phil_20686 Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 I don't understand this either. A claim has occurred, so play has ceased. The next step is for the defenders to decide whether to accept the claim. Why shouldn't they discuss the validity of the claim, in order to help them to make this decision? Exactly what I thought, if play has ceased, I am entitled to see any or all of the cards as i wish right? My partner is supposed to give permission before I can see his hand, but its a bit irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Exactly what I thought, if play has ceased, I am entitled to see any or all of the cards as i wish right? My partner is supposed to give permission before I can see his hand, but its a bit irrelevant.I think only the TD can force a player to show his hand. But I think partner can show you his hand voluntarily, and you should be able to construct declarer's hand from that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Law 68D: After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). if the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the director’s arrival. Law 70B: 1. The director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim.2. Next, the director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim, but the director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections.3. The director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.The emphases in 68D are mine. Note that there is nothing about "forcing" anyone to show his hand. Also, the facing of hands, when it happens, does so after the opponents' objections are heard. "Must" in Law 68D indicates that if this does not happen, somebody should probably get a PP, as the failure is "a serious matter indeed" (Introduction to the Laws). Also, the last sentence in 68D would seem to preclude any showing of hands that haven't already been shown (by which I mean that claimer might have shown his hand in the process of claiming, but no one else may do so). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexJonson Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 The emphases in 68D are mine. Note that there is nothing about "forcing" anyone to show his hand. Also, the facing of hands, when it happens, does so after the opponents' objections are heard. "Must" in Law 68D indicates that if this does not happen, somebody should probably get a PP, as the failure is "a serious matter indeed" (Introduction to the Laws). Also, the last sentence in 68D would seem to preclude any showing of hands that haven't already been shown (by which I mean that claimer might have shown his hand in the process of claiming, but no one else may do so). I think this is completely clear, as you describe it, Blackshoe. If anyone has any doubt about a claim, they don't compare notes with partner, they don't look at declarer with a puzzled gaze - inviting declarer to talk them through it..., they just call the TD, and that includes dummy calling the TD. I'm not being ironic or sarcastic, but of course we all know what actually happens in the real world is often different. I think that we should make an effort to educate all players, particularly 'weaker' players in any contest, to call the TD immediately they realise a claim is made that they do not fully and entirely understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Conducting a conversation doesn't constitute taking action. Since we're no longer in the bidding or play ("The period during which the cards are played"), Law 73 doesn't forbid conversation either. If I want to know how many spades my partner had, and the answer affects my decision about accepting the claim, do I, at this stage, doubt the claim? Perhaps I do, so with Blackshoe in charge I'd better call* him. Whilst I'm waiting for him to arrive, however, I'm going to have an entirely legal conversation with my partner about his spade holding. Then, nine times out of ten, when the director arrives at the table I'll tell him that we don't need him after all. * Sorry, I know this is the wrong forum, but why on earth am I required to "summon" him instead of simply "calling" him? He's not going to emerge from inside a lamp, is he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 I think only the TD can force a player to show his hand. But I think partner can show you his hand voluntarily, and you should be able to construct declarer's hand from that. If declarer has claimed, he has by definition faced his cards, unless he is an Italian international, in which case he has gestured vaguely at dummy and put his cards back in the box. At least that is my experience :) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 * Sorry, I know this is the wrong forum, but why on earth am I required to "summon" him instead of simply "calling" him? He's not going to emerge from inside a lamp, is he? You never know. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 If declarer has claimed, he has by definition faced his cards, unless he is an Italian international, in which case he has gestured vaguely at dummy and put his cards back in the box. At least that is my experience :) Heh. Humor noted, but... Law 68A: Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim — for example, if declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn, Law 54, not this law will apply). So a claim need not be accompanied by claimant facing his cards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Law 68D: After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). if the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the director’s arrival. Law 70B: 1. The director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim.2. Next, the director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim, but the director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections.3. The director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.This appears to be another law which is routinely ignored. The emphases in 68D are mine. Note that there is nothing about "forcing" anyone to show his hand. Also, the facing of hands, when it happens, does so after the opponents' objections are heard. "Must" in Law 68D indicates that if this does not happen, somebody should probably get a PP, as the failure is "a serious matter indeed" (Introduction to the Laws). Also, the last sentence in 68D would seem to preclude any showing of hands that haven't already been shown (by which I mean that claimer might have shown his hand in the process of claiming, but no one else may do so). Conducting a conversation doesn't constitute taking action. Since we're no longer in the bidding or play ("The period during which the cards are played"), Law 73 doesn't forbid conversation either. If I want to know how many spades