[blml] Inaccurate Convention Card

[David Grabiner]

"Nigel" <Guthrie at NTLworld.com> writes:


> [Wayne Burrows]
>> At the recent Gold Coast Congress (Australia) I declared 3NT on the
>> lead of the heart jack.
>>
>> I cannot remember the rest of the hand and do not have any hand
>> records with me while I am in transit.  My heart suit was:
>>
>> K876 (dummy)
>>
>> A10x (hand)
>>
>> The opponents had been silent after I opened 1NT and my partner bid 
>> Stayman:
>>
>> 1NT 2C
>> 2S 3NT
>>
>> I glanced at my opponent's convention card and noticed that "underlead
>> honours" was checked and proceeded to win the heart ace and
>> immediately run the 10 which lost to the queen.
>>
>> It turned out that "underlead honours" was an error and "overlead all"
>> was also checked but I had not noticed this - why would I look when
>> underlead was also checked - they can't play both methods.
>>
>> The director and the appeal committee agreed that the convention card
>> was in error but did not adjust my score saying that I should have
>> found out more about the opponents methods.  Presumably by asking
>> questions or reading more of their card.
>>
>> This seems wrong to me.  Am I really supposed to assume anything I
>> hear or read in explanation is wrong and look elsewhere in case there
>> is a contradiction?
>>
> [nige1]
> Wayne was done over by your opponents, the director, and the committee
> -- but especially -- by the law-makers. As I've previously argued, the
> rule about having to protect yourself against opponent's infractions is
> unjustifiable. A director may rule harassment if you insist that
> opponents confirm what is on their convention card. Anyway, such
> questions provide useful information to defenders -- information which
> they are authorised to use!  When you suspect opponents of
> misinformation,  it seems insane for the law to insist that you
> metaphorically expose your hand. Were opponents allowed to keep their
> ill-gotten gains? That would be the last straw.

You are expected to protect yourself against infractions when you know, or 
should know, that something is wrong.  If a bid is alerted and explained as 
"weak jump shift" but it isn't a jump, you cannot claim that you believed 
the MI.  If you check a convention card and find xxxxX and fourth-best leads 
both marked, you can see the contradiction and have to ask whether they 
opponents lead fourth or third-and-fifth.  If a card has both 2NT showing 
12-14 and Jacoby marked, and you saw both, you need to ask.

But you have to actually know.  If you check for one box, find it marked, 
and don't see the contradictory box, you have no reason to suspect anything 
wrong.

And if an agreement needs to be marked in two places but is marked in only 
one, you may believe either one.  This is a common problem in the ACBL; 
players mark their lead agreements in writing or by checking boxes, but 
don't circle the card to lead.  I have seen players who circle the A in AKx, 
but who leave other honor leads unmarked and just write "Coded 10 and 9". 
If you look at such a card and see nothing circled in KJTx or KT9x, you are 
entitled to protection when the ten is led and you play the leader for KT9x.