Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What does "facing" a card mean
189 views
Skip to first unread message
Tom
May 18, 2012, 7:27:49 PM5/18/12
to
When I play a card, I usually don't let go. I hold it out in front of
me, placed so everyone can see it easily it.
Yesterday, one of the players was very miffed about this throughout the
round. I didn't understand at first, but eventually caught on that he
wanted me to place the card on the table and let it go.
No problem from my perspective, but no one's ever complained before so I
was wondering what the rule is.
The ACBL Laws of Duplicate Bridge refer to "facing" a card.
What exactly does that mean?
Tom
me, placed so everyone can see it easily it.
Yesterday, one of the players was very miffed about this throughout the
round. I didn't understand at first, but eventually caught on that he
wanted me to place the card on the table and let it go.
No problem from my perspective, but no one's ever complained before so I
was wondering what the rule is.
The ACBL Laws of Duplicate Bridge refer to "facing" a card.
What exactly does that mean?
Tom
David Stevenson
May 18, 2012, 8:01:25 PM5/18/12
to
Tom wrote
The Laws of Duplicate Bridge, ACBL or otherwise, say:
============================================
LAW 45: CARD PLAYED
A. Play of Card from a Hand
Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and
facing it on the table immediately before him.
============================================
So it is not just a question of facing it, which means putting it so
the face can be seen, but it is also put on the table. This is
understood to mean that you let go of it.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
============================================
LAW 45: CARD PLAYED
A. Play of Card from a Hand
Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and
facing it on the table immediately before him.
============================================
So it is not just a question of facing it, which means putting it so
the face can be seen, but it is also put on the table. This is
understood to mean that you let go of it.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Lorne
May 18, 2012, 8:08:35 PM5/18/12
to
"Tom" wrote in message
news:4fb6daf6$0$5471$c3e8da3$eb76...@news.astraweb.com...
................
Law 45 says:
"Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and
facing it on the table immediately before him."
I would expect 'on the table' to mean you let go but it is a bit of a fine
point.
news:4fb6daf6$0$5471$c3e8da3$eb76...@news.astraweb.com...
Law 45 says:
"Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and
facing it on the table immediately before him."
point.
derek
May 18, 2012, 9:40:30 PM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 9:01 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
you've already acknowledged that "facing" merely means placing it so
that it can be seen, then having it touching the table meets the
letter of the law. Far too many of us have mechanical issues making it
difficult to pick the card up again, for me to wish to require
releasing the card as a condition of law.
wrote:
> Tom wrote
>
> >When I play a card, I usually don't let go. I hold it out in front of
> >me, placed so everyone can see it easily it.
>
> >Yesterday, one of the players was very miffed about this throughout the
> >round. I didn't understand at first, but eventually caught on that he
> >wanted me to place the card on the table and let it go.
>
> >No problem from my perspective, but no one's ever complained before so I
> >was wondering what the rule is.
>
> >The ACBL Laws of Duplicate Bridge refer to "facing" a card.
>
> >What exactly does that mean?
>
> The Laws of Duplicate Bridge, ACBL or otherwise, say:
>
> ============================================
> LAW 45: CARD PLAYED
>
> A. Play of Card from a Hand
>
> Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and
> facing it on the table immediately before him.
> ============================================
>
> So it is not just a question of facing it, which means putting it so
> the face can be seen, but it is also put on the table. This is
> understood to mean that you let go of it.
I disagree. There should be no requirement to "let go of it". If
>
> >When I play a card, I usually don't let go. I hold it out in front of
> >me, placed so everyone can see it easily it.
>
> >Yesterday, one of the players was very miffed about this throughout the
> >round. I didn't understand at first, but eventually caught on that he
> >wanted me to place the card on the table and let it go.
>
> >No problem from my perspective, but no one's ever complained before so I
> >was wondering what the rule is.
>
> >The ACBL Laws of Duplicate Bridge refer to "facing" a card.
>
> >What exactly does that mean?
>
> The Laws of Duplicate Bridge, ACBL or otherwise, say:
>
> ============================================
> LAW 45: CARD PLAYED
>
> A. Play of Card from a Hand
>
> Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and
> facing it on the table immediately before him.
> ============================================
>
> So it is not just a question of facing it, which means putting it so
> the face can be seen, but it is also put on the table. This is
> understood to mean that you let go of it.
you've already acknowledged that "facing" merely means placing it so
that it can be seen, then having it touching the table meets the
letter of the law. Far too many of us have mechanical issues making it
difficult to pick the card up again, for me to wish to require
releasing the card as a condition of law.
Paul Hightower
May 18, 2012, 10:35:35 PM5/18/12
to
"Tom" <toma...@notmye-mailaddress.com> wrote in message
news:4fb6daf6$0$5471$c3e8da3$eb76...@news.astraweb.com...
Exposing a card to all the other players. I find that players who do not let
the card go rarely hold it so that everyone can actually see it. (You cannot
see three other player's points of view.) Unless you have unusual difficulty
retrieving the card from the table, please let it go. Otherwise, turn the
card in each player's direction to make sure they see it.
news:4fb6daf6$0$5471$c3e8da3$eb76...@news.astraweb.com...
the card go rarely hold it so that everyone can actually see it. (You cannot
see three other player's points of view.) Unless you have unusual difficulty
retrieving the card from the table, please let it go. Otherwise, turn the
card in each player's direction to make sure they see it.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 19, 2012, 4:38:46 AM5/19/12
to
derek skrev:
>> So it is not just a question of facing it, which means putting it so
>> the face can be seen, but it is also put on the table. This is
>> understood to mean that you let go of it.
> I disagree. There should be no requirement to "let go of it".
I never let go of a played card. If I am dummy, I hold it at an
angle about 30 degrees so everyone can see that it is not just a
misplaced card. And if I am defender, I hold it the same way - in
both cases in order to not have to fiddle with a card that is
difficult to pick up.
The card does not touch the table while I hold it. My hand does.
--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
>> So it is not just a question of facing it, which means putting it so
>> the face can be seen, but it is also put on the table. This is
>> understood to mean that you let go of it.
> I disagree. There should be no requirement to "let go of it".
angle about 30 degrees so everyone can see that it is not just a
misplaced card. And if I am defender, I hold it the same way - in
both cases in order to not have to fiddle with a card that is
difficult to pick up.
The card does not touch the table while I hold it. My hand does.
--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
Mark Brader
May 19, 2012, 5:31:25 AM5/19/12
to
Bertel Lund Hansen:
I would take this as a mannerism urging the other players to hurry up.
Like the original poster's opponent, I'd be annoyed and I'd either
ask you to let go of the cards or sit there doing a slow burn.
In other words, you may not be violating Laws 45A and 45B, but you
certainly are violating 74A2.
Except if you have arthritis or something, of course. Then it's up
to everyone else to make allowances.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "E-mail is idiot-proof. (I know this because I have
m...@vex.net | received E-mail from idiots.)" -- Beppi Crosariol
My text in this article is in the public domain.
> I never let go of a played card. If I am dummy, I hold it at an
> angle about 30 degrees so everyone can see that it is not just a
> misplaced card. And if I am defender, I hold it the same way...
> angle about 30 degrees so everyone can see that it is not just a
I would take this as a mannerism urging the other players to hurry up.
Like the original poster's opponent, I'd be annoyed and I'd either
ask you to let go of the cards or sit there doing a slow burn.
In other words, you may not be violating Laws 45A and 45B, but you
certainly are violating 74A2.
Except if you have arthritis or something, of course. Then it's up
to everyone else to make allowances.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "E-mail is idiot-proof. (I know this because I have
m...@vex.net | received E-mail from idiots.)" -- Beppi Crosariol
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Bertil
May 19, 2012, 6:54:47 AM5/19/12
to
and placed near the table with the apparent intention of playing it
but without exposing it. Such a card must not be withdrawn. This applies
especially to the opening lead. If not, a player can send a signal to
partner by repeating the action a number of times.
A simple rule should be that any card touched and partly removed from the hand is played, just as touching a bidding card in the box must not be
altered.
In short, don't think with your fingers. Don't treat any card like the
yellow pages.Don't flip from one to another.
Bertil
Herb
May 19, 2012, 8:22:51 AM5/19/12
to
their cards. But only because many of them hold their card in such a way
that it is NOT visible to all players, including dummy, or they don't
hold it steadily, or hold them inconsistently.
Not letting go of the card isn't specifically against the rules of the
game, but not making it easily visible to all is.
There may be good reason to not let go, such as physical disabilities or
a very slick cards, or an unsuitable table surface; but there is no
reason to hide the card, whether intentionally or not.
- Herb
Barry Margolin
May 19, 2012, 12:19:08 PM5/19/12
to
In article
<42582e3d-febd-496f...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
many players just have bad habits.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
<42582e3d-febd-496f...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Far too many of us have mechanical issues making it
> difficult to pick the card up again, for me to wish to require
> releasing the card as a condition of law.
If you have a disability, of course people should be accomodating. But
> Far too many of us have mechanical issues making it
> difficult to pick the card up again, for me to wish to require
> releasing the card as a condition of law.
many players just have bad habits.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 19, 2012, 6:00:52 PM5/19/12
to
Mark Brader skrev:
> I would take this as a mannerism urging the other players to hurry up.
I can only say that no one has felt this way. Once I asked a
player if it disturbed him, but he explained that his 'problem'
(which made me ask) had nothing to do with my holding the card,
and that he didn't mind.
> Except if you have arthritis or something, of course. Then it's up
> to everyone else to make allowances.
I have no physical problems.
> I would take this as a mannerism urging the other players to hurry up.
player if it disturbed him, but he explained that his 'problem'
(which made me ask) had nothing to do with my holding the card,
and that he didn't mind.
> Except if you have arthritis or something, of course. Then it's up
> to everyone else to make allowances.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 19, 2012, 6:14:01 PM5/19/12
to
Bertil skrev:
> I've been told that a card is played if it is detached from the hand
> and placed near the table with the apparent intention of playing it
> but without exposing it.
That is absolutely wrong. The law is clear on this point.
Law 45 C. Compulsory Play of Card
1. A defender’s card held so that it is possible for his partner
to see its face must be played to the current trick (if the
defender has already made a legal play to the current trick,
see Law 45E).
2. Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is
(a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or
(b) maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has
been played.
> Such a card must not be withdrawn.
It certainly may if it is held by a defender. It might if it is
held by declarer.
> This applies especially to the opening lead.
It applies only to the opening lead.
> If not, a player can send a signal to partner by repeating the
> action a number of times.
Sure, but he needn't use that indirect method. It's much easier
just to say aloud: "Please play a spade, partner."
> A simple rule should be that any card touched and partly
> removed from the hand is played,
That might be an interesting game, but most of the time would be
spent debating whether a card had been touched or not, and the
play of the cards would be sort of random when unwanted cards
were forced to be played.
This is a cure that is worse than the (nonexisting) disease.
> just as touching a bidding card in the box must not be altered.
This would depend on the region (it's not law), but I have yet to
hear about one that insists on a bid being made with just a
touch. Under Danish rules the bid is made if the card is pulled
out of the box - where TD has to decide how far.
> In short, don't think with your fingers. Don't treat any card like the
> yellow pages.Don't flip from one to another.
Why not go the whole nine yards: Never make mistakes!
> I've been told that a card is played if it is detached from the hand
> and placed near the table with the apparent intention of playing it
> but without exposing it.
Law 45 C. Compulsory Play of Card
1. A defender’s card held so that it is possible for his partner
to see its face must be played to the current trick (if the
defender has already made a legal play to the current trick,
see Law 45E).
2. Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is
(a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or
(b) maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has
been played.
> Such a card must not be withdrawn.
held by declarer.
> This applies especially to the opening lead.
> If not, a player can send a signal to partner by repeating the
> action a number of times.
just to say aloud: "Please play a spade, partner."
> A simple rule should be that any card touched and partly
> removed from the hand is played,
spent debating whether a card had been touched or not, and the
play of the cards would be sort of random when unwanted cards
were forced to be played.
This is a cure that is worse than the (nonexisting) disease.
> just as touching a bidding card in the box must not be altered.
hear about one that insists on a bid being made with just a
touch. Under Danish rules the bid is made if the card is pulled
out of the box - where TD has to decide how far.
> In short, don't think with your fingers. Don't treat any card like the
> yellow pages.Don't flip from one to another.
David Stevenson
May 20, 2012, 6:54:42 PM5/20/12
to
Bertel Lund Hansen wrote
You must be a right pain to play against.
Of course, there are always annoying people who do not follow the
Laws, and one of the most frustrating are people who do not make it easy
for you to see the cards. Fortunately I am extremely tolerant of
annoying habits. But please do not pretend such an annoying habit is
***legal***.
Of course, there are always annoying people who do not follow the
Laws, and one of the most frustrating are people who do not make it easy
for you to see the cards. Fortunately I am extremely tolerant of
annoying habits. But please do not pretend such an annoying habit is
***legal***.
Fred.
May 20, 2012, 7:40:23 PM5/20/12
to
there was other body language to that effect.
Does "or something" make allowance for those of us
who are just slow and clumsy?
Fred.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 20, 2012, 8:46:06 PM5/20/12
to
David Stevenson skrev:
> You must be a right pain to play against.
On the contrary.
> But please do not pretend such an annoying habit is ***legal***.
I haven't.
> You must be a right pain to play against.
> But please do not pretend such an annoying habit is ***legal***.
Adam Beneschan
May 21, 2012, 12:40:09 PM5/21/12
to
On Friday, May 18, 2012 7:35:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Hightower wrote:
> >
> Exposing a card to all the other players. I find that players who do not let
> the card go rarely hold it so that everyone can actually see it.
I'm finding this thread rather confusing, because I don't see how holding on to a card makes it more difficult for anyone to see it, unless "holding on to it" means "holding it above the table" or something. Personally, I'm not consistent about whether I hold on to cards; I do place them on the table, but sometimes I still hold on to them, especially if (say) I'm third hand and it looks like the trick is going to be completed quickly, so that I can turn it over again without having to try to pick up a card from the table that I've completely let go of, which can be difficult depending on the table surface--the vinyl surfaces have more friction making it more difficult to pick the card up. But I do place my card on the table, and it's in the same place on the table whether or not I'm still holding on to it.
> >
> Exposing a card to all the other players. I find that players who do not let
> the card go rarely hold it so that everyone can actually see it.
Maybe I need some clarification: do the people who object to the "holders" really object to them holding it above the table, without touching the table? Sorry for nit-picking, but I'm the world's worst mind-reader. If someone says one thing and means another, I'm probably the most likely person in the world to not figure this out.
-- Adam
Herb
May 21, 2012, 1:13:57 PM5/21/12
to
particularly when I'm dummy. Holding on to the end of the card while
it's statically on the table, as you seem to do, is not a problem,
either. But:
Some defenders don't hold the card horizontally, but tilted toward declarer.
Some don't hold it by the edge closest to them, but on the side, so
their hand physically obscures the card.
Some don't hold it centered in front of them, but enough to one side or
the other that the card is obscured by a bidding box or coffee cup (this
is sometimes true even if the card is placed on the table).
Some don't hold the card steadily but keep it waving about.
- Herb
David Stevenson
May 21, 2012, 4:25:36 PM5/21/12
to
Adam Beneschan wrote
When a player holds it it is not flat on the table - or if it is, then
his hand must be on top of it. In neither case is it easily visible
around the table.
his hand must be on top of it. In neither case is it easily visible
around the table.
Adam Beneschan
May 21, 2012, 5:41:42 PM5/21/12
to
On Monday, May 21, 2012 1:25:36 PM UTC-7, David Stevenson wrote:
> >
> >Maybe I need some clarification: do the people who object to the
> >"holders" really object to them holding it above the table, without
> >touching the table? Sorry for nit-picking, but I'm the world's worst
> >mind-reader. If someone says one thing and means another, I'm probably
> >the most likely person in the world to not figure this out.
>
> When a player holds it it is not flat on the table - or if it is, then
> his hand must be on top of it. In neither case is it easily visible
> around the table.
I just tried this with an insurance card, which is stiffer than a playing card and perhaps 80-85% as large (I don't have playing cards at work). While holding the card on the table, the highest part of the card was no more than 1/2 inch (1.27cm) above the table. I find it very difficult to believe that this causes a visibility problem for anyone unless their eyes are located just barely above the surface of the table. In fact, I've never gotten any complaints from any other player about being unable to see my card, unless there's some other obstruction blocking the view (and in that case, I'm glad I'm holding onto it because that makes it easier for me to move it to where the player can see it). So I have to dispute your statement that one cannot hold a card flat and make it easily visible.
> >
> >Maybe I need some clarification: do the people who object to the
> >"holders" really object to them holding it above the table, without
> >touching the table? Sorry for nit-picking, but I'm the world's worst
> >mind-reader. If someone says one thing and means another, I'm probably
> >the most likely person in the world to not figure this out.
>
> When a player holds it it is not flat on the table - or if it is, then
> his hand must be on top of it. In neither case is it easily visible
> around the table.
-- Adam
blackshoe
May 21, 2012, 5:48:55 PM5/21/12
to
On Monday, May 21, 2012 12:40:09 PM UTC-4, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> I'm finding this thread rather confusing, because I don't see how holding on to a card makes it more difficult for anyone to see it, unless "holding on to it" means "holding it above the table" or something.
Twice today declarer (different people) played a card from hand, resting his (or her) hand on the table with the thumb up and the card tilted enough towards my partner that I could not see it. So I asked to see it. :-)
> I'm finding this thread rather confusing, because I don't see how holding on to a card makes it more difficult for anyone to see it, unless "holding on to it" means "holding it above the table" or something.
On a side note, once today, declarer called for the six of clubs from dummy, which held HH65 in the suit. Dummy played the five. No big deal, but it *is* completely illegal (Law 43A1c). The point being, I suppose, that people do what they damn well please, rules or no rules. :-(
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 21, 2012, 6:10:55 PM5/21/12
to
Adam Beneschan skrev:
> (1.27cm) above the table. I find it very difficult to believe
> that this causes a visibility problem for anyone unless their
> eyes are located just barely above the surface of the table.
I would say that it is easier to see the card. The surface is
nearer perpendicular to the three players' line of vision this
way than when it is lying flat on the table.
About steadyness: I have seen players fiddle with cards that were
lying flat on the table.
> (1.27cm) above the table. I find it very difficult to believe
> that this causes a visibility problem for anyone unless their
> eyes are located just barely above the surface of the table.
nearer perpendicular to the three players' line of vision this
way than when it is lying flat on the table.
About steadyness: I have seen players fiddle with cards that were
lying flat on the table.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 21, 2012, 6:14:39 PM5/21/12
to
blackshoe skrev:
> On a side note, once today, declarer called for the six of
> clubs from dummy, which held HH65 in the suit. Dummy played
> the five. No big deal, but it *is* completely illegal (Law
> 43A1c). The point being, I suppose, that people do what they
> damn well please, rules or no rules. :-(
I would not let that pass. I once got a shock while defending a
contract. Declarer called for the spade king, and I played a
spade and then a few tricks outside spade were played, and I was
busy planning my play or something when I looked at dummy and saw
the king of spades. I nearly dropped my cards and had to check
what had happened. Dummy had played the queen instead of the
king. It threw me off balance mentally.
> On a side note, once today, declarer called for the six of
> clubs from dummy, which held HH65 in the suit. Dummy played
> the five. No big deal, but it *is* completely illegal (Law
> 43A1c). The point being, I suppose, that people do what they
> damn well please, rules or no rules. :-(
contract. Declarer called for the spade king, and I played a
spade and then a few tricks outside spade were played, and I was
busy planning my play or something when I looked at dummy and saw
the king of spades. I nearly dropped my cards and had to check
what had happened. Dummy had played the queen instead of the
king. It threw me off balance mentally.
Adam Beneschan
May 21, 2012, 6:08:53 PM5/21/12
to
On Monday, May 21, 2012 2:48:55 PM UTC-7, blackshoe wrote:
> On Monday, May 21, 2012 12:40:09 PM UTC-4, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > I'm finding this thread rather confusing, because I don't see how holding on to a card makes it more difficult for anyone to see it, unless "holding on to it" means "holding it above the table" or something.
>
> Twice today declarer (different people) played a card from hand, resting his (or her) hand on the table with the thumb up and the card tilted enough towards my partner that I could not see it.
Yep, I can see how that would be a problem. When I hold on to a card, I hold it so that the far edge is flat against the table; sounds like your opponent held it with one of the side edges flat against the table. I'd think it would be common sense to hold it so that everyone could see it, but I guess people don't always think of things like that, especially when they're thinking about the hand.
> On Monday, May 21, 2012 12:40:09 PM UTC-4, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > I'm finding this thread rather confusing, because I don't see how holding on to a card makes it more difficult for anyone to see it, unless "holding on to it" means "holding it above the table" or something.
>
> Twice today declarer (different people) played a card from hand, resting his (or her) hand on the table with the thumb up and the card tilted enough towards my partner that I could not see it.
Side note: The Laws talk about "facing [the card] on the table", but the Definitions section doesn't define the term "to face"; to my surprise, when I looked it up in Merriam-Webster online (www.m-w.com) I couldn't find an entry for a transitive verb "face" that fit at all (maybe some came close but still didn't quite fit; one entry was to "cover the surface of", as in facing a building with marble, but I thought that was amusingly ironic in this context). My guess is that the Laws' authors simply meant "doing something with the card so that it's face up, rather than face down". Which means that your opponent may not have been violating the Laws even though you couldn't see the card, although I think any reasonable interpretation would mean that the card has to be visible to all other players at the table. But I don't see any linguistic reason for believing that the Laws require one to stop touching the card in order to meet the requirements of Law 45A.
-- Adam
Mark Brader
May 21, 2012, 6:45:17 PM5/21/12
to
>> On a side note, once today, declarer called for the six of
>> clubs from dummy, which held HH65 in the suit. Dummy played
>> the five. No big deal, but it *is* completely illegal...
>> clubs from dummy, which held HH65 in the suit. Dummy played
Interesting that declarer called for the six, when it required
reaching into the middle of the suit.
> I would not let that pass.
that I think most people must not complain about it.
> I once got a shock while defending a
> contract. Declarer called for the spade king, and I played a
> spade and then a few tricks outside spade were played, and I was
> busy planning my play or something when I looked at dummy and saw
> the king of spades. I nearly dropped my cards and had to check
> what had happened. Dummy had played the queen instead of the
> king. It threw me off balance mentally.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "C takes the point of view that the programmer
m...@vex.net | is always right" -- Michael DeCorte
Stu Goodgold
May 21, 2012, 7:30:45 PM5/21/12
to
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
derek
May 21, 2012, 8:52:56 PM5/21/12
to
On May 19, 1:19 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <42582e3d-febd-496f-a0b8-e5f0fd96b...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
anybody complain. I rest the bottom of the card on the table, square
to both opponents, and almost horizontal, and as far as I can tell,
regardless of David's expert opinion, I'm in compliance with the law
(and yes, I do have a sufficient physical handicap that that's
necessary to me).
> In article
> <42582e3d-febd-496f-a0b8-e5f0fd96b...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> > Far too many of us have mechanical issues making it
> > difficult to pick the card up again, for me to wish to require
> > releasing the card as a condition of law.
>
> If you have a disability, of course people should be accomodating. But
> many players just have bad habits.
No doubt, but I've never actually released the card, and not once had
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> > Far too many of us have mechanical issues making it
> > difficult to pick the card up again, for me to wish to require
> > releasing the card as a condition of law.
>
> If you have a disability, of course people should be accomodating. But
> many players just have bad habits.
anybody complain. I rest the bottom of the card on the table, square
to both opponents, and almost horizontal, and as far as I can tell,
regardless of David's expert opinion, I'm in compliance with the law
(and yes, I do have a sufficient physical handicap that that's
necessary to me).
derek
May 21, 2012, 8:57:31 PM5/21/12
to
On May 21, 5:25 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> When a player holds it it is not flat on the table - or if it is, then
> his hand must be on top of it. In neither case is it easily visible
> around the table.
That's simply not true. When I detach a card from my hand, I do it by
grasping no more than the top 1/4" of the card. If I then hold that
almost horizontal and touching the table, my hand cannot possibly be
obscuring any meaningful portion of the card.
wrote:
> When a player holds it it is not flat on the table - or if it is, then
> his hand must be on top of it. In neither case is it easily visible
> around the table.
grasping no more than the top 1/4" of the card. If I then hold that
almost horizontal and touching the table, my hand cannot possibly be
obscuring any meaningful portion of the card.
derek
May 21, 2012, 9:00:31 PM5/21/12
to
On May 21, 7:45 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> >> On a side note, once today, declarer called for the six of
> >> clubs from dummy, which held HH65 in the suit. Dummy played
> >> the five. No big deal, but it *is* completely illegal...
>
> Interesting that declarer called for the six, when it required
> reaching into the middle of the suit.
>
> > I would not let that pass.
>
> Also interesting. Enough people around here do that sort of thing
> that I think most people must not complain about it.
>
> > I once got a shock while defending a
> > contract. Declarer called for the spade king, and I played a
> > spade and then a few tricks outside spade were played, and I was
> > busy planning my play or something when I looked at dummy and saw
> > the king of spades. I nearly dropped my cards and had to check
> > what had happened. Dummy had played the queen instead of the
> > king. It threw me off balance mentally.
>
> "Check" how? You aren't allowed to ask questions about previous tricks.
Well, no. But if you've previously called for the K, and see it still
> >> On a side note, once today, declarer called for the six of
> >> clubs from dummy, which held HH65 in the suit. Dummy played
> >> the five. No big deal, but it *is* completely illegal...
>
> Interesting that declarer called for the six, when it required
> reaching into the middle of the suit.
>
> > I would not let that pass.
>
> Also interesting. Enough people around here do that sort of thing
> that I think most people must not complain about it.
>
> > I once got a shock while defending a
> > contract. Declarer called for the spade king, and I played a
> > spade and then a few tricks outside spade were played, and I was
> > busy planning my play or something when I looked at dummy and saw
> > the king of spades. I nearly dropped my cards and had to check
> > what had happened. Dummy had played the queen instead of the
> > king. It threw me off balance mentally.
>
> "Check" how? You aren't allowed to ask questions about previous tricks.
there, an irregularity has occurred and you should be calling for the
director, who will ascertain just how it came to not have been played.
Barry Margolin
May 21, 2012, 9:21:01 PM5/21/12
to
In article
<5cbfd663-1ec6-4564...@ns1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
I think there are different ways that people can do this, and some cause
more problems than others.
I'm generally pretty good at dealing with all these foibles -- I note
the card as the player is moving it towards the table. But I have an
occasional partner who is quite sensitive to people who partially
obscure the card, or don't hold it steady -- every 4 or 5 rounds we
encounter an opponent to whom he has to ask to just place the card on
the table so he can see it.
<5cbfd663-1ec6-4564...@ns1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
more problems than others.
I'm generally pretty good at dealing with all these foibles -- I note
the card as the player is moving it towards the table. But I have an
occasional partner who is quite sensitive to people who partially
obscure the card, or don't hold it steady -- every 4 or 5 rounds we
encounter an opponent to whom he has to ask to just place the card on
the table so he can see it.
Barry Margolin
May 21, 2012, 9:25:31 PM5/21/12
to
In article <21783b97-9f53-4ffe...@googlegroups.com>,
verb [ trans. ]
be positioned with the face or front toward (someone or something) : he
turned to face her.
€ [ intrans. ] have the face or front pointing in a specified direction
: the house faces due east.
€ [ intrans. ] (of a soldier) turn in a particular direction : they
immediately faced about.
My guess is it's the first intransitive definition. Something like "the
card faces the other players" was twisted around to "face the card
towards the other players", which then got shortened to just "face the
card".
Adam Beneschan <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:
> Side note: The Laws talk about "facing [the card] on the table", but the
> Definitions section doesn't define the term "to face"; to my surprise, when I
> looked it up in Merriam-Webster online (www.m-w.com) I couldn't find an entry
> for a transitive verb "face" that fit at all (maybe some came close but still
> didn't quite fit; one entry was to "cover the surface of", as in facing a
> building with marble, but I thought that was amusingly ironic in this
> context).
It's presumably derived from one of these:
> Side note: The Laws talk about "facing [the card] on the table", but the
> Definitions section doesn't define the term "to face"; to my surprise, when I
> looked it up in Merriam-Webster online (www.m-w.com) I couldn't find an entry
> for a transitive verb "face" that fit at all (maybe some came close but still
> didn't quite fit; one entry was to "cover the surface of", as in facing a
> building with marble, but I thought that was amusingly ironic in this
> context).
verb [ trans. ]
be positioned with the face or front toward (someone or something) : he
turned to face her.
€ [ intrans. ] have the face or front pointing in a specified direction
: the house faces due east.
€ [ intrans. ] (of a soldier) turn in a particular direction : they
immediately faced about.
My guess is it's the first intransitive definition. Something like "the
card faces the other players" was twisted around to "face the card
towards the other players", which then got shortened to just "face the
card".
blackshoe
May 21, 2012, 11:55:08 PM5/21/12
to
On Monday, May 21, 2012 6:45:17 PM UTC-4, Mark Brader wrote:
> >> On a side note, once today, declarer called for the six of
> >> clubs from dummy, which held HH65 in the suit. Dummy played
> >> the five. No big deal, but it *is* completely illegal...
>
> Interesting that declarer called for the six, when it required
> reaching into the middle of the suit.
Actually, the five was under the six.
> >> On a side note, once today, declarer called for the six of
> >> clubs from dummy, which held HH65 in the suit. Dummy played
> >> the five. No big deal, but it *is* completely illegal...
>
> Interesting that declarer called for the six, when it required
> reaching into the middle of the suit.
Mark Brader
May 22, 2012, 12:44:27 AM5/22/12
to
Bertel Lund Hansen:
Mark Brader:
There is that. On the other hand, defenders rarely get the chance to
call for cards from dummy, and they didn't this time.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "If gravity stops working, a power cut is
m...@vex.net | the least of your problems." -- David Bell
>>> I once got a shock while defending a
>>> contract. Declarer called for the spade king, and I played a
>>> spade and then a few tricks outside spade were played, and I was
>>> busy planning my play or something when I looked at dummy and saw
>>> the king of spades. ..
