"I refuse to show you my remaining cards!" - How d

[geller]

West is declarer. With 5 tricks left to play in the hand, North turns to West and says "OK, you take the rest." West says to the opponents, "OK, thanks, but please show me your remaining cards."

 

South says, "Sorry, since the play of the hand has ended I am not obligated to show you my remaining cards, and I refuse to do so."

 

West summons the director, and asks him to ask North and South to show him (West) their remaining cards.

 

How should the director rule, and which specific law(s) justify his ruling?

 

-Bob

[iviehoff]

When someone concedes all the tricks, the only reason you need to see their cards, other than nosiness, is to check whether they are concealing an earlier irregularity. So I would ask West if he had any concern about some earlier irregularity, in particular a revoke. If West did express any such concern about a possible revoke, even simply to reassure himself that there had not been one, then I would then use 66D to allow inspection of the cards. If West did not have any such concern, then I would suggest he has no reason to see their cards.

 

It is customary to show cards when requested to do so. People have suggested an appeal to Law 74 if someone is not compliant with that custom. But in the present case where both sides have got rather uppity I think I would stick to the formalities.

[helene_t]

Also, if the concession is an act of dumping, West must not accept it. So I think he is entitled to see West's cards.

[JoAnneM]

He should be able to see the cards. He cannot accept any tricks that are not his, and he is entitled to see if anyone has revoked, although normally when declarer claims and it is accepted the opponents do not show their cards.

 

Sometimes it happens that an opponent will concede and his partner has a trick.

[jdonn]

Isn't the play not over until the concession is accepted? I don't interpret the "ok" as acceptance of the concession, more like "ok duly noted you are conceding but may I see your cards?"

 

Anyway I may be wrong about that point but you don't have to be an experienced director to know west should have the right to see south's cards.

[blackshoe]

If West has reason* to believe South may have revoked, he's entitled to see South's cards. Furthermore, if South has revoked, then his refusal to show his cards is a deliberate attempt to conceal it. This is a violation of

A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely.

Of "may not" the laws say

“must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger — just short of “must not.”

so if the TD finds that the player is in violation of 72B3, he should issue a PP in MPs or IMPs.

 

I do not see that "both sides have got rather uppity". There was an unusual situation, the director may be needed to sort it out, so West called him. That's less "uppity", if you ask me, than arguing about it.

 

*Even if West is mistaken — for example he has miscounted a suit, or thought he saw a discard and a later play of the suit led on the discard trick, but was wrong.

[iviehoff]

He should be able to see the cards. He cannot accept any tricks that are not his, and he is entitled to see if anyone has revoked, although normally when declarer claims and it is accepted the opponents do not show their cards.

You all say he "should" be able to see the cards, but there isn't clear law to back this up. A sensible person shows his cards at the appropriate point of a claim/concession because that avoids the director being called and having to adjudicate over the obvious. But actually, under the law, if they wish to be cussed and keep their cards covered, and force the director to be called and adjudicate over the concession if necessary, that seems to be their right.

 

When we previously discussed the issue of players not showing their cards when claiming, the only law that anyone could mention was Law 74, conduct and etiquette, 74A2 in particular. In other words, it is not carefully avoiding annoyance to claim and refuse to show the cards. But there isn't a clear right to see the cards. And there could be some other reasons here why the guy didn't want to show his cards. And since it is possibly going to lead to a huge kerfuffle over nothing, perhaps 74A2 is a relevant quote. But I'm wondering if W is totally innocent here.

 

The only case I can find where there is a clear right to have the cards revealed is when investigating a possible revoke, as I quoted earlier.

 

I'm not sure whether "OK" meant "noted" or was an acceptance of the concession, I thought it was the latter. If so, under 69B, it is not a valid reason to withdraw consent to a concession that the other side conceded too many tricks. Although under Law 71 the director should not permit the concession of any tricks that can't be lost by normal play, but I don't think this is the other side's responsibility to refuse to accept them.

[jdonn]

What would be a valid reason for south not to want to show his cards?

[iviehoff]

I do not see that "both sides have got rather uppity". There was an unusual situation, the director may be needed to sort it out, so West called him. That's less "uppity", if you ask me,

Having called the director, west asked the director to make NS show their cards. That is a degree of interference in a polite director call. W should have explained the situation and his concerns, not specify what the director should deliver.

[iviehoff]

What would be a valid reason for south not to want to show his cards?

(1) He is not required to.

(2) Maybe he made a stupid mistake earlier in the play and just wanted to quietly concede and get on with the next hand, rather than endure some post mortem in which his inadequacies were brought to the fore. But rather than accept the concession with good grace, he thought W was trying to enforce his "right" to a post mortem.

[cherdanno]

So when West wants to know his opponents cards just to know whether he obtained a good result on this board (say, in the last segment of a KO team match), then North is not obliged to show him his cards?

[blackshoe]

He cannot accept any tricks that are not his,

This is a reference to

A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose.