my partner had, and the answer affects my decision about accepting the claim, do I, at this stage, doubt the claim? Perhaps I do, so with Blackshoe in charge I'd better call* him. Whilst I'm waiting for him to arrive, however, I'm going to have an entirely legal conversation with my partner about his spade holding. Then, nine times out of ten, when the director arrives at the table I'll tell him that we don't need him after all. If showing your cards (68D) is disallowed, telling partner what you have in your hand must be disallowed also. Who do we believe? * Sorry, I know this is the wrong forum, but why on earth am I required to "summon" him instead of simply "calling" him? He's not going to emerge from inside a lamp, is he?:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 If showing your cards (68D) is disallowed, telling partner what you have in your hand must be disallowed also.No necessarily. It depends on your interpretation of the word "action" in Law 68D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 "Words mean what I want them to mean, neither more nor less. It's just a matter of who's to be master, that's all." -- Humpty Dumpty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 So a claim need not be accompanied by claimant facing his cards. According to your definition, when someone claims, they just state a number of tricks/line, but do not have to demonstrate that they actually hold the cards they are claiming will win tricks are actually in their hand? If someone was to claim without displaying their hand, and just say 12 tricks, is that grounds for immediate director calling? despite being a lawful claim? After all, if I don't know what declarer holds or partner holds I can hardly fail to have doubt about the claim..... If someone, who had 6 spades to the AKQ was to claim they had seven spades to the akq, how would a defender know early in the hand without seeing one of partners and declarers hands? Unless they were so badly distributed that one player knew he was lying. A particularly fine gambit if you are playing a club gain where the director leaves immediately after the session.... It seems like you have read the laws and constructed a claim procedure by which every legal claim requires a director call. I am sure this is not what the framers intended..... Of course, were I in your club, I would definitely take advantage of claiming on every hand without ever showing my hand, and pointing out that by your reading should a defender enquire about partners hand they have UI which you should use to disallow the correct defence according to your logic...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 What I said was that according to the laws, there are several different actions that can constitute a claim, and not all of them involve facing one's hand. How you get from that to "you have read the laws and constructed a claim procedure by which every legal claim requires a director call" I have no idea. I've read the laws, and reported what they say. I haven't constructed anything. Then you go on to attribute to me other things I haven't said. In particular, nothing I have said should lead to the conclusion at which you arrive in your last sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 All I will say is that I won't accept any claim where I haven't seen declarer's hand, no matter who it is. Passive-aggressive bastard? What gave you that impression? Having said that, I always show my hand when I claim, because otherwise would be hypocritical. Having said *that*, I didn't, once. But it was a repeat of what I believe was a Meckstroth story. "Partner's shown 6 spades to 2 top honours, and the CA and the DK. I have Q-fourth, three top hearts, and the other minor tops. Making?" +2220 before the opening lead. Of course, if partner *had* forgotten the system, I'd get what I deserved for showing off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jh51 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 All I will say is that I won't accept any claim where I haven't seen declarer's hand, no matter who it is. Passive-aggressive bastard? What gave you that impression?Not even if the last trick had been won in dummy (so no entry problem) and dummy's cards are all good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Any time that a the defenders could conceivably claim, declarer could presumably claim without showing his hand -- the bidding and play to that point has made everything obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 If declarer has claimed, he has by definition faced his cards, unless he is an Italian international, in which case he has gestured vaguely at dummy and put his cards back in the box. At least that is my experience :)Not in my experience. Typically players hold their cards in the air in a very annoying fashion so that you can see about half their cards or fewer. If you ask to see their cards they look at you as though you have grown a second head and say "Huh?". :ph34r: I don't understand the majority of posts here, so let me just tell you my views. Declarer claims. At rubber bridge the defenders may require him to play on, and may show each other their hand, and object to declarer not following his statement. That does not actually give them the right to say "play a diamond" which earlier rubber Law books did, but showing partner a hand with no diamonds and a trump should be sufficient clue. At duplicate the TD is called and play ceases. Since play has ceased players may talk to each other. Discussion of the hand is legitimate. There is nothing to stop one defender saying "Look, I have a diamond void" and his partner saying "Let's not accept the claim" and calling the TD. It is similar with defender's claims though complicated by the fairly stupid Law about partner objecting to a concession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Not in my experience. Typically players hold their cards in the air in a very annoying fashion so that you can see about half their cards or fewer. If you ask to see their cards they look at you as though you have grown a second head and say "Huh?".I must be the luckiest bridge player around. I hear people say things like this, yet it practically never happens to me. Claimers show their cards, CC's are mostly filled in (unless they're a last-minute pick-up and didn't have time), players usually alert and announce when necessary (but novices aren't so good about this). There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part people seem to behave reasonably. Yet other posters seem to have the exact opposite experience, that reasonable is the exception rather than the rule. Is the Boston area really that much of a panacea in comparison? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.