[tgphelps]

My wife and I are semi-novices, and we just went to our first NLM regional tournament. While playing, we were told several things by other presumably more experienced players. I wonder how many of them were true, so I'm going to list the ones we had questions about, and hope you presumably MUCH more experienced players can tell us The Real Story. Here they are:

1. One opposing pair wanted me to put dummy's suits down with alternating colors; red, black, red, black. Another pair said they wanted them in the natural order of the suits; spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs. Question: Is there any rule about how dummy's suits are arranged? We know that trumps should be on the left, but do the defenders have any right to ask for a rearrangement?

2. We had a rather tall stack of boards on the table, and my wife, sitting West, took all except the top one, and set them on the floor, for better visibility. We were told that only South is allowed to "handle the boards". Is that true?

3. At a recent club game, one pair was announcing their vulnerability before the hands were picked up, to remind each other of it, I suppose. I thought this was a good idea, so we did this at the regional. Someone said we were not allowed to call attention to that. I didn't see any problem with doing before we looked our hands. Can we mention this, or not?

4. We were E/W, and I picked up my cards from the new board. One opponent said E/W were not allowed to touch the cards until N/S did so. True or false?

5. Someone said that North MUST enter the data into the Bridgemate, and that West MUST accept it. True or false?

I'm guessing that not all five of those things we were told are true. What's your answer?

[mikeh]

Let me start by hoping that, weird ‘advice’ notwithstanding, that you and your wife are enjoying your involvement in tournament bridge

1. The Laws (available on the acbl website and all bridge players should be at least familiar with them) specify that trump (if there is a trump suit) is laid down on dummy’s right. They appear to be silent about the other suits but in 50+ years of tournament bridge I’ve never seen the suits laid down, excluding trump, with the highest ranking suit to dummy’s right and then in descending order, such that clubs, if not trump, are on dummy’s left.

2. I don’t think this is covered by the Laws, but certainly in my experience it’s either North or South who places the surplus boards on the floor ir side table/chair. This is common with specially in team games where one may have as many as seven boards at the table.

Btw, never prop the boards vertically against a table or chair leg…that can seem attractive since it makes them easier to pick up when needed. But it’s possible for a card to fall out at some point. It’s gave rise to a high profile discipline against a player with over 75,000 masterpoints…he was initially docked (iirc) about 25,000 masterpoints but, on appeal, that was negated. He had placed the fallen card into the wrong slot (they’d played the board but the other table hadn’t…in a team game) and this resulted in a fouled board.

3. It’s unusual but I don’t see anything wrong with it. I often play variable notrump, with our range varying according to vulnerability. It hasn’t happened in many years but we definitely have had a couple of hands where one of us opened the wrong range, having misread the vulnerability.

4. False. Definitely false. Any player can take his or her cards out as soon as the board is ready to play. However, sometimes the board is laced with NS reversed, so letting North or South start to take out their cards slightly reduces that risk….which is not a big deal…if someone has looked at their hand, so you can’t just switch the board around, you just play it as it is, with no penalty.

5. False, in both aspects. North almost always handles the bridgemate but I’ve seen south do it when north is unfamiliar with it or has issues making it difficult to operate it…of course they could switch seats, but they don’t have to (I think it perfectly ok for a club manager, in a club environment, to have a rule about this but I’ve never seen or heard of it). As for ‘West’ having to ok it…noses someone can point to a rule on this, I’d say it’s nonsense. In some partnerships one player does all the checking/signing and it can be either east or west. In my partnerships, we don’t care. Whoever North (it’s north 99% of the time) presents it to and if North asks who oks…we have no rule…sometimes I’ll say ‘I’ll do it’, sometimes it’s partner.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Plus we tend to think that how we’ve been told, by seemingly more experienced players, is ‘right’, but the reality is that those players don’t actually know much about the topic.

[mycroft]

• They can ask. As you said, there is no requirement except for "trumps on the left" and "cards in descending order in suits" (41D). Oh, and you don't get to leave hints to partner (such as "opening lead suit on the right" or "alternate in suit, SHDC in NT") - 43A1c. I think the semi-joking "never put your bid long suit down on the left in NT, or partner may learn that you can't make 3NT on a crossruff" is okay (at least I do it!)
  
  If they asked, and if partner didn't have a strong preference, I'd do what they want, strictly as a courtesy. If I'm playing with T., who is half blind and *requires* dummy be <trumps>SHDC, I would apologize and say that partner requires this layout. I'd also be one of those who asks, "if you don't mind".
  
  
• North-South, at least in a Mitchell (where they are stationary) are "primarily responsible for the boards" (7D). Some people take that very strongly. I would suggest that if you are E-W in any game, and the stack is too high, you request they take some off, and just let N-S deal with them.
  
  There are good reasons for this one - in particular, for "E-W don't switch boards after play" (unless they literally won't end their post-mortem and go on to the next hand, in which case I would announce while doing it). If "one switches the boards and takes their cards, then 'South' switches as they always do and the other three take their cards out", congratulations, you've just made two boards unplayable!
  
