[eamongall]

Good morning folks

Recently at a National competition in Ireland I was called to a table where a declarer outlined that his opponent had requested a review of the diamond spots when not on lead.
So auction is like this

East Dealer
All Vul

P 1H 2C 4H
P P 5C 5H
P P

So West with a decent long club seat caused NS to take the push to 5H ..(they could double 5C for 3 off and a success)

West leads off with the diamond 8 ...

Full deal is

---

]



and declarer plays the 2 and East wins the Ace as declarer South follows with the Diamond JACK

East is reviewing the situation and now WEST whose opening lead card remains face up on the table asks
" Show me those diamond spots please "

Cards are shown and EAST plays back a diamond and WEST ruffs ..

....................
I am fully aware of LAW 66 which states WEST is allowed review the trick ...
I am not very comfortable about him doing it at the time ...

I am aware of LAW 73D I think which mentions inappropriate communication between partners ..
I don't know how to get to LAW 73 from LAW 66 ..

However there is nothing in the LAWS of Duplicate Bridge 2007 that indicates WEST is out of order ..

The WEST involved would be considered one of the most ethical players in Ireland ..
We ruled 5H making and wanted the WEST to present his case to an appeals committee ...
Unfortunately he had a poor 2nd session and decided to go home instead having retrieved his 20 euro appeals fee ..

Any advice ...
Thanks
Eamon Galligan
eamongall on BBO

[fbuijsen]

Let's just try the standard set of questions in UI matters:
1. Is there UI?
2. Does the UI suggest the play made by the receiver of the UI?
3. Does the receiver of UI have logical alternatives?

Answers:
1. Seems like yes. The question could indicate paying special attention to diamonds.
2. Also yes, UI indicates interest in diamond continuation.
3. Unanswerable, since we don't know east's hand. However, I note that west already chose not to lead his partner's suit, so the allowed information already strongly suggests continuing diamonds. However, we'd need to see east's hand to know more.

EDIT: Skip that last note, I misread -- it's west that has bid, not east ....

[MickyB]

The full deal, especially the East hand, could be helpful.

Edit: Sorry, cross-posted.

[eamongall]

MickyB, on 2014-January-27, 04:44, said:

The full deal, especially the East hand, could be helpful.

Edit: Sorry, cross-posted.

Full deal now posted
eamongall

[fbuijsen]

On seeing the full deal, I would argue that east does not really have a logical alternative. It's clear from the singleton ace of clubs in dummy that there are no quick tricks to cash in clubs. Also, it doesn't seem like spades could work for anything good, nor does it look like a trump switch is useful for anything at all. So I can't see any alternative to playing a diamond at trick two.

[Trinidad]

I agree with Frans. There is no alternative to playing a diamond.

Rik

[paulg]

Didn't East make his decision when he won the ace of diamonds rather than playing his partner for a doubleton?

[PhilKing]

Just to clarify the facts: had the other players turned over their cards without giving West a chance to see trick one properly? (I know he can infer dummy's quitted card was the two, but it's the principle). I don't think asking to see the quitted cards when you are the only one with a card face up can be deemed an offence of any kind virtually ever.

Oh, and the rationale for knowingly giving a wrong ruling is incredibly weak.

[MickyB]

Unless there's some evidence that West (unwittingly) usually does this when he wants a ruff I don't see why there should be an issue. Agree with those that say there's no alternative to East playing another diamond.

[RMB1]

Others have addressed the question of logical alternatives, but I am worried (with PhilKing) whether there was UI.

Quote

LAW 16: AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION
A. Players’ Use of Information
1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:
...
(c) it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following);
...
B. Extraneous Information from Partner
1. (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, ...

Requiring to see the trick when you have not quitted the trick is part of the legal procedures (Law 66A) and not specified there to be unauthorised. For there to be unauthorised information, we need the "but see B1 following": the TD must determine that there was a unmistable hesitation or special emphasis in requiring the cards to be faced.

[chrism]

I agree with Robin. There is a difference between "Show me those diamond spots please" and "Please turn the trick back up for a moment" or some similar neutral phrasing. The request in the OP places makes special mention of diamonds if it was expressed as quoted, and I would argue that it could qualify as "special emphasis".

In this case I agree that East, having chosen to win ♦A at trick 1, has no LA to a diamond return. However in constructions where an LA exists, the ruling should take into account that the manner of asking for a review of the trick may have conveyed UI.

[PhilKing]

chrism, on 2014-January-27, 10:07, said:

I agree with Robin. There is a difference between "Show me those diamond spots please" and "Please turn the trick back up for a moment" or some similar neutral phrasing. The request in the OP places makes special mention of diamonds if it was expressed as quoted, and I would argue that it could qualify as "special emphasis".

It's a throw-away remark and I don't see that it signifies anything in particular. Put it this way - you don't ask to see the cards in order to to see if anyone has drawn a beard on the picture cards. You do so in order to see the pips. There is nothing sinister about it.

