[pran]

campboy, on May 16 2010, 02:10 AM, said:

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.

Never overlook Law 74A2 - that law applies also in a passout situation!

[geller]

pran, on May 16 2010, 05:51 PM, said:

campboy, on May 16 2010, 02:10 AM, said:

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.

Never overlook Law 74A2 - that law applies also in a passout situation!

I agree, but might it not be even better for the next version of the Law Book to make this explicit.

[campboy]

I don't see why a civil exchange where one player asks for permission to see an opponent's cards and that opponent politely refuses should fall foul of that law.

[geller]

campboy, on May 16 2010, 06:56 PM, said:

I don't see why a civil exchange where one player asks for permission to see an opponent's cards and that opponent politely refuses should fall foul of that law.

Quote

L74A2
A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

Because refusing the request to show one's hand would cause annoyance on the part of the requester and would interfere with the requester's enjoyment of the game.

[dburn]

Interesting notion. If I ask my opponent to give me a hundred dollars, and he refuses, can I call the Director and ask for a ruling under Law 74A2?

[Ant590]

I can see situations where 4th hand decides to "take a view" and pass a balanced 12 count. However, if partner were to find this out he may go on tilt, and so you would wish to politely decline a request from the opponents to examine your hand.

[gwnn]

74A2 probably would apply against you then? Also asking them to show their hand after a passout? Maybe the poor bugger passed with 14 balanced by accident and it would cause him embarrasment to show his hand to you?

[geller]

dburn, on May 16 2010, 07:41 PM, said:

Interesting notion. If I ask my opponent to give me a hundred dollars, and he refuses, can I call the Director and ask for a ruling under Law 74A2?

Of course you can call the director and ask for a ruling under 74A2. (But you might not be very happy with the outcome. :-) )
-Bob

[blackshoe]

"No player shall touch any cards other than his own" (Law 7B3) is a very strong prohibition. If a player asked, as fairly frequently one does, if I mind whether he takes my hand out of the pocket, I will reply "I'm sorry, I do mind. It's illegal, you see." If said player calls the TD and claims I have violated Law 74A2, I'd expect the TD to tell him to get a life, or words to that effect.

In the more general case where the player simply asks to see my hand, indicating that I should handle the cards, I might still decline, and I would still expect the TD to not rule that I have violated 74A2 in doing so. 74A2 is there to preclude egregious cases. It is not there to give players a weapon against their opponents. As long as the discourse is civil, I would not, as a TD, rule a violation of 74A2 has occurred.

[pran]

I am serious about Law 74A2 and I consider a refusal of a polite request from an opponent to see your hand after a passout to require a reasonable ground in order to be acceptable.

Acceptable reasons include for instance other boards waiting to be played in that round, but definitely not just unwillingness.

Bridge is not Poker where you have to pay to see an opponent's cards.

[blackshoe]

I guess, Sven, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[geller]

pran, on May 17 2010, 05:12 AM, said:

I am serious about Law 74A2 and I consider a refusal of a polite request from an opponent to see your hand after a passout to require a reasonable ground in order to be acceptable.

Acceptable reasons include for instance other boards waiting to be played in that round, but definitely not just unwillingness.

Bridge is not Poker where you have to pay to see an opponent's cards.

blackshoe, on May 17 2010, 05:36 AM, said:

I guess, Sven, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

If two experienced and respected tournament directors can disagree about such a simple and fundamental point, this indicates the existence of a flaw in the Laws of Bridge. Perhaps the WBFLC could resolve this point at its next meeting (in Philadelphia) and could also clarify this point in the next (2017?) edition of the Laws.

[RMB1]

dburn, on May 16 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

Interesting notion. If I ask my opponent to give me a hundred dollars, and he refuses, can I call the Director and ask for a ruling under Law 74A2?

If an opponent doubles you and you go for 1400, is the double an action which "might cause annoyance" or "might interfere with the enjoyment of the game". It has always seemed a clear infringement of Law 74A2.

[dburn]

RMB1, on May 16 2010, 07:15 PM, said:

dburn, on May 16 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

Interesting notion. If I ask my opponent to give me a hundred dollars, and he refuses, can I call the Director and ask for a ruling under Law 74A2?

If an opponent doubles you and you go for 1400, is the double an action which "might cause annoyance" or "might interfere with the enjoyment of the game". It has always seemed a clear infringement of Law 74A2.

Indeed. That is why all doubles today are for takeout.

