[biggerclub]

As a fairly new director, the following, often disputed circumstances cause me problems.

Quote

1. Players must choose a call before touching any card in the bidding box. A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching, or nearly touching, the table — or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made.

I think we can all agree on touching the table. After that the battles start:

What constitutes "nearly touching"? As an example, Monday players were asserting that a call had been made when the bidding card was held several inches above the table but in a position that one OPP, at least could see it. Not that seeing it is relevant to anything.

Or even worse, what constitutes maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made? <I am inclined to grant a LOT of leeway here on the grounds that if the player indicated that the call had been made, then I wouldn't be at the table -- unless there is a charge that a reaction from somewhere around the table caused the change of mind/heart. There is usually no such charge, just players aggressively playing the rules to try and trap the offender.>

[barmar]

My general understanding is that the criteria other than "touching the table" generally require that you hold the card stationary, so it's clear that you've finished the process of removing the card from the box. If it's still in motion, you can usually change it.

But there's still some exceptions. Imagine the player pulling a card from the box, and passing it in front of the faces of the other players to show them the bid -- that would obviously be "indicating that the call has been made".

I think you're supposed to apply common sense to understand the second clause.

[biggerclub]

barmar, on 2015-November-04, 11:46, said:

. . . stationary, . . .

I think you're supposed to apply common sense to understand the second clause.

Re: Stationary -- agreed that it may be necessary, but is it sufficient? Example, player removes card from box in direct vertical motion and stops. Probably not a made bid by anyone's standards. I don't expect to get a clear answer here, but I am hoping for some input that helps me in these contentious rulings (No I didn't/Yes you did, etc.).

Re: Common sense -- I am not very sympathetic to (usually) better players trying to trap weaker players who are clearly not indicating indecision in an effort to transmit UI or otherwise cheat. This is not like a poker player shooting an angle to induce a tell. These are generally players who are struggling because they are in over their heads and who want to make good decisions. And on the other side are players who want to trap them into a bad choice on a technicality. Usually.

[campboy]

biggerclub, on 2015-November-04, 11:12, said:

Or even worse, what constitutes maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made? <I am inclined to grant a LOT of leeway here on the grounds that if the player indicated that the call had been made, then I wouldn't be at the table -- unless there is a charge that a reaction from somewhere around the table caused the change of mind/heart. There is usually no such charge, just players aggressively playing the rules to try and trap the offender.>

I think the point of this second part is that it covers the case where the player is no longer holding the bidding card. We need to be able to say a bid that has been dropped onto the table has been made, even if at no point was it being held near the table.

I suppose one could maintain it in such a position as to indicate it had been made if one stuck it in front of another player's face, or something, but I've never seen anything like that.

[barmar]

Right, necessary but not sufficient.

Suppose the player pulls the card out of the box, and while it's in the air he pauses, makes a quizzical or surprised look, and returns it to the box. That pause is not "a position to indicate that it has been made", because the expression on his face makes it clear otherwise.

[ggwhiz]

In the ACBL anyway you have quite a bit of leeway to correct a mechanical error like sticky bidding cards or just grabbing the wrong one to the point that even if it's on the table and the bidder says "hold everything" before I bid I wouldn't dream of calling the Director. Those that do need an etiquette lesson, especially in a club game.

Here is a link to a blog by Judy Kay-Wolff that covers her attitude. http://judy.bridgebl...-bridge-crimes/

Different story, ie. if it's changing a jump raise to a single raise but that's a matter of UI regardless of which way you rule.

[campboy]

ggwhiz, on 2015-November-05, 10:44, said:

In the ACBL anyway you have quite a bit of leeway to correct a mechanical error like sticky bidding cards or just grabbing the wrong one to the point that even if it's on the table and the bidder says "hold everything" before I bid I wouldn't dream of calling the Director. Those that do need an etiquette lesson, especially in a club game.

If it's a mechanical error (or "unintended call", as the laws put it), then, by law, it can be changed even if it has been made (indeed, even if next hand has subsequently called). Whether the bid has been made or not is usually only relevant when it was not a mechanical error but the player wishes to change his mind. In the ACBL, the point at which a bid is made is slightly later than in the EBU (where it is made as soon as it is removed from the box with apparent intent, but of course can still be changed if it was not the actual intended call).

[axman]

biggerclub, on 2015-November-04, 11:12, said:

As a fairly new director, the following, often disputed circumstances cause me problems.



I think we can all agree on touching the table. After that the battles start:

What constitutes "nearly touching"? As an example, Monday players were asserting that a call had been made when the bidding card was held several inches above the table but in a position that one OPP, at least could see it. Not that seeing it is relevant to anything.

Or even worse, what constitutes maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made? <I am inclined to grant a LOT of leeway here on the grounds that if the player indicated that the call had been made, then I wouldn't be at the table -- unless there is a charge that a reaction from somewhere around the table caused the change of mind/heart. There is usually no such charge, just players aggressively playing the rules to try and trap the offender.>

If you are running your own game I would suggest as sponsor that you write and post your own regulation along the following lines:

1. Once you touch a bidding card you are committed forthwith to place your call on the table.

2. Corrections
2a. If you grab the wrong card, announce immediately “Not this” and finish putting the stack on the table and immediately either (1) remove the extra cards or (2) fetch the missing cards. < If you grabbed from the wrong pile then put them away and draw from the correct pile.> Doing so affords a L25A correction; failure to do so results in a L25B penalty.

2b. If an opponent disputes the alacrity of correcting a call, to obtain a ruling he must summon the TD before acting.

