[peachy]

pran, on May 6 2010, 01:39 AM, said:

peachy, on May 5 2010, 11:16 PM, said:

Another place where it would be easy to  add a few simple words to the law, that at concession or claim, everyone (or at least the person who conceded or claimed) places his remaining cards face up on the table at the time the claim or concession statement is made.

See Laws 68C and (in particular) 70B3. (These laws apply both to claims and to concessions)

68C is only about claims although the title of L68 is Claim and Concession of Tricks and there is 68A on claims, B on concessions, C on claims, and D on both.

This law or any other law that I could find, do not say whether the opponent (or even partner) has the right to see the remaining cards is in the hand of the player who made a concession. At least I have not found such a law so if there is one, I missed it. 68 and 70 do not cover the original question "opponent's right to see the remaining cards when somebody makes a concession" .

[gordontd]

peachy, on May 6 2010, 07:55 AM, said:

68C is only about claims although the title of L68 is Claim and Concession of Tricks and there is 68A on claims, B on concessions, C on claims, and D on both.

This law or any other law that I could find, do not say whether the opponent (or even partner) has the right to see the remaining cards is in the hand of the player who made a concession.  At least I have not found such a law so if there is one, I missed it.  68 and 70 do not cover the original question "opponent's right to see the remaining cards when somebody makes a concession" .

Quote

L68B1: a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any.

[iviehoff]

jdonn, on May 5 2010, 08:52 PM, said:

iviehoff, on May 5 2010, 11:44 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 5 2010, 05:36 PM, said:

What would be a valid reason for south not to want to show his cards?

(1) He is not required to.
(2) Maybe he made a stupid mistake earlier in the play and just wanted to quietly concede and get on with the next hand, rather than endure some post mortem in which his inadequacies were brought to the fore. But rather than accept the concession with good grace, he thought W was trying to enforce his "right" to a post mortem.

1 is not a valid reason to not WANT to show your cards, it just says you don't HAVE to. 2 I understand a little more but it's still a bad reason. Frankly I think it's just immature and childish for south to not want to show his cards, which of course may be a seperate question from whether it's legal.

OK I interpreted your "want" in a less than literal way.

I suspect he wanted to do it because he was put out by West's behaviour, and because he could. West's response to South's concession was not in perfect accordance with the proprieties: he doesn't have the right to demand to see the cards for unspecified reasons. What he should do is either accept the concession (in which case he has no need to see the cards) or else express any concern he has in the proper way, which is likely to result in him obtaining the clear right to see the cards, in the presence of the director if necessary.

Whether South "should" acceded to a request made by the opposition that is not in strict accordance with their rights, or not requested in the right way, nor possibly not very politely, is a bit tricky. A magnanimous person would forgive that and comply, perhaps. I myself might find myself saying "well that's not really the right way to ask, but of course you may see them." A gamesman might rub in their lack of correctness.

I recall another hand. It was the final hand of the round; we had some time to spare; and the interest in the hand lay in my opponents cards. My opponents returned the cards to the board. I made eye contact with one of my opponents while making a small hand gesture, and the look I received back I took as permission to remove her cards from the board to look at them. Her partner told me in no uncertain terms that I had no right to do that without permission, and told me to put them back. I apologised carefully, asked explicitly, and was told "no". After that, the opponents then removed their own cards from the board and proceeded to have their own private post mortem in front of us, while carefully making sure we could not see their cards. The first part of that was correct, if lacking in magnanimousness: it taught me always to be very explicit and correct about such things, to avoid misunderstandings and unpleasantness. The rest of it was outrageously discourteous, and left me thinking "what horrible people". One might ask, why should the want to do that? Perhaps because they could.

[Free]

Imo the claim has not been accepted. "ok thanks but ..." isn't accepting.

The play may be over after the claim, but declarer has the right to verify if this claim is correct or not. He can refuse the claim and call the TD to set things straight, in which case they'll have to show them their cards.

[TMorris]

I know of a situation in a local league match where the opponents conceded the rest (declarer was notionally down one). They were asked to show their cards and eventually did so (one of them begrudgingly). It turn out that one of the defenders had "revoked" by ruffing one of declarers winners whilst having one (possibly two I can't quite remember) small cards in the suit led in his hand at the end so was happy to concede the rest for one off.

One player at my local club often in my view takes advantage of her partners hesitations and makes overcalls on complete rubbish. The only way I was told that I could deal with this is to ask to see her hand to see if she had her bid (at the end of play) and if she refused to show me then call the director who would ensure that it was shown.

Given the above I now always ask to see the remaining cards in any case where I am at all unsure.

[jeremy69]

And if I want to see the cards to establish the location of one card so I can judge the likelihood of a swing is that good and sufficient reason?

[peachy]

gordontd, on May 6 2010, 02:14 AM, said:

peachy, on May 6 2010, 07:55 AM, said:

68C is only about claims although the title of L68 is Claim and Concession of Tricks and there is 68A on claims, B on concessions, C on claims, and D on both.

This law or any other law that I could find, do not say whether the opponent (or even partner) has the right to see the remaining cards is in the hand of the player who made a concession.  At least I have not found such a law so if there is one, I missed it.  68 and 70 do not cover the original question "opponent's right to see the remaining cards when somebody makes a concession" .

