[bluejak]

pran, on Oct 29 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 29 2009, 03:02 PM, said:

The 2007 Laws say "Play continues".

And so said the minute.

What (and why) are you arguing?

According to Sven Pran:

pran, on Oct 29 2009, 01:23 AM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 29 2009, 02:17 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 28 2009, 11:41 PM, said:

If I'm not mistaken, the WBFLC wrote a minute in which they said that when (as here) there is both a claim and a concession, play ceases. 68B2 then does not apply.

Wrong Law book: that was 1997.

Yes, but the minute does indeed apply, it was incorporated in the 2007 laws. See my post a few minutes ago.

Sven confirmed blackshoe's statement that there was a minute that said - as you can see above - "Play ceases". This is different from the 2007 Laws, so saying the minute was incorporated in the 2007 Laws is incorrect and misleading.

[pran]

bluejak, on Oct 30 2009, 01:09 AM, said:

pran, on Oct 29 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 29 2009, 03:02 PM, said:

The 2007 Laws say "Play continues".

And so said the minute.

What (and why) are you arguing?

According to Sven Pran:

pran, on Oct 29 2009, 01:23 AM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 29 2009, 02:17 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 28 2009, 11:41 PM, said:

If I'm not mistaken, the WBFLC wrote a minute in which they said that when (as here) there is both a claim and a concession, play ceases. 68B2 then does not apply.

Wrong Law book: that was 1997.

Yes, but the minute does indeed apply, it was incorporated in the 2007 laws. See my post a few minutes ago.

Sven confirmed blackshoe's statement that there was a minute that said - as you can see above - "Play ceases". This is different from the 2007 Laws, so saying the minute was incorporated in the 2007 Laws is incorrect and misleading.

Oh, so you didn't bother to follow my suggestion and read what I wrote "a few minutes ago".
If you had done that you would (hopefully) have noticed that while I confirmed there was a minute I pointed out that it certainly did not say what blackshoe believed it said:

Paris 2001:

10 It was agreed that when a concession is made by a defender of a number of tricks, thereby claiming the complement of the remaining tricks, if the defender’s partner immediately objects to the concession, under Law 68B no concession has occurred and by the same token neither has any claim been made. After the Director has been summoned play continues and Law 16 may apply.

[bluejak]

What an unhelpful post. No, I did not look back - why should I? blackshoe quoted a minute: you confirmed it knowing it to be wrong. You could post in a more helpful fashion if you tried.

[blackshoe]

I mentioned a minute, and said what I thought the minute said. I didn't quote it - and I was wrong, it didn't say what I remembered. Sven quoted the minute, from 2001, which says in part "by the same token neither has any claim been made".

I have just searched through the WBFLC minutes from the latest back through to the one Sven quoted (Paris, 28th Oct, 2001). The quoted minute is the latest on this subject. There is also the current law:

Law 68D2 said:

Regardless of B1 above, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the director should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card, but Law 16d applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it.

So I was wrong. Once conceding defender's partner objects to the concession, play ceases temporarily, the TD should be called, and he shall direct that play continue, after informing the players, when pertinent, of the caveat regarding the applicability of Law 16D. Going back up the thread, it looks to me like Duschek's ruling is correct.

[pran]

bluejak, on Oct 30 2009, 03:05 PM, said:

What an unhelpful post.  No, I did not look back - why should I?  blackshoe quoted a minute: you confirmed it knowing it to be wrong.  You could post in a more helpful fashion if you tried.

Because I clearly suggested that you should (in order to avoid making any silly assumptions). And it would have saved you from making all these silly comments.
I found this more "helpful" than making another insertion of the same minute text in a second post within a few minutes.
Had you not made your irrelevant statement (about which lawbook) after the post where I quoted the minute, there would have been no need for a second post from me.

Blackshoe has said all there is to say about him mentioning a minute; he certainly did not quote anything (and I would never dream of the possibility that anybody could take it as a quotation).

Sven

[Grazy69]

With respect to WBF minutes are the ones written before the new 2007 Law Book now invalid ?

And only WBF minutes written after the issue of the 2007 Law Book currently valid?

