Looking at CC

[Lanor Fow]

I was directing an event at the weekend that had a number of rulings that I'd like to post here, and see if people agree with me. There were also a quite a few other issues I was dealing with, including bridgemates not working in one room, leading to having to manually input 130 odd scores whilst tryign to sort 4 judgement rulings so it was a hectic event (from which I will be learning a lot).

 

[hv=pc=n&e=s98652htdk985caj4&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1hp4h4sppp]133|200[/hv]

 

After South opened with 1H, west took NS convention card, looked at it for a few seconds, then passed. The bidding proceeded as per the above, and the contract went down two. 4H makes.

 

You get called to the table at the end of the hand by NS who state that west had looked at the card and hestitated for a few seconds. EW claim the only pause was whilst west was looking at the CC, which seems to be agreed by all present. W states that she only looked at the card becuase NS had asked for their convention card before (this is the first board of the round) which she thought was unusual (county green pointed event, most pairs are likely to have well filled out convention cards).

 

How do you rule.

 

Multiple edits to correct the fact I don't know the compas

Edited September 22, 2014 by Lanor Fow

[WellSpyder]

Not sure I see a problem here. Have East and West got mixed up in the OP?

[Lanor Fow]

Indeed they were, corrected now.

[sfi]

It's still not clear. Have you given us the hand that bid 4S or the hand that passed over 1H (which might require modification of the hand diagram)? Did both East and West look at the convention card, or did that happen only over the 1H opening (which means the wording should be changed to to 'whilst west was looking at the CC')? Was the only hesitation over 1H (which the previous modification will also fix)?

 

Assuming one hesitation, after the opening bid, and we are seeing the hand that bid 4S, there certainly is a reason to investigate. IMO, pass is clearly a LA and the hesitation suggests values without a clear bid. This means that 4S could demonstrably have been suggested by the agreed hesitation, so I am likely to adjust the score to 4H=. The actual reason for West's hesitation is irrelevant - it's the information it conveys at the table that is important.

[RMB1]

Still not clear.

You give us the West hand (2nd hand: looked at convention card) but we aren't going to do anything about West's actions - they have generated UI by choosing the wrong time to make some point about convention cards.

If this is a UI problem we need the East hand (4th hand: who bid 4♠).

[billw55]

If this is a UI problem we need the East hand (4th hand: who bid 4♠).

Technically true, although it is very probable that east had a logical alternative to 4♠.

 

[edit: OP changed to show hand as east. Clearly, pass is a LA]

 

The question seems to be, does looking at the CC send UI?

 

 

[blackshoe]

I would like to hear what information is sent by looking at the system card.

 

Is the "exchange cards before the round starts; keep opponent's card until the round ends" rule no longer in effect in England?

[Lanor Fow]

I really did mess this up. The hand given is easts not west, I've editted this

[Lanor Fow]

Blackshoe, Convention cards are usually exchanged here. How often depends on the level of event, in a club night probably most people don't have them and some who have them don't exchange them. In this event most would have had them, and some (perhaps even most) would have started each round by exchanging them, but not all pairs would have done this routinely. I get the impression that this EW, though they had a card, might not have been routinely giving oppos the card at the start of the round.

 

Similaly in this even you will have had some pairs who would always ask for a card and take a quick look (this NS are likely to be in this catagory) and some pairs who would ignore the CC for the whole round even if present to them.

 

This particular issue could well have been solved if EW routinely checked the oppos convention card before starting the round, the timing of looking at it is unfortuante at best.

[aguahombre]

I cannot think of anything "innocent" West conveyed by looking at the CC after an unalerted 1♥ opening bid...nothing which would suggest a 4♠ bid by partner after the triple raise.

 

People's decisions to overcall or takeout in direct seat over a natural 1M opening are not affected by whether it is a limited bid or not. So, I look at West's actual hand; if I find a flat 13-count which competent players should learn to pass smoothly, I might decide that the gesture at that particular moment was a knee jerk (perpetrated by club players on occasion) which could have suggested strength but no direction and might have influenced the 4S bid.

 

But, I don't have the e/w hands here; so it is just a thought. I see no reason to ask West why he looked at the CC when he did, whether I see what he held or not.

[barmar]

I don't understand West's comment that he thought it was unusual that NS had asked for their CC earlier. If CCs are routinely exchanged in the UK, why would this have been unusual? And why would this be a reason for him to look at NS's CC after a normal, unalerted opening bid?

 

There also still seems to be an East-West mixup in the OP: "the only pause was whilst east was looking at the CC". Should that be West?

[aguahombre]

 

[hv=pc=n&e=s98652htdk985caj4&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1hp4h4sppp]133|200[/hv]

 

After South opened with 1H, west took NS convention card, looked at it for a few seconds, then passed. The bidding proceeded as per the above, and the contract went down two. 4H makes.

 

You get called to the table at the end of the hand by NS who state that west had looked at the card and hestitated for a few seconds.

