[barmar]

mycroft, on 2015-March-09, 16:02, said:

I find "please leave the auction out" uncomfortable. First, of course, because about 50% of the time the request is ignored, and my re-request tends to sound aggressive. But the real reason is "hey, partner, I do have questions - you might be interested in the auction before you lead, too"...not that I would do that, but it sure looks like that when partner *does* now ask for explanations before her lead.

It's hardly ever ignored in my experience. But I've learned over the years from these forums that there are apparently far fewer jerks playing bridge in New England than the rest of the world, because I rarely experience the kinds of annoying behavior everyone else says is commonplace.

The request generally only happens in complex auctions with lots of alerts. It should come as no surprise to anyone that we're going to have questions. Also, the UI is only an issue if it's the partner of the opening leader who asks for them to be left out -- half the time it's the opening leader himself.

[campboy]

VixTD, on 2015-March-10, 08:58, said:

I dislike the wording of this regulation because I think it misleads people to think that it applies only when the opening lead has been faced. If a player "acts in such a way" before the opening lead has been faced, the director is still quite likely to rule that they have passed. To do so would not be against the regulations.

I think the regulation is fine as it is. The next sentence does go on to say what should happen if the opening lead has not yet been faced, where the TD may rule that a pass has been made, but doesn't have to.

So if an opening lead has not been faced, I would investigate whether the player did originally intend his action to constitute a pass. If he did I will rule that he has actually passed; he can't get away with tapping the pass card, then changing his mind and substituting another call. But if a player starts to pick up his bidding cards because he thinks the auction is already over, I see no need to rule that this constitutes a pass.

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2015-March-10, 09:14, said:

It's hardly ever ignored in my experience. But I've learned over the years from these forums that there are apparently far fewer jerks playing bridge in New England than the rest of the world, because I rarely experience the kinds of annoying behavior everyone else says is commonplace.

Okay, "ignored" is too strong a term. Any implication of deliberate intent was unintended.

Habit is such that, after "please leave the auction out" [pass], at least half the time, at least one player has already scrunched up enough of their bidding cards as to lose at least one round of the auction. "Please leave the auction out" "Oh sorry." "Please *fix* the auction..." "sorry".

Of course there are also those who have the cards collected before I've passed, never mind requested that the auction stay out...
And those who say "why?" Or treat the request as a serious breach of normal procedure. Those are the same who, when asked to explain the auction, explain the one call they think I care about (if not ask what call I care about). "Continue, please" [explain the next bid] "Continue, please..."

It's not "jerk", it's lack of experience, lack of training, and frankly, lack of people who know enough to care about things like this. Most pairs either don't ask, or ask about every call at their next turn (by rote - they don't really understand what they're being told either). So the situation doesn't make sense to them.

Again, any implication that there is any malice involved is bad construction on my part. That doesn't make what happens any less annoying, though.

Quote

The request generally only happens in complex auctions with lots of alerts. It should come as no surprise to anyone that we're going to have questions.

You'd think, wouldn't you? Seriously, it just doesn't happen often enough to them (as opposed to the ask at the call) for them to understand. And they *certainly* see no reason to explain without being asked.

Quote

Also, the UI is only an issue if it's the partner of the opening leader who asks for them to be left out -- half the time it's the opening leader himself.

True. It only really bothers me when I'm in the passout seat, true.

[gwnn]

mycroft, on 2015-March-09, 16:02, said:

What would be interesting in the "doubled cue-bid" case is "so, what contract did you write down?" The one time I picked up my cards instead of third pass I wrote down 3♦. Of course, the auction ended 3♦-x-p-p-pickup. I was quite indignant about this one (but didn't fight it...it was a club game, and the worst director in the city, and it wasn't going to make a difference to my further bidding - might have changed the play, but that's my fault for not seeing it, I guess).

Sorry could you make a simple flowchart or a cartoon on what exactly the auction was and who picked up what? There was something with 3Dx or 3D, you picked up your cards instead of passing, you got upset, but which side were you on and what happened?

[mycroft]

Sorry.

I *never* pull my cards to pass - I *always* put out the last pass (even when second-to-pass doesn't).

One auction went something something 3♦ (by me) AP (in my mind), so I picked up my cards and played 3♦.

