[blml] Removal of bidding cards from the table [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Robert Geller:

>Can someone help me out please.
>
>In earlier threads it's been mentioned that in some countries
>bidding cards aren't picked up after the final pass, but rather are
>left on the table until the opening lead has placed on the table face
>down and third hand says he has no questions.
>
>Could someone please provide a copy of the regulations that specify
>this procedure, or a link to a web page giving these regulations in
>English.  Thanks!

Richard Hills:

The ABF regulations for written bidding and bidding boxes are at:

http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/index.html

Selected relevant excerpts ->

4.1 The Laws concerning correct procedure in the auction,
irregularities in the auction and the proprieties apply mutatis
mutandi to written bidding and bidding boxes.

11.1 When screens are in use the bidding cards are restored to their
boxes prior to the opening lead.

11.2 When screens are not in use, all the bidding cards should remain
on the table until after the opening lead has been faced.

*     *     *

Attached is a polemic, "A plague of bidding boxes", written by ABF
National Director Matthew McManus, which appeared in the May 2007
edition of the ABF Newsletter.

Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

*     *     *

For the first time this year, bidding boxes were
used in the South West Pacific Teams during the
Summer Festival of Bridge in Canberra. While some
players would have been familiar with bidding boxes,
as they are used in a number of clubs around the
country, for many it would have been a new experience.
Some clubs enter into the discussion about whether to
purchase bidding boxes for their sessions, and I am
often asked for my advice. I strongly discourage them
from going down this path. I firmly believe that written
bidding is superior to the use of bidding boxes. While
this is particularly true from a director's viewpoint,
we may also be unwittingly doing a disservice to a
significant proportion of bridge players by giving up
on traditional written bidding.
One of the main arguments put forward for bidding
boxes is that it is what the rest of the world is doing
and so we should "move forward".
We should recall than until very recently, the rest of the
world was still using spoken bidding. There was never
any suggestion that we should follow suit just because
everyone else was doing it. Australia and New Zealand
had developed the far superior method of written
bidding and we all enjoyed its benefits. Bidding boxes
are a definite improvement on spoken bidding, but
still fall well short of written bidding.
Maybe one day the rest of the world
will catch up!
As a director, there really is no
comparison between the two methods.
With written bidding the director has
an immediate record of the auction. If it needs to be
considered in more detail, it is a very simple matter to
take the bidding sheet away.
With bidding boxes, the director has to write down
his own copy of the auction after hearing from the
players...and, particularly if the bidding has been
long or complex, just getting the players to agree on
what the auction was can take quite a while. There
are frequent disagreements about how the bidding
went, whether there had been an alert of this call or of
that one, whether this hand passed or doubled on this
round, and so on.
Just two examples from January may help to give
weight to my argument.
Over the course of over 600 boards played in the 2007
Australian Youth Championships, there was only one
director call which involved anything more than a
technical ruling (ie, a lead out of turn, insufficient bid,
etc.). It occurred in the one event when bidding boxes
rather than written bidding were employed. There was
a dispute as to whether or not a call had been alerted. In
this situation, the director needs to (maybe reluctantly)
proceed on the basis that there has not been an alert
as the responsibility to make the opponents aware
lies with the alerter. With written bidding, there either
would or would not have been a circle around the bid
- no room for dispute.
Later in the week, I ventured over to the Hellenic
Club to check out the new venue. I had hardly made
it through the door, when I was accosted by a phalanx
of directors asking, "What do you do if one side
says that the contract is 4H and the other says it's 4H
doubled?" There really is no satisfactory answer to
this question. Both sides think that they are right and
whatever decision is made, one (or even both sides)
will be aggrieved.
A further observation is that there seems to be
significantly more insufficient bids using bidding
boxes compared with written bidding. One of the
reasons could be that it is not uncommon for players
to accidentally pull out the wrong card. (For instance,
you go to take out the 3H card, and you miss, or it gets
stuck and only the 2H card appears on the table.)
Now the laws of Bridge allow this to be corrected
without penalty - Law 25A, Inadvertent Call. However,
I have noticed that less experienced players are
reluctant to admit that the wrong card has been placed
on the table accidentally.
As has been said to me on more than one occasion,
"I thought that once I put the wrong bid down, I was
stuck with it."
The other situation where I believe that the less
experienced player is disadvantaged by the use of
bidding boxes is in the procedures at the end of the
auction. Those clubs who have used bidding boxes
for a while usually have a regulation that the bidding
cards should remain on the table until after the opening
lead is made. This enables the defenders to take in and
make any enquiries about the auction while it is still
in view.
In practice, however, despite all encouragements,
inducements, and threats from directors and
administrators, the cards are scooped up as soon as the
final pass is made - and sometimes even before that.
For the seasoned player, this usually does not present a
problem. Either they have developed the skills to recall
or reconstruct the auction or they have no qualms about
asking for a review of the bidding. The less experienced
player can be intimidated by the abruptness of the
process and may be reluctant to request a review for
fear of being thought of as a troublemaker - after all,
no one else seems to need to be told what the auction
was.
In a recent edition of the Newsletter, the Editor spoke of
the negative experiences that new players encountered
when first venturing onto the Congress scene. Why
should we make it worse by imposing something
unfamiliar and potentially very user-unfriendly? If we
want to make the transition from club bridge to higher
levels as easy as possible, we should stick to the written
bidding that they are used to.
I will not dispute that there are benefits with bidding
boxes, but on comparison, if we consider the needs of
all concerned, I think that they fall well short of written
bidding. We have a successful, tried and tested process
at the moment. Let's not throw it all away.

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm