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

[jeremy69]

And if I want to see the cards to establish the location of one card so I can judge the likelihood of a swing is that good and sufficient reason?

[peachy]

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.

Interesting. So there is really no "concession" and a concession is just part of a claim, is that correct? Perhaps for future we might just discuss and write in the law only about CLAIMS then?

 

Anyway, back to OP question which AFAIK has not been answered. I do not see the laws say anywhere (and again, I might have missed it) that claimer needs to show his cards or that opponent has right to see them.

[iviehoff]

As I understand it, I think it has been made quite consistent in the latest version of the laws that a claim of all the tricks is not a concession, and a concession of all the tricks is not a claim. But anything in between is both a claim and a concession.

 

Some parts of the law only refer to concessions or to claims, not both. L71 only applies to concessions, and that is OK because it is not applicable to a claim of all the tricks. Parts of L70 only apply to claims, but that is OK because in relation to a concession of all the tricks L71 would apply instead. Seemingly both L70 and L71 apply to a claim/concession of not all the tricks

 

The bit that is curious is L 68 B 2, which apply only to concessions, but in fact could have been applied also to claims for all the tricks. L 68 B 2 only relates to defensive concessions. This is the mad law that says that if you object to your partner's defensive concession, play restarts rather than the claim being adjudicated (or L71 being applied). The person writing L 68 B 2 seemingly thought that a defensive partner would only want to object to a concession of too many tricks. But in fact if your partner makes a faulty claim of all the tricks, you may be better off objecting and playing it out rather than having it adjudicated. So why should this law not apply to any claim or concession? I'm not unduly worried, though, because it is a law of exceedingly rare application, and so mad most people aren't even aware of it.

[pran]

Anyway, back to OP question which AFAIK has not been answered. I do not see the laws say anywhere (and again, I might have missed it) that claimer needs to show his cards or that opponent has right to see them.

If you want to be technical then let us be technical all the way:

 

From Law 66D: After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a claim . . . . . of the number of tricks won or lost; . . . .

 

According to this a player always has the right to have all cards faced for inspection after play ceases in order to ascertain that the correct number of tricks won will be registered. (And a player cannot avoid such inspection by for instance conceding all thirteen tricks, the "correct" number of tricks won could be one or more, rather than zero.)

[bluejak]

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.

What is wrong with nosiness as a reason?

 

Plus it is not the only reason. You might want to know what will happen in the other room, for example: you might want to know about the opponents' style for future boards: and so on.

 

:)

 

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

Bloody-mindedness?

 

:ph34r:

 

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.

I don't see that it matters whether it is normal, just whether it reasonable. A player who refuses seems to me to have very low ethical standards and certainly is in breach of Law 74A2.

[dburn]

You might want to know what will happen in the other room, for example: you might want to know about the opponents' style for future boards: and so on.

The auction proceeds "pass - pass - pass - pass". West wants to see South's cards - perhaps in order to determine what might happen in the other room, perhaps in order to determine North-South's style for future boards.

 

Should South grant this request? If he does not, should a Director summoned by West compel South to reveal his hand? Show your working, with particular reference to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge or to anything else that you (mistakenly) think you know.

[Vampyr]

Maybe you'd have more takers if you weren't quite so insulting?

[dburn]

Maybe you'd have more takers if you weren't quite so insulting?

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

[jeremy69]

Maybe you'd have more takers if you weren't quite so insulting?

 

Pots & kettles come to mind

[Vampyr]

How thoughtful of you, Jeremy, to weigh in with an opinion without putting anyone to the trouble of requesting it.

[campboy]

Ok, I'll have a go. As far as I can see, the only law which gives you the right to see an opponent's cards is law 66D, which begins "after play ceases". Law 22A states that in the event of a passout "the hands are returned to the board without play". Since play does not begin, it does not cease, and so I do not believe I have the right to see an opponent's cards following a passout, even if I am unsure that neither side took any tricks or that no-one revoked.

[blackshoe]

Let's keep it friendly, folks.

[dburn]

Let's keep it friendly, folks.

Sorry - that was my fault. Apologies for intemperate language.

[jeremy69]

How thoughtful of you, Jeremy, to weigh in with an opinion without putting anyone to the trouble of requesting it.

 

Pots & kettles come to mind.

[Vampyr]

Let's keep it friendly, folks.

[pran]

Ok, I'll have a go. As far as I can see, the only law which gives you the right to see an opponent's cards is law 66D, which begins "after play ceases". Law 22A states that in the event of a passout "the hands are returned to the board without play". Since play does not begin, it does not cease, and so I do not believe I have the right to see an opponent's cards following a passout, even if I am unsure that neither side took any tricks or that no-one revoked.

Never overlook Law 74A2 - that law applies also in a passout situation!

[geller]

Ok, I'll have a go. As far as I can see, the only law which gives you the right to see an opponent's cards is law 66D, which begins "after play ceases". Law 22A states that in the event of a passout "the hands are returned to the board without play". Since play does not begin, it does not cease, and so I do not believe I have the right to see an opponent's cards following a passout, even if I am unsure that neither side took any tricks or that no-one revoked.

Never overlook Law 74A2 - that law applies also in a passout situation!

I agree, but might it not be even better for the next version of the Law Book to make this explicit.

[campboy]

I don't see why a civil exchange where one player asks for permission to see an opponent's cards and that opponent politely refuses should fall foul of that law.

[geller]

I don't see why a civil exchange where one player asks for permission to see an opponent's cards and that opponent politely refuses should fall foul of that law.

L74A2

A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

Because refusing the request to show one's hand would cause annoyance on the part of the requester and would interfere with the requester's enjoyment of the game.

[dburn]

Interesting notion. If I ask my opponent to give me a hundred dollars, and he refuses, can I call the Director and ask for a ruling under Law 74A2?

[Ant590]

I can see situations where 4th hand decides to "take a view" and pass a balanced 12 count. However, if partner were to find this out he may go on tilt, and so you would wish to politely decline a request from the opponents to examine your hand.

[gwnn]

74A2 probably would apply against you then? Also asking them to show their hand after a passout? Maybe the poor bugger passed with 14 balanced by accident and it would cause him embarrasment to show his hand to you?

[geller]

Interesting notion. If I ask my opponent to give me a hundred dollars, and he refuses, can I call the Director and ask for a ruling under Law 74A2?

Of course you can call the director and ask for a ruling under 74A2. (But you might not be very happy with the outcome. :-) )

-Bob

[blackshoe]

"No player shall touch any cards other than his own" (Law 7B3) is a very strong prohibition. If a player asked, as fairly frequently one does, if I mind whether he takes my hand out of the pocket, I will reply "I'm sorry, I do mind. It's illegal, you see." If said player calls the TD and claims I have violated Law 74A2, I'd expect the TD to tell him to get a life, or words to that effect.

 

In the more general case where the player simply asks to see my hand, indicating that I should handle the cards, I might still decline, and I would still expect the TD to not rule that I have violated 74A2 in doing so. 74A2 is there to preclude egregious cases. It is not there to give players a weapon against their opponents. As long as the discourse is civil, I would not, as a TD, rule a violation of 74A2 has occurred.

[pran]

I am serious about Law 74A2 and I consider a refusal of a polite request from an opponent to see your hand after a passout to require a reasonable ground in order to be acceptable.

 

Acceptable reasons include for instance other boards waiting to be played in that round, but definitely not just unwillingness.

 

Bridge is not Poker where you have to pay to see an opponent's cards.