According to people who can actually tell red from green cards that day, it went ...3♦ (by me) X P P and then I picked up my cards.

Why my partner thought there was nothing out of the ordinary boggles me to this day, but it's not her place to stop me from being stupid, really.

It was only after I went down (one or two, can't remember now) and I announced the score that I was told it was doubled. I said, it couldn't have been, it went all pass. No, they said, two passes and you picked up your cards, therefore passing.

Yeah...no. But, again, my fault for not paying attention.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2015-March-10, 15:40, said:

And those who say "why?" Or treat the request as a serious breach of normal procedure. Those are the same who, when asked to explain the auction, explain the one call they think I care about (if not ask what call I care about). "Continue, please" [explain the next bid] "Continue, please..."

Some years ago, the opponents had some long auction. I asked for the bidding cards to be left out. That wasn't a problem. I then asked "please explain your auction". I got "Huh?" I said "please explain your entire auction." They called the director. On hearing the problem, she said to me "which bid are you asking about?" (!) I replied "all of them." "Oh." Then, to opps, she said "I guess he wants you to explain all your bids." Sheesh.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2015-March-09, 16:02, said:

I find "please leave the auction out" uncomfortable. First, of course, because about 50% of the time the request is ignored, and my re-request tends to sound aggressive. But the real reason is "hey, partner, I do have questions - you might be interested in the auction before you lead, too"...not that I would do that, but it sure looks like that when partner *does* now ask for explanations before her lead.
.
But with the ACBL style, it's the least of evils.

Maybe the ACBL should change their regulation?

[VixTD]

campboy, on 2015-March-10, 10:20, said:

I think the regulation is fine as it is. The next sentence does go on to say what should happen if the opening lead has not yet been faced, where the TD may rule that a pass has been made, but doesn't have to.

I disagree with the rest of it as well, including the Laws and Ethics Committee's judgement (although not with the way you indicated you would apply the regulation).

The example auction given is 1NT - 3♦ - X - P

Now opener mistakenly thinks she is in the pass-out seat (presumably because she mistook the double for a pass). The regulation suggests that she should be allowed another go if she picks up her bidding cards, intending this action to constitute a pass, but not if she lays out a pass card.

This can't be right, in both cases she's made a call on the basis of her own misunderstanding, and she shouldn't be allowed to change it just because she fails to follow correct procedure in calling.

[campboy]

VixTD, on 2015-March-11, 08:04, said:

The example auction given is 1NT - 3♦ - X - P

Now opener mistakenly thinks she is in the pass-out seat (presumably because she mistook the double for a pass). The regulation suggests that she should be allowed another go if she picks up her bidding cards, intending this action to constitute a pass, but not if she lays out a pass card.

This can't be right, in both cases she's made a call on the basis of her own misunderstanding, and she shouldn't be allowed to change it just because she fails to follow correct procedure in calling.

Yes, I'm with you on this one. Where does the example come from? It's not part of the regulation in the WB; was it in L&EC minutes?

[gordontd]

campboy, on 2015-March-11, 08:33, said:

Yes, I'm with you on this one. Where does the example come from? It's not part of the regulation in the WB; was it in L&EC minutes?

It's in a different section, at the top of p118 (I thought the same as you, but then remembered to search for "waft").

[nige1]

weejonnie quoted the'EBU White Book', which said:

"Some players do not always complete the auction properly by laying a pass card on the table in the pass out seat. Usually this does not cause a problem. When a player acts in such a way as to indicate they have passed and an opening lead is faced they have passed. An action may be deemed by the TD to be a pass in the pass out seat (e.g. general 'waft' of the hand, tapping cards already there, picking up the cards)."

helene_t, on 2015-March-09, 08:33, said:

Well it may be relevant, if asking the question "is it my lead?" counts as an example of "acting in such a way as to indicate they have passed".

barmar, on 2015-March-09, 08:42, said:

The regulation says they have to "act in such a way" AND "the opening lead is faced". If only one of those takes place, the regulation doesn't apply. For instance, if he makes a face-down lead, and asks "Any questions?", you could say "Why are you leading when the auction isn't over yet?"

