Posted 2012-February-06, 18:05
If they asked about the other 5%, I'd tell them :-)
Posted 2012-February-06, 19:46
Posted 2012-February-06, 22:22
Posted 2012-February-06, 22:59
Now this is one hell of a big brown and smelly thing for a believer to accept and swallow. -- Mr.Ace
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Factor in Alzheimers, and I can not recall a bad result from aggessive action in this situation. -- Aguahombre
When I look through the hand records after a club evening, the boards I didn't play are always the ones where I would have done great. -- Cherdano
Posted 2012-February-06, 23:00
Yeh, not clear what was proper from your anecdote. But our experience playing against such caliber of player is that when they deviate from exact protocol it doesn't come back to bite us in the butt if we go along.
Posted 2012-February-07, 04:47
I think the proper response to this would be to say "Director please".
Forcing you to ask instead of reading the card gives him an unfair advantage. It may not be a very big advantage, but it's still significant. I don't care how famous he is - he should bring a convention card. If he has, for some reason, not got one, his first word should be "Sorry", not a condescending instruction to do something you don't want to do.
Posted 2012-February-07, 04:51
If you ask a question and that tells the opponents something about your hand, are you hoping that they'll disregard the information?
If you ask a question and that tells your partner something about your hand, are you hoping that partner will ignore his obligations under the rules about UI?
Posted 2012-February-07, 05:57
Do you think that this is a deliberate tactic by the player alluded to and others?
Posted 2012-February-07, 07:28
Clearly it was not a tactic. Maybe he just wanted to keep the game moving or something.
To be specific, he had opened 1♣ on my left and now his partner was about to declare some other contract. I held a club suit that I was considering leading, and wanted to investigate the meaning of his opening bid prior to doing so - specifically, implied length. After our brief (and entirely amicable) exchange, I did ask aloud, although this could conceivably be a clue about my hand to both partner and declarer. There was no subsequent indication that the play was affected in any way. Although even if there was, I am certain I would not have had the nerve to call the director.
Posted 2012-February-07, 08:54
I doubt if it's often done in order to gain advantage. In fact, it's not often done at all, is it? I've never had someone refuse to hand me their convention card.
Posted 2012-February-07, 09:01
To be clear, he did not refuse. It was simply not immediately convenient for him, so invited me to ask instead. I am a very low ranking player so he may even have thought I was unaware that I could ask, and was trying to be helpful. Probably if I had asked again for the CC, he would have rummaged it out (as I recall it was partly obstructed, such as under a scoresheet or the like).
I really don't want to leave the impression that there was anything deliberate or underhanded on his part.
Posted 2012-February-07, 11:12
That seems unlikely. 99% of the time, people ask -- you would have to be a total newbie to not have encountered this numerous times. Players who request the CC are typically MORE experienced.
I think it was really just that he didn't feel like digging it out, and was confident the UI wouldn't make a difference. If a player did this, and then called the director because he felt your partner took advantage of the UI from the question, that would be an incredibly dickish move, IMHO.
Posted 2012-February-07, 12:44
Of course, as I have mentioned before, this was in the days when convention cards were made of stone. So it was more inconvenient to lug them around and show them to your opponents.
Posted 2012-February-07, 17:34
This might have happened in the ACBL though... I remember one player at the Nationals in Hawaii who would snatch her convention card away from me as soon as I put it down on the table, and place it out of my reach. So she did hand me her convention card, in fact multiple times.
It was not that unusual to find people who expected you to look at the card and then return it to them.
But no, I guess actually refusing is very rare.
Posted 2012-February-08, 03:45
Not entirely unknown, though. I still remember playing in a European Pairs championship many years ago against perhaps the most famous French international of all time (maybe equally well-known for his cigars as his bridge) who seemed delighted to tell me that he didn't have a convention card because they just played normal bridge. He looked round at his crowd of kibbitzers for approval and seemed to get it. I just thought he was a ch**t, but being rather less experienced at the time I did nothing about it.
Posted 2012-February-08, 05:21
I think you would be covered under Law 23.
Posted 2012-February-08, 07:04
Not having a convention card is obviously a common occurrence (how common depends on the event), but they were talking about having a convention card and refusing to show it. I don't see the point of it, why would I complete a CC and bother bringing it if I was going to hide it or never show it to anyone?
Posted 2012-February-08, 07:23
No entirely. Their breach of the rules doesn't entitle us to just ignore Laws 16 and 73. If partner misused the UI, we might still suffer (and deserve) an adjusted score.
The proper procedure is for partner to take an action that is legal under Law 16 (ie not suggested ... by the UI), then the director to adjust the score on the grounds that partner's actions were unfairly constrained.
Posted 2012-February-08, 10:40
It's considered normal behavior in the ACBL. You ask for the CC, look for what you're interested in, then give it back.
As has been mentioned above, the reverse side of the CC is often the player's personal score.
Posted 2012-February-08, 11:50
One thing I did not include in the initial rant was that quite often CC's are little cheat sheets of partnerships. There is a H and W partnership around here. He is a systems nut. She complies. Much of her cc is nothing more than a compendium of what his homemade sequences mean. I guess she thinks the front side of the convention card is the right place for them.
During a match, I have wanted to take her cc and keep it for the duration to prevent a look-see.
Me: "Maybe he should have checked for the ♠K before he jumped to the grand slam that luckily made.
Ex-Bermuda Bowl Player: "He did check for the ♠K - he saw it in his opponent's hand!"