[OBSugar]

Partner and I intend to play a 10-12 white v red, 15-17 red v white, and 12-14 the rest of the time. I usually make a note of pair number and board numbers before each round. Is it illegal to preprint a color-coded scorecard as an aid to my memory?

[barmar]

The normal score cards already show declarer and vulnerability. I don't see how changing the way this is indicated on the scorecard could constitute any more of an aid than is already provided. And the vulnerability is also on the duplicate board itself, it's not something you need to remember.

Also, the law regarding memory aids is only applicable "during the auction and play periods". You can certainly use this aid before the auction starts.

[jillybean]

It sounds illegal to me. You are using a memory aid pertaining to the current board to remind you of the NT range your partnership can open.
If may not be explicitly stated in the laws but IMO it is clearly against the spirit of the law.

When I was playing a variable nt I had to make myself pause before the auction started to check position and vulnerability.

[barmar]

Why is it any more against the spirit of the law than checking the vulnerability markings on the duplicate board itself? Players aren't expected to memorize the rotation of dealer and vulnerabilities.

[jillybean]

 barmar, on 2016-March-26, 21:57, said:

Why is it any more against the spirit of the law than checking the vulnerability markings on the duplicate board itself? Players aren't expected to memorize the rotation of dealer and vulnerabilities.

Checking the vulnerability doesn't tell me what my nt range is for that board/vulnerability. Players are expected to know their system, without aids.

[Zelandakh]

Surely whether this is ethical or not depends solely on whether you look at your scorecard subsequent to your side taking their cards from the board. So long as you are only referring to it before the hand I do not see a problem; you could equally check it with partner verbally without penalty. Of course if you plan to refer to it during the hand that is something else entirely...

[manudude03]

I would say it is illegal since you are using it to remind yourself that you play variable NT. Things like board markings are not going to change just because you play a constant NT opening. How to police it without without punishing those who just like a bit of colour on their card though....

[blackshoe]

You are allowed the "aid to memory" of the vulnerability marked on the board, or the scorecard. However, if you color code the scorecard, so that say, green corresponds to 10-12 1NT, yellow to 12-14, and red to 15-17, you have gone too far. This aid to memory is illegal.

[barmar]

I still think that if you don't consult the color-coded scorecard during the auction, you're OK.

In fact, I think it would even be legal if you or your partner said to each other "We're red vs. white on this board, so it's strong NT", so long as you do it before either of you takes your cards from the board. This is similar to checking the opponent's CC, noticing that they play weak NT, and reminding each other "We're playing Cappalletti against their NT".

[blackshoe]

On reflection, I think you're right barry, that reminders (literally aids to memory) are legal if only used while hands are still in the board.

[WellSpyder]

Many years ago I had a team-mate who liked to play NT ranges that varied with position as well as vulnerability. On every hand before taking his cards from the board I'm told he used to say something like "we are red, so a 1NT opening by this hand would be x-y and by that hand would be a-b". It used to upset oppo a bit because, of course, they suspected that he was doing it primarily to remind his partner rather than to help them. But nobody seemed to think there was anything illegal about it....

[barmar]

I think I would find it slightly annoying, but not illegal as well.

When playing against a pair with a sight-impaired player, their partner will announce the dealer and vulnerability before each board. Of course I understand that it's necessary and acceptable, but that doesn't change the fact that it feels annoying.

[Zelandakh]

Why would it upset opps for him to remind his partner before the cards were taken from the board? It is only a problem once one of the pair has taken their cards.

[barmar]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-March-29, 10:02, said:

Why would it upset opps for him to remind his partner before the cards were taken from the board? It is only a problem once one of the pair has taken their cards.

I imagine they feel that the partner should be able to determine it on his own, rather than having to be reminded on each hand.

And the repetition of this kind of information before is simply annoying, like my example of the dealer/vul and the sight-impaired player. Or bad habits like card-snapping.

[helene_t]

It must be illegal to consult the scorecard during auction and play anyway since it could serve as a memory aid in all sorts of way: state of the match, -1700 means that we are (not) playing Ghestem, etc. So I don't see the problem.

[Zelandakh]

 helene_t, on 2016-March-30, 04:12, said:

It must be illegal to consult the scorecard during auction and play anyway since it could serve as a memory aid in all sorts of way: state of the match, -1700 means that we are (not) playing Ghestem, etc. So I don't see the problem.

That interpretation would presumably make the practise of entering the contract and OL into the scorecard when dummy goes down illegal, which might surprise a large portion of the player base. Heck, I've seen players use the scorecard to remind themselves what the OL was often enough, on occasion to remind their partner what the OL was too.

[barmar]

There's a difference between "seeing" and "consulting". Just because you can see other scores while you're writing down the contract for the current board, it doesn't mean you're consulting them -- that takes more time and concentration on the parts of the scorecard where you're not writing.

[Vampyr]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-March-30, 04:19, said:

That interpretation would presumably make the practise of entering the contract and OL into the scorecard when dummy goes down illegal, which might surprise a large portion of the player base. Heck, I've seen players use the scorecard to remind themselves what the OL was often enough, on occasion to remind their partner what the OL was too.

I ask players to turn over their scorecard or close their booklet if they have entered the opening lead.

[helene_t]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-March-30, 04:19, said:

That interpretation would presumably make the practise of entering the contract and OL into the scorecard when dummy goes down illegal

As long as it is only dummy that fiddles with the score card I think it is ok.