[chrism]

PhilKing, on 2014-January-27, 10:29, said:

It's a throw-away remark and I don't see that it signifies anything in particular. Put it this way - you don't ask to see the cards in order to to see if anyone has drawn a beard on the picture cards. You do so in order to see the pips. There is nothing sinister about it.

Probably not, but while I frequently hear "let me see the spots please", for most players "let me see the diamond spots, please" is probably an unusual way of asking. I have no difficulty believing that there is no sinister intent, but UI often occurs through apparently minuscule inadvertent variation in body language or expression. I would want to try to find out whether this was a variation in phrasing for this particular West before dismissing the possibility of UI.

[barmar]

chrism, on 2014-January-27, 10:07, said:

I agree with Robin. There is a difference between "Show me those diamond spots please" and "Please turn the trick back up for a moment" or some similar neutral phrasing. The request in the OP places makes special mention of diamonds if it was expressed as quoted, and I would argue that it could qualify as "special emphasis".

In this case I agree that East, having chosen to win ♦A at trick 1, has no LA to a diamond return. However in constructions where an LA exists, the ruling should take into account that the manner of asking for a review of the trick may have conveyed UI.

I have a hard time with this. People just have different ways of wording things, I wouldn't read much into whether he happens to use the word "diamonds" in his request. He might just be thinking of it because that's the way he thought of the trick, not to give special emphasis to the suit.

If there's any UI, it's just from the fact that he cares about the spots at all. This suggests that he's expecting to ruff the return, and needs to be able to tell whether partner's card is high or low. And that suggests that East should return the suit to give him the ruff.

So if there were an LA to returning the suit, that UI could prohibit continuing diamonds. But as others have said, there isn't.

Also, if declarer quitted his trick very quickly, so that West didn't have an adequate opportunity to see the card, I think West should have the right to request a review of the trick without having to worry about UI. But I suspect this declarer didn't do so. He played the Jack, presumably to confuse East about the nature of West's lead (if they lead MUD, 8 could be from 986), and what's the point of false-carding if you quit it too quickly for the opponents to notice?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2014-January-27, 11:04, said:

I have a hard time with this. People just have different ways of wording things, I wouldn't read much into whether he happens to use the word "diamonds" in his request. He might just be thinking of it because that's the way he thought of the trick, not to give special emphasis to the suit.

Could be, but I don't like it. Of course it matters whether declarer quitted his card very quickly, rather than the OL keeping his card faced for an inordinate length of time.

When I lead a singleton, I am careful not to emphasise in any way the card or the trick. In particular I quit the trick neutrally, and do not leave it hanging about.

[ahydra]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-27, 12:01, said:

Could be, but I don't like it. Of course it matters whether declarer quitted his card very quickly, rather than the OL keeping his card faced for an inordinate length of time.

When I lead a singleton, I am careful not to emphasise in any way the card or the trick. In particular I quit the trick neutrally, and do not leave it hanging about.

I used to have a partner who had three signals on partner's lead: discouraging (high), encouraging (low) and strongly encouraging (low, held out further forward on the table). :/

I've never heard "show me the spots" or anything remotely similar. It's always "Can I see those again please?" Perhaps RAs ought to specify a manner in which this question should be asked, similar to how explanations of bids should always be sought using "can you explain the xxx bid" rather than "how strong is that"/etc.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

That ruling is just wrong. First, as others have said, there's no LA to a diamond return. Second, you don't "force" one side or the other to appeal to get a correct ruling - you do the best you can to make the most correct ruling you can make at the table, and if somebody wants to appeal, or nobody wants to appeal, either should be fine with you.

[jallerton]

RMB1, on 2014-January-27, 09:54, said:

Others have addressed the question of logical alternatives, but I am worried (with PhilKing) whether there was UI.

Requiring to see the trick when you have not quitted the trick is part of the legal procedures (Law 66A) and not specified there to be unauthorised. For there to be unauthorised information, we need the "but see B1 following": the TD must determine that there was a unmistable hesitation or special emphasis in requiring the cards to be faced.

I don't think it's necessary to be concerned about whether the information is authorised. The most relevant Law here is Law 73, Communication, in particular Law 73A1. Note that 73B1 uses "such as", so the examples listed are not exhaustive.

In extreme cases, 73B2 could be in point. Although the concept of asking to see the last trick is sanctioned by the Laws, using this as a method of communication is definitely not.

[barmar]

jallerton, on 2014-January-27, 16:49, said:

In extreme cases, 73B2 could be in point. Although the concept of asking to see the last trick is sanctioned by the Laws, using this as a method of communication is definitely not.

But if the player has a legitimate bridge reason to want to see the last trick, he should be allowed.

This is kind of like asking questions about the bidding. If you need to know, you're always permitted to ask. But you mustn't ask questions solely for partner's benefit, or to suggest something about the suit.