cards in the box would be an aid to calculation and/or technique during the auction and play period.

The reg is indeed within a section on partnership agreements; and although we are not supposed to consider the section titles, etc. when making rulings, I have recommened putting the subject of memory, calculation, or technique aids in a more general area of the Laws regarding what we can do during the auction/play period.

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2012-March-25, 09:22, said:

And, if your opponents' agreements include some unusual methods, you are entitled to use memory aids to defend against those methods.

It is not clear to me that the ACBL's "special election" is provided for in L40.

[mycroft]

The argument for the "written defences need to be allowed" is that those defences "become part of the opponents' convention card, and therefore can be referred to whenever an opponent is allowed to look at the convention card."

Please note that *your own defence* is also allowed, and is also considered for that round to be part of the opponents' convention card (which of course means that it changes somewhat every round, but oh well). I have brought Dixon to tournaments, and see no reason, given that it's legal for everyone else, to not refer to the written defence when playing against Multi. It's also fun, because the opponents playing Multi frequently are lost when the opponents don't use one of the two default defences (and I have no sympathy for them. "You play something so unusual that the ACBL requires you to bring a written defence against it, and you're complaining about unfamiliarity?")

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-26, 02:57, said:

It is not clear to me that the ACBL's "special election" is provided for in L40.

That is because it is a special election, L40 notwithstanding. Aka, an exception to the prohibitions in L40.

However, using written defenses and refering to them during the auction, brings with it some obligations...such as disclosing which of more than one optional defense is being used, and pretending at least to look at the defenses even when not planning to intercede.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-26, 09:41, said:

That is because it is a special election, L40 notwithstanding. Aka, an exception to the prohibitions in L40.

So it is illegal. LOL.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-26, 09:45, said:

So it is illegal. LOL.

Maybe, but apparently not in the view of the ACBL people who drafted and enacted the special election. And, not in the view of ArtK who states the sponsoring organization can do it.

[blackshoe]

pigpenz, on 2012-March-25, 09:16, said:

but that is one of things that Danny Sprung was complaining about when he was doing commentary on the KOs....you can have a card from the opps on how to defense their artificial systems, he feels at that level they should have those agreements already

Maybe so, but the ACBL has decided otherwise. IAC, this is not the same question as that asked in the OP.

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on 2012-March-25, 09:22, said:

An aside: The use of printed defenses provided by your opponents creates certain ethical obligations. If your opponents use one of the calls for which a defense is provided, and you have agreed with your partner to use one of the defenses provided by your opponents, you MUST refer to the printed defenses at your turn to call. If you do not do so, it indicates to all involved that you have nothing to think about, which is UI to your partner. Of course, if screens are in use, this is not a problem.

Interesting assertion. Not sure I buy it. What if both you and your partner are aware that you know the defense, and don't need to refer to it?

[ArtK78]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-26, 09:54, said:

Vampyr, on 2012-March-26, 09:45, said:

So it is illegal. LOL.

Maybe, but apparently not in the view of the ACBL people who drafted and enacted the special election. And, not in the view of ArtK who states the sponsoring organization can do it.

If you look at my post from 11:05 yesterday, I quoted from Law 40 C. 3. (a) which starts out "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority, ...." So the law specifically allows the ACBL (the "Regulating Authority") to permit the use of memory aids. It is up to the Regulating Authority to decide when and how it will permit the use of memory aids.

So it is not illegal if the Regulating Authority permits it.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-26, 09:45, said:

So it is illegal. LOL.

aguahombre, on 2012-March-26, 09:54, said:

Maybe, but apparently not in the view of the ACBL people who drafted and enacted the special election. And, not in the view of ArtK who states the sponsoring organization can do it.

Quote

Law 40B2b: Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise, a player may not consult his own system card after the auction period commences until the end of play, except that players of the declaring side (only) may consult their own system card during the clarification period.*

Quote

Law 40B2c: Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise, a player may consult his opponent’s system card*
(i) prior to the commencement of the auction,
(ii) during the clarification period, and
(iii) during the auction and during the play
but only at his turn to call or play.

