Incorrect claim

[Grazy69]

With respect to WBF minutes are the ones written before the new 2007 Law Book now invalid ?

 

And only WBF minutes written after the issue of the 2007 Law Book currently valid?

[blackshoe]

One might think that, but iirc the wbflc has said that "old" minutes remain in effect. Although not, one hopes, if they're clearly contradicted by current law. :)

[pran]

And even if they hadn't said so: Unless a law was changed in 2007 in a way that contradicted the interpretation given by a previous minute - what should be the reason to invalidate the "old" minute? The logic would rather be that WBFLC considered its minute to just clarify a law text that really did not need any change.

 

regards Sven

[barmar]

It's normal (required, in fact) to show one's cards when claiming.

Oh, yes? Where, pray, does it say this?

Hmm, it doesn't. Did it say it in the old version of the Laws? Or maybe I was just reversing the sense of the law that says facing your cards constitutes a claim (unless it was clearly not your intent).

 

But it seems like it should generally be necessary. How can the opponents tell whether a claim is valid without seeing what cards you have left? Sometimes it's not necessary, as when claiming "dummy is high" and it's clear from earlier play that you can't have any higher cards in your hand. But most of the time the opponents will need to see your hand to decide whether to acquiesce or contest the claim.

[lamford]

It's normal (required, in fact) to show one's cards when claiming.

Oh, yes? Where, pray, does it say this?

Hmm, it doesn't. Did it say it in the old version of the Laws? Or maybe I was just reversing the sense of the law that says facing your cards constitutes a claim (unless it was clearly not your intent).

Indeed, the laws only allow the unplayed cards to be inspected by the defender to settle a claim of a revoke, or the number of tricks won or lost.

 

However, the defender does not need to acquiesce in the claim, and the director may, but does not appear to be obliged to, require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table. It is not clear to me how he can possibly rule on the claim unless he does so.

 

I think Law 66D is very poorly drafted, and the first sentence should just have a period, as blackshoe might suggest that Jefferson would put, after inspected. I can think of other occasions when the defenders may wish to inspect the played and unplayed cards, for example to see whether a psyche has been fielded or to see if a hand differs from the explanation they were given when they might need to establish whether there was MI or a misbid.

 

The remainder of 66D relating to mixing the cards and handling one's own cards seems non-controversial.

[blackshoe]

Players don't need to see an opponent's hand to see if it matches the explanation they were given of his bidding, nor to establish whether there was MI or a misbid. That is the TD's job.

 

I don't see any real problem with 66D, but perhaps that's because I haven't come up with a circumstance not covered by the provisions in the current law which imo should be so covered. :rolleyes:

[barmar]

OK, so even though showing your hand is not required when claiming, I still maintain that it's normal. And since play ceases and there can't be any penalty cards after the claim, there's no reason NOT to show your hand.

[bluejak]

The point of this forum is to advise people how to rule, and to explain to players why rulings are made the way they are. So while it may be normal to put your hand down when claiming, that is not really relevant to this forum: the question is: What do you do if you are called to a table by a player who says his opponents has claimed but not shown his hand? Advice to players on how to play seems unnecessary here.

 

Of course it is normal to show your hand when claiming, but it is not legally required until the TD requires it.

 

Incidentally, if I am claiming some but not all of the remaining tricks in defence then I show my hand to declarer only.

[lamford]

Players don't need to see an opponent's hand to see if it matches the explanation they were given of his bidding, nor to establish whether there was MI or a misbid. That is the TD's job.

I would agree that the decision is made by the TD, but how would a player have "substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information", and therefore why would he "summon the Director when

play ends", if his right to see his opponent's hand only extends to settling a claim of a revoke or settling tricks won or lost.

 

If, for example, the declarer concedes the remainder after, say, winning the first seven tricks, the opponent would have no such right. It is true that they can still gain redress when seeing hand records (if available) during the correction period, but these are not always available. So I cannot agree that the Laws should deny any player the right to see his opponent's hand after play has ceased.

[pran]

Players don't need to see an opponent's hand to see if it matches the explanation they were given of his bidding, nor to establish whether there was MI or a misbid. That is the TD's job.

I would agree that the decision is made by the TD, but how would a player have "substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information", and therefore why would he "summon the Director when

play ends", if his right to see his opponent's hand only extends to settling a claim of a revoke or settling tricks won or lost.

 

If, for example, the declarer concedes the remainder after, say, winning the first seven tricks, the opponent would have no such right. It is true that they can still gain redress when seeing hand records (if available) during the correction period, but these are not always available. So I cannot agree that the Laws should deny any player the right to see his opponent's hand after play has ceased.

