Declarer shows hand to one opponent

[barmar]

No, mainly my problem is that when people do this to me, usually they have some silly idea that they can't claim except when they're on lead, or they can't claim unless they've got the rest.

So what's the problem with that? Are you offended because people have misconceptions about the rules?

[gnasher]

So what's the problem with that? Are you offended because people have misconceptions about the rules?

No, of course not. When did I say I was offended?

[blackshoe]

On what grounds? Which law forbids a player from showing his entire hand to one of his opponents?

 

Rik

No law expressly forbids it. No law expressly allows it. It is a departure from correct procedure, an irregularity. The grounds for application of Law 23 would, I presume, be that declarer could have known that this irregularity might damage the opponents.

[Trinidad]

Yes, it is. The introduction to the laws tells us that "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure", and that the word 'does' in the Laws "establishes correct procedure".

 

 

The procedure defined in Laws 44 ("Sequence and procedure of play"), 45, 65, 66, 68 etc. None of these laws says "Declarer shows his hand to a defender in order to speed up play." Therefore this is not part of correct procedure.

That reasoning doesn't hold water. It reminds me of A few good men (where the whitness is asked where a "code red" is defined in the soldier's handbook).

 

None of these laws says that a player does breathe. So if one does breathe, one is deviating from correct procedure, and, hence, breathing is an irregularity?

 

In fact, these laws don't even say that a player is supposed to keep his cards to himself, so if a player does keep his cards to himself, that would be as much of an irregularity as showing the cards- following your reasoning. Phew, lucky that your reasoning is flawed. ;)

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Rik, I'm sorry, but I think it's your reasoning that's flawed.

[aguahombre]

That reasoning doesn't hold water. It reminds me of A few good men (where the witness is asked where a "code red" is defined in the soldier's handbook).

Good analogy. But, since people are nitpicking here: it was the Marine outline for recruit training --and neither it nor the Gitmo SOP explained where the mess hall was located either.

 

Gnasher could use the same analogy for his point. It indeed would be an irregularity for a Marine to starve because the books didn't tell him where the mess hall was.

[gnasher]

That reasoning doesn't hold water. It reminds me of A few good men (where the whitness is asked where a "code red" is defined in the soldier's handbook).

 

None of these laws says that a player does breathe. So if one does breathe, one is deviating from correct procedure, and, hence, breathing is an irregularity?

 

In fact, these laws don't even say that a player is supposed to keep his cards to himself, so if a player does keep his cards to himself, that would be as much of an irregularity as showing the cards- following your reasoning. Phew, lucky that your reasoning is flawed. ;)

 

Rik

I didn't say that the laws were perfectly worded - you know I think they're not. But it's obvious that the intention in writing the laws is to define correct procedure for playing the game, without covering matters that are not a part of or relevant to the game. It would be a very long rule book if it included procedures such as "Each player, as necessary, contracts his diaphragm so as to decrease the pressure in his lungs ...."

[Trinidad]

My point is that the laws define correct procedure for the issues that are described in that Law. In other words, if you do the things that a particular law deals with in a way different from what is described, you are violating correct procedure. As an example, the laws tell us to bid and play in clockwise rotation. If we deviate from that, we are violating correct procedure.

 

They do not define correct (or incorrect) procedure on issues... that they don't say anything about.

 

There is neither a correct nor incorrect procedure for breathing or the way we hold our cards. There is only an incorrect way to do things if the correct way is described in the laws (or if there is a law that specifically forbids it, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion). That makes sense, since you can not deviate from a procedure ... if there is no procedure to deviate from.

 

There is no correct procedure for the way to hold your cards, therefore, holding the cards in such a way that an opponent sees them is not a deviation from correct procedure, since there is no correct procedure to deviate from.