[

Quote

Elections: Law 40B2(b): defenses to methods permitted by the AcBL mid-chart and/or Superchart may be referred to by any player whenever it would be appropriate to refer to an opponent’s convention card.
Law 40B2©: in addition, a player is permitted to consult an opponent’s convention card at his RHO’s turn to call.

In effect, the ACBL has ruled that these defenses are part of both pairs' system cards. Nothing illegal about it.

[TimG]

ArtK78, on 2012-March-25, 09:05, said:

Law 40 C. 3. (a) reads as follows:

"Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority, a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique."

Does this include the Laws themselves?

I think participants should be entitled to the know how much a undertrick/overtrick, game bonus, slam bonus, etc. is worth. Perhaps not to a chart on which the scores for various results has already been calculated.

I know it means little, but a number of years ago, an opponent called the director and asked if he could refer to the score card (that was on the reverse of the ACBL table card). The director told him he could look.

[TimG]

ArtK78, on 2012-March-25, 09:22, said:

An aside: The use of printed defenses provided by your opponents creates certain ethical obligations. If your opponents use one of the calls for which a defense is provided, and you have agreed with your partner to use one of the defenses provided by your opponents, you MUST refer to the printed defenses at your turn to call. If you do not do so, it indicates to all involved that you have nothing to think about, which is UI to your partner. Of course, if screens are in use, this is not a problem.

It's probably good practice to look at the defense every time. But, I don't think a 10 second pause without looking at the defense gives the show away. I may well have a borderline hand for action, decide whether or not it is worth action, and only then refer to the suggested defense. I also might be familiar with initial actions, but not with follow-ups, so only require the written defense after the initial action.

[barmar]

I don't see how looking vs. not looking gives away anything if you then pass. The written defense presumably says HOW to compete, but probably doesn't say WHEN to compete. Unless the defense includes an artificial meaning for Pass, why would you need to consult it if you're going to pass regardless of what it says?

In fact, maybe looking and then passing could create UI. If the defense only says how to show certain types of hands (e.g. two-suiters), and you pass after consulting it, it implies that you have a hand that might have considered competing, but isn't one of those hand types. But would ACBL really approve a defense that was so restrictive in its application?

[mycroft]

Certainly looking-and-passing passes UI - if you don't always look. Of course, so does not-looking-and-passing (assuming partner doesn't know the defence "reasonably cold"). If you always look and pass, you could have the "never going to bid" and you could have the "can't bid this hand this round". If you don't look and pass the first ones, then *both* actions pass UI - and frequently against these "defence-needed" methods, that UI is Useful and Used (even if subconsciously).

When you have a "maybe pre-balance" hand against 2♦-p-2♥, wouldn't you be more comfortable knowing that partner doesn't have a call? Wouldn't you be more comfortable knowing that partner might have had a call with a different system, but this system forces a pass? Of course, using that information is not legal, and of course nobody would do it - except it does happen. Repeatedly. And they don't even know they're doing it.

This is a direct match to the WeaSeL defence to NT (pre-Announcements). If you pass, partner only balances with the nuts. If you ask-and-pass/look-and-pass, partner comes in with anything useful. In my experience, having that available was worth half-a-board a session to the opponents (on a 12-14 NT - adjust for different frequencies).

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on 2012-March-25, 09:22, said:

An aside: The use of printed defenses provided by your opponents creates certain ethical obligations. If your opponents use one of the calls for which a defense is provided, and you have agreed with your partner to use one of the defenses provided by your opponents, you MUST refer to the printed defenses at your turn to call.

Is there some basis in the ACBL regulations for this assertion? There's certainly none in the Laws.

As far as the Laws are concerned, looking or not looking at the defence is equivalent to asking or not asking about an alerted call. If you're inconsistent about either, you convey UI, but there's no legal requirement to be consistent in this respect.

[blackshoe]

TimG, on 2012-March-26, 20:47, said:

Does this include the Laws themselves?

I think participants should be entitled to the know how much a undertrick/overtrick, game bonus, slam bonus, etc. is worth. Perhaps not to a chart on which the scores for various results has already been calculated.

I know it means little, but a number of years ago, an opponent called the director and asked if he could refer to the score card (that was on the reverse of the ACBL table card). The director told him he could look.

The director was wrong.