[shevek]

New Laws
I make one of my usual shoddy claims, tabling my cards, saying "They're all good"

West suggests that play should continue. We all shrug and agree.
Can I pick up my cards? 68D does not say.

[blackshoe]

It doesn't say you can't, either.

[Vampyr]

 shevek, on 2017-June-01, 18:50, said:

New Laws
I make one of my usual shoddy claims, tabling my cards, saying "They're all good"

West suggests that play should continue. We all shrug and agree.
Can I pick up my cards? 68D does not say.

But of course you know never to agree. It can never be in your favour to do so.

[shevek]

 Vampyr, on 2017-June-01, 21:06, said:

But of course you know never to agree. It can never be in your favour to do so.

Is that right?
The prior claim is now void, so surely I can start finessing. It's the defenders who should avoid playing on.
Also, my particular defenders may put up sub-standard defence, even if they have seen my cards.

Some years ago, an opponent played 6♠, finding QJxx behind AKT9x in a 5-4 fit.
He cashed ♠A and conceded one off. My partner said "play on". (We didn't know any better)
Declarer stumbled into the trump endplay for +1430.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2017-June-01, 19:42, said:

It doesn't say you can't, either.

No, but it says that Laws 16 and 50 do not apply. I take this aa an (implicit) indication that (your) faced cards must remain faced.

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2017-June-01, 23:26, said:

No, but it says that Laws 16 and 50 do not apply. I take this aa an (implicit) indication that (your) faced cards must remain faced.

I'm not sure why that would lead you to that conclusion. And what of those who have not (yet) faced their cards?

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2017-June-02, 01:03, said:

I'm not sure why that would lead you to that conclusion. And what of those who have not (yet) faced their cards?

The reference to Law 50 is meaningless unless faced cards shall remain faced.

There is no requirement on players (other than the one making a claim or a concession) to face their cards.

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2017-June-02, 01:32, said:

The reference to Law 50 is meaningless unless faced cards shall remain faced.

Not so, since we are told it does not apply, and were it to apply it would apply (differently) to faced cards and unfaced cards.

[Vampyr]

 shevek, on 2017-June-01, 22:22, said:

Is that right?
The prior claim is now void, so surely I can start finessing. It's the defenders who should avoid playing on.
Also, my particular defenders may put up sub-standard defence, even if they have seen my cards.

OK? I was under the impression that by "shoddy" you meant that your claim statement was inadequate, not that your claim was incorrect.

But suppose the claim were correct. Then it is only you who have something to lose. Playing against a Belgian side...

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2017-June-02, 02:28, said:

Not so, since we are told it does not apply, and were it to apply it would apply (differently) to faced cards and unfaced cards.

How could Law 50 ever apply to unfaced cards that never became penalty cards?

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2017-June-02, 02:55, said:

How could Law 50 ever apply to unfaced cards that never became penalty cards?

It doesn't apply! That's the point! How you can get from there to saying that you have to leave your cards on the table if you happen to have faced them is not obvious to me.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Gordon. "Law 50 does not apply" does not imply that faced cards must remain faced.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2017-June-02, 08:15, said:

I agree with Gordon. "Law 50 does not apply" does not imply that faced cards must remain faced.

Then what purpose does the reference to Law 50 in Law 68 serve?

Sure there must be some reason why they put that in?

[barmar]

I think the reference to Law 50 is just to indicate that the exposed cards are not to be treated as penalty cards. Since there are no penalty cards for declarer, this would only be relevant when a defender claims.

And the reference to Law 16 means that the faced cards are not UI to partner. If declarer agrees to play on, he should know that he's effectively allowing the non-claiming defender to play double dummy. But so is declarer -- the only player who doesn't know all the cards is the claimer.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2017-June-02, 11:07, said:

I think the reference to Law 50 is just to indicate that the exposed cards are not to be treated as penalty cards. Since there are no penalty cards for declarer, this would only be relevant when a defender claims. [...]

(or concedes).

I think that this is already obvious from

Law 49 said:

[...] but see Law  68 when a defender has made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in  progress, and see Law 68B2 when partner objects to a defender’s concession.

 

[weejonnie]

Law 50 (not applying) would also apply if a defender says "Don't I get a trick with my Ace of Spades"

[RMB1]

 weejonnie, on 2017-June-02, 15:26, said:

Law 50 (not applying) would also apply if a defender says "Don't I get a trick with my Ace of Spades"

Whereas Law 16 [not applying] would apply if a defender says "Don't I get a trick with a spade"