 

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Are you sure about that Rik? Law 74C5 has an interesting footnote:

* See Law 73D2 when a player may have shown his cards intentionally.

and 73D2 says

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

 

so it does seem like the lawmakers have envisaged the possibility of declarer gaining an advantage by showing their cards intentionally. Also, that they consider showing cards intentionally as a "purposeful deviation from correct procedure."

[lalldonn]

Lol at misleading opponents by showing them your hand. That is so incredibly harmful to them to see your hand! Now you get to be assured they won't lead the suit solving your 2-way finesse, instead they will lead another suit and stop signalling as well.

[gnasher]

Lol at misleading opponents by showing them your hand. That is so incredibly harmful to them to see your hand! Now you get to be assured they won't lead the suit solving your 2-way finesse, instead they will lead another suit and stop signalling as well.

I think you may have misunderstood. Nobody suggested that the action in the original post might mislead someone.

 

The rule that Zel quoted is intended to cover something like flashing declarer a singleton queen when you actually have KQ doubleton. However, it also tells us something else. When we consider these two facts together:

If you show your cards intentionally, Law 73D2 may apply.

Law 73D2 is about deviations from correct procedure.

they confirm that showing your cards intentionally is a deviation from correct procedure.

Edited March 12, 2013 by gnasher

[Trinidad]

Are you sure about that Rik? Law 74C5 has an interesting footnote:

 

* See Law 73D2 when a player may have shown his cards intentionally.

 

and 73D2 says

 

Quote

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

 

 

so it does seem like the lawmakers have envisaged the possibility of declarer gaining an advantage by showing their cards intentionally. Also, that they consider showing cards intentionally as a "purposeful deviation from correct procedure."

STOP. You are going to fast. There is nothing that supports your last sentence.

 

The irregularity here is not "showing the cards". The irregularity is "attempt to mislead (by showing the cards)". The particular case is where a player shows part of his hand intentionally. (Think of a defender who sits behind dummy's ♠AQ and shows declarer ♥74♠3♦KJ4. Declarer finesses in spades and it turns out that the ♠K was behind the AQ anyway, hidden between the invisible clubs.)

 

So, in fact, the laws acknowledge that a player may show his hand (even intentionally), but he may not do it to mislead an opponent, just as a player is allowed to hesitate or make gestures, but not to mislead the opponents (e.g. hesitating with a singleton or "thinking" whether to cover the jack with a queen that you don't have).

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

When we consider these two facts together:

If you show your cards intentionally, Law 73D2 may apply.

Law 73D2 is about deviations from correct procedure.

they confirm that showing your cards intentionally is a deviation from correct procedure.

Yes, Law 73D2 is about deviations from correct procedure, but that is a half truth (more than half the law book is about deviations from correct procedure). Law 73D2 is about a specific deviation from correct procedure: attempting to mislead an opponent by a remark, gesture,... etc.

 

The two Laws together say that it is not allowed to show your cards to attempt to mislead an opponent. They do not say that it is not allowed to show your cards. The fact that it is mentioned that a player may show his cards intentionally and that it is only mentioned as an irregularity when he does so in an attempt to mislead the opponents does not at all mean that showing your cards is an irregularity in itself. In fact, it implies very strongly that showing your cards is not an irregularity, just like a hesitation is not an irregularity (only when it is done to attempt to mislead).

 

Rik

[gnasher]

73D2 doesn't say that misleading the opponents is a deviation from correct procedure.

 

It gives us this list:

- remark or gesture

- tempo

- manner

- deviation from correct procedure

 

It tells us that you can't use an item from this list to try to mislead an opponent.

 

That is, "deviation from correct procedure" is on a par with "remark". It's not a description of "mislead".

[Trinidad]

I think I see what you mean.

 

You mean:

 

1) The footnote in 74C5 links "showing your cards intentionally" to 73D2

2) 73D2 lists various illegal ways to mislead an opponent

3) The last item on the list is "deviation from correct procedure"

4) Therefore, showing your cards intentionally is a "deviation from correct procedure".