Exactly which law allows an opponent to deny me having seen all his 13 cards before they eventually are restored to the board?

 

The reason why I want to see them is immaterial. My own curiosity should be sufficient. And frankly, if an opponent tried to hide his cards this way I would be even more eager to see what on earth he didn't want exposed. His foul play?

 

Sven

[blackshoe]

Which laws allows you to demand to see them?

[Sadie3]

We'd be sitting at a table for a long time if my opponent made a claim and didn't let me see his cards.,

[pran]

Which laws allows you to demand to see them?

66, 68C and 70.

 

Although L70B3 says: The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table I shall consider it a serious error by the Director if he refuses to have cards faced at the request from an opponent. By refusing the Director will easily bring himself under suspicion of supporting foul play.

 

regards Sven

[bluejak]

When an opponent makes a claim you do one of two things. Either you agree to it or you call the TD. If he makes a claim without showing his hand and you do not agree to it of course you do not sit around like a lemon waiting for spring: you call the TD if you are unable to accept it.

 

When discussing matters which are commonplace and something unusual happens we can do one of three things:

• Say "It is commonplace so it will not happen", or
  
• Say "It is commonplace so I shall pretend the Laws say that we do the norm even if they do not", or
  
• Say "We shall rule according to the Laws: let us find out what the Laws say"
  

I think that answers that suggest we follow the first two are fairly unhelpful.

 

;)

 

We follow the Laws. This includes when we might consider the Laws poor. To do otherwise is not sensible - and to advise readers of this forum to do so is not good. I am excluding cases where an authority have told us to do otherwise: that is different.

 

If you ask to see a player's cards he shows them to you 99 times out of 100. So, let us not worry about the 99 times out of 100, shall we? In the other time, if a player wishes to see them, he summons the TD. Ok, perhaps he does not, but our advice to TDs is useless in cases where he is not called! So, you, the TD, are summoned, and a player says "I want to see his cards and he will not let me". What do you do as a TD?

 

Well, what you do not do is invent a Law which does not exist. No-one can stop you seeing the cards. So, if the request is reasonable, you ask the player to put his cards face up on teh table. If the request is unreasonable you do not, and explain why not.

• Law 66 says the cards may be inspected for certain purposes, not generally, so it is the TD's decision under this Law whether they should be faced.
  
• Law 68C makes no mention whatever of showing the player's cards.
  
• Law 70B1 gives the TD the right to have cards put face up on the table. He does not have to if he thinks it unnecessary or unsuitable.
  

As for accusing the TD of something if he does not require this, that is silly: TDs take decisions for all sorts of reasons, and we look at them here: to say that an action is suspicious without knowing the situation is wrong.

[jeremy69]

If a player wants to claim, typically in order to save time, then it is absurd not to show the cards to the opponents and make whatever statement he considers appropriate. If someone claims against me and puts his cards away, shows them only to my partner, waves them in the air for 0.5 of a millisecond I will ask to see them properly. Only rarely, against me, has someone refused or been reluctant and, yes, you might have to call the director in such circumstances but it really is poor behaviour to claim and then be reluctant to show you opponents the cards.

I certainly take more time to see some complicated positions than some other players and I want to see the cards even if the claim is only deficient in 1-2% of cases.

If someone ask to see your cards for other reasons such as wanting to know where the SQ is then you can refuse although personally I would just tell or show them if they asked pleasantly.

The only time I would decline is if an opponent started to lecture me on how I had bid and wanted to see my hand to check if I had psyched or otherwise deviated.

[barmar]

No-one can stop you seeing the cards. So, if the request is reasonable, you ask the player to put his cards face up on teh table. If the request is unreasonable you do not, and explain why not.

What would be an example of an unreasonable request to see the claimer's (claimants?) cards? It seems to me that the only reason to refuse to show your cards would be to delay the game while waiting for the TD, and perhaps to annoy the opponents. Both of those are violations of proprieties.

[pran]

When an opponent makes a claim you do one of two things.  Either you agree to it or you call the TD.  If he makes a claim without showing his hand and you do not agree to it of course you do not sit around like a lemon waiting for spring: you call the TD if you are unable to accept it.

 

When discussing matters which are commonplace and something unusual happens we can do one of three things:

• 
   
  
• Say "It is commonplace so it will not happen", or
   
  
• Say "It is commonplace so I shall pretend the Laws say that we do the norm even if they do not", or
   
  
• Say "We shall rule according to the Laws: let us find out what the Laws say"
   
  

I think that answers that suggest we follow the first two are fairly unhelpful.