[blackshoe]

One might think that, but iirc the wbflc has said that "old" minutes remain in effect. Although not, one hopes, if they're clearly contradicted by current law.

[pran]

And even if they hadn't said so: Unless a law was changed in 2007 in a way that contradicted the interpretation given by a previous minute - what should be the reason to invalidate the "old" minute? The logic would rather be that WBFLC considered its minute to just clarify a law text that really did not need any change.

regards Sven

[barmar]

bluejak, on Oct 28 2009, 08:17 PM, said:

barmar, on Oct 28 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

It's normal (required, in fact) to show one's cards when claiming.

Oh, yes? Where, pray, does it say this?

Hmm, it doesn't. Did it say it in the old version of the Laws? Or maybe I was just reversing the sense of the law that says facing your cards constitutes a claim (unless it was clearly not your intent).

But it seems like it should generally be necessary. How can the opponents tell whether a claim is valid without seeing what cards you have left? Sometimes it's not necessary, as when claiming "dummy is high" and it's clear from earlier play that you can't have any higher cards in your hand. But most of the time the opponents will need to see your hand to decide whether to acquiesce or contest the claim.

[lamford]

barmar, on Oct 31 2009, 05:50 PM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 28 2009, 08:17 PM, said:

barmar, on Oct 28 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

It's normal (required, in fact) to show one's cards when claiming.

Oh, yes? Where, pray, does it say this?

Hmm, it doesn't. Did it say it in the old version of the Laws? Or maybe I was just reversing the sense of the law that says facing your cards constitutes a claim (unless it was clearly not your intent).

Indeed, the laws only allow the unplayed cards to be inspected by the defender to settle a claim of a revoke, or the number of tricks won or lost.

However, the defender does not need to acquiesce in the claim, and the director may, but does not appear to be obliged to, require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table. It is not clear to me how he can possibly rule on the claim unless he does so.

I think Law 66D is very poorly drafted, and the first sentence should just have a period, as blackshoe might suggest that Jefferson would put, after inspected. I can think of other occasions when the defenders may wish to inspect the played and unplayed cards, for example to see whether a psyche has been fielded or to see if a hand differs from the explanation they were given when they might need to establish whether there was MI or a misbid.

The remainder of 66D relating to mixing the cards and handling one's own cards seems non-controversial.

[blackshoe]

Players don't need to see an opponent's hand to see if it matches the explanation they were given of his bidding, nor to establish whether there was MI or a misbid. That is the TD's job.

I don't see any real problem with 66D, but perhaps that's because I haven't come up with a circumstance not covered by the provisions in the current law which imo should be so covered.

[barmar]

OK, so even though showing your hand is not required when claiming, I still maintain that it's normal. And since play ceases and there can't be any penalty cards after the claim, there's no reason NOT to show your hand.

[bluejak]

The point of this forum is to advise people how to rule, and to explain to players why rulings are made the way they are. So while it may be normal to put your hand down when claiming, that is not really relevant to this forum: the question is: What do you do if you are called to a table by a player who says his opponents has claimed but not shown his hand? Advice to players on how to play seems unnecessary here.

Of course it is normal to show your hand when claiming, but it is not legally required until the TD requires it.

Incidentally, if I am claiming some but not all of the remaining tricks in defence then I show my hand to declarer only.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on Nov 1 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Players don't need to see an opponent's hand to see if it matches the explanation they were given of his bidding, nor to establish whether there was MI or a misbid. That is the TD's job.

I would agree that the decision is made by the TD, but how would a player have "substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information", and therefore why would he "summon the Director when
play ends", if his right to see his opponent's hand only extends to settling a claim of a revoke or settling tricks won or lost.

If, for example, the declarer concedes the remainder after, say, winning the first seven tricks, the opponent would have no such right. It is true that they can still gain redress when seeing hand records (if available) during the correction period, but these are not always available. So I cannot agree that the Laws should deny any player the right to see his opponent's hand after play has ceased.

[pran]

lamford, on Nov 3 2009, 12:59 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Nov 1 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Players don't need to see an opponent's hand to see if it matches the explanation they were given of his bidding, nor to establish whether there was MI or a misbid. That is the TD's job.