 

I agree with you on 1-3, but 4 does not follow. Logic dictates that "showing your cards intentionally" is one of the ways on the list. It doesn't dictate that it must be the last one. To me, it is just a gesture.

 

And why would I interpret this to mean that "showing your cards intentionally" is a deviation from correct procedure when 72 laws before this one explained in detail what correct procedure and deviations from correct procedure are, with none mentioning whom you should or should not show your cards.

 

Clearly the lawmakers were aware that a player might show his hand to his opponents (they mentioned it in the footnote of law 74C5). If the lawmakers wanted to outlaw this wouldn't they have simply added a Law 7B4, establishing correct procedure for holding your hand?

 

Or would they add a footnote to Law 74C5 with a vague link to Law 73D2, containing a list, and hope that everybody will understand that since one of the many items on this list is "deviation from correct procedure" that, therefore, "showing your cards" should be interpreted as "deviation from correct procedure".

 

And what would they have to do when they want to tell that:

1) You are not allowed to peek into the hand of one of your opponents,

2) If you inadvertently see one or more of your opponents' cards, that is fair game

3) An opponent is not allowed to try to mislead you by showing you part of his and intentionally

 

without the intent to outlaw showing your cards to an opponent?

 

I would say that they should word Law 74C5 pretty much like they did, add a footnote about despicable showing your cards, referring to the law about attempting to mislead the opponents by your demeanor (Law 73D2). And, that is what they did.

 

I think that you are stuck with "The Laws define correct procedure, everything else is deviating from correct procedure." In reality, the laws defined correct procedure for those aspects of the game where they think there is (or should be) one correct procedure (e.g how to lay out dummy). In those areas where they think there should be several possible correct ways, they simply leave it open.

 

You are allowed to hold your cards in your right hand, left hand, right foot or left foot*, fan them or fold them, put them in your shirt pocket, on the table, or under your cap, show them to the kibs or keep them to yourself, and if you want to, you can show them to your opponents. The lawmakers left it up to the player to decide what he does with his cards.

 

Rik

 

*These two may be an infraction of Law 74A2. ;)

[gnasher]

Clearly the lawmakers were aware that a player might show his hand to his opponents (they mentioned it in the footnote of law 74C5). If the lawmakers wanted to outlaw this wouldn't they have simply added a Law 7B4, establishing correct procedure for holding your hand?

 

I don't think that the lawmakers did intend to outlaw showing the opponents your cards.

 

The laws forbid infractions, but they don't forbid irregularities. I'm arguing that showing the opponents your cards is an irregularity.

[c_corgi]

74C5 is an example of violation of procedure. The footnote makes it clear that when the player shows his cards deliberately without claiming we are out of violation of procedure territory. If the showing of cards was deliberately misleading, we are into 73D2 territory. This means one of two things:

1. The list in 73D2 does not explicitly include the situation described in the 74C5 footnote, but the footnote has been included to make it clear that 73D2 nevertheless applies.

2. The list in 73D2 does include the situation described in the 74C5 footnote and the footnote was included purely to assist navigation. In this case the deliberate showing of cards falls into one or more of the categories in the 73D2 list. It is not clear (IMO) whether it belongs under "gesture" or "purposeful deviation from correct procedure".

 

The link between deliberate showing of cards without claiming and violation of procedure is absent in case 1 and seems tenuous in case 2.

 

 

Edit: cross-posted with Trinidad's last post; there is significant overlap.

Edited March 13, 2013 by c_corgi

[barmar]

No, of course not. When did I say I was offended?

You said "my problem is that when people do this to me....". If it doesn't bother or offend you, why is it a "problem"?

 

Is it just an annoyance, like card-snapping?

[barmar]

All this talk about misleading opponents seems to be a red herring. I think the comment that prompted it (post #14) wasn't about misleading the opponents, but declarer gaining information from the opponent's reaction.