  And it isn't always South (although "North does the bridgemates, South handles the boards" is a good partnership agreement to keep to time. If you're still running slow, the next one to add is "South (only) keeps the personal score". That'll save about 10-15 seconds a board.)
  
  Note that the board in play *must* remain on the table, correctly oriented, during play (and, unless impossible for some reason, in the centre of the table) - 7A. There are many reasons for this, not least your next point. And board fouling. And "lead direction" avoidance.
  
  
• Again, that was policy with T. especially the couple of years before the surgery. "Board 15, thee and we". It's certainly a reminder, but as you said the hands aren't out of the board yet, and provided it's done *every hand* and again, before you've looked at your cards, I can't see an issue. After all, you can just look at the back of the score card, too. Now, if it's "now, remember, dear, we're vulnerable and they're not, -1 is a bad score", yeah, that's a problem.
  
  After all, it is public knowledge (Law 2 sets dealer and vul, and 16A1c means "the Laws are AI". Also 16A1d allows "...information the player possessed before taking the hand from the board..." (emphasis mine, and exception that should not be relevant omitted).
  
  There are boards that are particularly hard to read the vulnerability of (I remember one red set in particular where, after one session with the boards and about 6 director calls, the unit put in *white* inserts when NV). There are blind players. There are "I don't read [], I ask questions" people...
  
  
• False. One member of *each side*, or the director, must be at the table, for anyone to remove cards from the board (7C, effectively). Different people have different traditions (for instance in Montréal, it is impolite for les hommes to touch their cards before les femmes have taken theirs). But again, if they want, and it doesn't waste time, eh?
  
  
• False. Whatever works, works. But N-S are responsible for putting the score into the Bridgemate, and E-W are responsible for checking it (ACBL regulation). Tradition is, yes, that it's North and West (because all bridge players are right-handed). The only rule at my table is that "none of mycroft's partners let him keep score", for good reason! But when my partner is even worse than I at it, I will tend to hand it to the person that's writing in their scorebook.
  
  I once at a sectional made a point of handing the bridgemate to the woman of a mixed pair, because I'd noticed it being handed to me even if I was on North's left, when I was playing with a woman. Now, I am well known as a TD, so maybe that, but it seemed too strong for just that. About round 11, I was thanked by one pair because "it was the first time she was asked to check" :-).
  
  I have been known to do two things that maybe are a bad idea, but it hasn't caused a problem except for a bit of a shock. I have been known to put in the first board as E-W and get N to check it, because I've got the bridgemate after putting in all the player numbers. And I tend to correct the score, should it need correcting, and again pass it back to North to accept, rather than refusing to accept and getting North to fix it (mostly because I know I know how to do it :-). Maybe don't follow my pattern until you get out of NLM at least, especially if you keep running into players like these!

Frankly, most of these peccadillios are things I'd go along with unless it caused a problem. However, 4 and 5 at least seem like signs of "Lord of the Table" behaviour (of any gender). Which too is fine, if said LotT keeps to time, and doesn't use their "control" to ensure that their story is finished, their lesson is done, their inspection of the traveller (if that's available) has been concluded, and their personal score updated with all the notes for later before they do the bridgemate - and only after they get their precious *back* can anybody look at the next hand. Which, unfortunately, are also common LotT behaviour.

Final comment: the correct thing to do about these questions is check with a TD, onsite, sometime when you and they are free. (Now, an NLM regional or a local sectional doesn't require an ACBL employee TD (although there is always one on call, if they need it) so you might want to wait for a real regional or championship sectional). If someone insists (rather than requests) that everything is done their way, and in particular states that it's a rule, the proper thing to do is call the director immediately and ask. The worst thing that can happen is that the TD will say "they're right" after all!

• Some have learned these "rules" from their teachers, or from their club traditions (especially in NLM, weird things get learned and without experienced players to play against, don't get challenged for years).
  
• Some just need to be in control and dislike when things are done differently, for whatever reason (said LotTs, basically) - and again, provided it doesn't cause a time problem: eh, let 'em.
  
• Some are insisting on things being done "their way" as a game to intimidate their opponents, and that should stop.

Frankly, the only person that can make that judgement call is the TD (club directors know their own, and after 10 000 calls, TDs get pretty good at sussing out new-to-them pairs), and if they're not called, they don't know.

[ETA: Accent worked!]

[tgphelps]

I thank you both for your comments. We will "act reasonably" at the table.

[johnu]

 tgphelps, on 2024-July-14, 11:40, said:

1. One opposing pair wanted me to put dummy's suits down with alternating colors; red, black, red, black. Another pair said they wanted them in the natural order of the suits; spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs. Question: Is there any rule about how dummy's suits are arranged? We know that trumps should be on the left, but do the defenders have any right to ask for a rearrangement?