>>> contract. Declarer called for the spade king, and I played a
>>> spade and then a few tricks outside spade were played, and I was
>>> busy planning my play or something when I looked at dummy and saw
Mark Brader:
>> "Check" how? You aren't allowed to ask questions about previous tricks.
"Derek":
> Well, no. But if you've previously called for the K, and see it still
> there, an irregularity has occurred...
There is that. On the other hand, defenders rarely get the chance to
call for cards from dummy, and they didn't this time.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "If gravity stops working, a power cut is
m...@vex.net | the least of your problems." -- David Bell
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 22, 2012, 1:33:06 AM5/22/12
to
Adam Beneschan skrev:
> But I don't see any linguistic reason for believing that the
> Laws require one to stop touching the card in order to meet
> the requirements of Law 45A.
"Facing the card" means (implicitly) that all players must be
able to see the card (whatever the dictionaries say). "On the
table" means that the card must rest on the table - touched or
not touched.
The Danish translation specifically explains that the card must
be placed on the table.
PS. Not until this thread did I realise that my habit is illegal.
I have no intention of changing it.
> But I don't see any linguistic reason for believing that the
> Laws require one to stop touching the card in order to meet
> the requirements of Law 45A.
able to see the card (whatever the dictionaries say). "On the
table" means that the card must rest on the table - touched or
not touched.
The Danish translation specifically explains that the card must
be placed on the table.
PS. Not until this thread did I realise that my habit is illegal.
I have no intention of changing it.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 22, 2012, 1:35:59 AM5/22/12
to
Mark Brader skrev:
>> I nearly dropped my cards and had to check what had happened.
>> Dummy had played the queen instead of the king. It threw me
>> off balance mentally.
> "Check" how? You aren't allowed to ask questions about previous tricks.
I don't think that the details of the incidence are worth
discussing. I tried to explain how the play of a different card
than called for may upset a player and disturb his thinking and
planning.
>> I nearly dropped my cards and had to check what had happened.
>> Dummy had played the queen instead of the king. It threw me
>> off balance mentally.
> "Check" how? You aren't allowed to ask questions about previous tricks.
discussing. I tried to explain how the play of a different card
than called for may upset a player and disturb his thinking and
planning.
Dave Flower
May 22, 2012, 4:17:30 AM5/22/12
to
On Tuesday, 22 May 2012 02:25:31 UTC+1, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <21783b97-9f53-4ffe...@googlegroups.com>,
> Adam Beneschan <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:
>
> > Side note: The Laws talk about "facing [the card] on the table", but the
> > Definitions section doesn't define the term "to face"; to my surprise, when I
> > looked it up in Merriam-Webster online (www.m-w.com) I couldn't find an entry
> > for a transitive verb "face" that fit at all (maybe some came close but still
> > didn't quite fit; one entry was to "cover the surface of", as in facing a
> > building with marble, but I thought that was amusingly ironic in this
> > context).
>
> It's presumably derived from one of these:
>
> verb [ trans. ]
> be positioned with the face or front toward (someone or something) : he
> turned to face her.
> Ç [ intrans. ] have the face or front pointing in a specified direction
> In article <21783b97-9f53-4ffe...@googlegroups.com>,
> Adam Beneschan <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:
>
> > Side note: The Laws talk about "facing [the card] on the table", but the
> > Definitions section doesn't define the term "to face"; to my surprise, when I
> > looked it up in Merriam-Webster online (www.m-w.com) I couldn't find an entry
> > for a transitive verb "face" that fit at all (maybe some came close but still
> > didn't quite fit; one entry was to "cover the surface of", as in facing a
> > building with marble, but I thought that was amusingly ironic in this
> > context).
>
> It's presumably derived from one of these:
>
> verb [ trans. ]
> be positioned with the face or front toward (someone or something) : he
> turned to face her.
> : the house faces due east.
> Ç [ intrans. ] (of a soldier) turn in a particular direction : they
> immediately faced about.
>
> My guess is it's the first intransitive definition. Something like "the
> card faces the other players" was twisted around to "face the card
> towards the other players", which then got shortened to just "face the
> card".
>
> --
> Barry Margolin
> Arlington, MA
From this side of the pond, there is no relevant entry in Chambers (are there any Listener Crossword Solvers out there?), but:
>
> My guess is it's the first intransitive definition. Something like "the
> card faces the other players" was twisted around to "face the card
> towards the other players", which then got shortened to just "face the
> card".
>
> --
> Barry Margolin
> Arlington, MA
Collins: 'to expose (a card) with the face uppermost'
Oxford: 'To turn face upwards, expose the face of (a playing card)'
Dave Flower
Nick Wedd
May 22, 2012, 5:16:41 AM5/22/12
to
inconvenienced by them. The worst case was a player who would
play a card by holding it, touching or near the table, with his
(right) hand obstructing his RHO's view of it. Ok, I can crane
forward to look at it, or ask him to reveal it, but it breaks
my concentration. And if I ask repeatedly, it gives the
impression that it's me who is being difficult.
Nick
derek
May 22, 2012, 9:40:25 AM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 1:44 am, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Bertel Lund Hansen:
>
> >>> I once got a shock while defending a
> >>> contract. Declarer called for the spade king, and I played a
> >>> spade and then a few tricks outside spade were played, and I was
> >>> busy planning my play or something when I looked at dummy and saw
> >>> the king of spades. ..
>
> Mark Brader:
>
> >> "Check" how? You aren't allowed to ask questions about previous tricks.
>
> "Derek":
>
> > Well, no. But if you've previously called for the K, and see it still
> > there, an irregularity has occurred...
>
> There is that. On the other hand, defenders rarely get the chance to
> call for cards from dummy, and they didn't this time.
OK, sloppy reading on my part, but it hardly changes the response.
> Bertel Lund Hansen:
>
> >>> I once got a shock while defending a
> >>> contract. Declarer called for the spade king, and I played a
> >>> spade and then a few tricks outside spade were played, and I was
> >>> busy planning my play or something when I looked at dummy and saw
> >>> the king of spades. ..
>
> Mark Brader:
>
> >> "Check" how? You aren't allowed to ask questions about previous tricks.
>
> "Derek":
>
> > Well, no. But if you've previously called for the K, and see it still
> > there, an irregularity has occurred...
>
> There is that. On the other hand, defenders rarely get the chance to
> call for cards from dummy, and they didn't this time.
"If declarer has previously called for the K, and you see it's still
in dummy some time later, an irregularity has occurred and you should
be calling the director to establish the facts..."
Will in New Haven
May 22, 2012, 11:56:12 AM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 1:35 am, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
wrote:
understand why I expect him to play card X when I call for it and not
one of the other cards on the table that form a sequence with X. He
thinks he is just being playful and that it is harmless. I think he is
being a pain and that an opponent might have the problem you describe.
I'm happy to have testimony that someone DOES have this problem.
As to the original reason for this thread and other matters:
Not letting go of the card is only a problem if the card is not easily
read by everyone at the table, so it is no problem if done in a way
that the card is so visible. On the other hand, most people, in my
experience, who don't let go of the card do not put it out there so it
is easily visible.
On the idea that holding onto the card might be done to encourage the
players to hurry. I don't think that is often the reason. When it is
the reason, I agree with it.
"Facing" your cards has a similar definition in poker. It means
placing your cards face-up on the table so that the dealer can see
them and determine who wins the hand. It is not a problem if you keep
a hand on the cards as long as they are visible.
I think the definition probably applies to card games in general
because I have played trick taking games with a Tarot deck and you
were expected to face a card that was played.
--
Will in New Haven
All change for round nine; slow pairs please go home
wrote:
> Mark Brader skrev:
>
> >> I nearly dropped my cards and had to check what had happened.
> >> Dummy had played the queen instead of the king. It threw me
> >> off balance mentally.
> > "Check" how? You aren't allowed to ask questions about previous tricks.
>
> I don't think that the details of the incidence are worth
> discussing. I tried to explain how the play of a different card
> than called for may upset a player and disturb his thinking and
> planning.
I'm going to bring this up with my partner Brian who does not
>
> >> I nearly dropped my cards and had to check what had happened.
> >> Dummy had played the queen instead of the king. It threw me
> >> off balance mentally.
> > "Check" how? You aren't allowed to ask questions about previous tricks.
>
> I don't think that the details of the incidence are worth
> discussing. I tried to explain how the play of a different card
> than called for may upset a player and disturb his thinking and
> planning.
understand why I expect him to play card X when I call for it and not
one of the other cards on the table that form a sequence with X. He
thinks he is just being playful and that it is harmless. I think he is
being a pain and that an opponent might have the problem you describe.
I'm happy to have testimony that someone DOES have this problem.
As to the original reason for this thread and other matters:
Not letting go of the card is only a problem if the card is not easily
read by everyone at the table, so it is no problem if done in a way
that the card is so visible. On the other hand, most people, in my
experience, who don't let go of the card do not put it out there so it
is easily visible.
On the idea that holding onto the card might be done to encourage the
players to hurry. I don't think that is often the reason. When it is
the reason, I agree with it.
"Facing" your cards has a similar definition in poker. It means
placing your cards face-up on the table so that the dealer can see
them and determine who wins the hand. It is not a problem if you keep
a hand on the cards as long as they are visible.
I think the definition probably applies to card games in general
because I have played trick taking games with a Tarot deck and you
were expected to face a card that was played.
--
Will in New Haven
All change for round nine; slow pairs please go home
Dave Flower
May 22, 2012, 1:23:53 PM5/22/12
to
In contact with the upper . . . surface of. . . . In a position of being supported by . . .
Clearly, L45A, which refers to 'on the table', indicates that the player must let go of it.
Dave Flower
Adam Beneschan
May 22, 2012, 1:53:44 PM5/22/12
to
On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 10:23:53 AM UTC-7, Dave Flower wrote:
> In contact with the upper . . . surface of. . . . In a position of being supported by . . .
>
> Clearly, L45A, which refers to 'on the table', indicates that the player must let go of it.
