Seeing players' cards
On another thread, I put my view that as TDs, we should near enough never look at any player's cards till the end of play of a board. Any exceptions?
I had an interesting situation some years ago at Brighton when a South player was declarer and called me, alleging that West, on lead, had held CQ in such a position that his partner could have seen it. As West was denying that he had led CQ, I was kneeling down by the corner of the table between South and West, and I unintentionally caught a glimpse of the West hand and saw that he didn't have CQ.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Comments
That's .... interesting. I suppose not necessarily relevant to the ruling, assuming there's agreement that the player held a card in a certain position. And since you shouldn't confirm whether or not the player does have that card knowing this still puts you on the spot somewhat. I suppose it does suggest that the card 'led' wasn't clearly visible.
I'm finding it quite hard to think of situations where you need to look at a players cards, I suppose you might occasionally glance at them to confirm some fact, maybe if there's been a revoke. But in any of those situations I can think of you can simply ask the player to confirm they can't follow suit / have just found a revoke card.
Under Laws 21B1a / 47E2a, judging whether a player's action was affected by MI.
I did wonder about checking for a revoke where declarer insists that one defender must have a card of a particular suit and both claim they do not, although on reflection I don't think I would actually do this.
>
I've never found a situation where I felt the need to look at a player's had to rule under those laws.
Some of my senior international colleagues think you should look at a player's cards in order to rule under Law 25A.
The way you phrase that suggests you don't entirely agree?
To my recollection, I've only come across a Law 21B1a change of call once, and I've never seen a 47E2a.
More than one?!
I agree with the EBU White Book 8.25.2:
" It is not recommended that a TD should look at a player’s hand except as a last resort because the TD will give information about the hand. Best is to ask the player questions. Assuming bidding boxes, the most important question is: “What did you intend to call at the moment your hand reached out to the bidding box?” "
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Ditto.
We need to be careful not to extrapolate opportunity into reality. If we did that, we would end up saying that any player with something to think about must have hesitated!
I'm curious as to what would have happened if you had ruled that the CQ was a led card or penalty card!
This whole situation seems awkward because it is likely to, at the very least, confirm the location of the CQ to East and possibly also South. (Would it be AI to East? It doesn't seem to fall into any of the categories in Law 16, not even "other sources".)
SK: "More than one?!
I agree with the EBU White Book 8.25.2:"
The exchange on Bridgewinners suggested that the EBU was alone in recommending this practice, and that the rest of the world takes a very dim view of it.
Can someone point me to this exhange on Bridgewinners?
Thanks.
What I did was to tell declarer that I was ruling that CQ was not a played card, giving no indication that I had seen anything, and I asked South to call me back at the end of play if unhappy. Not necessarily the best solution but it worked ok. Had I not seen West's cards, it would surely have come out that West didn't have CQ and declarer would have had EI and I'd have had to run to 16D1.
I'm also not aware of the Bridgewinners exchange, but I still support the EBU view!
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-9sk913vfkj/
Try this one:
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/mechanic-error-can-be-recalled-even-if-lho-bid/?cj=1640340#c1640340