In the Laws of Duplicate Bridge which controls tournament bridge, there is a specific Law that applies to the display of dummy.

Law 41.D. Dummy’s Hand
After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank with lowest ranking cards towards declarer, and in separate columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer. Trumps are placed to dummy’s right. Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy.

As you can see, there is no requirement for a specific display of the suits except that trumps should be placed on dummy's right (or declarer's left). As dummy, you could accommodate a defender's request, but you aren't required to do so. TBH, I don't remember the last time a defender asked me or a partner to arrange dummy in a specific order.

[johnu]

tgphelps, on 2024-July-14, 11:40, said:

3. At a recent club game, one pair was announcing their vulnerability before the hands were picked up, to remind each other of it, I suppose. I thought this was a good idea, so we did this at the regional. Someone said we were not allowed to call attention to that. I didn't see any problem with doing before we looked our hands. Can we mention this, or not?

Another bridge law,

Law 17
A. Auction Period Starts
The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board.

As long as your side hasn't picked up their cards, talking about your system is OK as your auction period hasn't started. There could be a problem if the opponents opened the bidding before you finish your discussion.

[jillybean]

I have nothing to add to the replies above except to say these are very typical of "rules" heard at clubs, offered by players who have never read the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. If there is any misunderstanding or doubt at the table, please call the Director. They will be happy to help you.

And congratulations on entering your first Regional, I hope you enjoyed yourselves.

[thepossum]

Social bridge anyone?

[mycroft]

For some people (those who don't do well with non-verbal communication, or unwritten rules. Now where would I find any of those?) social bridge is *worse*. It has the same number of rules, it's just that they're the rules of the Kaffeeklatch rather than the Club. And also, many times, that of the school lunch area or adult equivalent. Seriously, we all know of clubs - and social areas - where there are definitely rules, it's just they're not the Laws, and you just have to know...

(am reminded of the time I was invited to a little social game on a Sunday. Where it became obvious that in addition to the host, we all defer to the Colonel (I believe retired). Even when he's a bit officious and expects to be able to confirm that the guest - who has been invited to run the game his way, after offer, and seems to have survived the first 5 rounds - understands what a cuebid raise is. Well, it's true, some don't know, and just because I wasn't born before 1952...)

[thepossum]

mycroft, on 2024-July-17, 10:06, said:

For some people (those who don't do well with non-verbal communication, or unwritten rules. Now where would I find any of those?) social bridge is *worse*. It has the same number of rules, it's just that they're the rules of the Kaffeeklatch rather than the Club. And also, many times, that of the school lunch area or adult equivalent. Seriously, we all know of clubs - and social areas - where there are definitely rules, it's just they're not the Laws, and you just have to know...

(am reminded of the time I was invited to a little social game on a Sunday. Where it became obvious that in addition to the host, we all defer to the Colonel (I believe retired). Even when he's a bit officious and expects to be able to confirm that the guest - who has been invited to run the game his way, after offer, and seems to have survived the first 5 rounds - understands what a cuebid raise is. Well, it's true, some don't know, and just because I wasn't born before 1952...)

local rules can be a problem

[akwoo]

 mycroft, on 2024-July-14, 14:09, said:

I once at a sectional made a point of handing the bridgemate to the woman of a mixed pair, because I'd noticed it being handed to me even if I was on North's left, when I was playing with a woman. Now, I am well known as a TD, so maybe that, but it seemed too strong for just that. About round 11, I was thanked by one pair because "it was the first time she was asked to check" :-).

(Yes I have noticed this behavior, and I agree it is obnoxious.)

What I usually do, at least for the first board of the round, is put the bridgemate in the middle of the table, on top of the boards, and see who picks it up. If I notice and remember (which isn't a given - I'm trying to pay attention to the bridge!) I'll hand it to that person for the rest of the boards.

[pescetom]

 akwoo, on 2024-July-20, 06:40, said:

(Yes I have noticed this behavior, and I agree it is obnoxious.)

What I usually do, at least for the first board of the round, is put the bridgemate in the middle of the table, on top of the boards, and see who picks it up. If I notice and remember (which isn't a given - I'm trying to pay attention to the bridge!) I'll hand it to that person for the rest of the boards.

I too like to defuse any such obnoxious behaviour, but I also find the bridgemate user interface non-intuitive and stressful (am I the only one?) so I gratefully leave the whole business up to my partner of whatever gender or position at table.
In our club we do not have bridgemates and the current FIGB solution uses player's smart phones instead, with an interface that is more intuitive (although for no good reason it does reproduce the bridgemate limitation whereby you cannot correct a parameter without reinserting all those that follow in the bridgemate sequence) but also raises no issues about which opponent should confirm (unless neither of them has the app active for some reason).

More important, I agree that gender prejudice is an issue, but I think we have an even bigger problem in the Laws that allow a pair to seek and obtain redress when they already gave electronic agreement to a certain number of tricks and the order of play is not even recorded.