honest declarer

[gwnn]

A declarer in some contract missing 5 trumps including the queen plays A, K, dropping Qx offside. Defenders call you and point out that there is no particular reason why declarer would play like that. Declarer just replies 'I saw your hand because you can't hold your cards properly. what was I supposed to do?'. Of course EW don't remember holding their cards in the viewing angle of declarer unnecessarily.

 

this is not a 100% real case. just wondering.

[Jlall]

What's the problem?

[jdonn]

Why did they even call the director? If it was that unusual my first reaction wouldn't be director, it would be wondering where I held my cards.

[jeremy69]

Defenders call you and point out that there is no particular reason why declarer would play like that.

 

Law74C5 covers deliberately looking a the opponents cards but also says it is appropriate to act on information such as unintentionally seeing an opponents card.

 

Normally it is said that to call the director is never offensive but this would come close!

[gwnn]

Well I guess my question is how does the TD get to determine if declarer peaked intentionally or if just defender was holding his cards carelessly.

[bluejak]

I tell the defenders to grow up.

[duschek]

The only thing that bothers me is that four very sensible people think the TD should not be called or that the TD should give them an arrogant response (or maybe you are just being sarcastic...).

 

Of course, the defenders can call the TD. In this case, it has a very useful purpose in that the defenders will learn something about the rules from a neutral source, namely the TD.

[aguahombre]

I guess I have missed a lot of opportunities to call the director over the years. but, being sort of a wise-azz, I might have said what the declarer said even if it wasn't true and I had just decided it was safer to draw two trumps and then discard some losers in a side suit. Anyone who would call the director on me in this situation would also be unlikely to "point out that there was no particular reason" accurately.

[jdonn]

Of course, the defenders can call the TD. In this case, it has a very useful purpose in that the defenders will learn something about the rules from a neutral source, namely the TD.

The defenders think it's illegal for declarer to make an anti-percentage play?

 

Note they called the director before the declarer even said he could see their cards.

[barmar]

Next time an opponent violates Restricted Choice and picks up my QJ, should I call the TD?

[gwnn]

OK suppose defenders claim the declarer was noticeably trying to look at a defender's cards and then does this. Declarer says he just saw it by accident because the defender wasn't holding his cards properly. Do you still just tell defenders to grow up etc?

[barmar]

A truly honest declarer would averted his head and pointed out to the opponent that he was holding his cards so that they were visible to him. I usually give an opponent at least 2 warnings before I give up. But this is personal ethics, I don't think the Laws require it.

 

Law 16C describes extraneous information received accidentally, and includes "seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table." If the TD believes that this information may have affected the result, he should adjust the score.

[Phil]

I play against a lot of seniors that are either lazy and can't keep their cards up or actually have some impaired motor function where its difficult to. Many of these however have the little card holders.

 

I will give them a friendly warning. After that I still won't look, and I'll actually go out of my way to sit in a position where I can't see them.

 

That's just me, and I'm sure I'm going out of my way when I don't have to.

[jdonn]

Law 16C describes extraneous information received accidentally, and includes "seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table."  If the TD believes that this information may have affected the result, he should adjust the score.

Doesn't it say "before the auction begins"? I believe that example from the law is referring to something like they pass the board with a card face up, where it's not your opponent's fault. If your opponent holds his cards where you can see them you are still entitled to take advantage (don't get me wrong, I let them know as well when it happens to me).

 

In fact, since it specifically only refers to seeing your opponent's card before the auction begins, I think it's fair to assume it does not refer to seeing your opponent's card at any other time. Otherwise they wouldn't have included the qualifier.

[suprgrover]

Law 16C describes extraneous information received accidentally, and includes "seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table."

What do we mean by accidentally here? Certainly if a player exposes a card because it was boxed by another player, that is an accident. But is it an accident to expose cards by not holding them close enough to one's chest?

[Jlall]

OK suppose defenders claim the declarer was noticeably trying to look at a defender's cards and then does this. Declarer says he just saw it by accident because the defender wasn't holding his cards properly. Do you still just tell defenders to grow up etc?

Completely inappropriate to call the director and accuse the opps of looking at your hand. If someone does this they should get a procedural penalty and a conduct hearing. You can't accuse people of stuff like this with no proof. I am a big believer in that, and as far as I know it WILL get you a conduct hearing in the ACBL.

 

If you think that they are looking at your cards file a recorder form. If enough people do this, they will have a conduct hearing and evidence will be presented (15 people said you were looking at their cards individually, and gave hands as evidence).

 

In the mean time, learn how to hold your cards so the opps can't see them. Be a big boy! I guarantee no one can see my cards even if they are trying to, and it would have to be a really obvious lean if they wanted to try. So they won't try. If you are an inexperienced player you will always have something picked off until you learn.

 

I remember I was playing a regional pair game and I was 1 point away from life master. I was 12, so my hands weren't really big enough to hold my hands. Anyways they got to some contract, and they had KJxx opp A987 with no bidding and ran the jack through me and I had Qxx. I was playing with Nancy Passell and she ddn't understand either, so we went to my dad and Mike Passell and asked how they knew to do this. They both started laughing and said "Justin is learning the hard way why he has to hold his hand back."

 

The recorder process sucks, but accusing someone of cheating openly without evidence has to be a no-no no matter how sure you are. If it becomes well known enough that someone peeks, that reputation follows them. They are less respected etc. The social pressure is definitely there.

[Jlall]

I play against a lot of seniors that are either lazy and can't keep their cards up or actually have some impaired motor function where its difficult to. Many of these however have the little card holders.

