One off or making?

[gordontd]

So, if a member of the offending side orally agrees to a claim or concession, or agrees by facing his hand, or agrees in any other way, the revoke is established. But when declarer makes a claim, and the defenders face their hands, are they agreeing, or are they simply trying (illegally, I think) to determine whether they wish to do so?

 

I agree that facing their cards may establish the revoke but won't always. I think it has to be clear that the facing was a form of agreement. I don't agree that it's illegal for them to consider in consultation whether they doubt the claim.

 

As to the facing, it seems to me correct procedure when declarer claims is for each defender individually, without consultation to decide whether to accept the claim, and if either one decides to contest it, it is contested, and the director must be called, even if the other one already accepted it. Otherwise we get into "now that I see your hand, partner, I realize that we can defeat the claim by playing thus and so". I think he has to figure that out on his own, without seeing his partner's hand.

A claim stands or falls on its own merits, not dependent on whether or not the opponents had individually picked up on its flaws.

[barmar]

A claim stands or falls on its own merits, not dependent on whether or not the opponents had individually picked up on its flaws.

That's true in abstract. But unless someone picks up on the flaws, how will it be contested so that the TD can be called to rule that it doesn't stand?

[gordontd]

That's true in abstract. But unless someone picks up on the flaws, how will it be contested so that the TD can be called to rule that it doesn't stand?

The way some of these posts have gone, the TD would be called for every claim just in case it might be flawed, since the suggestion is that the players can't exchange information to determine that for themselves!

[Zelandakh]

The way some of these posts have gone, the TD would be called for every claim just in case it might be flawed, since the suggestion is that the players can't exchange information to determine that for themselves!

Exactly Gordon. I would contest almost any claim in which declarer refused to show their cards. After all, why refuse unless you have something to hide? And if I think seeing all 4 hands will be helpful in deciding if the claim is valid and the only way to achieve that would be to contest then I would automatically contest every claim as a matter of course. After all, I lose nothing by doing so and can always withdraw the objection later. Perhaps a shame for the TD but it follows naturally from Ed and pran's (unusual) interpretation of the laws.

[blackshoe]

I wasn't arguing that there is a specific right or requirement for defenders to look at each other's hands before deciding whether or not to accept the claim, but it follows naturally from standard practice and there is no prohibition against it.

"Standard practice" is not necessarily "legal practice". "The laws are designed to define correct procedure," says the introduction, and looking at each other's hands is nowhere so defined. I would argue then that it is not correct procedure. Put another way: I would argue that what the laws do not expressly permit is not permitted, rather than that what the laws do not expressly prohibit is permitted.

 

When a hand is finished, it's permitted for players to show their cards to others at the table - indeed some TD's recommend it to avoid breaching Law 7 by touching another player's cards. If looking at your partner's cards leads you think the claim may have been erroneous, you should call the TD immediately and that's just following Law 68D. There's nothing to say that you should call the TD before you doubt the claim and that's a good thing because otherwise we would have a number of pointless TD calls.

I think proper procedure in determining whether a hand is "finished" requires that the score has been agreed and recorded and all four hands returned to the board, in that order.

Law 79A1: The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have been returned to the board.

As regards Law 7, I would say that if you want to see another player's hand, proper procedure would be to ask him to show it to you.

 

If declarer makes a proper line of play statement, at some level the defenders ought to be able to follow that line and determine if it's consistent with what they have worked out about the hand. If it is, they should accept the claim. If it's not, they should dispute the claim - even without seeing partner's or indeed declarer's hand. Of course, below that level the defenders will be anywhere from unsure to clueless whether the claim is valid. They should then call the director. No need, IMO, to look at hands. True, it may turn out the claim is valid. I don't think the director call will have been pointless, even then.

 

Even if you don't show/look at your partner's cards, it's quite common to ask what they had after you put away your hand, before you start the next board. Once again, this may lead you to doubt the claim and that would be a good time to establish this doubt by calling the director, since agreement has not yet been reached according to the terms of Law 69. I certainly don't think you have to call the TD before asking, between hands, what your partner held and nor do I think it would be helpful if it were required.

Again, what is "quite common" is not necessarily proper procedure. But if a player does that, and does then doubt the claim, yes, he should call the director. Agree that asking should not be required.

 

I agree that facing their cards may establish the revoke but won't always. I think it has to be clear that the facing was a form of agreement. I don't agree that it's illegal for them to consider in consultation whether they doubt the claim.

 

A claim stands or falls on its own merits, not dependent on whether or not the opponents had individually picked up on its flaws.

 

That's true in abstract. But unless someone picks up on the flaws, how will it be contested so that the TD can be called to rule that it doesn't stand?

The way some of these posts have gone, the TD would be called for every claim just in case it might be flawed, since the suggestion is that the players can't exchange information to determine that for themselves!

