Require Claimer to Show his hand?

[barmar]

If you're going to insist we not assume things not in evidence in the OP (I didn't, but never mind that) then you can't assume that declarer exposed his hand when claiming.

Fodder for the "Changing Laws" forum: we really should require a claimant to show his hand. Is there any good reason to allow claims without it?

[nige1]

Fodder for the "Changing Laws" forum: we really should require a claimant to show his hand. Is there any good reason to allow claims without it?

IMO, yes. Also, under current law, if a claiming declarer won't face his hand then that should normally be an adequate reason for defenders to object to the claim :)

[blackshoe]

Perhaps so, but it won't help the TD determine how the defenders think the claim will go wrong. Perhaps if we're going to require declarer to show his hand, we should also require defenders (before they have seen declarer's hand) to state what alternative line of play they think will cause the claim to fail, rather than just allowing "I object!"

[TMorris]

Plenty of "local experts" claim without showing their hands and brow beat beginners into accepting the claim - not showing your hand is close to a DP for me.

[pran]

There is no reason for defenders to show that the claim can go wrong.

They are supposed to call TD whenever they do not immediately see that the claim cannot go wrong.

[blackshoe]

Teach your beginners to call the director when this happens. Then give the "local experts" a PP for violation of Law 74A2. ;)

[Bbradley62]

Fodder for the "Changing Laws" forum: we really should require a claimant to show his hand. Is there any good reason to allow claims without it?

Because sometimes "the board is good" will suffice?

[pran]

Because sometimes "the board is good" will suffice?

If you are in the board, yes. Otherwise you need to show that you have an entry to the board.

 

But remember: It doesn't matter whether you can see that the board is good. If your opponents cannot immediately see it (maybe they are less experienced) they have every right to call TD and have the claim adjudicated by him.

[mycroft]

I want to see the hand if just to ensure that declarer isn't pulling a L72B3.

 

I want to see the hand because "just trust me" is implying "I'm smarter than you, deal with it" which is offensive.

 

And, I guess I'm going to have to want to see the hand to make sure that I'm not being conceded a trick I'm not going to win, or I'll get a PP.

[paua]

Fodder for the "Changing Laws" forum: we really should require a claimant to show his hand. Is there any good reason to allow claims without it?

 

Declarer may also be hiding a revoke.

"The board is good." Heh heh. Ruffed a diamond but I still have one.

Anyway, it's just courtesy to show one's cards. Same if conceding.

[nige1]

Perhaps so, but it won't help the TD determine how the defenders think the claim will go wrong. Perhaps if we're going to require declarer to show his hand, we should also require defenders (before they have seen declarer's hand) to state what alternative line of play they think will cause the claim to fail, rather than just allowing "I object!"

{SNIP] But remember: It doesn't matter whether you can see that the board is good. If your opponents cannot immediately see it (maybe they are less experienced) they have every right to call TD and have the claim adjudicated by him.

Who is right here, Blackshoe or Pran?. Suppose, as in the OP, declarer claims the rest. May a defender object simply because he suspects that declarer is missing a top trick? Or can the director insist that the objector outline his defence (even when the claimer hasn't bothered to state a line)?. If, under pressure, the defender suggests what the director deems to be an inferior defence, Blackshoe seems to think he can treat it like a SEWOG. I think Blackshoe may be mistaken about current law. IMO the objector doesn't have to state a line, although, if he wants to, he may speculate. Anyway, current claim law seems to suffer from different legal interpretations and ruling inconsistencies (although a previously suggested radical simplification would accomplish roughly what Blackshoe seems to think is fair).

[blackshoe]

If you are in the board, yes. Otherwise you need to show that you have an entry to the board.

 

But remember: It doesn't matter whether you can see that the board is good. If your opponents cannot immediately see it (maybe they are less experienced) they have every right to call TD and have the claim adjudicated by him.

I once claimed on a four card ending. I faced my hand, and explained my proposed line of play: "I'm in my hand; this card (laying it down) is good, so is this one (laying it down), then I will trump this card (laying it down) in dummy, and trump dummy's last card in my hand." My LHO said "I can't see it; play it out please." :blink: :o I said "sorry, that would not be legal," and called the director. <shrug>

[pran]

I once claimed on a four card ending. I faced my hand, and explained my proposed line of play: "I'm in my hand; this card (laying it down) is good, so is this one (laying it down), then I will trump this card (laying it down) in dummy, and trump dummy's last card in my hand." My LHO said "I can't see it; play it out please." :blink: :o I said "sorry, that would not be legal," and called the director. <shrug>

Well, as far as I can see both you and your LHO followed precisely the correct procedure except for the point where your LHO asked you to play it out. He should instead have called TD who (hopefully) patiently would have explained the play according to your claim.

[gnasher]

Perhaps so, but it won't help the TD determine how the defenders think the claim will go wrong. Perhaps if we're going to require declarer to show his hand, we should also require defenders (before they have seen declarer's hand) to state what alternative line of play they think will cause the claim to fail, rather than just allowing "I object!"

Eh? If they haven't seen his hand, why should they even know what the possible lines are?

[blackshoe]

Well, as far as I can see both you and your LHO followed precisely the correct procedure except for the point where your LHO asked you to play it out. He should instead have called TD who (hopefully) patiently would have explained the play according to your claim.

Yes she should have called the TD. If I had a nickel for every time somebody was supposed to call the TD but didn't, I'd probably live next door to Bill Gates. The TD did undertake to explain patiently. It took her about five minutes before LHO got it.

[blackshoe]

Eh? If they haven't seen his hand, why should they even know what the possible lines are?

Why shouldn't they? They have several clues: the bidding and play so far, their own hand, and claimer's line of play statement. Perhaps they still won't be able to come up with an alternative line. <shrug> I didn't say the idea was perfect, it was just a suggestion.

[pran]

Yes she should have called the TD. If I had a nickel for every time somebody was supposed to call the TD but didn't, I'd probably live next door to Bill Gates. The TD did undertake to explain patiently. It took her about five minutes before LHO got it.

An extremely good example showing why claims should only be made when the claimer is absolutely sure that his opponents are experienced enough and will understand the claim right away.

 

The main argument for interrupting play with a claim is that it saves time, but this logic always fails when opponents do not immediately understand and see that the claim is good. In such situations it takes more time to explain the claim that to just complete play on the board in the regular way.

[pran]

Why shouldn't they? They have several clues: the bidding and play so far, their own hand, and claimer's line of play statement. Perhaps they still won't be able to come up with an alternative line. <shrug> I didn't say the idea was perfect, it was just a suggestion.

It is not the opponents' business to "know" that there can be an alternative line of play when they question a claim. They have the right to see the cards and hear the claim statement before accepting the claim and they may call TD even without pointing out any alleged fallacy in the claim.

 

The TD must judge the claim independently and rule a faulty claim if he sees a line of play that is not in conflict with the given claim statement but which will foul the claim.

[blackshoe]

It is not the opponents' business to "know" that there can be an alternative line of play when they question a claim. They have the right to see the cards and hear the claim statement before accepting the claim and they may call TD even without pointing out any alleged fallacy in the claim.

 

The TD must judge the claim independently and rule a faulty claim if he sees a line of play that is not in conflict with the given claim statement but which will foul the claim.

Where is this "right to see the cards" enshrined?

 

I agree with your second paragraph.

[blackshoe]

An extremely good example showing why claims should only be made when the claimer is absolutely sure that his opponents are experienced enough and will understand the claim right away.

 

The main argument for interrupting play with a claim is that it saves time, but this logic always fails when opponents do not immediately understand and see that the claim is good. In such situations it takes more time to explain the claim that to just complete play on the board in the regular way.

So if you don't know your opponents well, you should never claim? Even in the Bermuda Bowl? Hogwash.

 

I see nothing in Law 68 or the following laws on claims that supports your arguments here.

 

In the example case, my opponents were considerably older than I, presumably (and in fact, it turns out) had been playing bridge much longer than I, and I, as a relative novice, thought that a claim on two high cards and a cross ruff ought to be obvious to anyone who'd been playing bridge for more than a week. Turned out I was wrong. Sue me.

[barmar]

Because sometimes "the board is good" will suffice?

So? Show your hand anyway. If it's redundant, what's the harm?

 

In cases where declarer's hand really is obviously irrelevant, players will probably take a shortcut. Just like when the play is obvious, claimers often claim without saying anything, and there's no harm.

 

All I'm asking for is to remove the loophole that allows the claimer to say "I don't want to show you my hand, and there's no law requiring me to."

[blackshoe]

Claimer cannot use that loophole if opps call the director and the director tells him to show it (Law 70B3: The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.)

[pran]

Where is this "right to see the cards" enshrined?

[...]

Here:

 

After any claim or concession, play ceases

[...]

and

 

After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or lost;

[...]

[pran]

So if you don't know your opponents well, you should never claim? Even in the Bermuda Bowl? Hogwash.

 

I see nothing in Law 68 or the following laws on claims that supports your arguments here.

 

In the example case, my opponents were considerably older than I, presumably (and in fact, it turns out) had been playing bridge much longer than I, and I, as a relative novice, thought that a claim on two high cards and a cross ruff ought to be obvious to anyone who'd been playing bridge for more than a week. Turned out I was wrong. Sue me.

So why not simply accept as a fact that you misjudged your opponents and as a result wasted a lot of time instead of saving time by claiming?

[pran]

Claimer cannot use that loophole if opps call the director and the director tells him to show it (Law 70B3: The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.)

There is no need to depend on the director, Law 66D gives the players the right to see all cards.