 

I will give them a friendly warning. After that I still won't look, and I'll actually go out of my way to sit in a position where I can't see them.

 

That's just me, and I'm sure I'm going out of my way when I don't have to.

I am like you. I think if the person is actually disabled this is a clear cut way to be, it's not like they're being careless or negligent, they're just physically not able to hold their hand correctly. I think no matter how many warnings you give looking is a shitty thing to do.

 

Most experts that I have talked to hold the view that against people who are not disabled or impaired somehow, or just very old, you give them a warning and if they are still showing you their hands (without you going out of your way to look at it) then if you see something it's not your fault.

 

I personally will be like you though and go out of my way not to look even in that situation, I would just feel dirty about it no matter how many warnings I gave.

[bluejak]

Law 16C describes extraneous information received accidentally, and includes "seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table."

What do we mean by accidentally here? Certainly if a player exposes a card because it was boxed by another player, that is an accident. But is it an accident to expose cards by not holding them close enough to one's chest?

As jdonn points out, this is irrelevant since this bit of Law is only before the auction starts.

 

OK suppose defenders claim the declarer was noticeably trying to look at a defender's cards and then does this. Declarer says he just saw it by accident because the defender wasn't holding his cards properly. Do you still just tell defenders to grow up etc?

No, of course not: now they are reporting an alleged infraction, not just crying to mummy because the horrid man made an anti-percentage play.

[suprgrover]

Law 16C describes extraneous information received accidentally, and includes "seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table."

What do we mean by accidentally here? Certainly if a player exposes a card because it was boxed by another player, that is an accident. But is it an accident to expose cards by not holding them close enough to one's chest?

As jdonn points out, this is irrelevant since this bit of Law is only before the auction starts.

I do not think it is irrelevant. Here are the relevant parts of Law 16C:

 

1. When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a

board he is playing or has yet to play, as by ... seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information.

2. If the Director considers that the information could interfere with

normal play he may, before any call has been made:

(a) adjust the players’ positions at the table, if the type of contest

and scoring permit, so that the player with information about one hand will

hold that hand; or

(b) if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for

those contestants; or

( c) allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an

adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected

the result; or

(d) award an artificial adjusted score.

3. If such unauthorized information is received after the first call in the

auction has been made and before completion of the play of the board the

Director proceeds as in 2( c).

 

I think 16C3 makes this Law relevant, at least in theory.

[pran]

[quote name=bluejak' date='Oct 20 2009, 06:06 PMAs jdonn points out, this is irrelevant since this bit of Law is only before the auction starts.

[/quote]

I do not think it is irrelevant. Here are the relevant parts of Law 16C:

 

1. When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a

board he is playing or has yet to play, as by ... seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information.

2. If the Director considers that the information could interfere with

normal play he may, before any call has been made:

(a) adjust the players’ positions at the table, if the type of contest

and scoring permit, so that the player with information about one hand will

hold that hand; or

(:( if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for

those contestants; or

( c) allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an

adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected

the result; or

(d) award an artificial adjusted score.

3. If such unauthorized information is received after the first call in the

auction has been made and before completion of the play of the board the

Director proceeds as in 2( c).

 

I think 16C3 makes this Law relevant, at least in theory.

You think absolutely correct, and it is certainly not only in theory.

 

The important difference is that once the first call has been made on a board the Director may no longer adjust the players' positions at the table or order the board redealt, but the rest of Law 16C2 does indeed apply.

 

regards Sven

[bluejak]

The wording is

 

by ... seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins

 

So it is not unauthorised to see it after the auction begins, and Law 16C3 is irrelevant.

[suprgrover]

The wording is

 

by ... seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins

 

So it is not unauthorised to see it after the auction begins, and Law 16C3 is irrelevant.

Ah. The instruction in 16C3 had me thinking it trumped that phrase. I knew that TDs generally did not regard cards innocently seen in others' hands during the play as unauthorized information, but looking too quickly at 16C1 and 16C3 had me doubting myself.

[bluejak]

I do not think so. It lists some UI and then says "such UI". I do not believe that changes the UI listed because the word "such" suggests it does not.

[barmar]

The wording is

 

by ... seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins

 

So it is not unauthorised to see it after the auction begins, and Law 16C3 is irrelevant.

Ah. The instruction in 16C3 had me thinking it trumped that phrase. I knew that TDs generally did not regard cards innocently seen in others' hands during the play as unauthorized information, but looking too quickly at 16C1 and 16C3 had me doubting myself.

I had to read that law over and over before I made my post regarding it. It's definitely confusing the way they organized it.

 

But I couldn't imagine that the lawgivers would really condone seeing an opponent's cards just because it's after the auction has begun. So the distinction must be in the allowable rectifications, not whether the information is extraneous.

[barmar]

Completely inappropriate to call the director and accuse the opps of looking at your hand. If someone does this they should get a procedural penalty and a conduct hearing. You can't accuse people of stuff like this with no proof. I am a big believer in that, and as far as I know it WILL get you a conduct hearing in the ACBL.

What kind of "proof" is expected, other than "I saw it with my own eyes"? If you happen to be playing in an event that's being video recorded then there's independent evidence.

 

Or are you saying that if you want to accuse someone of cheating, you shouldn't do it by calling the TD at the time, but instead should wait until later and file a recorder form? But if you think that it's interfering with normal play of the hand, isn't it appropriate to call the TD for a ruling? Should you just say that you think the opp saw your hand, without including that you think they did it intentionally?