I hope you're joking about the "clearly" thing, because it's nonsense. Neither definition you cite requires that a player must let go of a card. When I hold on my card and the edge of the card is touching the table, it's in contact with the upper surface of the table, so that definition is satisfied. Furthermore, it is also being supported by the table, in addition being supported by my hand. If I set my coffee mug down on the table but don't remove my hand from the mug handle for a few seconds, does that mean the mug is not on the table for those few seconds? No, of course not. Also, I don't know how many definitions Chambers has for the word "on", but Merriam-Webster has 29, one of which is "used as a function word to indicate position in close proximity with". You can't cherry-pick one or two of those definitions and then say that that's "clearly" what is meant. That's just silly, which is why I hope you used the word "clearly" with ironic intent.
> In contact with the upper . . . surface of. . . . In a position of being supported by . . .
>
> Clearly, L45A, which refers to 'on the table', indicates that the player must let go of it.
-- Adam
Barry Margolin
May 22, 2012, 2:02:42 PM5/22/12
to
In article <4e1e8d43-b249-4842...@googlegroups.com>,
Uh oh, I think we're perilously close to Bill Clinton territory,
debating the meaning of "is".
debating the meaning of "is".
Mark Brader
May 22, 2012, 2:53:27 PM5/22/12
to
Adam Beneschan:
--
Mark Brader "We demand rigidly defined areas
Toronto of doubt and uncertainty!"
m...@vex.net -- Vroomfondel (Douglas Adams: HHGTTG)
> > I don't know how many definitions Chambers has for the word "on", but
> > Merriam-Webster has 29 ... You can't cherry-pick one or two of those
> > definitions and then say that that's "clearly" what is meant.
Barry Margolin:
> Uh oh, I think we're perilously close to Bill Clinton territory,
> debating the meaning of "is".
Okay, how about if we debate the meaning of "meaning", then? :-)
> debating the meaning of "is".
--
Mark Brader "We demand rigidly defined areas
Toronto of doubt and uncertainty!"
m...@vex.net -- Vroomfondel (Douglas Adams: HHGTTG)
Adam Beneschan
May 22, 2012, 3:05:50 PM5/22/12
to
On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 11:02:42 AM UTC-7, Barry Margolin wrote:
> Uh oh, I think we're perilously close to Bill Clinton territory,
> debating the meaning of "is".
I did not have contact with that card!
> Uh oh, I think we're perilously close to Bill Clinton territory,
> debating the meaning of "is".
-- Adam
derek
May 22, 2012, 2:21:11 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 2:53 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 10:23:53 AM UTC-7, Dave Flower wrote:
> > In contact with the upper . . . surface of. . . . In a position of being supported by . . .
>
> > Clearly, L45A, which refers to 'on the table', indicates that the player must let go of it.
>
> I hope you're joking about the "clearly" thing, because it's nonsense.
Well, since the only people here who have stated that the Law actually
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 10:23:53 AM UTC-7, Dave Flower wrote:
> > In contact with the upper . . . surface of. . . . In a position of being supported by . . .
>
> > Clearly, L45A, which refers to 'on the table', indicates that the player must let go of it.
>
> I hope you're joking about the "clearly" thing, because it's nonsense.
requires releasing the card are, I think, Dave and David, I think we
should at least restrict our definitions to English dictionaries - no
Merriam-Webster. But the OED has 23 definitions, and of the ones that
could reasonably apply (1) is "above and in contact with...", while
(3) is "close to, beside, near". "unsupported in no other way than by
the object to which it bears an 'on' relation" does not appear to be
in the OED.
David Stevenson
May 22, 2012, 7:36:46 PM5/22/12
to
Will in New Haven wrote
let go of the card and have made it clear they do not believe this is a
problem. Sure, but they are not the ones trying to see the card. Quite
frankly, whatever their logic, I just do not believe that a card held in
someone's hand is as visible as a card flat on the table with no-one's
hand near it. My guess is the people who hold it this way do not
realise the difficulties they are causing because most people are
tolerant of bad habits.
>"Facing" your cards has a similar definition in poker. It means
>placing your cards face-up on the table so that the dealer can see
>them and determine who wins the hand. It is not a problem if you keep
>a hand on the cards as long as they are visible.
The definition is not about "facing the card" despite the thread
title, but "facing the card on the table".
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
>Not letting go of the card is only a problem if the card is not easily
>read by everyone at the table, so it is no problem if done in a way
>that the card is so visible. On the other hand, most people, in my
>experience, who don't let go of the card do not put it out there so it
>is easily visible.
This is the problem. Some people in this thread have said they do not
>read by everyone at the table, so it is no problem if done in a way
>that the card is so visible. On the other hand, most people, in my
>experience, who don't let go of the card do not put it out there so it
>is easily visible.
let go of the card and have made it clear they do not believe this is a
problem. Sure, but they are not the ones trying to see the card. Quite
frankly, whatever their logic, I just do not believe that a card held in
someone's hand is as visible as a card flat on the table with no-one's
hand near it. My guess is the people who hold it this way do not
realise the difficulties they are causing because most people are
tolerant of bad habits.
>"Facing" your cards has a similar definition in poker. It means
>placing your cards face-up on the table so that the dealer can see
>them and determine who wins the hand. It is not a problem if you keep
>a hand on the cards as long as they are visible.
title, but "facing the card on the table".
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Adam Beneschan
May 22, 2012, 8:57:40 PM5/22/12
to
On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:36:46 PM UTC-7, David Stevenson wrote:
>
> >"Facing" your cards has a similar definition in poker. It means
> >placing your cards face-up on the table so that the dealer can see
> >them and determine who wins the hand. It is not a problem if you keep
> >a hand on the cards as long as they are visible.
>
> The definition is not about "facing the card" despite the thread
> title, but "facing the card on the table".
OK, then. If Will is right that "facing the card" means "placing the card face-up on the table so that the dealer can see it", then "facing the card on the table" must mean "placing the card face-up on the table on the table so that the dealer can see it".
>
> >"Facing" your cards has a similar definition in poker. It means
> >placing your cards face-up on the table so that the dealer can see
> >them and determine who wins the hand. It is not a problem if you keep
> >a hand on the cards as long as they are visible.
>
> The definition is not about "facing the card" despite the thread
> title, but "facing the card on the table".
That clears everything up for me.
-- Adam
derek
May 22, 2012, 10:18:22 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 8:36 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
the table helps them to see the card either. My wife is five feet
nothing. She frequently has trouble seeing the dummy, so absolutely
its easier for her to see a card held at an angle. And given the
number of LOLs playing bridge, she's far from the smallest person
around. In any case, you're seeing a problem that is usually not
there. Most of us don't hold a card "in" our hands, it's extended
"from" the hand. In any case, there's nothing in Law to say I have to
let go of it.
wrote:
> Will in New Haven wrote
>
> >Not letting go of the card is only a problem if the card is not easily
> >read by everyone at the table, so it is no problem if done in a way
> >that the card is so visible. On the other hand, most people, in my
> >experience, who don't let go of the card do not put it out there so it
> >is easily visible.
>
> This is the problem. Some people in this thread have said they do not
> let go of the card and have made it clear they do not believe this is a
> problem. Sure, but they are not the ones trying to see the card. Quite
> frankly, whatever their logic, I just do not believe that a card held in
> someone's hand is as visible as a card flat on the table with no-one's
> hand near it. My guess is the people who hold it this way do not
> realise the difficulties they are causing because most people are
> tolerant of bad habits.
>
And, "quite frankly", I do not believe that laying the card flat on
>
> >Not letting go of the card is only a problem if the card is not easily
> >read by everyone at the table, so it is no problem if done in a way
> >that the card is so visible. On the other hand, most people, in my
> >experience, who don't let go of the card do not put it out there so it
> >is easily visible.
>
> This is the problem. Some people in this thread have said they do not
> let go of the card and have made it clear they do not believe this is a
> problem. Sure, but they are not the ones trying to see the card. Quite
> frankly, whatever their logic, I just do not believe that a card held in
> someone's hand is as visible as a card flat on the table with no-one's
> hand near it. My guess is the people who hold it this way do not
> realise the difficulties they are causing because most people are
> tolerant of bad habits.
>
the table helps them to see the card either. My wife is five feet
nothing. She frequently has trouble seeing the dummy, so absolutely
its easier for her to see a card held at an angle. And given the
number of LOLs playing bridge, she's far from the smallest person
around. In any case, you're seeing a problem that is usually not
there. Most of us don't hold a card "in" our hands, it's extended
"from" the hand. In any case, there's nothing in Law to say I have to
let go of it.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 23, 2012, 12:42:27 AM5/23/12
to
David Stevenson skrev:
> This is the problem. Some people in this thread have said they do not
> let go of the card and have made it clear they do not believe this is a
> problem. Sure, but they are not the ones trying to see the card.
In Denmark it is not uncommon to hold the card like this. I have
no problem seeing the card in such cases. There has to the best
of my (and some other TDs') knowledge never been a TD call caused
by the holding of a card - or even a mention for that matter.
> Quite frankly, whatever their logic, I just do not believe that
> a card held in someone's hand is as visible as a card flat on
> the table with no-one's hand near it.
Here is a quick and dirty demo:
http://temp.lundhansen.dk/bridge_cards.jpg
The cards are placed on a table that is 77 cm wide, and I sit in
the chair opposit and hold the camera in front of my eyes. The
peg covers about as much as my hand would, but it might happen
that my finger goes all the way across the bottom.
> This is the problem. Some people in this thread have said they do not
> let go of the card and have made it clear they do not believe this is a
> problem. Sure, but they are not the ones trying to see the card.
no problem seeing the card in such cases. There has to the best
of my (and some other TDs') knowledge never been a TD call caused
by the holding of a card - or even a mention for that matter.
> Quite frankly, whatever their logic, I just do not believe that
> a card held in someone's hand is as visible as a card flat on
> the table with no-one's hand near it.
http://temp.lundhansen.dk/bridge_cards.jpg
The cards are placed on a table that is 77 cm wide, and I sit in
the chair opposit and hold the camera in front of my eyes. The
peg covers about as much as my hand would, but it might happen
that my finger goes all the way across the bottom.
Fred.
May 23, 2012, 8:33:33 AM5/23/12
to
On Saturday, May 19, 2012 8:22:51 AM UTC-4, Herb wrote:
> On 5/18/2012 4:27 PM, Tom wrote:
> > When I play a card, I usually don't let go. I hold it out in front of
> > me, placed so everyone can see it easily it.
