[phil_20686]

gordontd, on 2012-January-30, 02:08, said:

You seem to have missed that a claim has been made, and the way the rubber bridge laws are usually interpreted would have made this acceptable practice.

I don't understand? Is this not also duplicate law? If play has ceased I am allowed to see my partners cards before I decide whether to accept the claim or not. If this was not the case, surely I would not be able to contest a claim later when I see from the hand records that there is a winning defence.

I dont see how this is different from being able to ask to see partners cards after the hand is over.

Obviously this is just kind of a courtesy, since I can always work out what partner has if I can see declarers hand, but for players who don't necessarily count every card there could be an issue, especially when the defence needed is non trivial.

[gordontd]

phil_20686, on 2012-January-30, 06:29, said:

Is this not also duplicate law?

No, in Duplicate play is meant to stop. In rubber bridge they play on with the benefit of seeing declarer's hand.

[gordontd]

Deleted

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2012-January-30, 02:08, said:

You seem to have missed that a claim has been made, and the way the rubber bridge laws are usually interpreted would have made this acceptable practice.

Well, in my experience this is pretty normal in duplicate too, so I thought that the practice in question was something else.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-28, 16:21, said:

Jilly is right, but so are Tim and Sven. It would be very rare for the TD to rule such a lead "not normal".

By "very rare", do you mean that there are circumstances where he would make such a ruling? It seems unreasonable to allow declarer's claim to prevent the defenders' finidng the winning defence.

Quote

I would explain to these defenders that once declarer has made a claim, they cannot play on, and in general they should not make comments that look like they're trying to pass information to partner. They should just call the TD and let him deal with it. Part of the TD's "dealing with it" will be asking the defenders for their objection to the claim, and that's the time to say "if partner leads a diamond, I get a ruff".

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?

[phil_20686]

gnasher, on 2012-January-30, 07:58, said:

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.

[barmar]

phil_20686, on 2012-January-30, 10:23, said:

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.

[blackshoe]

Quote

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).

[AlexJonson]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-30, 13:55, said:

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.

[gnasher]

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?

[phil_20686]

barmar, on 2012-January-30, 11:57, said:

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

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-January-30, 15:31, said:

* 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.

[blackshoe]

phil_20686, on 2012-January-30, 16:33, said:

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...

Quote

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.

[jillybean]

laws said:

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.

blackshoe, on 2012-January-30, 13:55, said:

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).

gnasher, on 2012-January-30, 15:31, said:

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?

gnasher said:

* 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?

[gnasher]

jillybean, on 2012-January-30, 20:17, said:

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.

[blackshoe]

"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

[phil_20686]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-30, 17:52, said:

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......

[blackshoe]

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.

[mycroft]

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.

[jh51]

mycroft, on 2012-January-31, 13:47, said:

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?