Exactly Gordon. I would contest almost any claim in which declarer refused to show their cards. After all, why refuse unless you have something to hide? And if I think seeing all 4 hands will be helpful in deciding if the claim is valid and the only way to achieve that would be to contest then I would automatically contest every claim as a matter of course. After all, I lose nothing by doing so and can always withdraw the objection later. Perhaps a shame for the TD but it follows naturally from Ed and pran's (unusual) interpretation of the laws.

An ethical player will not refuse to show his hand "because he has something to hide". Thus the assumption that a player who refuses to show his hand has something to hide is an assumption that he is a cheat. Should we really be going there?

 

If a player claims without stating the order in which he will play his cards, then the defense has every right to contest the claim, and the director should first instruct the claimer on proper procedure, and if the player persists in claiming without making a proper claim statement, the director should penalize him. And before anyone else brings it up, I would suggest that a player who refuses to play in a club where that happens is saying "if I have to play by the rules, I'm not playing!" I don't have much respect for such players. Note that a player need not face his hand when claiming, and against reasonably good opponents, if he makes a proper line of play statement he should not need to face his hand. That said, I think he should face it if he's asked to do so. I would.

 

If someone were to argue that the law in this area fails to define correct procedure, I would say that argument has some merit. But it's up to the lawmakers to fix that. In the meantime, directors are stuck with the current laws and will have to make their own interpretations. Thus, I suppose, "common practice". But IMO common practice should not be left to "everybody knows…" — the Regulating Authorities should be promulgating whatever interpretation they think is appropriate, while ensuring that the interpretation does not conflict with the law.

[gordontd]

"Standard practice" is not necessarily "legal practice". "The laws are designed to define correct procedure," says the introduction, and looking at each other's hands is nowhere so defined. I would argue then that it is not correct procedure. Put another way: I would argue that what the laws do not expressly permit is not permitted, rather than that what the laws do not expressly prohibit is permitted.

Here's a method of shortening the law book considerably: delete everything that tells you what you can't do, since it's superfluous :)

[nige1]

I agree with GordonTD :( Wash my mouth out with carbolic :)

[Zelandakh]

I agree with GordonTD :( Wash my mouth out with carbolic :)

Scary Nigel. You, me and Gordon all in agreement at one time. Such an alignment risks having the Earth fall out of its orbit or something! :P

[gordontd]

"Standard practice" is not necessarily "legal practice". "The laws are designed to define correct procedure," says the introduction, and looking at each other's hands is nowhere so defined.

Is that actually true?

 

Law 66D. After the Conclusion of Play

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; but no player

should handle cards other than his own. If, after such a claim has been made,

a player mixes his cards in such a manner that the Director can no longer

ascertain the facts, the Director shall rule in favour of the other side.

When a claim is made, play ceases. Played and unplayed cards may be inspected - no restriction on who they may be inspected by. If you aren't sure whether or not a claim is valid, are you not checking on the number of tricks won or lost?

[barmar]

Exactly Gordon. I would contest almost any claim in which declarer refused to show their cards. After all, why refuse unless you have something to hide?

I can't recall a declarer ever claiming without showing their cards. It's one of those practices I only know about because people have written about it here, and pointed out that it's legal.

 

But most of the time when a claim occurs, it's pretty obvious from the play up to that point. Players have shown out in some suits, or the bidding and/or line of play makes it pretty certain where some missing cards are, etc. Sometimes you can tell from your own hand that the claim is flawed, such as when declarer forgot about an outstanding trump and you hold it; and if it's not in your hand, partner holds it and he can contest. The situation where you're not sure one way or the other is quite rare, I think.

[richlp]

I can't recall a declarer ever claiming without showing their cards. It's one of those practices I only know about because people have written about it here, and pointed out that it's legal.

 

But most of the time when a claim occurs, it's pretty obvious from the play up to that point. Players have shown out in some suits, or the bidding and/or line of play makes it pretty certain where some missing cards are, etc. Sometimes you can tell from your own hand that the claim is flawed, such as when declarer forgot about an outstanding trump and you hold it; and if it's not in your hand, partner holds it and he can contest. The situation where you're not sure one way or the other is quite rare, I think.

 

FWIW.......I've seen it and done it. Always with "Dummy's good" as my claim statement. If the opponents want to see my hand, of course I show it.

 

As far as being allowed to inspect the hands............I truly do not understand the arguement that this is not legal, or that it sets up all the defenders cards as penalty cards if they contest the claim. Gordon's posts about "Play ceases" seem conclusive to me.

[blackshoe]

When a claim is made, play ceases. Played and unplayed cards may be inspected - no restriction on who they may be inspected by. If you aren't sure whether or not a claim is valid, are you not checking on the number of tricks won or lost?

