[Codo]

In between all the billions of hands we all have played so far- did the theoretical possibility Zel talked about ever happened at the table?

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-12, 02:59, said:

On what grounds? Which law forbids a player from showing his entire hand to one of his opponents?

No laws forbids it. Law 23 relates to irregularities, not just to infractions. An irregularity is "A deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player."

Having said that, Law 23 also uses the word "offender". Hmm.

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2013-March-12, 04:51, said:

No laws forbids it. Law 23 relates to irregularities, not just to infractions. An irregularity is "A deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player."

Having said that, Law 23 also uses the word "offender". Hmm.

So, is it a "deviation from correct procedure" to show your hand to one of the opponents? What is the procedure that one deviates from when one shows his hand to one of the opponents?

It may be unusual, and in most cases tactically not smart to show your hand, but I don't see how it deviates from correct procedure.

And if it would be, I know some players who would continuously unknowingly deviate from that procedure by failing to keep their hand "to their chest".

Rik

[WellSpyder]

I once had a defender say to me in a serious competition when I was declaring "I'll show you my hand if you show me yours". He suspected (rightly!) that I was in a silly contract, partner having passed a 4♦ bid that I intended as forcing, with the result that a) they were never beating the contract and b) the number of tricks made weren't very relevant anyway. Was that a claim?? (It certainly didn't strike me as a very helpful comment, at the time...)

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-12, 06:28, said:

So, is it a "deviation from correct procedure" to show your hand to one of the opponents?

Yes, it is. The introduction to the laws tells us that "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure", and that the word 'does' in the Laws "establishes correct procedure".

Quote

What is the procedure that one deviates from when one shows his hand to one of the opponents?

The procedure defined in Laws 44 ("Sequence and procedure of play"), 45, 65, 66, 68 etc. None of these laws says "Declarer shows his hand to a defender in order to speed up play." Therefore this is not part of correct procedure.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2013-March-11, 13:15, said:

No, mainly my problem is that when people do this to me, usually they have some silly idea that they can't claim except when they're on lead, or they can't claim unless they've got the rest.

So what's the problem with that? Are you offended because people have misconceptions about the rules?

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2013-March-12, 08:36, said:

So what's the problem with that? Are you offended because people have misconceptions about the rules?

No, of course not. When did I say I was offended?

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-12, 02:59, said:

On what grounds? Which law forbids a player from showing his entire hand to one of his opponents?

Rik

No law expressly forbids it. No law expressly allows it. It is a departure from correct procedure, an irregularity. The grounds for application of Law 23 would, I presume, be that declarer could have known that this irregularity might damage the opponents.

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2013-March-12, 08:29, said:

Yes, it is. The introduction to the laws tells us that "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure", and that the word 'does' in the Laws "establishes correct procedure".


The procedure defined in Laws 44 ("Sequence and procedure of play"), 45, 65, 66, 68 etc. None of these laws says "Declarer shows his hand to a defender in order to speed up play." Therefore this is not part of correct procedure.

That reasoning doesn't hold water. It reminds me of A few good men (where the whitness is asked where a "code red" is defined in the soldier's handbook).

None of these laws says that a player does breathe. So if one does breathe, one is deviating from correct procedure, and, hence, breathing is an irregularity?

In fact, these laws don't even say that a player is supposed to keep his cards to himself, so if a player does keep his cards to himself, that would be as much of an irregularity as showing the cards- following your reasoning. Phew, lucky that your reasoning is flawed.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Rik, I'm sorry, but I think it's your reasoning that's flawed.

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-12, 09:06, said:

That reasoning doesn't hold water. It reminds me of A few good men (where the witness is asked where a "code red" is defined in the soldier's handbook).

Good analogy. But, since people are nitpicking here: it was the Marine outline for recruit training --and neither it nor the Gitmo SOP explained where the mess hall was located either.

Gnasher could use the same analogy for his point. It indeed would be an irregularity for a Marine to starve because the books didn't tell him where the mess hall was.

