[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-March-30, 19:37, said:

41B is part of 41C?

HUH ?????????

Law 41B said:

Before the opening lead is faced, the leader’s partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction [...]

Law 41C said:

After it is too late to have previous calls restated (see B), declarer or either defender, at his own* turn to play, is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2019-March-30, 02:15, said:

When bid boxes were introduced regulations used law 41C as foundation for allowing all bid cards to remain visible during the auction and to allow the bid card showing the contract to remain visible with Declarer.

I suppose you do not want bid cards be hidden during the auction and only made visible at the request of a player in turn to call?

The basis for allowing auctions using bidding boxes is not Law 41, whether C or B, but:

Quote

Law 18F. Different Methods
Regulating Authorities may authorize different methods of making calls.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2019-March-31, 01:05, said:

The basis for allowing auctions using bidding boxes is not Law 41, whether C or B, but:
Law 18F. Different Methods
Regulating Authorities may authorize different methods of making calls.

Yes, and Law 41 B and C were the foundation for the new regulation not introducing any kind of conflict with the existing laws.

That is for instance why all bid cards except the final contract shall be returned to the bid box once the opening lead is made.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2019-March-31, 04:35, said:

That is for instance why all bid cards except the final contract shall be returned to the bid box once the opening lead is made.

Except in most jurisdictions that it not what the regulations say!

[pran]

gordontd, on 2019-March-31, 04:58, said:

Except in most jurisdictions that it not what the regulations say!

That was the argument (and understanding) when bid boxes were introduced.

(I don't care what regulations say about this today)

[blackshoe]

Man, when you get the bit in your teeth you don't stop, do you?

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2019-March-30, 02:07, said:

No, they explicitly allow you to ask and to be told, but not to have "aids to memory".

What's the significant difference between asking every time it's your turn, and having something that passively shows what it is? The only difference I can think of is that the other players know that you forgot and had to be reminded. Is that really significant?

And if you ask, then we have to be concerned about the UI to partner, although it's hard to imagine what this UI would suggest -- maybe that an earlier play was based on a misremembered contract, although he wouldn't know what you erroneously thought the contract was.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2019-April-01, 19:32, said:

What's the significant difference between asking every time it's your turn, and having something that passively shows what it is? The only difference I can think of is that the other players know that you forgot and had to be reminded. Is that really significant?

And if you ask, then we have to be concerned about the UI to partner, although it's hard to imagine what this UI would suggest -- maybe that an earlier play was based on a misremembered contract, although he wouldn't know what you erroneously thought the contract was.

It may or may not be significant, though having a visible card on the table informing everyone in the room of the contract is surely not desirable, but I don't think someone should be able to say, without contradiction, that something is "explicitly" allowed when it is not.

[weejonnie]

As a point of order - bidding boxes normally have three doubles in them - how many 'undouble' cards will be provided? (EBU only).

[weejonnie]

(before anyone comments - this is the April Fool in this month's magazine.)

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2019-April-02, 00:17, said:

It may or may not be significant, though having a visible card on the table informing everyone in the room of the contract is surely not desirable, but I don't think someone should be able to say, without contradiction, that something is "explicitly" allowed when it is not.

I was only concerned with the players of the hand in question. I agree that making the contract easily visible to passersby is undesirable.