> >
> > Yesterday, one of the players was very miffed about this throughout the
> > round. I didn't understand at first, but eventually caught on that he
> > wanted me to place the card on the table and let it go.
> >
> > No problem from my perspective, but no one's ever complained before so I
> > was wondering what the rule is.
> >
> > The ACBL Laws of Duplicate Bridge refer to "facing" a card.
> >
> > What exactly does that mean?
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
>
> I, too, often object to people who, for whatever reason, hold on to
> their cards. But only because many of them hold their card in such a way
> that it is NOT visible to all players, including dummy, or they don't
> hold it steadily, or hold them inconsistently.
>
> Not letting go of the card isn't specifically against the rules of the
> game, but not making it easily visible to all is.
>
> There may be good reason to not let go, such as physical disabilities or
> a very slick cards, or an unsuitable table surface; but there is no
> reason to hide the card, whether intentionally or not.
>
> - Herb
I've never found any reason to register an objection.
A couple times of "May I see your card, please."
has always corrected whateveer pattern is causing
problems.
Fred.
> On 5/18/2012 4:27 PM, Tom wrote:
> > When I play a card, I usually don't let go. I hold it out in front of
> > me, placed so everyone can see it easily it.
> >
> > Yesterday, one of the players was very miffed about this throughout the
> > round. I didn't understand at first, but eventually caught on that he
> > wanted me to place the card on the table and let it go.
> >
> > No problem from my perspective, but no one's ever complained before so I
> > was wondering what the rule is.
> >
> > The ACBL Laws of Duplicate Bridge refer to "facing" a card.
> >
> > What exactly does that mean?
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
>
> I, too, often object to people who, for whatever reason, hold on to
> their cards. But only because many of them hold their card in such a way
> that it is NOT visible to all players, including dummy, or they don't
> hold it steadily, or hold them inconsistently.
>
> Not letting go of the card isn't specifically against the rules of the
> game, but not making it easily visible to all is.
>
> There may be good reason to not let go, such as physical disabilities or
> a very slick cards, or an unsuitable table surface; but there is no
> reason to hide the card, whether intentionally or not.
>
> - Herb
I've never found any reason to register an objection.
A couple times of "May I see your card, please."
has always corrected whateveer pattern is causing
problems.
Fred.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 23, 2012, 8:45:44 AM5/23/12
to
Bertel Lund Hansen skrev:
> Here is a quick and dirty demo:
And here a less quick one:
http://temp.lundhansen.dk/declarer.jpg
http://temp.lundhansen.dk/defender.jpg
The first one was taken as before, and the second one was taken
from a defender's chair. It's not quite fair because usually the
card will be where C7 is, but it does give you an idea.
> Here is a quick and dirty demo:
http://temp.lundhansen.dk/declarer.jpg
http://temp.lundhansen.dk/defender.jpg
The first one was taken as before, and the second one was taken
from a defender's chair. It's not quite fair because usually the
card will be where C7 is, but it does give you an idea.
Barry Margolin
May 24, 2012, 4:37:39 AM5/24/12
to
In article <adfc5ff6-9447-4b3f...@googlegroups.com>,
With some people (pretty much always LOLs) he has to keep asking them to
stop blocking his view of the card with their hand.
"Fred." <rollsc...@att.net> wrote:
> I've never found any reason to register an objection.
>
> A couple times of "May I see your card, please."
> has always corrected whateveer pattern is causing
> problems.
I mentioned earlier an occasional partner who often has this problem.
> I've never found any reason to register an objection.
>
> A couple times of "May I see your card, please."
> has always corrected whateveer pattern is causing
> problems.
With some people (pretty much always LOLs) he has to keep asking them to
stop blocking his view of the card with their hand.
Peter Smulders
May 26, 2012, 5:48:12 AM5/26/12
to
On 19-5-2012 1:27, Tom wrote:
> When I play a card, I usually don't let go. I hold it out in front of
> me, placed so everyone can see it easily it.
>
> Yesterday, one of the players was very miffed about this throughout the
> round. I didn't understand at first, but eventually caught on that he
> wanted me to place the card on the table and let it go.
>
> No problem from my perspective, but no one's ever complained before so I
> was wondering what the rule is.
>
> The ACBL Laws of Duplicate Bridge refer to "facing" a card.
>
> What exactly does that mean?
Strangely enough this whole thread would have been impossible in the
> When I play a card, I usually don't let go. I hold it out in front of
> me, placed so everyone can see it easily it.
>
> Yesterday, one of the players was very miffed about this throughout the
> round. I didn't understand at first, but eventually caught on that he
> wanted me to place the card on the table and let it go.
>
> No problem from my perspective, but no one's ever complained before so I
> was wondering what the rule is.
>
> The ACBL Laws of Duplicate Bridge refer to "facing" a card.
>
> What exactly does that mean?
Netherlands, as the Dutch version requires the player to take the card
out of his hand and lay it down face up on the table in front of him.
(Not that we don't have people with the annoying habit of hanging on to
the card, but you can tell them off on the basis of the law)
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 26, 2012, 8:16:15 AM5/26/12
to
Peter Smulders skrev:
> Strangely enough this whole thread would have been impossible
> in the Netherlands, as the Dutch version requires the player
> to take the card out of his hand and lay it down face up on
> the table in front of him.
Strangely enough I am from Denmark where the law also specifies
because it is not a problem that many players do as I do.
> Strangely enough this whole thread would have been impossible
> in the Netherlands, as the Dutch version requires the player
> to take the card out of his hand and lay it down face up on
> the table in front of him.
that the card must be placed on the table.
And strangely enough we do not have the discussion, but that is
because it is not a problem that many players do as I do.
Barry Margolin
May 26, 2012, 9:01:00 AM5/26/12
to
In article <4fc0c95d$0$283$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
Aren't the Laws supposed to be the same everywhere? This is not one of
the parts of the Laws that allows for RA elections.
the parts of the Laws that allows for RA elections.
Peter Smulders
May 26, 2012, 9:41:27 AM5/26/12
to
of this one got lost in translation :-)
Peter Smulders
May 26, 2012, 9:50:47 AM5/26/12
to
way of "facing" they prefer. I for one find it irritating if a player
holds on to the card. As if he is doing you a favour by showing the card
and is in a hurry to turn it over.
derek
May 26, 2012, 10:19:34 AM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 10:01 am, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <4fc0c95d$0$283$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
clear there's no agreement what "on" the table means, so it's entirely
appropriate for an RA to define exactly how the card is to be faced.
> In article <4fc0c95d$0$283$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>
> > Peter Smulders skrev:
>
> > > Strangely enough this whole thread would have been impossible
> > > in the Netherlands, as the Dutch version requires the player
> > > to take the card out of his hand and lay it down face up on
> > > the table in front of him.
>
> > Strangely enough I am from Denmark where the law also specifies
> > that the card must be placed on the table.
>
> > And strangely enough we do not have the discussion, but that is
> > because it is not a problem that many players do as I do.
>
> Aren't the Laws supposed to be the same everywhere? This is not one of
> the parts of the Laws that allows for RA elections.
The Laws are the same - but the discussion here has made it pretty
>
> > Peter Smulders skrev:
>
> > > Strangely enough this whole thread would have been impossible
> > > in the Netherlands, as the Dutch version requires the player
> > > to take the card out of his hand and lay it down face up on
> > > the table in front of him.
>
> > Strangely enough I am from Denmark where the law also specifies
> > that the card must be placed on the table.
>
> > And strangely enough we do not have the discussion, but that is
> > because it is not a problem that many players do as I do.
>
> Aren't the Laws supposed to be the same everywhere? This is not one of
> the parts of the Laws that allows for RA elections.
clear there's no agreement what "on" the table means, so it's entirely
appropriate for an RA to define exactly how the card is to be faced.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 26, 2012, 11:32:17 AM5/26/12
to
Barry Margolin skrev:
>> Strangely enough I am from Denmark where the law also specifies
>> that the card must be placed on the table.
table". If I backtranslate the Danish translation, it becomes
"placed face up on the table".
> This is not one of the parts of the Laws that allows for RA
> elections.
No, but the laws are translated into idiomatic language.
>> Strangely enough I am from Denmark where the law also specifies
>> that the card must be placed on the table.
> Aren't the Laws supposed to be the same everywhere?
Yes, and I think they are. "On the table" does not mean "near the
table". If I backtranslate the Danish translation, it becomes
"placed face up on the table".
> This is not one of the parts of the Laws that allows for RA
> elections.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 26, 2012, 11:33:31 AM5/26/12
to
derek skrev:
> The Laws are the same - but the discussion here has made it pretty
> clear there's no agreement what "on" the table means, so it's entirely
> appropriate for an RA to define exactly how the card is to be faced.
I disagree. The Danish and the English text says the same. The
Danish version does not specify that on has to let go of the
card. And "on the table" means on the table.
> The Laws are the same - but the discussion here has made it pretty
> clear there's no agreement what "on" the table means, so it's entirely
> appropriate for an RA to define exactly how the card is to be faced.
Danish version does not specify that on has to let go of the
card. And "on the table" means on the table.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 26, 2012, 11:39:55 AM5/26/12
to
Peter Smulders skrev:
> Maybe your opponents are just too polite.
No, not particularly. They often do the same. It's simply common
in Denmark to hold the card like that.
> I suggest you ask them which way of "facing" they prefer.
I'm sure they don't care as long as they can see the face. As I
wrote earlier, nobody has ever complained about it, and no TD has
been called because of the way the cards are held. This goes for
our festival as well where we have players from all over the
world though most of them of course are Danes, and most of the
visitors are from neighbouring countries.
We have had TD's from Holland all the years where I have been a
helper, and one of them, I believe, has the highest international
ranking achievable.
> I for one find it irritating if a player holds on to the card.
> As if he is doing you a favour by showing the card and is in a
> hurry to turn it over.
Nobody has ever said anything to that effect to me or my TD
friends.
> Maybe your opponents are just too polite.
in Denmark to hold the card like that.
> I suggest you ask them which way of "facing" they prefer.
wrote earlier, nobody has ever complained about it, and no TD has
been called because of the way the cards are held. This goes for
our festival as well where we have players from all over the
world though most of them of course are Danes, and most of the
visitors are from neighbouring countries.