Note the word "knowingly". If the opponent refuses to show his cards, then declarer is probably not in violation of this law even if in fact the opponents have conceded a trick they could not lose. I say "probably" because it's possible declarer has a full count on the hand and knows exactly what his opponents still have, however unlikely that may be at club level. In practice, it would take a lot to convince me that a player has such a count, unless I've known him to regularly do that, and (almost) always get it right. There is maybe one player in this area of whom I could believe that — and he plays at club games rarely.

 

and he is entitled to see if anyone has revoked,

Yes.

 

although normally when declarer claims and it is accepted the opponents do not show their cards.

 

I don't see any relevance in this — declarer has not claimed, a defended has conceded the remaining tricks, so there is no claim. Besides, normally no one asks to see the opponents' cards when declarer claims. If someone did...

[JoAnneM]

Under Law 71.2 It seems that declarer doesn't have to know in advance that there might be a problem with the concession, it just states that a trick cannot be conceded that cannot be lost. It would seem that any declarer engaging in Active Ethics would want to check to make sure that the opponents did not have any sure tricks, and that the opponents are required to show their hands, if asked.

 

CONCESSION CANCELED

A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:

 

1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or

 

2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

[pran]

This exact same question was posed on BLML and resulted in some discussion there.

 

Quite interestingly the discussion ceased immediately when I posted the following comment:

 

West needs not claim the possibility of revoke for asking to see the remaining cards.

"To settle . . . . . the number of tricks won or lost" (see Law 66D) is reason as good as any. (Don't overlook Law 79A2!)

[iviehoff]

Under Law 71.2 It seems that declarer doesn't have to know in advance that there might be a problem with the concession, it just states that a trick cannot be conceded that cannot be lost. It would seem that any declarer engaging in Active Ethics would want to check to make sure that the opponents did not have any sure tricks, and that the opponents are required to show their hands, if asked.

L71 makes quite clear that the responsibility for ensuring this lies with the director. It might sometimes be "active ethics" to report to the director your concern that your opponents might have conceded a trick they could not lose by any normal play. But having done that, it is the Director's responsibility to assess that. It still doesn't give you the right to see the opponents' cards. In fact, in this case, you've done your bit by reporting it to the director, and leave it there before you go to far down the road of doing the director's job.

 

On one occasion, I was defending when a certain declarer made an invalid claim. As soon as we queried it, he saw what he had done, and conceded two tricks, which, on the strength of seeing his holding only, it was possible to lose. In fact, as the cards lay, (we had not exposed our cards at this point), he only needed to concede one trick, which was obvious to us both. My partner could see what I was thinking, and made it clear I should keep my mouth shut. After the opponents left the table, she explained that I only going to make a poisonous situation (between declarer and dummy) worse by doing anything other than magnanimously accepting what he had generously offered by way of compensation for his wrong claim. I don't think that was ethically wrong in that situation to accept the trick. And there was certainly no issue of dumping, or losing interest in play, etc.

 

In fact, as I think about it, my usual method of conceding the remainder of the tricks is to place the rest of my cards face down on the table saying "they are all yours now". Opponents rarely if ever ask to look at them, except after agreeing the concession, score etc, and then as clearly expressed interest in the overall hand, if there is sufficient time, etc. Saying "OK but I want to look at them" does not seem normal to me.

[iviehoff]

This exact same question was posed on BLML and resulted in some discussion there.

 

Quite interestingly the discussion ceased immediately when I posted the following comment:

 

West needs not claim the possibility of revoke for asking to see the remaining cards.

"To settle . . . . . the number of tricks won or lost" (see Law 66D) is reason as good as any. (Don't overlook Law 79A2!)

It is a good reason in general, but it doesn't seem to apply in the present case. In the present case there is no need to settle the number of tricks because there is no uncertainty or disagreement over the number of tricks, or at least west hasn't said so. West just demanded to see the cards for unspecified reasons. He has no right to demand see the cards for unspecified reasons, or just because he is curious. If he has proper reasons, and states them in the proper way, he will get to see the cards. If he just wants to see the cards because he is curious, then he needs to be careful to ask politely at the right time.

[jdonn]

What would be a valid reason for south not to want to show his cards?

(1) He is not required to.

(2) Maybe he made a stupid mistake earlier in the play and just wanted to quietly concede and get on with the next hand, rather than endure some post mortem in which his inadequacies were brought to the fore. But rather than accept the concession with good grace, he thought W was trying to enforce his "right" to a post mortem.

1 is not a valid reason to not WANT to show your cards, it just says you don't HAVE to. 2 I understand a little more but it's still a bad reason. Frankly I think it's just immature and childish for south to not want to show his cards, which of course may be a seperate question from whether it's legal.

[pran]

If I ever should experience a player refusing to show his cards to his opponents (or partner) after the play at their request I shall consider this a hostile action that seriously violates, if no other law, at least law 74A2, a law that I always enforce strictly with zero tolerance.

 

I have during my 30 years as licensed Director never met such a behaviour by any player and hope that I never shall.

[peachy]

The opponents are allowed to see the declarer's remaining cards if they, or one of them, has a reason to see them. The "reason" does not have to be "I want to verify that you haven't revoked". Some softhearted person might not even want to express that reason because it could well be perceived as accusatory.