I would agree that the decision is made by the TD, but how would a player have "substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information", and therefore why would he "summon the Director when
play ends", if his right to see his opponent's hand only extends to settling a claim of a revoke or settling tricks won or lost.

If, for example, the declarer concedes the remainder after, say, winning the first seven tricks, the opponent would have no such right. It is true that they can still gain redress when seeing hand records (if available) during the correction period, but these are not always available. So I cannot agree that the Laws should deny any player the right to see his opponent's hand after play has ceased.

Exactly which law allows an opponent to deny me having seen all his 13 cards before they eventually are restored to the board?

The reason why I want to see them is immaterial. My own curiosity should be sufficient. And frankly, if an opponent tried to hide his cards this way I would be even more eager to see what on earth he didn't want exposed. His foul play?

Sven

[blackshoe]

Which laws allows you to demand to see them?

[Sadie3]

We'd be sitting at a table for a long time if my opponent made a claim and didn't let me see his cards.,

[pran]

blackshoe, on Nov 3 2009, 05:57 AM, said:

Which laws allows you to demand to see them?

66, 68C and 70.

Although L70B3 says: The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table I shall consider it a serious error by the Director if he refuses to have cards faced at the request from an opponent. By refusing the Director will easily bring himself under suspicion of supporting foul play.

regards Sven

[bluejak]

When an opponent makes a claim you do one of two things. Either you agree to it or you call the TD. If he makes a claim without showing his hand and you do not agree to it of course you do not sit around like a lemon waiting for spring: you call the TD if you are unable to accept it.

When discussing matters which are commonplace and something unusual happens we can do one of three things:

• Say "It is commonplace so it will not happen", or
  
• Say "It is commonplace so I shall pretend the Laws say that we do the norm even if they do not", or
  
• Say "We shall rule according to the Laws: let us find out what the Laws say"

I think that answers that suggest we follow the first two are fairly unhelpful.



We follow the Laws. This includes when we might consider the Laws poor. To do otherwise is not sensible - and to advise readers of this forum to do so is not good. I am excluding cases where an authority have told us to do otherwise: that is different.

If you ask to see a player's cards he shows them to you 99 times out of 100. So, let us not worry about the 99 times out of 100, shall we? In the other time, if a player wishes to see them, he summons the TD. Ok, perhaps he does not, but our advice to TDs is useless in cases where he is not called! So, you, the TD, are summoned, and a player says "I want to see his cards and he will not let me". What do you do as a TD?

Well, what you do not do is invent a Law which does not exist. No-one can stop you seeing the cards. So, if the request is reasonable, you ask the player to put his cards face up on teh table. If the request is unreasonable you do not, and explain why not.

• Law 66 says the cards may be inspected for certain purposes, not generally, so it is the TD's decision under this Law whether they should be faced.
  
• Law 68C makes no mention whatever of showing the player's cards.
  
• Law 70B1 gives the TD the right to have cards put face up on the table. He does not have to if he thinks it unnecessary or unsuitable.

As for accusing the TD of something if he does not require this, that is silly: TDs take decisions for all sorts of reasons, and we look at them here: to say that an action is suspicious without knowing the situation is wrong.

[jeremy69]

If a player wants to claim, typically in order to save time, then it is absurd not to show the cards to the opponents and make whatever statement he considers appropriate. If someone claims against me and puts his cards away, shows them only to my partner, waves them in the air for 0.5 of a millisecond I will ask to see them properly. Only rarely, against me, has someone refused or been reluctant and, yes, you might have to call the director in such circumstances but it really is poor behaviour to claim and then be reluctant to show you opponents the cards.
I certainly take more time to see some complicated positions than some other players and I want to see the cards even if the claim is only deficient in 1-2% of cases.
If someone ask to see your cards for other reasons such as wanting to know where the SQ is then you can refuse although personally I would just tell or show them if they asked pleasantly.
The only time I would decline is if an opponent started to lecture me on how I had bid and wanted to see my hand to check if I had psyched or otherwise deviated.