 

As far as being allowed to inspect the hands............I truly do not understand the arguement that this is not legal, or that it sets up all the defenders cards as penalty cards if they contest the claim. Gordon's posts about "Play ceases" seem conclusive to me.

I have not claimed that defenders facing their hands when declarer has made a claim sets all their cards up as penalty cards. It does not. As you say, play has ceased.

 

I find it odd to try to apply a law about checking to see whether a revoke has occurred to an attempt to decide if one defender or the other wants to contest declarer's claim.

[gordontd]

I find it odd to try to apply a law about checking to see whether a revoke has occurred to an attempt to decide if one defender or the other wants to contest declarer's claim.

That law has two stated purposes: to check whether a revoke has occurred and to check on the number of tricks taken by each side.

[weejonnie]

The wording of 63A seems to say that facing their hand is accepting the claim in this situation. It's not normally a claim acceptance, but in the case where their side has revoked, it is, and it establishes the revoke. I think it was written like this precisely to address this situation.

I assume you mean 63AC

 

3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way.

 

However I can only interpret "orally or by facing his hand or in any other way" in terms of "makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks". The law would surely read

 

"When a member of the offending side faces his hand or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or in any other way."

[pran]

I assume you mean 63AC

 

3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way.

 

However I can only interpret "orally or by facing his hand or in any other way" in terms of "makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks". The law would surely read

 

"When a member of the offending side faces his hand or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or in any other way."

Surely not.

 

Law 63A3 is about making or accepting a claim or concession, not about facing his hand.

 

"Facing his hand is one of several alternative ways listed in which a player can make or accept a claim or concession.

 

Literally separating "faces his hand" from the rest of the paragraph can only create legal confusion.

[Zelandakh]

Surely not.

Phil's point is that there is under the current wording a legal difference between facing a hand to accept a claim and facing a hand for another purpose (such as in the process of contesting it) in the same way as there is a difference between leading a card and facing it in any other way.

[blackshoe]

That law has two stated purposes: to check whether a revoke has occurred and to check on the number of tricks taken by each side.

After re-reading the law in question (66D) I have to agree that it allows the defenders to inspect each other's hands in search of tricks they might take in view of declarer's claim. It even seems to imply that the director need not be called. Not yet, anyway. Once they decide to contest the claim, they need to call the TD.

 

I assume you mean 63AC

 

3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way.

 

However I can only interpret "orally or by facing his hand or in any other way" in terms of "makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks". The law would surely read

 

"When a member of the offending side faces his hand or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or in any other way."

 

Surely not.

 

Law 63A3 is about making or accepting a claim or concession, not about facing his hand.

 

"Facing his hand is one of several alternative ways listed in which a player can make or accept a claim or concession.

 

Literally separating "faces his hand" from the rest of the paragraph can only create legal confusion.

I think weejonnie was suggesting that if the lawmakers intended that if a defender faces his hand he has accepted the claim willy-nilly, the law would have been worded differently than it is, in the manner weejonnie suggests. The way it is actually worded, if the defender is facing his hand for a purpose other than accepting the claim, he has not accepted it.

[lamford]

Phil's point is that there is under the current wording a legal difference between facing a hand to accept a claim and facing a hand for another purpose (such as in the process of contesting it) in the same way as there is a difference between leading a card and facing it in any other way.

Indeed.

 

A revoke becomes established:

3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or

concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way

 

is not the same as

A revoke becomes established:

3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or

concession of tricks orally or in any other way, or if he faces his hand.

 

If a player accepts a claim, ia any way, then the revoke is established. Facing his hand is not necessarily making or accepting a claim. I think the summary by gordontd, as I would expect, is correct.

[barmar]

If that's the intent, then it's basically saying "makes or agrees to a claim in any way", and the elaboration is totally redundant. We have other laws that say how someone makes or agrees to a claim, repeating some of them here is unnecessary.

[Zelandakh]

If that's the intent, then it's basically saying "makes or agrees to a claim in any way", and the elaboration is totally redundant. We have other laws that say how someone makes or agrees to a claim, repeating some of them here is unnecessary.

There are also other laws that list examples of actions that qualify. Such lists can easily be argued as unnecessary but are nonetheless included as an aid to directors. Presumably that is also the case here.

[lamford]

There are also other laws that list examples of actions that qualify. Such lists can easily be argued as unnecessary but are nonetheless included as an aid to directors. Presumably that is also the case here.

Yes, I agree with Zel. Many of the laws have verbosity for the sake of emphasis.

[barmar]

There are also other laws that list examples of actions that qualify. Such lists can easily be argued as unnecessary but are nonetheless included as an aid to directors. Presumably that is also the case here.

Usually these lists help understand the intent of the law -- they list several examples that help to delineate the category. But just two examples followed by "or any other way" is much more open-ended.