 

:ph34r:

 

We follow the Laws.  This includes when we might consider the Laws poor. To do otherwise is not sensible - and to advise readers of this forum to do so is not good.  I am excluding cases where an authority have told us to do otherwise: that is different.

 

If you ask to see a player's cards he shows them to you 99 times out of 100.  So, let us not worry about the 99 times out of 100, shall we? In the other time, if a player wishes to see them, he summons the TD.  Ok, perhaps he does not, but our advice to TDs is useless in cases where he is not called!  So, you, the TD, are summoned, and a player says "I want to see his cards and he will not let me".  What do you do as a TD?

 

Well, what you do not do is invent a Law which does not exist.  No-one can stop you seeing the cards.  So, if the request is reasonable, you ask the player to put his cards face up on teh table.  If the request is unreasonable you do not, and explain why not.

• 
   
  
• Law 66 says the cards may be inspected for certain purposes, not generally, so it is the TD's decision under this Law whether they should be faced.
   
  
• Law 68C makes no mention whatever of showing the player's cards.
   
  
• Law 70B1 gives the TD the right to have cards put face up on the table.  He does not have to if he thinks it unnecessary or unsuitable.
   
  

As for accusing the TD of something if he does not require this, that is silly: TDs take decisions for all sorts of reasons, and we look at them here: to say that an action is suspicious without knowing the situation is wrong.

Lots of words, most of them obvious (even to me), but do they really say anything relevant about the question we discuss?

 

Law 66A: So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced.

 

There is absolutely no restriction on the purposes for which a player may want to see the cards under this law. (This takes care of the cards as they are played.)

 

(The remainder of Law 66 concerns examination of already quitted tricks, and that is of course only available for cause by action of the Director at his discretion.)

 

Law 68C: A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed

 

Please explain how a claimer can reasonably comply with this law without exposing his cards.

 

I have already commented on Law 70B1; if a director thinks it is unnecessary or unsuitable to have the cards faced for opponents to see in connection with a disputed claim he had better have a very good reason for that. Frankly I cannot imagine any such good reason (unless of course the dispute of the claim is for everybody around the table clearly without any merit). Maybe you can show an example?

 

The fundamental question still remains unanswered: Why on earth might a player refuse to show his cards at the end of the play unless he has something (foul play?) to hide?

 

Sven

[bluejak]

The most obvious acceptable reason not to show your hand is because the player is delaying the game, has already delayed the game, is acting like a pig and so on. Perhaps he wants to see your hand so that he can continuing lecturing his partner as he has been doing for the last five boards.

 

The Laws do not require a player to always show his hand without TD interference and the TD will not require it in every position without exception.

 

The fact that the TD will normally require the hand to be shown is not relevant: people who post to say he should always allow it are wrong: people who post to say it is suspicious are wrong. If you give a specific situation I expect that in most the TD will require the hand to be shown, but extrapolating that to say he should in all cases else he is not doing his job is a complete failure to understand the problems that face TDs. For example, TDs supporting rude players against offended other players is not acceptable, and to say that the TD is acting suspiciously if he does is just wrong.

[Sadie3]

As a player, it would definitely be my last game played in any event that TD directed if he ever refused to let me see the claimant's cards. I would finish out my game, but that would be the last of me ever seen at that site as long as that TD worked there. (And I make lemonade out of lemons). ...and I would write to every regulating body I could think of and encourage all my friends to boycott that TD as well. This is not an issue that you can push under the table. I never have delayed a game, nor acted frivolously nor been disrespective towards a TD nor openly argued with one even when I know for a fact that their ruling was incorrect. Most issues can have nuances of interpretation, but a reasonable request to see a claimants cards is something that we should not refuse to allow. A TD that would do something like that is on a power trip and has forgotten his purpose for being there is to assist the players.

 

If I were co-TDing the event, I would strongly encourage that TD to correct his ways (but I would not overrule him) and if he did not, I would be strongly inclined to write regulating authorities and report this behavior even though I truly dislike doing something like that to another coworker. IMO, this type of TD should find another job.

[bluejak]

And would you do all this if the TD was doing his job correctly? If you asked to see a hand fairly, no doubt the TD would say that is fine. But you are saying that you would boycott a TD doing his job correctly: that is unacceptable.

[blackshoe]

People seem to be getting all hot and bothered over this tempest in a teapot. David is right about what the laws say, and about what will normally happen at the table. The abnormal (in this context) is likely to be so rare as to not be worth arguing about. So let's find something else. B)