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2013-March-12, 09:06, said:

That reasoning doesn't hold water. It reminds me of A few good men (where the whitness is asked where a "code red" is defined in the soldier's handbook).

None of these laws says that a player does breathe. So if one does breathe, one is deviating from correct procedure, and, hence, breathing is an irregularity?

In fact, these laws don't even say that a player is supposed to keep his cards to himself, so if a player does keep his cards to himself, that would be as much of an irregularity as showing the cards- following your reasoning. Phew, lucky that your reasoning is flawed.

Rik

I didn't say that the laws were perfectly worded - you know I think they're not. But it's obvious that the intention in writing the laws is to define correct procedure for playing the game, without covering matters that are not a part of or relevant to the game. It would be a very long rule book if it included procedures such as "Each player, as necessary, contracts his diaphragm so as to decrease the pressure in his lungs ...."

[Trinidad]

My point is that the laws define correct procedure for the issues that are described in that Law. In other words, if you do the things that a particular law deals with in a way different from what is described, you are violating correct procedure. As an example, the laws tell us to bid and play in clockwise rotation. If we deviate from that, we are violating correct procedure.

They do not define correct (or incorrect) procedure on issues... that they don't say anything about.

There is neither a correct nor incorrect procedure for breathing or the way we hold our cards. There is only an incorrect way to do things if the correct way is described in the laws (or if there is a law that specifically forbids it, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion). That makes sense, since you can not deviate from a procedure ... if there is no procedure to deviate from.

There is no correct procedure for the way to hold your cards, therefore, holding the cards in such a way that an opponent sees them is not a deviation from correct procedure, since there is no correct procedure to deviate from.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Are you sure about that Rik? Law 74C5 has an interesting footnote:

Quote

* See Law 73D2 when a player may have shown his cards intentionally.

and 73D2 says

Quote

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

so it does seem like the lawmakers have envisaged the possibility of declarer gaining an advantage by showing their cards intentionally. Also, that they consider showing cards intentionally as a "purposeful deviation from correct procedure."

[lalldonn]

Lol at misleading opponents by showing them your hand. That is so incredibly harmful to them to see your hand! Now you get to be assured they won't lead the suit solving your 2-way finesse, instead they will lead another suit and stop signalling as well.

[gnasher]

lalldonn, on 2013-March-12, 10:58, said:

Lol at misleading opponents by showing them your hand. That is so incredibly harmful to them to see your hand! Now you get to be assured they won't lead the suit solving your 2-way finesse, instead they will lead another suit and stop signalling as well.

I think you may have misunderstood. Nobody suggested that the action in the original post might mislead someone.

The rule that Zel quoted is intended to cover something like flashing declarer a singleton queen when you actually have KQ doubleton. However, it also tells us something else. When we consider these two facts together:

If you show your cards intentionally, Law 73D2 may apply.
Law 73D2 is about deviations from correct procedure.

they confirm that showing your cards intentionally is a deviation from correct procedure.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-March-12, 12:09

[Trinidad]

Zelandakh, on 2013-March-12, 10:13, said:

Are you sure about that Rik? Law 74C5 has an interesting footnote:

Quote

* See Law 73D2 when a player may have shown his cards intentionally.

and 73D2 says

Quote

Quote
A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

so it does seem like the lawmakers have envisaged the possibility of declarer gaining an advantage by showing their cards intentionally. Also, that they consider showing cards intentionally as a "purposeful deviation from correct procedure."

STOP. You are going to fast. There is nothing that supports your last sentence.

The irregularity here is not "showing the cards". The irregularity is "attempt to mislead (by showing the cards)". The particular case is where a player shows part of his hand intentionally. (Think of a defender who sits behind dummy's ♠AQ and shows declarer ♥74♠3♦KJ4. Declarer finesses in spades and it turns out that the ♠K was behind the AQ anyway, hidden between the invisible clubs.)