3. Once you let go of your <completed- see 2.> call <on the table> it is LHO's turn.

[Vampyr]

axman, on 2015-November-05, 12:58, said:

If you are running your own game I would suggest as sponsor that you write and post your own regulation along the following lines:

1. Once you touch a bidding card you are committed forthwith to place your call on the table.

2. Corrections
2a. If you grab the wrong card, announce immediately “Not this” and finish putting the stack on the table and immediately either (1) remove the extra cards or (2) fetch the missing cards. < If you grabbed from the wrong pile then put them away and draw from the correct pile.> Doing so affords a L25A correction; failure to do so results in a L25B penalty.

2b. If an opponent disputes the alacrity of correcting a call, to obtain a ruling he must summon the TD before acting.

3. Once you let go of your <completed- see 2.> call <on the table> it is LHO's turn.

LOL sod the laws!

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-November-06, 03:05, said:

LOL sod the laws!

What do you mean? The Laws say absolutely nothing about bidding boxes, this is left entirely up to the RA. If you're a club owner, you're the RA.

Most clubs in the US simply defer to ACBL regulations rather than draft their own, but there's no requirement to do so. Note that if you have ideosyncrative regulations, your members may encounter surprises when they play in tournamentsand have to deal with the league-wide standards.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-November-06, 10:27, said:

If you're a club owner, you're the RA.

I'm not so sure about that.

[

Quote

b]Law 80:[/b] A. The Regulating Authority
1. The Regulating Authority under these Laws is
(a) for its own world tournaments and events the World Bridge Federation.
(b) the respective Zonal Authority for tournaments and events held under its auspices.
© for any other tournament or event the National Bridge Organization in whose territory the tournament takes place.
2. The Regulating Authority has the responsibilities and powers specified in these Laws.
3. The Regulating Authority may delegate its powers (retaining ultimate responsibility for their exercise) or it may assign them (in which case it has no further responsibility for their exercise).

Has the ACBL delegated its RA powers to clubs? How does the USBF (the NBO in the United States) fit into this?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2015-November-06, 10:27, said:

What do you mean? The Laws say absolutely nothing about bidding boxes, this is left entirely up to the RA. If you're a club owner, you're the RA.

This proposed regulation does not suitably satisfy L25A.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-November-07, 00:33, said:

Has the ACBL delegated its RA powers to clubs? How does the USBF (the NBO in the United States) fit into this?

Yes, the ACBL delegates most of its powers to clubs, but most clubs adopt most ACBL regulations. As long as the club sends in the money and game files, ACBL pretty much leaves them alone.

The most common area where clubs diverge from ACBL regulations is regarding conventions -- some clubs are more liberal than GCC.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-November-07, 14:08, said:

This proposed regulation does not suitably satisfy L25A.

How so? 25A is about when you're allowed to change a call that has been made. If the call hasn't been made, then it's irrelevant. And the bidding box regulation determines when a call has been made when using bidding boxes.

So Law 25A essentially defers to the bidding box regulation to determine when it's applicable.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-November-07, 21:23, said:

Yes, the ACBL delegates most of its powers to clubs, but most clubs adopt most ACBL regulations. As long as the club sends in the money and game files, ACBL pretty much leaves them alone.

The most common area where clubs diverge from ACBL regulations is regarding conventions -- some clubs are more liberal than GCC.

Where is the official statement that ACBL delegates its RA powers to clubs?

My point is that I don't think they've actually done that. They've simply shown, over the years, that they don't care, as you say, as long as they get their vig.

Some clubs are less liberal than GCC.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2015-November-07, 21:27, said:

How so? 25A is about when you're allowed to change a call that has been made. If the call hasn't been made, then it's irrelevant. And the bidding box regulation determines when a call has been made when using bidding boxes.

So Law 25A essentially defers to the bidding box regulation to determine when it's applicable.

Sort of, but that 's not what that other poster said. He wishes to allow a 25A change only while the bid is in the process of being made. Meanwhile, a 25A change is actually allowed after you notice that you pulled the wrong card. Remember it says provided partner hasn't called; so obviously it is OK if you don't notice before LHO has made a call.

But I would love to see the guy's regulation in the EBU, where a call is mad once it's cleared the bidding box. There would be lots of midair juggling, and every bidding box in the room would be knocked to,the floor at least once in a session. What fun!

The other poster also seems to want to allow 25A corrections when the calls come from a different part of the bidding box (this is what I assume he means by "pile". This is something I would rarely allow, and I would also be pretty hard as far as UI goes on people who fingerfukc the bidding box before making a call; but I have never been summoned for that reason.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-November-08, 10:18, said:

Some clubs are less liberal than GCC.

Did you mean to say less liberal?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-November-08, 12:23, said:

Did you mean to say less liberal?

I did. Example: I once took up Romex with a local partner. Everything in the system was GCC legal, but the 1NT opening in Romex is artificial and forcing. Three months after we started playing it, the director walked up to us in the next to last round and said "I understand you're playing an artificial 1NT opening". We confirmed, he said "that bid is banned in this club" and turned around and walked away. Shortly after that my partner passed away. I haven't played in that club since.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-November-08, 10:18, said:

Where is the official statement that ACBL delegates its RA powers to clubs?

From the GCC: "Clubs have full authority to regulate conventions in games conducted solely at their clubs."

In other cases this is implicit from a lack of statement. For example, ACBL has conditions of contests for tournaments, they don't have conditions of contests for club play, so clubs have to designate their own.

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2015-November-09, 10:10, said:

For example, ACBL has conditions of contests for tournaments, they don't have conditions of contests for club play, so clubs have to designate their own.

Conditions of contest are the responsibility of the Tournament Organizer, but some regulations are the responsibility of the Regulating Authority.
A club can be a Tournament Organiser, and set conditions of contest, without being a (delegated) Regulating Authority.

Surely the laws require an explicit statement from the National Bridge Organization to delegate/assign Regulating Authority status to other organizations (Law 80A).