 

Just call the TD, explain what happened and say you have a reason to see declarer's hand. Alternatively, to get around it, ask partner to show his hand so you see yours, partner's and the dummy's hand and the remainder is then declarer's. Or is it allowed to ask partner to show his hand after declarer concedes? I'm not clear on the law about that.

 

Another place where it would be easy to add a few simple words to the law, that at concession or claim, everyone (or at least the person who conceded or claimed) places his remaining cards face up on the table at the time the claim or concession statement is made.

[pran]

Another place where it would be easy to add a few simple words to the law, that at concession or claim, everyone (or at least the person who conceded or claimed) places his remaining cards face up on the table at the time the claim or concession statement is made.

See Laws 68C and (in particular) 70B3. (These laws apply both to claims and to concessions)

[peachy]

Another place where it would be easy to  add a few simple words to the law, that at concession or claim, everyone (or at least the person who conceded or claimed) places his remaining cards face up on the table at the time the claim or concession statement is made.

See Laws 68C and (in particular) 70B3. (These laws apply both to claims and to concessions)

68C is only about claims although the title of L68 is Claim and Concession of Tricks and there is 68A on claims, B on concessions, C on claims, and D on both.

 

This law or any other law that I could find, do not say whether the opponent (or even partner) has the right to see the remaining cards is in the hand of the player who made a concession. At least I have not found such a law so if there is one, I missed it. 68 and 70 do not cover the original question "opponent's right to see the remaining cards when somebody makes a concession" .

[gordontd]

68C is only about claims although the title of L68 is Claim and Concession of Tricks and there is 68A on claims, B on concessions, C on claims, and D on both.

 

This law or any other law that I could find, do not say whether the opponent (or even partner) has the right to see the remaining cards is in the hand of the player who made a concession.  At least I have not found such a law so if there is one, I missed it.  68 and 70 do not cover the original question "opponent's right to see the remaining cards when somebody makes a concession" .

L68B1: a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any.

[iviehoff]

What would be a valid reason for south not to want to show his cards?

(1) He is not required to.

(2) Maybe he made a stupid mistake earlier in the play and just wanted to quietly concede and get on with the next hand, rather than endure some post mortem in which his inadequacies were brought to the fore. But rather than accept the concession with good grace, he thought W was trying to enforce his "right" to a post mortem.

1 is not a valid reason to not WANT to show your cards, it just says you don't HAVE to. 2 I understand a little more but it's still a bad reason. Frankly I think it's just immature and childish for south to not want to show his cards, which of course may be a seperate question from whether it's legal.

OK I interpreted your "want" in a less than literal way.

 

I suspect he wanted to do it because he was put out by West's behaviour, and because he could. West's response to South's concession was not in perfect accordance with the proprieties: he doesn't have the right to demand to see the cards for unspecified reasons. What he should do is either accept the concession (in which case he has no need to see the cards) or else express any concern he has in the proper way, which is likely to result in him obtaining the clear right to see the cards, in the presence of the director if necessary.

 

Whether South "should" acceded to a request made by the opposition that is not in strict accordance with their rights, or not requested in the right way, nor possibly not very politely, is a bit tricky. A magnanimous person would forgive that and comply, perhaps. I myself might find myself saying "well that's not really the right way to ask, but of course you may see them." A gamesman might rub in their lack of correctness.

 

I recall another hand. It was the final hand of the round; we had some time to spare; and the interest in the hand lay in my opponents cards. My opponents returned the cards to the board. I made eye contact with one of my opponents while making a small hand gesture, and the look I received back I took as permission to remove her cards from the board to look at them. Her partner told me in no uncertain terms that I had no right to do that without permission, and told me to put them back. I apologised carefully, asked explicitly, and was told "no". After that, the opponents then removed their own cards from the board and proceeded to have their own private post mortem in front of us, while carefully making sure we could not see their cards. The first part of that was correct, if lacking in magnanimousness: it taught me always to be very explicit and correct about such things, to avoid misunderstandings and unpleasantness. The rest of it was outrageously discourteous, and left me thinking "what horrible people". One might ask, why should the want to do that? Perhaps because they could.

[Free]

Imo the claim has not been accepted. "ok thanks but ..." isn't accepting.

 

The play may be over after the claim, but declarer has the right to verify if this claim is correct or not. He can refuse the claim and call the TD to set things straight, in which case they'll have to show them their cards.

[TMorris]

I know of a situation in a local league match where the opponents conceded the rest (declarer was notionally down one). They were asked to show their cards and eventually did so (one of them begrudgingly). It turn out that one of the defenders had "revoked" by ruffing one of declarers winners whilst having one (possibly two I can't quite remember) small cards in the suit led in his hand at the end so was happy to concede the rest for one off.

 

One player at my local club often in my view takes advantage of her partners hesitations and makes overcalls on complete rubbish. The only way I was told that I could deal with this is to ask to see her hand to see if she had her bid (at the end of play) and if she refused to show me then call the director who would ensure that it was shown.

 

Given the above I now always ask to see the remaining cards in any case where I am at all unsure.