[pran]

RMB1, on May 17 2010, 01:15 AM, said:

dburn, on May 16 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

Interesting notion. If I ask my opponent to give me a hundred dollars, and he refuses, can I call the Director and ask for a ruling under Law 74A2?

If an opponent doubles you and you go for 1400, is the double an action which "might cause annoyance" or "might interfere with the enjoyment of the game". It has always seemed a clear infringement of Law 74A2.

I did write something about: "require a reasonable ground in order to be acceptable".

Doubling a contract for 1400 has I believe a reasonable (bridge) reason.

But I remember Arild Torp (late Norwegian top player) once told me that in the family where he learned to play Bridge they never doubled because they considered that to be a hostile action

What reasonable bridge reason(s) other than lack of time can exist for refusing to expose one's cards after a passout or end of play?

Embarrassment because of a silly mistake?

[campboy]

What reasonable bridge reason is there for asking to see an opponent's cards after a passout in the first place? Indeed, if there is one then there must also be a reasonable bridge reason for refusing, viz "I wish to avoid you gaining whatever advantage you are hoping to gain from seeing my cards."

I do not personally see why either the request or the refusal, if polite, should fall foul of any reasonable interpretation of 74A2, but even if one of them should it is not clear to me whether that would be the request or the refusal.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on May 14 2010, 09:01 PM, said:

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?

Nosiness ("self-education") is a reason for wanting to see the cards, but I don't think it is a good enough reason to insist on seeing the cards if the opposition are reluctant. You might want to educate yourself about the opponents style, guess the score, etc, but you have no basis in law to insist upon obtaining information for these purposes.

Bloody-mindedness ("saving face") seems to be a valid reason for refusing. But how would you describe a refusal couched in the following terms: "If you don't mind, I'd really rather not have a post mortem on this one, it would be ever so kind of you..."?

If you insist on seeing the cards for no better reason than nosiness, who's being bloody-minded now? It seems to me that if exposing the cards would expose someone to potential ridicule, or risk reopening arguments, then insisting on having the cards exposed seems to me to be the likelier candidate for an offence against L74 than the polite refusal to show them.

[blackshoe]

Around here, where hand records are now the norm, and rounds are shorter than the ACBL recommends (so that we can get more than 24 boards in no more than three hours), I think it unreasonable to insist on seeing someone else's cards in most cases.

[geller]

blackshoe, on May 17 2010, 10:30 PM, said:

Around here, where hand records are now the norm, and rounds are shorter than the ACBL recommends (so that we can get more than 24 boards in no more than three hours), I think it unreasonable to insist on seeing someone else's cards in most cases.

The refusal to show hands in the OP involved a Swiss Team event with shuffled boards (reshuffled after each round) with no hand records.

The case of a passout is a bit different perhaps, especially when there are hand records available after the match. But in the event of a claim or concession with onl y a few tricks left, it takes only a few seconds to look at the remaining cards, so I don't see this as a major objection.

In any event, as Pran has pointed out, bridge is not poker. There is nothing in the Laws that says you can refuse to show your cards, and there is L74A2 to say that you should abide by a reasonable request to show them.

[iviehoff]

geller, on May 17 2010, 02:45 PM, said:

In any event, as Pran has pointed out, bridge is not poker.  There is nothing in the Laws that says you can refuse to show your cards, and there is L74A2 to say that you should abide by a reasonable request to show them.

I find it hard to give L 74A2 that meaning. It actually says:

"A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause
annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with
the enjoyment of the game."

That does not appear to give my opponent a clear right to see my cards.

As to the silence of the laws on my right to refuse to show my cards: well the laws of bridge are silent on many things. I would tend to assume that if it was silent on an obligation then I had no such obligation. If the laws are silent on my right to refuse to accede to a request that someone has no explicit right to demand, then to conclude I must abide by that request seems to me to be quite illogical. I would also point out that L 74A2 is actually couched in terms of actions, and is silent in relation to omissions, though I might allow it should have included omissions.

You refer to "reasonable" requests to see my cards. I think you are conflating two kinds of reasonableness, ie, what is a lawful right and what is merely polite. In the first category, there is the right to inspect cards in certain circumstances clearly set out in L 66, but this does not apply when the reason pure curiosity. A request under Law 66 is clearly reasonable and should be complied with. Then there are requests that are not under Law 66 or any other law. These may be "reasonable" in the sense of "polite", but it seems to me that they can equally "reasonably" be refused as there is no right of enforcement.

Edited for grammar

This post has been edited by iviehoff: 2010-May-17, 10:09