We have had TD's from Holland all the years where I have been a
helper, and one of them, I believe, has the highest international
ranking achievable.
> I for one find it irritating if a player holds on to the card.
> As if he is doing you a favour by showing the card and is in a
> hurry to turn it over.
friends.
derek
May 26, 2012, 12:43:38 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 12:33 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
wrote:
it has to be "in contact with". However, it's still reasonable for an
RA to rule that the spirit of the law is that the card has to be
released. I can't quite see what you're disagreeing with.
wrote:
> derek skrev:
>
> > The Laws are the same - but the discussion here has made it pretty
> > clear there's no agreement what "on" the table means, so it's entirely
> > appropriate for an RA to define exactly how the card is to be faced.
>
> I disagree. The Danish and the English text says the same. The
> Danish version does not specify that on has to let go of the
> card. And "on the table" means on the table.
And as we've established, the dictionary definition of "on" only says
>
> > The Laws are the same - but the discussion here has made it pretty
> > clear there's no agreement what "on" the table means, so it's entirely
> > appropriate for an RA to define exactly how the card is to be faced.
>
> I disagree. The Danish and the English text says the same. The
> Danish version does not specify that on has to let go of the
> card. And "on the table" means on the table.
it has to be "in contact with". However, it's still reasonable for an
RA to rule that the spirit of the law is that the card has to be
released. I can't quite see what you're disagreeing with.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 26, 2012, 4:27:11 PM5/26/12
to
derek skrev:
> And as we've established, the dictionary definition of "on" only says
> it has to be "in contact with". However, it's still reasonable for an
> RA to rule that the spirit of the law is that the card has to be
> released. I can't quite see what you're disagreeing with.
With this:
it's entirely appropriate for an RA to define exactly
how the card is to be faced.
> And as we've established, the dictionary definition of "on" only says
> it has to be "in contact with". However, it's still reasonable for an
> RA to rule that the spirit of the law is that the card has to be
> released. I can't quite see what you're disagreeing with.
it's entirely appropriate for an RA to define exactly
how the card is to be faced.
derek
May 26, 2012, 6:59:35 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 5:27 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
wrote:
throw out my Club Director's handbook, then.
wrote:
> derek skrev:
>
> > And as we've established, the dictionary definition of "on" only says
> > it has to be "in contact with". However, it's still reasonable for an
> > RA to rule that the spirit of the law is that the card has to be
> > released. I can't quite see what you're disagreeing with.
>
> With this:
>
> it's entirely appropriate for an RA to define exactly
> how the card is to be faced.
You don't think an RA has the right to clarify laws? Might as well
>
> > And as we've established, the dictionary definition of "on" only says
> > it has to be "in contact with". However, it's still reasonable for an
> > RA to rule that the spirit of the law is that the card has to be
> > released. I can't quite see what you're disagreeing with.
>
> With this:
>
> it's entirely appropriate for an RA to define exactly
> how the card is to be faced.
throw out my Club Director's handbook, then.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 27, 2012, 2:46:47 AM5/27/12
to
derek skrev:
>> � � � � it's entirely appropriate for an RA to define exactly
>> � � � � it's entirely appropriate for an RA to define exactly
>> � � � � how the card is to be faced.
> You don't think an RA has the right to clarify laws?
Yes, but not to define them.
> You don't think an RA has the right to clarify laws?
derek
May 27, 2012, 10:15:22 AM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 3:46 am, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
wrote:
haven't - and "on" is clearly not well defined.
wrote:
> derek skrev:
>
> >> it's entirely appropriate for an RA to define exactly
> >> how the card is to be faced.
> > You don't think an RA has the right to clarify laws?
>
> Yes, but not to define them.
It's certainly proper for the RA to define the terms if the Laws
>
> >> it's entirely appropriate for an RA to define exactly
> >> how the card is to be faced.
> > You don't think an RA has the right to clarify laws?
>
> Yes, but not to define them.
haven't - and "on" is clearly not well defined.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 27, 2012, 1:53:27 PM5/27/12
to
derek skrev:
>> Yes, but not to define them.
> It's certainly proper for the RA to define the terms if the Laws
> haven't
Oh.
> and "on" is clearly not well defined.
Neither is "and", "if", "see" ...
>> Yes, but not to define them.
> It's certainly proper for the RA to define the terms if the Laws
> haven't
> and "on" is clearly not well defined.
Travis Crump
May 27, 2012, 3:40:41 PM5/27/12
to
On 05/27/2012 01:53 PM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> derek skrev:
>
>>> Yes, but not to define them.
>
>> It's certainly proper for the RA to define the terms if the Laws
>> haven't
>
> Oh.
>
>> and "on" is clearly not well defined.
>
> Neither is "and", "if", "see" ...
>
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html
> derek skrev:
>
>>> Yes, but not to define them.
>
>> It's certainly proper for the RA to define the terms if the Laws
>> haven't
>
> Oh.
>
>> and "on" is clearly not well defined.
>
> Neither is "and", "if", "see" ...
>
For the non-US readers who may not be familiar. :)
Barry Margolin
May 27, 2012, 7:34:11 PM5/27/12
to
In article <4fc269e4$0$281$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
ACBL 'or' shall be deemed to mean 'and'."
> derek skrev:
>
> >> Yes, but not to define them.
>
> > It's certainly proper for the RA to define the terms if the Laws
> > haven't
>
> Oh.
>
> > and "on" is clearly not well defined.
>
> Neither is "and", "if", "see" ...
I can just imagine it: "for the purposes of interpreting the Laws in the
>
> >> Yes, but not to define them.
>
> > It's certainly proper for the RA to define the terms if the Laws
> > haven't
>
> Oh.
>
> > and "on" is clearly not well defined.
>
> Neither is "and", "if", "see" ...
ACBL 'or' shall be deemed to mean 'and'."
derek
May 27, 2012, 7:38:40 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 2:53 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
wrote:
be appropriate for an RA to more clearly define them if they felt it
necessary.
wrote:
> derek skrev:
>
> >> Yes, but not to define them.
> > It's certainly proper for the RA to define the terms if the Laws
> > haven't
>
> Oh.
>
> > and "on" is clearly not well defined.
>
> Neither is "and", "if", "see" ...
No, they're not - and I can't see why you would feel that it wouldn't
>
> >> Yes, but not to define them.
> > It's certainly proper for the RA to define the terms if the Laws
> > haven't
>
> Oh.
>
> > and "on" is clearly not well defined.
>
> Neither is "and", "if", "see" ...
be appropriate for an RA to more clearly define them if they felt it
necessary.
Herb
May 27, 2012, 9:53:52 PM5/27/12
to
On 5/27/2012 10:53 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> derek skrev:
>
>>> Yes, but not to define them.
>
>> It's certainly proper for the RA to define the terms if the Laws
>> haven't
>
> Oh.
>
>> and "on" is clearly not well defined.
>
> Neither is "and", "if", "see" ...
>
"or" CAN be ambiguous, and I'm sure that if someone looked hard enough a
> derek skrev:
>
>>> Yes, but not to define them.
>
>> It's certainly proper for the RA to define the terms if the Laws
>> haven't
>
> Oh.
>
>> and "on" is clearly not well defined.
>
> Neither is "and", "if", "see" ...
>
case in the laws could be found where the interpretation could depend on
whether it was an inclusive 'or' or an exclusive 'or'.
- Herb
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 28, 2012, 4:15:47 AM5/28/12
to
derek skrev:
> No, they're not - and I can't see why you would feel that it wouldn't
> be appropriate for an RA to more clearly define them if they felt it
> necessary.
Because this would open for an arbitrary interpretation of the
law. Someone might for instance specify that "face the card on
the table" means that the player must physically stand on the
table while facing the card.
> No, they're not - and I can't see why you would feel that it wouldn't
> be appropriate for an RA to more clearly define them if they felt it
> necessary.
law. Someone might for instance specify that "face the card on
the table" means that the player must physically stand on the
table while facing the card.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 28, 2012, 4:17:27 AM5/28/12
to
Herb skrev:
> "or" CAN be ambiguous, and I'm sure that if someone looked hard enough a
> case in the laws could be found where the interpretation could depend on
> whether it was an inclusive 'or' or an exclusive 'or'.
I was thinking along those lines. "If" is also not well-defined.
In math there is the expression "if and only if" to avoid the
ambiguity.
> "or" CAN be ambiguous, and I'm sure that if someone looked hard enough a
> case in the laws could be found where the interpretation could depend on
> whether it was an inclusive 'or' or an exclusive 'or'.
In math there is the expression "if and only if" to avoid the
ambiguity.
derek
May 28, 2012, 10:05:26 AM5/28/12
to
On May 28, 5:15 am, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
wrote:
clearer. You do know that "Reductio ad absurdum" is not a valid form
of argument, right? Sorry, but without the force of Law, the ACBL
_does_ provide guidance for directors in numerous ways, and I don't
doubt all the other RAs do the same.
wrote:
> derek skrev:
>
> > No, they're not - and I can't see why you would feel that it wouldn't
> > be appropriate for an RA to more clearly define them if they felt it
> > necessary.
>
> Because this would open for an arbitrary interpretation of the
> law. Someone might for instance specify that "face the card on
> the table" means that the player must physically stand on the
> table while facing the card.
Right, while allowing ambiguous terminology in the laws is so much
>
> > No, they're not - and I can't see why you would feel that it wouldn't
> > be appropriate for an RA to more clearly define them if they felt it
> > necessary.
>
> Because this would open for an arbitrary interpretation of the
> law. Someone might for instance specify that "face the card on
> the table" means that the player must physically stand on the
> table while facing the card.
clearer. You do know that "Reductio ad absurdum" is not a valid form
of argument, right? Sorry, but without the force of Law, the ACBL
_does_ provide guidance for directors in numerous ways, and I don't
doubt all the other RAs do the same.
Barry Margolin
May 28, 2012, 10:19:15 AM5/28/12
to
In article <4fc33401$0$284$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
ridiculous interpretation. People know what words mean, and they know
how far you can stretch those meanings without slipping into absurdity.
That argument like the people who argue against gay marriage because
they say relaxing the definition of marriage would open the door to
polygamy and bestiality.
