gordontd, on 2016-October-12, 04:22, said:
I wasn't arguing that there is a specific right or requirement for defenders to look at each other's hands before deciding whether or not to accept the claim, but it follows naturally from standard practice and there is no prohibition against it.
"Standard practice" is not necessarily "legal practice". "The laws are designed to define correct procedure," says the introduction, and looking at each other's hands is nowhere so defined. I would argue then that it is not correct procedure. Put another way: I would argue that what the laws do not expressly permit is not permitted, rather than that what the laws do not expressly prohibit is permitted.
gordontd, on 2016-October-12, 04:22, said:
When a hand is finished, it's permitted for players to show their cards to others at the table - indeed some TD's recommend it to avoid breaching Law 7 by touching another player's cards. If looking at your partner's cards leads you think the claim may have been erroneous, you should call the TD immediately and that's just following Law 68D. There's nothing to say that you should call the TD before you doubt the claim and that's a good thing because otherwise we would have a number of pointless TD calls.
I think proper procedure in determining whether a hand is "finished" requires that the score has been agreed and recorded and all four hands returned to the board, in that order.
Quote
Law 79A1: The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have been returned to the board.
As regards Law 7, I would say that if you want to see another player's hand, proper procedure would be to ask him to show it to you.
If declarer makes a proper line of play statement, at some level the defenders ought to be able to follow that line and determine if it's consistent with what they have worked out about the hand. If it is, they should accept the claim. If it's not, they should dispute the claim - even without seeing partner's or indeed declarer's hand. Of course, below that level the defenders will be anywhere from unsure to clueless whether the claim is valid. They should then call the director. No need, IMO, to look at hands. True, it may turn out the claim is valid. I don't think the director call will have been pointless, even then.
gordontd, on 2016-October-12, 04:22, said:
Even if you don't show/look at your partner's cards, it's quite common to ask what they had after you put away your hand, before you start the next board. Once again, this may lead you to doubt the claim and that would be a good time to establish this doubt by calling the director, since agreement has not yet been reached according to the terms of Law 69. I certainly don't think you have to call the TD before asking, between hands, what your partner held and nor do I think it would be helpful if it were required.
Again, what is "quite common" is not necessarily proper procedure. But if a player does that, and does then doubt the claim, yes, he should call the director. Agree that asking should not be required.
gordontd, on 2016-October-12, 07:03, said:
I agree that facing their cards may establish the revoke but won't always. I think it has to be clear that the facing was a form of agreement. I don't agree that it's illegal for them to consider in consultation whether they doubt the claim.
A claim stands or falls on its own merits, not dependent on whether or not the opponents had individually picked up on its flaws.
barmar, on 2016-October-12, 08:52, said:
That's true in abstract. But unless someone picks up on the flaws, how will it be contested so that the TD can be called to rule that it doesn't stand?
gordontd, on 2016-October-12, 09:04, said:
The way some of these posts have gone, the TD would be called for every claim just in case it might be flawed, since the suggestion is that the players can't exchange information to determine that for themselves!
Zelandakh, on 2016-October-12, 09:20, said:
Exactly Gordon. I would contest almost any claim in which declarer refused to show their cards. After all, why refuse unless you have something to hide? And if I think seeing all 4 hands will be helpful in deciding if the claim is valid and the only way to achieve that would be to contest then I would automatically contest every claim as a matter of course. After all, I lose nothing by doing so and can always withdraw the objection later. Perhaps a shame for the TD but it follows naturally from Ed and pran's (unusual) interpretation of the laws.
An ethical player will not refuse to show his hand "because he has something to hide". Thus the assumption that a player who refuses to show his hand has something to hide is an assumption that he is a cheat. Should we really be going there?
If a player claims without stating the order in which he will play his cards, then the defense has every right to contest the claim, and the director should first instruct the claimer on proper procedure, and if the player persists in claiming without making a proper claim statement, the director should penalize him. And before anyone else brings it up, I would suggest that a player who refuses to play in a club where that happens is saying "if I have to play by the rules, I'm not playing!" I don't have much respect for such players. Note that a player need not face his hand when claiming, and against reasonably good opponents, if he makes a proper line of play statement he should not need to face his hand. That said, I think he should face it if he's asked to do so. I would.
If someone were to argue that the law in this area fails to define correct procedure, I would say that argument has some merit. But it's up to the lawmakers to fix that. In the meantime, directors are stuck with the current laws and will have to make their own interpretations. Thus, I suppose, "common practice". But IMO common practice should not be left to "everybody knows…" — the Regulating Authorities should be promulgating whatever interpretation they think is appropriate, while ensuring that the interpretation does not conflict with the law.
Help
Wash my mouth out with carbolic 