IMO, the regulation might be better phrased but asking "Is it my lead?" might well satisfy the condition in the next sentence of the regulation "An action may be deemed by the TD to be a pass in the pass out seat (e.g. general 'waft' of the hand, tapping cards already there, picking up the cards)."

[barmar]

VixTD, on 2015-March-11, 08:04, said:

I disagree with the rest of it as well, including the Laws and Ethics Committee's judgement (although not with the way you indicated you would apply the regulation).

The example auction given is 1NT - 3♦ - X - P

Now opener mistakenly thinks she is in the pass-out seat (presumably because she mistook the double for a pass). The regulation suggests that she should be allowed another go if she picks up her bidding cards, intending this action to constitute a pass, but not if she lays out a pass card.

This can't be right, in both cases she's made a call on the basis of her own misunderstanding, and she shouldn't be allowed to change it just because she fails to follow correct procedure in calling.

I don't think that's how the regulation is intended to be used.

If the opening lead has been faced, it doesn't matter why she picked up her bidding cards -- it's too late to change it, so it's automatically deemed a pass. But before the opening lead is faced, the reason why she picked up the bidding cards (or performed some other action that was interpreted as a Pass) can be investigated. If she didn't intend to pass, we roll back to that point.

This is somewhat consistent with the law regarding unintended bids: if you don't notice until after partner has called, it's too late to do anything about it.

[VixTD]

gordontd, on 2015-March-11, 09:13, said:

It's in a different section, at the top of p118 (I thought the same as you, but then remembered to search for "waft").

Sorry, I thought we were all on the same section, 8.22.2. It contains weejonnie's quotation, but I see that's reproduced from 1.6.2. (I also found it by searching for "waft".)

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2015-March-11, 11:23, said:

Sorry, I thought we were all on the same section, 8.22.2. It contains weejonnie's quotation, but I see that's reproduced from 1.6.2. (I also found it by searching for "waft".)

1.6.2 was imported from the Orange/Blue Book, which explains the certain amount of redundancy.
There should be a reference from 1.6.2 to the greater detail of 8.22.2.

[campboy]

gordontd, on 2015-March-11, 09:13, said:

It's in a different section, at the top of p118 (I thought the same as you, but then remembered to search for "waft").

Ah, thanks.

VixTD: in that case I don't think the problem is with the "may"; I would prefer to change the regulation to

Quote

When a player acts in such a way as to indicate they have passed and an opening lead is faced they have passed. An action may be deemed by the TD to be a pass in the pass out seat (e.g. general ‘waft’ of the hand, tapping cards already there, picking up the cards)’.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-09, 09:16, said:

In England, maybe. In North America, by the time the opening lead is made face down, the bidding cards are long gone.

The game would run more smoothly if TFLB stipulated that bidding cards remain exposed until after LHO asks questions (if he has any), the opening lead is made face down, and RHO asks questions (if he has any). It makes sense for LHO to ask "Any questions?", to avoid an unnecessary wait for RHO's possible questions. .

Currently, the law encourages jurisdictions to pander to players, fond of annoying practices like idiosyncratic designation of dummy's cards, picking up bidding cards prematurely, asking "having none?", and so on. This over-indulgence leads to legal incontinence and diarrhea -- and a recurring nuisance to players and directors.

Universal sensible laws that curtailed this would radically simplify the game, speed up the play, and level the playing field. TFLB could still include get-out clauses to allow dissenting local regulators to cope with ingrained bolshy behaviour by their unruly players.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2015-March-11, 11:06, said:

This is somewhat consistent with the law regarding unintended bids: if you don't notice until after partner has called, it's too late to do anything about it.

A call is not normally considered inadvertent if it is legal but was based on a mistaken impression of the auction.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2015-March-11, 15:50, said:

Currently, the law encourages jurisdictions to pander to players, fond of annoying practices like idiosyncratic designation of dummy's cards, picking up bidding cards prematurely, asking "having none?", and so on. This over-indulgence leads to legal incontinence and diarrhea -- and a recurring nuisance to players and directors.

Duplicate bridge grew out of social bridge, where people played much less formally. The laws recognize that this is how many people learned to play. We're not obsessive-compulsive automatons, we're just playing a game and trying to have fun.