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

[blackshoe]

I guess, Sven, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[geller]

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.

I guess, Sven, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

If two experienced and respected tournament directors can disagree about such a simple and fundamental point, this indicates the existence of a flaw in the Laws of Bridge. Perhaps the WBFLC could resolve this point at its next meeting (in Philadelphia) and could also clarify this point in the next (2017?) edition of the Laws.

[RMB1]

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?

If an opponent doubles you and you go for 1400, is the double an action which "might cause annoyance" or "might interfere with the enjoyment of the game". It has always seemed a clear infringement of Law 74A2. :(

[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?

If an opponent doubles you and you go for 1400, is the double an action which "might cause annoyance" or "might interfere with the enjoyment of the game". It has always seemed a clear infringement of Law 74A2. :(

Indeed. That is why all doubles today are for takeout.

[pran]

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?

If an opponent doubles you and you go for 1400, is the double an action which "might cause annoyance" or "might interfere with the enjoyment of the game". It has always seemed a clear infringement of Law 74A2. :)

I did write something about: "require a reasonable ground in order to be acceptable".

 

Doubling a contract for 1400 has I believe a reasonable (bridge) reason.

 

But I remember Arild Torp (late Norwegian top player) once told me that in the family where he learned to play Bridge they never doubled because they considered that to be a hostile action :D

 

What reasonable bridge reason(s) other than lack of time can exist for refusing to expose one's cards after a passout or end of play?

 

Embarrassment because of a silly mistake?

[campboy]

What reasonable bridge reason is there for asking to see an opponent's cards after a passout in the first place? Indeed, if there is one then there must also be a reasonable bridge reason for refusing, viz "I wish to avoid you gaining whatever advantage you are hoping to gain from seeing my cards."

 

I do not personally see why either the request or the refusal, if polite, should fall foul of any reasonable interpretation of 74A2, but even if one of them should it is not clear to me whether that would be the request or the refusal.

[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.

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?

Nosiness ("self-education") is a reason for wanting to see the cards, but I don't think it is a good enough reason to insist on seeing the cards if the opposition are reluctant. You might want to educate yourself about the opponents style, guess the score, etc, but you have no basis in law to insist upon obtaining information for these purposes.

 

Bloody-mindedness ("saving face") seems to be a valid reason for refusing. But how would you describe a refusal couched in the following terms: "If you don't mind, I'd really rather not have a post mortem on this one, it would be ever so kind of you..."?

 

If you insist on seeing the cards for no better reason than nosiness, who's being bloody-minded now? It seems to me that if exposing the cards would expose someone to potential ridicule, or risk reopening arguments, then insisting on having the cards exposed seems to me to be the likelier candidate for an offence against L74 than the polite refusal to show them.

[blackshoe]

Around here, where hand records are now the norm, and rounds are shorter than the ACBL recommends (so that we can get more than 24 boards in no more than three hours), I think it unreasonable to insist on seeing someone else's cards in most cases.

[geller]

Around here, where hand records are now the norm, and rounds are shorter than the ACBL recommends (so that we can get more than 24 boards in no more than three hours), I think it unreasonable to insist on seeing someone else's cards in most cases.

The refusal to show hands in the OP involved a Swiss Team event with shuffled boards (reshuffled after each round) with no hand records.

 

The case of a passout is a bit different perhaps, especially when there are hand records available after the match. But in the event of a claim or concession with onl y a few tricks left, it takes only a few seconds to look at the remaining cards, so I don't see this as a major objection.

 

In any event, as Pran has pointed out, bridge is not poker. There is nothing in the Laws that says you can refuse to show your cards, and there is L74A2 to say that you should abide by a reasonable request to show them.

[iviehoff]

In any event, as Pran has pointed out, bridge is not poker.  There is nothing in the Laws that says you can refuse to show your cards, and there is L74A2 to say that you should abide by a reasonable request to show them.

I find it hard to give L 74A2 that meaning. It actually says:

 

"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."

 

That does not appear to give my opponent a clear right to see my cards.

 

As to the silence of the laws on my right to refuse to show my cards: well the laws of bridge are silent on many things. I would tend to assume that if it was silent on an obligation then I had no such obligation. If the laws are silent on my right to refuse to accede to a request that someone has no explicit right to demand, then to conclude I must abide by that request seems to me to be quite illogical. I would also point out that L 74A2 is actually couched in terms of actions, and is silent in relation to omissions, though I might allow it should have included omissions.

 

You refer to "reasonable" requests to see my cards. I think you are conflating two kinds of reasonableness, ie, what is a lawful right and what is merely polite. In the first category, there is the right to inspect cards in certain circumstances clearly set out in L 66, but this does not apply when the reason pure curiosity. A request under Law 66 is clearly reasonable and should be complied with. Then there are requests that are not under Law 66 or any other law. These may be "reasonable" in the sense of "polite", but it seems to me that they can equally "reasonably" be refused as there is no right of enforcement.

 

Edited for grammar

Edited May 17, 2010 by iviehoff

[jeremy69]

L74A2 to say that you should abide by a reasonable request to show them.

 

I don't think, as others have suggested, 74A2 says that at all. It infers that to reply to the request "*!??? off" might be a breach however "I'd rather not" is not offensive and if the other side wanted to argue it spoilt their enjoyment I would be happy to argue that their request spoilt mine. I have seen, on one occasion, a request turned down, opponent reach for the cards anyway and a large clenched fist descend to the table about 1mm from the encroaching hand(missing was possibly accidental). That, of course, was before the days of zero tolerance.

 

Now don't get me wrong. I have (usually) no problem with opponents seeing my cards at the end of the hand and would only object if they took loads of time with this, we were late starting the round or they were rude in their request.

 

One reason, especially in a tight last set to see cards is to improve the accuracy of estimation of likely gain or loss. I guess that if I felt the opponents were likely to refuse I might play my contract out to trick 13 so as to ensure seeing the cards! I await someone telling me I am not allowed to.

[iviehoff]

One reason, especially in a tight last set to see cards is to improve the accuracy of estimation of likely gain or loss. I guess that if I felt the opponents were likely to refuse I might play my contract out to trick 13 so as to ensure seeing the cards! I await someone telling me I am not allowed to.

The countermeasure is for a defender to concede the rest of the tricks. Oh yes, that is where this thread started!

[pran]

Around here, where hand records are now the norm, and rounds are shorter than the ACBL recommends (so that we can get more than 24 boards in no more than three hours), I think it unreasonable to insist on seeing someone else's cards in most cases.

That is of course covered by my mentioning of time as a (good) reason.