[Vampyr]

GreenMan, on 2013-February-20, 11:44, said:

Time for the obligatory call to require the bidding cards to stay on the table till the opening lead is faced. I think that procedure change would solve a lot of problems. I know it's been said before ...

It does work very well.

[gnasher]

In this case it would be sufficient to require the bidding cards to stay on the table until the auction is over.

[barmar]

sfi, on 2013-February-20, 15:24, said:

My understanding is that the laws are silent on the matter of proper bidding box procedures, and that it is largely a matter of regulation. For example, ABF regulations do require that the bidding cards remain on the table until the opening lead is faced. This is widely ignored in practice.

The full name of the forum is "Changing Laws and Regulations", so discussion of changing bidding box procedures would still be appropriate there.

But if the situation occurs in a place that already has appropriate regulations, then it's a matter of enforcement, not regulation. As others have said, if a regulation is routinely ignored by both players and directors, there's not much the regulators can do about that.

[Fluffy]

Wasn't it jillybean who suggested that by breaking the rules on a normal basis you protect yourself?

Take this an example, if the played in question didn't pass 3NT but instead picked up his bidding cards as his opponent did a round later most likelly 4th hand player or someone would have protested forcing the player to realice the double.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2013-February-18, 07:31, said:

I cannot believe that I am (almost?) the only one who sometime or other have experienced an auction ending with the last player making a bid and, feeling certain (from how the auction proceeded) that his bid will be the contract, just picking up his bid cards not waiting for the three subsequently expected pass calls to come?

Sure this is an irregularity, but who cares in a friendly party of bridge? (And most parties of bridge are friendly are they not?)

I care, because it is not friendly, it is very rude and offensive, showing a lack of interest in the game.

blackshoe, on 2013-February-18, 12:04, said:

No. The way I read it, the player who wasn't paying attention wouldn't have been paying attention even if everybody put out pass cards as they were supposed to do.

Certainly not the way I read it. Those little green cards help to know what the auction actually is.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2013-February-26, 09:12, said:

Certainly not the way I read it. Those little green cards help to know what the auction actually is.

Sure they do. That's not the point. The player was concentrating on his hand, thinking about what to lead. He wasn't paying attention to bidding cards, and it doesn't seem to me likely that pass cards coming out would have made any difference to him.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-26, 10:18, said:

Sure they do. That's not the point. The player was concentrating on his hand, thinking about what to lead. He wasn't paying attention to bidding cards, and it doesn't seem to me likely that pass cards coming out would have made any difference to him.

Are you forgetting that he would have been required to play one himself? He wasn't in the passout seat.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2013-February-26, 09:12, said:

I care, because it is not friendly, it is very rude and offensive, showing a lack of interest in the game.

I would be extremely cautious with such characterization without substance.

If an apparently final bid is made and everybody expect that bid to be final, happily collecting their respective bid cards and restoring them to their bid boxes without in detail observing correct procedure then of course they are violating the laws.

But absent any animosity or unpleasantness at the table what on earth is the cause for using words like rude and offensive and to make assertions that there is lack of interest in the game? I for one would feel very offended if David or others should come along like that at my table (in our club) where we are four friends playing bridge.

[mycroft]

If an apparently final bid is made and the bidder expects that bid to be final...

is not what you said, but it is the issue.

1NT-p-3NT pickup. Yeah, 99+% of the time, it's going to go AP. If you wait until fourth-hand doesn't make a "lead spades, partner" double, add another 9. Still, "everybody" is overkill.

And as there *are* people who do that after 1♦-p-1♠-X; p-2♥-p-p; 3♦ and she picks up her cards (actually, she doesn't play with bidding boxes, last I remember; what she does is make the 3♦ call and turn her scorecard over to write in the contract). I will admit, that after several years of having to deal with this, I'm a little sensitive; but yeah, it's rude, offensive, and whether there's lack of interest in the game, there's definitely knowledge that it's passing information to partner, and that that doesn't matter to the bid-and-pick-uper. And that's if nothing else, lack of interest in playing a *fair* game.

[barmar]

I think people just have different thresholds for what they consider "rude". If someone fails to hold a door for someone behind them, so it closes on them, is that rude or merely careless or thoughtless?

[Zelandakh]

I think we can use this method to get around the loss of Alert-Gerber, eg 1NT - 4♣ (picks up cards) = to play. I can see many practical applications for this. How about (2♠) - X (picks up cards) = penalty? or even 1♦ - 2♠ (picks up cards) = WJS. If we combine it with Weasel, we can practically ignore all enemy preempts. Perfect!

[Trinidad]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-28, 03:59, said:

If we combine it with Weasel, we can practically ignore all enemy preempts. Perfect!

A name for this convention could be snømus.