Quote

L68B1: a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any.

Interesting. So there is really no "concession" and a concession is just part of a claim, is that correct? Perhaps for future we might just discuss and write in the law only about CLAIMS then?

Anyway, back to OP question which AFAIK has not been answered. I do not see the laws say anywhere (and again, I might have missed it) that claimer needs to show his cards or that opponent has right to see them.

[iviehoff]

As I understand it, I think it has been made quite consistent in the latest version of the laws that a claim of all the tricks is not a concession, and a concession of all the tricks is not a claim. But anything in between is both a claim and a concession.

Some parts of the law only refer to concessions or to claims, not both. L71 only applies to concessions, and that is OK because it is not applicable to a claim of all the tricks. Parts of L70 only apply to claims, but that is OK because in relation to a concession of all the tricks L71 would apply instead. Seemingly both L70 and L71 apply to a claim/concession of not all the tricks

The bit that is curious is L 68 B 2, which apply only to concessions, but in fact could have been applied also to claims for all the tricks. L 68 B 2 only relates to defensive concessions. This is the mad law that says that if you object to your partner's defensive concession, play restarts rather than the claim being adjudicated (or L71 being applied). The person writing L 68 B 2 seemingly thought that a defensive partner would only want to object to a concession of too many tricks. But in fact if your partner makes a faulty claim of all the tricks, you may be better off objecting and playing it out rather than having it adjudicated. So why should this law not apply to any claim or concession? I'm not unduly worried, though, because it is a law of exceedingly rare application, and so mad most people aren't even aware of it.

[pran]

peachy, on May 6 2010, 05:14 PM, said:

Anyway, back to OP question which AFAIK has not been answered. I do not see the laws say anywhere (and again, I might have missed it) that claimer needs to show his cards or that opponent has right to see them.

If you want to be technical then let us be technical all the way:

From Law 66D: After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a claim . . . . . of the number of tricks won or lost; . . . .

According to this a player always has the right to have all cards faced for inspection after play ceases in order to ascertain that the correct number of tricks won will be registered. (And a player cannot avoid such inspection by for instance conceding all thirteen tricks, the "correct" number of tricks won could be one or more, rather than zero.)

[bluejak]

iviehoff, on May 5 2010, 03:05 PM, said:

When someone concedes all the tricks, the only reason you need to see their cards, other than nosiness, is to check whether they are concealing an earlier irregularity.

What is wrong with nosiness as a reason?

Plus it is not the only reason. You might want to know what will happen in the other room, for example: you might want to know about the opponents' style for future boards: and so on.

jdonn, on May 5 2010, 05:36 PM, said:

What would be a valid reason for south not to want to show his cards?

Bloody-mindedness?

iviehoff, on May 5 2010, 08:07 PM, said:

In fact, as I think about it, my usual method of conceding the remainder of the tricks is to place the rest of my cards face down on the table saying "they are all yours now".  Opponents rarely if ever ask to look at them, except after agreeing the concession, score etc, and then as clearly expressed interest in the overall hand, if there is sufficient time, etc.  Saying "OK but I want to look at them" does not seem normal to me.

I don't see that it matters whether it is normal, just whether it reasonable. A player who refuses seems to me to have very low ethical standards and certainly is in breach of Law 74A2.

[dburn]

bluejak, on May 14 2010, 03:01 PM, said:

You might want to know what will happen in the other room, for example: you might want to know about the opponents' style for future boards: and so on.

The auction proceeds "pass - pass - pass - pass". West wants to see South's cards - perhaps in order to determine what might happen in the other room, perhaps in order to determine North-South's style for future boards.

Should South grant this request? If he does not, should a Director summoned by West compel South to reveal his hand? Show your working, with particular reference to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge or to anything else that you (mistakenly) think you know.

[Vampyr]

Maybe you'd have more takers if you weren't quite so insulting?

[dburn]

Vampyr, on May 15 2010, 01:34 AM, said:

Maybe you'd have more takers if you weren't quite so insulting?

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Maybe you'd have more takers if you weren't quite so insulting?

Pots & kettles come to mind

[Vampyr]

How thoughtful of you, Jeremy, to weigh in with an opinion without putting anyone to the trouble of requesting it.

[campboy]

Ok, I'll have a go. As far as I can see, the only law which gives you the right to see an opponent's cards is law 66D, which begins "after play ceases". Law 22A states that in the event of a passout "the hands are returned to the board without play". Since play does not begin, it does not cease, and so I do not believe I have the right to see an opponent's cards following a passout, even if I am unsure that neither side took any tricks or that no-one revoked.

[blackshoe]

Let's keep it friendly, folks.

[dburn]

blackshoe, on May 15 2010, 09:32 PM, said:

Let's keep it friendly, folks.

Sorry - that was my fault. Apologies for intemperate language.

[jeremy69]

Quote

How thoughtful of you, Jeremy, to weigh in with an opinion without putting anyone to the trouble of requesting it.

Pots & kettles come to mind.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on May 16 2010, 03:32 AM, said:

Let's keep it friendly, folks.