I think we can look at the diagram and these two paragraphs, then get on with life. What follows might be a bit jumbled, but I think we know what the issue is.

[weejonnie]

Does looking at the CC demonstrably suggest that East Bids 4 Spades. Perhaps West has:

 

S: K6

H: AJ9

D: AQ43

C: T987

 

When the winning action would be to double 4 Hearts for penalties. The fact that West has NOT bid spades when a 1-level call was available makes it, to me, even less likely that he holds spades.

[aguahombre]

Does looking at the CC demonstrably suggest that East Bids 4 Spades. Perhaps West has:

 

S: K6

H: AJ9

D: AQ43

C: T987

 

When the winning action would be to double 4 Hearts for penalties. The fact that West has NOT bid spades when a 1-level call was available makes it, to me, even less likely that he holds spades.

The question would be whether it could have shown balanced values. If Partner's 4S bid could have been based on balanced values across from him, some kind of spade fit exists.

[billw55]

Indeed, I have to wonder what this 4♠ call could be based on, other than UI. What kind of lunatic does this?

[blackshoe]

I would ask East why he bid 4♠ with that hand, when if he passes his partner has another call. Besides, other than the terrible point count, that hand looks a lot more like a double than a unilateral 4♠ bid.

 

If "before" in "NS asked for EW's system cards 'before'" means "at the beginning of the round, then NS are just complying with the regulation (BB 3A1). If it means "the last time we played against them" then wtf? :blink: IAC, I would explain the regulation to both pairs, noting that the use of "should" makes failure to exchange cards an infraction which they should strive not to commit.

 

As for adjusting the score, I'm still thinking about that.

[steve2005]

I cannot think of anything "innocent" West conveyed by looking at the CC after an unalerted 1♥ opening bid...nothing which would suggest a 4♠ bid by partner after the triple raise.

so right so he looked at opp card. I do it as a matter of course at start of round. Just because a bid occurred doesnt mean I cant look now and bar partner from making a weird bid

[aguahombre]

so right so he looked at opp card. I do it as a matter of course at start of round. Just because a bid occurred doesnt mean I cant look now and bar partner from making a weird bid

We are not talking about barring partner from making a weird bid. We are talking about judging whether partner's weird bid could have been influenced by something other than authorized information.

[Vampyr]

Blackshoe, Convention cards are usually exchanged here. How often depends on the level of event, in a club night probably most people don't have them and some who have them don't exchange them. In this event most would have had them, and some (perhaps even most) would have started each round by exchanging them, but not all pairs would have done this routinely.

 

Strangely, this was not happening, so you did have to ask. Perhaps it had to do with the ample side tables, which made it easy to just dump whatever you were carrying.

[Bbradley62]

W states that she only looked at the card becuase NS had asked for their convention card before (this is the first board of the round) which she thought was unusual (county green pointed event, most pairs are likely to have well filled out convention cards).

So, West only did this to be annoying in the first place. Great.

 

In addition to deciding whether EW did anything wrong, do we have to determine whether NS failed to protect themselves, either by calling the director during the auction or by doubling 4♠? (I don't think it's been mentioned what the form of scoring is, or whether NS had suitable hands for this.)

[Vampyr]

so right so he looked at opp card. I do it as a matter of course at start of round. Just because a bid occurred doesnt mean I cant look now and bar partner from making a weird bid

 

There was time to do this before the auction started; South was not present at the table when E/W arrived.

[lamford]

The hand that looked at the CC and then had a short BIT over 1H was ♠QJx ♥AK ♦Jxxx ♣QTxx. I thought that a look at the CC and a double or a short BIT and a double was about right, and experienced partnerships will have discussed which one shows four spades and which one does not. The combination of the two followed by a pass probably should show a defensive values take-out double, which is just what she had, but I was not that familiar with the EW methods. The TD adjusted the score to 4H= and eventually managed to get the polarity and compass directions right when correcting this thread, just as he eventually managed to score the event. The problems with radio signals for Bridgemates, combined with late arrivals to the event, owing in part to some march in London and other transport problems, made his job a nightmare, and he has my full sympathy.

[aguahombre]

The hand that looked at the CC and then had a short BIT over 1H was ♠QJx ♥AK ♦Jxxx ♣QTxx. I thought that a look at the CC and a double or a short BIT and a double was about right, and experienced partnerships will have discussed which one shows four spades and which one does not. The combination of the two followed by a pass probably should show a defensive values take-out double, which is just what she had, but I was not that familiar with the EW methods. The TD adjusted the score to 4H= and eventually managed to get the polarity and compass directions right when correcting this thread, just as he eventually managed to score the event. The problems with radio signals for Bridgemates, combined with late arrivals to the event, owing in part to some march in London and other transport problems, made his job a nightmare, and he has my full sympathy.

Please, those with no sense of humor, don't retort. The rest of us can admire.