 

If you show your cards to the opponent, and he concedes because he can see that none of his plays make a difference, there's no problem. The problem comes when he DOESN'T concede. Now declarer has learned that the cards are not laid out as he expected, and he can revise his plan accordingly.

[gnasher]

You said "my problem is that when people do this to me....". If it doesn't bother or offend you, why is it a "problem"?

When did I say I wasn't bothered by it?

 

I'm not, in fact, very bothered by it, and if it were only ever used in the way that Josh described I wouldn't be bothered at all. I'm mildly bothered by someone wasting my time, by failing to claim when they should have claimed.

 

Similarly, I'm mildly bothered by people putting words into my mouth.

Edited March 13, 2013 by gnasher

[Vampyr]

You said "my problem is that when people do this to me....". If it doesn't bother or offend you, why is it a "problem"?

 

Is it just an annoyance, like card-snapping?

 

I can see where Andy's coming from, because I don't really like it either. I don't think it saves time -- how is it more efficient than claiming and letting the opponent see both concealed hands? Also, when the opponent that is shown the hand concedes, his partner sometimes is not given the chance to see partner's or declarer's hand -- and it certainly does not save time when this player demands his right to see the cards and the other two hands have to be taken out of the pockets. Also it can intimidate less-experienced or -confident players. Perhaps declarer and/or defender on lead have forgotten something, and the other defender has a potential trick, but doesn't want to feel foolish by asking to see the other hands, assuming that the other two know better -- or the defender on lead may show his hand in turn, giving the declarer the information that he supposedly (but maybe didn't) knew all along. Perhaps these last (and barmar's similar situation above) seem to be less of a concern as it doesn't happen often, but as the gesture is kind of show-offy, it may be imitated by those who don't actually know what is going on.

[gnasher]

All this talk about misleading opponents seems to be a red herring.

It's also a red herring of your own making. Nobody has suggested that the action in the original post might mislead someone.

[Zelandakh]

Barry, I think the 73D2 link covers both situations nicely. Since it establishes that showing cards is included in the list used for Law 73 (remarks, manners, etc) we can presumably use 73D2 for the case where this is done to mislead and 73F for the case where it is done to gain information. We could also use 74C3 but it seems better to use the Law that is specifically referenced. In any case, there seems to be enough there to say that revealing your hand to speed up play is ok but if you gain from it then you are open to be ruled against. Gain might come in the form of misleading opps, obtaining information from which opponent reacts, or simply from getting some sort of tell reaction. And if there is no way to gain, the player showing their hand was almost certainly in a position to claim.

[Trinidad]

I will readily admit that there are declarers who will throw in LHO and then show LHO their cards. In that situation it amounts to a claim.

 

But there may also be situations where it is immaterial what LHO does, but where RHO (or even declarer) still has a genuine decision to make. If LHO then goes into the tank, then I think it is certainly ok if declarer shows him his cards to cut the tank short.

 

This occurs a lot in IMP or rubber scoring: Declarer knows that the contract is 100% safe and that we are playing for overtricks. He just doesn't know what overtricks he is going to get. A defender is thinking and tries to desperately come up with a layout where it is still possible to break the contract. Declarer shows him his hand and the defender says: "Ok. +1". In Dutch there even is a word for this: "inpakken". Alternatively, the defender knows the layout of the hand and comes up with a play and play proceeds normally, except that this defender knows the whole hand. Usually the play won't take a lot of time after this.

 

Rik

[GreenMan]

I can see where Andy's coming from, because I don't really like it either. I don't think it saves time -- how is it more efficient than claiming and letting the opponent see both concealed hands?

 

Sometimes the claim statement would be something like "If you lead a club I can do A, if you lead a diamond I have a free finesse, if you lead a spade I can something else," possibly with longer explanations for each case. It's not always shorter to verbalize a bridge position than to display it, but displaying to both opps without a claim statement is dangerous. Occasionally the player at the table can work out the most efficient course of action better than armchair quarterbacks who haven't seen the hands in question.