Rik

[bluejak]

pran, on 2013-February-26, 16:38, said:

I would be extremely cautious with such characterization without substance.

If an apparently final bid is made and everybody expect that bid to be final, happily collecting their respective bid cards and restoring them to their bid boxes without in detail observing correct procedure then of course they are violating the laws.

But absent any animosity or unpleasantness at the table what on earth is the cause for using words like rude and offensive and to make assertions that there is lack of interest in the game? I for one would feel very offended if David or others should come along like that at my table (in our club) where we are four friends playing bridge.

If players are going to pick up their cards when their partner still has a call, then yes, I do consider such players rude and offensive, and if you permit that in your club then I do not want to play in your club.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2013-March-01, 19:01, said:

If players are going to pick up their cards when their partner still has a call, then yes, I do consider such players rude and offensive, and if you permit that in your club then I do not want to play in your club.

I don't.

But you obviously (and deliberately) ignore the premises for my note:

pran, on 2013-February-26, 16:38, said:

I would be extremely cautious with such characterization without substance.

If an apparently final bid is made and everybody expect that bid to be final, happily collecting their respective bid cards and restoring them to their bid boxes without in detail observing correct procedure then of course they are violating the laws.

But absent any animosity or unpleasantness at the table what on earth is the cause for using words like rude and offensive and to make assertions that there is lack of interest in the game? I for one would feel very offended if David or others should come along like that at my table (in our club) where we are four friends playing bridge.

I have no further comments.

[nige1]

pran, on 2013-February-26, 16:38, said:

I would be extremely cautious with such characterization without substance.

If an apparently final bid is made and everybody expect that bid to be final, happily collecting their respective bid cards and restoring them to their bid boxes without in detail observing correct procedure then of course they are violating the laws.

But absent any animosity or unpleasantness at the table what on earth is the cause for using words like rude and offensive and to make assertions that there is lack of interest in the game? I for one would feel very offended if David or others should come along like that at my table (in our club) where we are four friends playing bridge.

I hope pran continues to enjoy the game that they play at his club but if they unnecessarilly, routinely and deliberately flout the rules of Bridge, without sanction, then the game they play is not Bridge.

[pran]

nige1, on 2013-March-02, 23:22, said:

I hope pran continues to enjoy the game that they play at his club but if they unnecessarilly, routinely and deliberately flout the rules of Bridge, without sanction, then the game they play is not Bridge.

So attempting to curtail the auction when it appears obvious to everybody that three passes will follow makes the game not bridge?

Bear in mind that I do not advocate this as a general routine, but I have seen it happen and I would certainly not interfere when all four players are happy and no damage is caused.

[Fluffy]

I had a hand a couple of years ago, when LHO bid 6♣ partner passed, RHO passed and I started to think, not sure if I though of doubling or of defending to 6♦. Whatever, everybody picked up his bids, and started to chit-chat about how brave the 6♣ bid was or I dunno. I still had my 4 green passes in front when my partner made the lead and dummy came down if I crecall correctly. In the end I decided to just pass, but my hesitation revealed to declarer a key card for the slam I think. I sarted a thread back then, but no clue how to find it.

I found this one though:

http://www.bridgebas...__1#entry598265

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2013-March-03, 05:06, said:

So attempting to curtail the auction when it appears obvious to everybody that three passes will follow makes the game not bridge?

Bear in mind that I do not advocate this as a general routine, but I have seen it happen and I would certainly not interfere when all four players are happy and no damage is caused.

Correct, it is not Bridge. It is illegal communication that one expects the auction to be over when it is not over, whether intended to influence that outcome or not.

The fact that in retrospect no damage was done in a particular case does not have any relevance.

The fact that some players do this is less than relevant to its propriety. If nobody did it, this thread would not exist.

[lalldonn]

Fluffy, on 2013-March-03, 06:21, said:

I had a hand a couple of years ago, when LHO bid 6♣ partner passed, RHO passed and I started to think, not sure if I though of doubling or of defending to 6♦. Whatever, everybody picked up his bids, and started to chit-chat about how brave the 6♣ bid was or I dunno. I still had my 4 green passes in front when my partner made the lead and dummy came down if I crecall correctly. In the end I decided to just pass, but my hesitation revealed to declarer a key card for the slam I think. I sarted a thread back then, but no clue how to find it.

I found this one though:

http://www.bridgebas...__1#entry598265

If you aren't done yet, just say something as they are picking up their bids. Also your partner should lead face down of course.

Your hesitation would have revealed the same thing to declarer whether the other bids had remained on the table until you were done thinking or not.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-03, 06:50, said:

The fact that some players do this is less than relevant to its propriety. If nobody did it, this thread would not exist.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that so far pran has been the only participant in this discussion who has observed this behavior. I am not going to worry about it until it actually occurs.

Rik