> derek skrev:
>
> > No, they're not - and I can't see why you would feel that it wouldn't
> > be appropriate for an RA to more clearly define them if they felt it
> > necessary.
>
> Because this would open for an arbitrary interpretation of the
> law. Someone might for instance specify that "face the card on
> the table" means that the player must physically stand on the
> table while facing the card.
No they couldn't, because everyone would recognize that it's a
>
> > No, they're not - and I can't see why you would feel that it wouldn't
> > be appropriate for an RA to more clearly define them if they felt it
> > necessary.
>
> Because this would open for an arbitrary interpretation of the
> law. Someone might for instance specify that "face the card on
> the table" means that the player must physically stand on the
> table while facing the card.
ridiculous interpretation. People know what words mean, and they know
how far you can stretch those meanings without slipping into absurdity.
That argument like the people who argue against gay marriage because
they say relaxing the definition of marriage would open the door to
polygamy and bestiality.
Paul Hightower
Jul 30, 2012, 11:50:13 AM7/30/12
to
"Bertel Lund Hansen" <kanon...@lundhansen.dk> wrote in message
news:4fb817e5$0$284$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
> Mark Brader skrev:
>
>> I would take this as a mannerism urging the other players to hurry up.
>
> I can only say that no one has felt this way. Once I asked a
> player if it disturbed him, but he explained that his 'problem'
> (which made me ask) had nothing to do with my holding the card,
> and that he didn't mind.
>
>> Except if you have arthritis or something, of course. Then it's up
>> to everyone else to make allowances.
>
> I have no physical problems.
>
I do. I have some trouble seeing out of my left eye. It's quite annoying to
have to repeatedly ask LHO to actually hold the card where I can see it,
long enough for me to see it. You may *think* you are holding the card where
everyone can see it, but in my experience if you don't let it go, you may
not be. Please let go of the card. I make allowances for those who would
have trouble picking the card back up -- you don't qualify.
news:4fb817e5$0$284$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
> Mark Brader skrev:
>
>> I would take this as a mannerism urging the other players to hurry up.
>
> I can only say that no one has felt this way. Once I asked a
> player if it disturbed him, but he explained that his 'problem'
> (which made me ask) had nothing to do with my holding the card,
> and that he didn't mind.
>
>> Except if you have arthritis or something, of course. Then it's up
>> to everyone else to make allowances.
>
> I have no physical problems.
>
I do. I have some trouble seeing out of my left eye. It's quite annoying to
have to repeatedly ask LHO to actually hold the card where I can see it,
long enough for me to see it. You may *think* you are holding the card where
everyone can see it, but in my experience if you don't let it go, you may
not be. Please let go of the card. I make allowances for those who would
have trouble picking the card back up -- you don't qualify.
Bertel Lund Hansen
Jul 30, 2012, 5:01:41 PM7/30/12
to
Paul Hightower skrev:
> I do. I have some trouble seeing out of my left eye. It's quite annoying to
> have to repeatedly ask LHO to actually hold the card where I can see it,
> long enough for me to see it. You may *think* you are holding the card where
> everyone can see it, but in my experience if you don't let it go, you may
> not be. Please let go of the card.
When I am not playing against visually impaired people, I hold my
cards as described.
I might add that we had 5000+ players playing during our bridge
festival. I did not count the players using the different
methods, but it certainly was common for dummies to hold the
cards the way I do. We didn't have any complaints about it. We
haven't had any complaints the previous years. No Danish TD who
has been present in Vingsted, has had a complaint about this way
of holding the cards.
We have a regular player (doing quite well by the way) who is
extremely impaired though not quite blind. He has special light
and magnifying glass set up for him, and the bids and (bidding)
cards are spoken. I do not know how the other players at this
table hold their dummy cards, but I am sure they accomodate his
wishes.
> I do. I have some trouble seeing out of my left eye. It's quite annoying to
> have to repeatedly ask LHO to actually hold the card where I can see it,
> long enough for me to see it. You may *think* you are holding the card where
> everyone can see it, but in my experience if you don't let it go, you may
> not be. Please let go of the card.
cards as described.
I might add that we had 5000+ players playing during our bridge
festival. I did not count the players using the different
methods, but it certainly was common for dummies to hold the
cards the way I do. We didn't have any complaints about it. We
haven't had any complaints the previous years. No Danish TD who
has been present in Vingsted, has had a complaint about this way
of holding the cards.
We have a regular player (doing quite well by the way) who is
extremely impaired though not quite blind. He has special light
and magnifying glass set up for him, and the bids and (bidding)
cards are spoken. I do not know how the other players at this
table hold their dummy cards, but I am sure they accomodate his
wishes.
Peter Smulders
Jul 31, 2012, 3:38:40 AM7/31/12
to
This is a simple directive, and holding on to the card is not part of
it. "Enforcement" of this law is usually relaxed but that does not
change the fact.
Bertel Lund Hansen
Jul 31, 2012, 6:42:09 AM7/31/12
to
Peter Smulders skrev:
> The Law speaks of "dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table".
I agree that the law is quite clear, and I am aware that I break
it.
> The Law speaks of "dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table".
it.
Fred.
Jul 31, 2012, 8:23:47 AM7/31/12
to
On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 3:38:40 AM UTC-4, Peter Smulders wrote:
> On 30-7-2012 23:01, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: > Paul Hightower skrev: > >> I do. I have some trouble seeing out of my left eye. It's quite annoying to >> have to repeatedly ask LHO to actually hold the card where I can see it, >> long enough for me to see it. You may *think* you are holding the card where >> everyone can see it, but in my experience if you don't let it go, you may >> not be. Please let go of the card. > > When I am not playing against visually impaired people, I hold my > cards as described. > > I might add that we had 5000+ players playing during our bridge > festival. I did not count the players using the different > methods, but it certainly was common for dummies to hold the > cards the way I do. We didn't have any complaints about it. We > haven't had any complaints the previous years. No Danish TD who > has been present in Vingsted, has had a complaint about this way > of holding the cards. > > We have a regular player (doing quite well by the way) who is > extremely impaired though not quite blind. He has special light > and magnifying glass set up for him, and the bids and (bidding) > cards are spoken. I do not know how the other players at this > table hold their dummy cards, but I am sure they accomodate his > wishes. The Law speaks of "dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table". This is a simple directive, and holding on to the card is not part of it. "Enforcement" of this law is usually relaxed but that does not change the fact.
A table surface where one could subsequently pick up the card without
> On 30-7-2012 23:01, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: > Paul Hightower skrev: > >> I do. I have some trouble seeing out of my left eye. It's quite annoying to >> have to repeatedly ask LHO to actually hold the card where I can see it, >> long enough for me to see it. You may *think* you are holding the card where >> everyone can see it, but in my experience if you don't let it go, you may >> not be. Please let go of the card. > > When I am not playing against visually impaired people, I hold my > cards as described. > > I might add that we had 5000+ players playing during our bridge > festival. I did not count the players using the different > methods, but it certainly was common for dummies to hold the > cards the way I do. We didn't have any complaints about it. We > haven't had any complaints the previous years. No Danish TD who > has been present in Vingsted, has had a complaint about this way > of holding the cards. > > We have a regular player (doing quite well by the way) who is > extremely impaired though not quite blind. He has special light > and magnifying glass set up for him, and the bids and (bidding) > cards are spoken. I do not know how the other players at this > table hold their dummy cards, but I am sure they accomodate his > wishes. The Law speaks of "dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table". This is a simple directive, and holding on to the card is not part of it. "Enforcement" of this law is usually relaxed but that does not change the fact.
first sliding it around dummy tehn and then off the edge of the table might
help with compliance.
Fred.
derek
Jul 31, 2012, 11:05:09 AM7/31/12
to
On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 4:38:40 AM UTC-3, Peter Smulders wrote:
>
> The Law speaks of "dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table".
> This is a simple directive, and holding on to the card is not part of
> it. "Enforcement" of this law is usually relaxed but that does not
> change the fact.
How many times do we have to go through this? This thread died two months ago.
>
> The Law speaks of "dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table".
> This is a simple directive, and holding on to the card is not part of
> it. "Enforcement" of this law is usually relaxed but that does not
> change the fact.
"Holding on to the card is" _not_ "not part of it" either. There is nothing in the definition of "facing" or "on" either in the Laws or a dictionary, that requires the card to be released.
David Stevenson
Jul 31, 2012, 6:39:53 PM7/31/12
to
Bertel Lund Hansen wrote
table of people's foibles is that while I do not complain at the table I
wish people followed some fairly simple rules. Holding the cards up
instead of laying them flat is very annoying, and it is a shame that
people are so willing to annoy others for their own gratification.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
>Peter Smulders skrev:
>
>> The Law speaks of "dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table".
>
>I agree that the law is quite clear, and I am aware that I break
>it.
The problem with bridge for someone like me who is tolerant at the
>
>> The Law speaks of "dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table".
>
>I agree that the law is quite clear, and I am aware that I break
>it.
table of people's foibles is that while I do not complain at the table I
wish people followed some fairly simple rules. Holding the cards up
instead of laying them flat is very annoying, and it is a shame that
people are so willing to annoy others for their own gratification.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Bertel Lund Hansen
Aug 1, 2012, 7:20:44 AM8/1/12
to
David Stevenson skrev:
> The problem with bridge for someone like me who is tolerant at the
> table of people's foibles is that while I do not complain at the table I
> wish people followed some fairly simple rules. Holding the cards up
> instead of laying them flat is very annoying, and it is a shame that
> people are so willing to annoy others for their own gratification.
You ignore the Danish bridge culture. It does not annoy anyone -
and I do not do it for my own gratification.
But I shouldn't have responded to the first revival of this old
thread. I have nothing new to add.
> The problem with bridge for someone like me who is tolerant at the
> table of people's foibles is that while I do not complain at the table I
> wish people followed some fairly simple rules. Holding the cards up
> instead of laying them flat is very annoying, and it is a shame that
> people are so willing to annoy others for their own gratification.
and I do not do it for my own gratification.
But I shouldn't have responded to the first revival of this old
thread. I have nothing new to add.
Peter Smulders
Aug 2, 2012, 4:28:21 AM8/2/12
to
"A player must not commit an intentional infraction of any Law
(including this Law 72B1), whether or not that player is willing to
accept a consequent rectification"
0 new messages