[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2016-October-14, 07:38, said:

Surely not.

Phil's point is that there is under the current wording a legal difference between facing a hand to accept a claim and facing a hand for another purpose (such as in the process of contesting it) in the same way as there is a difference between leading a card and facing it in any other way.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2016-October-14, 00:58, said:

That law has two stated purposes: to check whether a revoke has occurred and to check on the number of tricks taken by each side.

After re-reading the law in question (66D) I have to agree that it allows the defenders to inspect each other's hands in search of tricks they might take in view of declarer's claim. It even seems to imply that the director need not be called. Not yet, anyway. Once they decide to contest the claim, they need to call the TD.

weejonnie, on 2016-October-14, 06:51, said:

I assume you mean 63AC

3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way.

However I can only interpret "orally or by facing his hand or in any other way" in terms of "makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks". The law would surely read

"When a member of the offending side faces his hand or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or in any other way."

pran, on 2016-October-14, 07:38, said:

Surely not.

Law 63A3 is about making or accepting a claim or concession, not about facing his hand.

"Facing his hand is one of several alternative ways listed in which a player can make or accept a claim or concession.

Literally separating "faces his hand" from the rest of the paragraph can only create legal confusion.

I think weejonnie was suggesting that if the lawmakers intended that if a defender faces his hand he has accepted the claim willy-nilly, the law would have been worded differently than it is, in the manner weejonnie suggests. The way it is actually worded, if the defender is facing his hand for a purpose other than accepting the claim, he has not accepted it.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-14, 08:30, said:

Phil's point is that there is under the current wording a legal difference between facing a hand to accept a claim and facing a hand for another purpose (such as in the process of contesting it) in the same way as there is a difference between leading a card and facing it in any other way.

Indeed.

A revoke becomes established:
3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or
concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way

is not the same as
A revoke becomes established:
3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or
concession of tricks orally or in any other way, or if he faces his hand.

If a player accepts a claim, ia any way, then the revoke is established. Facing his hand is not necessarily making or accepting a claim. I think the summary by gordontd, as I would expect, is correct.

[barmar]

If that's the intent, then it's basically saying "makes or agrees to a claim in any way", and the elaboration is totally redundant. We have other laws that say how someone makes or agrees to a claim, repeating some of them here is unnecessary.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2016-October-15, 12:54, said:

If that's the intent, then it's basically saying "makes or agrees to a claim in any way", and the elaboration is totally redundant. We have other laws that say how someone makes or agrees to a claim, repeating some of them here is unnecessary.

There are also other laws that list examples of actions that qualify. Such lists can easily be argued as unnecessary but are nonetheless included as an aid to directors. Presumably that is also the case here.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-15, 14:00, said:

There are also other laws that list examples of actions that qualify. Such lists can easily be argued as unnecessary but are nonetheless included as an aid to directors. Presumably that is also the case here.

Yes, I agree with Zel. Many of the laws have verbosity for the sake of emphasis.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-15, 14:00, said:

There are also other laws that list examples of actions that qualify. Such lists can easily be argued as unnecessary but are nonetheless included as an aid to directors. Presumably that is also the case here.

Usually these lists help understand the intent of the law -- they list several examples that help to delineate the category. But just two examples followed by "or any other way" is much more open-ended.