So, in fact, the laws acknowledge that a player may show his hand (even intentionally), but he may not do it to mislead an opponent, just as a player is allowed to hesitate or make gestures, but not to mislead the opponents (e.g. hesitating with a singleton or "thinking" whether to cover the jack with a queen that you don't have).

Rik

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2013-March-12, 12:06, said:

When we consider these two facts together:

If you show your cards intentionally, Law 73D2 may apply.
Law 73D2 is about deviations from correct procedure.

they confirm that showing your cards intentionally is a deviation from correct procedure.

Yes, Law 73D2 is about deviations from correct procedure, but that is a half truth (more than half the law book is about deviations from correct procedure). Law 73D2 is about a specific deviation from correct procedure: attempting to mislead an opponent by a remark, gesture,... etc.

The two Laws together say that it is not allowed to show your cards to attempt to mislead an opponent. They do not say that it is not allowed to show your cards. The fact that it is mentioned that a player may show his cards intentionally and that it is only mentioned as an irregularity when he does so in an attempt to mislead the opponents does not at all mean that showing your cards is an irregularity in itself. In fact, it implies very strongly that showing your cards is not an irregularity, just like a hesitation is not an irregularity (only when it is done to attempt to mislead).

Rik

[gnasher]

73D2 doesn't say that misleading the opponents is a deviation from correct procedure.

It gives us this list:
- remark or gesture
- tempo
- manner
- deviation from correct procedure

It tells us that you can't use an item from this list to try to mislead an opponent.

That is, "deviation from correct procedure" is on a par with "remark". It's not a description of "mislead".

[Trinidad]

I think I see what you mean.

You mean:

1) The footnote in 74C5 links "showing your cards intentionally" to 73D2
2) 73D2 lists various illegal ways to mislead an opponent
3) The last item on the list is "deviation from correct procedure"
4) Therefore, showing your cards intentionally is a "deviation from correct procedure".

I agree with you on 1-3, but 4 does not follow. Logic dictates that "showing your cards intentionally" is one of the ways on the list. It doesn't dictate that it must be the last one. To me, it is just a gesture.

And why would I interpret this to mean that "showing your cards intentionally" is a deviation from correct procedure when 72 laws before this one explained in detail what correct procedure and deviations from correct procedure are, with none mentioning whom you should or should not show your cards.

Clearly the lawmakers were aware that a player might show his hand to his opponents (they mentioned it in the footnote of law 74C5). If the lawmakers wanted to outlaw this wouldn't they have simply added a Law 7B4, establishing correct procedure for holding your hand?

Or would they add a footnote to Law 74C5 with a vague link to Law 73D2, containing a list, and hope that everybody will understand that since one of the many items on this list is "deviation from correct procedure" that, therefore, "showing your cards" should be interpreted as "deviation from correct procedure".

And what would they have to do when they want to tell that:
1) You are not allowed to peek into the hand of one of your opponents,
2) If you inadvertently see one or more of your opponents' cards, that is fair game
3) An opponent is not allowed to try to mislead you by showing you part of his and intentionally

without the intent to outlaw showing your cards to an opponent?

I would say that they should word Law 74C5 pretty much like they did, add a footnote about despicable showing your cards, referring to the law about attempting to mislead the opponents by your demeanor (Law 73D2). And, that is what they did.

I think that you are stuck with "The Laws define correct procedure, everything else is deviating from correct procedure." In reality, the laws defined correct procedure for those aspects of the game where they think there is (or should be) one correct procedure (e.g how to lay out dummy). In those areas where they think there should be several possible correct ways, they simply leave it open.

You are allowed to hold your cards in your right hand, left hand, right foot or left foot*, fan them or fold them, put them in your shirt pocket, on the table, or under your cap, show them to the kibs or keep them to yourself, and if you want to, you can show them to your opponents. The lawmakers left it up to the player to decide what he does with his cards.

Rik

*These two may be an infraction of Law 74A2.