[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2012-December-20, 15:59, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-21, 10:29, said:

Where is this "right to see the cards" enshrined?
[...]

Here:

Law 68 D said:

After any claim or concession, play ceases
[...]

and

Law 66 D said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-21, 10:36, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-21, 11:32, said:

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.

[barmar]

I wonder why no one ever noticed that clause in past discussions of this?

[blackshoe]

It surprises me that Sven thinks 66D applies in claim or concession situations. It looks to me like a law intended to apply after 13 tricks have been played, without a claim or concession, and intended to be superseded by Law 68 et. al. when a claim or concession is made.

[campboy]

It surely is intended to apply even if play ceased after a claim or concession, otherwise why would a law intended to apply only after all 52 cards have been played mention "unplayed cards"?

However, I don't see how it allows defenders to automatically see the cards to check that the claim is valid. It merely allows them to see the cards in order to check that declarer hasn't revoked or to check which tricks he has already won.

[pran]

campboy, on 2012-December-22, 02:24, said:

It surely is intended to apply even if play ceased after a claim or concession, otherwise why would a law intended to apply only after all 52 cards have been played mention "unplayed cards"?

However, I don't see how it allows defenders to automatically see the cards to check that the claim is valid. It merely allows them to see the cards in order to check that declarer hasn't revoked or to check which tricks he has already won.

Law 66D doesn't say already won or lost, and the reference to unplayed cards imply that the purpose is to verify the number of tricks won or lost on the board as a whole. This includes verifying that the claim is valid.

As claim or concession situations are the only situations where play ceases before all 52 cards have been played Law 66D obviously applies then.

[blackshoe]

Hm. How did I miss that?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-22, 06:31, said:

Hm. How did I miss that?

In one of his novels Erle Stanley Gardner lets Perry Mason suggest: Legal astigmatism

Merry Christmas!

Sven

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-December-21, 13:50, said:

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?

Where did I say I didn't "accept" the fact?

My point is that sometimes a player (any player) will misjudge his opponents. No crime in that, even if it "wastes" time.

Five minutes is "a lot" of time only in that it's most of the time allotted to playing a board. In the case in question, iirc, we moved on time, so no time was "wasted", except perhaps time we could have spent socializing with our opponents. I leave out "holding a post mortem" because I don't do that during a session.

[paua]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-22, 12:52, said:

Where did I say I didn't "accept" the fact?

My point is that sometimes a player (any player) will misjudge his opponents. No crime in that, even if it "wastes" time.

Five minutes is "a lot" of time only in that it's most of the time allotted to playing a board. In the case in question, iirc, we moved on time, so no time was "wasted", except perhaps time we could have spent socializing with our opponents. I leave out "holding a post mortem" because I don't do that during a session.

I know a lot of bridge players who would regard arguing about a claim as the social highlight of their evening

[blackshoe]

Good point. In fact, though, there was no argument here: she asked me to play it out, I called the director, the director heard my line of play statement and then explained it to my opponent. Three times.

[nige1]

TFLB L66D said:

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.

pran, on 2012-December-22, 03:44, said:

Law 66D doesn't say already won or lost, and the reference to unplayed cards imply that the purpose is to verify the number of tricks won or lost on the board as a whole. This includes verifying that the claim is valid. As claim or concession situations are the only situations where play ceases before all 52 cards have been played Law 66D obviously applies then.

Another woolly law. The law is clear that unplayed cards may be inspected -- but is unclear whether anybody other than the director may ask them to be faced. Especially after an alleged revoke, it may seem reasonable that anybody should be allowed to see the suspect's hand. Arguably, however, after other claims, only the director can settle a dispute over the number of tricks won or lost. The existence of L70B3 seems to reinforce that interpretation

TFLB, L70B3 said:

Contested claim or concession. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-22, 14:51, said:

Good point. In fact, though, there was no argument here: she asked me to play it out, I called the director, the director heard my line of play statement and then explained it to my opponent. Three times.

99% of the time you can probably judge correctly whether the opponents will understand your claim, and it saves time. Once in a while you misjudge, and it wastes time.

In threads like this, people often mention playing against unknown opponents. How often does this happen? Most bridge play is in clubs and local tournaments, where most players are regulars and know each other. Even when I go to national tournaments, I've been going to them long enough that I recognize a fair number of opponents from previous tournaments. And if you play in bracketed or flighted events, you can usually assume that players have experience comparable to your own.

Yeah, if you go visiting a club out of your normal area, you won't know any of the opponents. You should probably be more careful about making claims that aren't utterly simple. Is there a chance something will seem obvious to you and they won't see it? Yes, nothing is perfect.