Inspection of a Convention Card

Whilst a defender is thinking about what to make an opening lead is it permissible for his partner at this moment of time to ask for, and inspect, a convention card of the declaring side pursuant to Law 40 (B)2(c) ? Can this action be permissible on grounds that this is during the Clarification Period ? Your comments please

Comments

  • He shouldn't need to ask. System cards should have been exchanged at the start of the round. Can't see why he shouldn't look (open to correction).

  • edited May 1

    The answer is in the White book 1.6.4
    .----------------------------------------------------
    (e) Under Law 40B2 (c) (iii), a player (including dummy) may look at their opponents’ system card at any time, though this may create unauthorised information.
    .-----------------------------------------------------

    if the sole reason for asking for a convention card is to benefit your partner, e.g. to show interest in a suit bid conventionally then that is an infraction (20.G.1)

    (I'll edit this - if you say "May I have a look at your convention card?" - then 20.G.1 applies as it is a question. If you say "Please pass me your convention card" then it does not, as it is not a question.)

    (Not having your convention card available for inspection is a breach of BB@B 1.5.1)

  • I think it is distinctly unwise of the opening leader's partner to choose that particular moment to ask to look at the card (or to look at it in an obvious manner if cards have been exchanged). To my mind such an action tends to suggest that the opening leader might wish to ask a question before selecting his lead. Otherwise why would the partner not wait until the lead has been selected before asking questions and looking at the card to his heart's content?

  • @Jeremy69 said:
    He shouldn't need to ask. System cards should have been exchanged at the start of the round. Can't see why he shouldn't look (open to correction).

    @Jeremy69 said:
    He shouldn't need to ask. System cards).

  • The point of debate here is the particular moment at which such a request was made by his partner ( he did not have a question ) particularly as the opening leader was struggling to find a lead. Law 40 deals with different scenarios. Agree with Abbeybear and weejonnie. Just because system cards are not exchanged at the outset does not automatically mean that the opening leader's partner can ask for system cards at that "particular moment " just to help his partner to find a correct lead !! ? UI may be a point to consider. Stand ready to be corrected !

  • Yes, I believe that interest being demonstrated just at this particular moment is UI to the opening leader, but in contrast to the situation where the defender not on lead blurts out a question before anyone can stop him, where the UI is specific, here it is very general, and it may be difficult to gauge what, if anything, it suggests.

    That is why my initial instinct was that leader's partner was worried that leader was thinking about his lead in ignorance of something about the opponents' auction that the partner knew or suspected.

    Was a strange lead in fact chosen? Or is this a hypothetical enquiry?

  • It may be difficult to guage what, if anything, it suggests BUT if the lead could have been suggested and there were logical alternatives then the result of a different lead might be imposed.

    I haven't had to rule on this, but I think that only if a conventional call had been made AND the partner had not had the chance to double OR had not doubled over it to show the suit would I consider adjustment.

    e.g.

    1NT : X : 2!d (alerted) Pass
    2!h : All pass

    Partner NOW looks at the convention card - it looks as if he is saying "I know I didn't double but am interested in diamonds" (could be a shortage or a feature rather than length).

    (Remember - you don't announce in a competitive auction.)

  • They were defending a slam contract and clearly there was an attempt by a defender to help the opening leader to find a strange lead but in the event a normal lead was made by the opening leader. Thank you for your comments.

  • @rkcb1430 said:
    They were defending a slam contract and clearly there was an attempt by a defender to help the opening leader to find a strange lead but in the event a normal lead was made by the opening leader. Thank you for your comments.

    If you consider it clear that there was an attempt at illegal communication, then a substantial PP should be imposed.

  • Thank you for your comments well appreciated

Sign In or Register to comment.