[mikegill]

Does anybody know if there is a rule concerning whether or not you are allowed to view your opponents' cards after the round you are playing is over? Do you have to ask their permission, or is this just considered good etiquette? I looked through the ACBL rulebook briefly and couldn't find any mention of this. I only ask because I had an opponent (who may, in fact, be the most irritating bridge player on the planet) practically rip the cards out of my hand when I tried to look at her hand after a matchpoint round, saying I had to ask her permission. Of course when I asked, trying to be all diplomatic and such, she said no. I was rather annoyed at this, but I didn't know the rules so I didn't want to call a director.

[cherdano]

I think you are not allowed to touch opponent's cards.

[awm]

Yes, you have to ask to see opponents cards. Here's a funny story about this...

We had the auction 1♣-Pass-1♥-2♥. My partner was the 2♥ bidder.

I alerted 2♥ (this is playing face-to-face with no screens, so bidder's partner alerts). The conversation ensuing was something like:

Opponent: "What is the 2♥ bid?"
Me: "It's natural; he has a good heart suit."
Opponent: "How strong is it?"
Me: "It's a normal 2-level overcall, we haven't really discussed it."
Opponent: "How many points does it show?"
Me: "I don't know, probably ten or more."

The auction continued with opponents bidding to 3NT and me doubling the final contract. Partner lead a heart but the layout of the spots was very fortunate for the opponents and they ended up in 3NT doubled making. At the end of the hand, a furious declarer commented:

Declarer: "He didn't have ten points!"
Me: "Yes he did."
Declarer: "I want to see his hand!"
My partner (annoyed over the -750 result): "No, you may not see my hand!!!"

At this point I tried to defuse the situation by pointing out exactly which ten points partner did, in fact, possess, and somehow managed to avoid the director passing out ZT penalties (to either side). Declarer never got to look at partner's hand.

[skjaeran]

Law 7B2, 2nd sentence: "No player shall touch any cards other than his own (but declarer may play dummy’s cards in accordance with Law 45) during or after play except by permission of the Director."

So, even if you ask the player, touching his/her cards is still not allowed - you need the TD's permission.

[bid_em_up]

awm, on Mar 29 2007, 02:11 PM, said:

Yes, you have to ask to see opponents cards. Here's a funny story about this...

We had the auction 1♣-Pass-1♥-2♥. My partner was the 2♥ bidder.

I alerted 2♥ (this is playing face-to-face with no screens, so bidder's partner alerts). The conversation ensuing was something like:

Opponent: "What is the 2♥ bid?"
Me: "It's natural; he has a good heart suit."
Opponent: "How strong is it?"
Me: "It's a normal 2-level overcall, we haven't really discussed it."
Opponent: "How many points does it show?"
Me: "I don't know, probably ten or more."

The auction continued with opponents bidding to 3NT and me doubling the final contract. Partner lead a heart but the layout of the spots was very fortunate for the opponents and they ended up in 3NT doubled making. At the end of the hand, a furious declarer commented:

Declarer: "He didn't have ten points!"
Me: "Yes he did."
Declarer: "I want to see his hand!"
My partner (annoyed over the -750 result): "No, you may not see my hand!!!"

At this point I tried to defuse the situation by pointing out exactly which ten points partner did, in fact, possess, and somehow managed to avoid the director passing out ZT penalties (to either side). Declarer never got to look at partner's hand.

Ummm, lets be a little more specific.

You are supposed to ask as a courtesy, there is no law requiring this one way or another. This courtesy is almost universally granted.

If I have a valid reason to want to see your hand (i.e. I think you revoked and I want to see how many spades you had) and you say no, I will call the director, explain the problem, and then either I or the director will look at the hand to establish this point.

If I just wanted to see your hand and you said no, I will just mark you down as jerk because I can always look at either the hand records after the game, or come back and find the board and look at it then. (And how do you know that declarer did not do this.....you only know that they did not get to see the hand at that time).

In both cases, I will be able to see your hand eventually, so you may as well allow me to so when the question is asked.

EDIT: The post above is correct. Law 7B2 does say exactly that (which I was unaware of). But it only says that another player is not allowed to HANDLE your cards, not that you are not allowed to see them.

[inquiry]

I think that Law 66D can handle this situation adequately for you.

Law 66 is entitled "Inspection of tricks" and Section D deals with this issue after the conclusion of play of the hand. Section D states...

Quote

66 D. After conclusion of play

After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a claim or a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or lost, but no player should handle cards other than his won. If, after such a claim has beeen made, a player mixes his cards in such a manner that the director can no longer ascertain the facts, the Director shall rule in favor of the other side.

Thus, all you need do is question the number of tricks won, or that a revoke may have occured, and the played cards have to be re-exposed. I have never done this for this purpose. I have never heard of someone refusing to show their cards but I guess it happens. On the other hand, after a claim by the opponents, I always show my remaining cards in case they wonder about a possible revoke, by laying them face up. Justin posted a hand on which there was a claim accepted with a potential revoke. If the fellow pocketed his cards without exposing them, that would be bad form imho. And if he did revoke, when he tabled his hand, justin would have seen teh club in that hand that day (if a revoke had occcured) or only one club left in his RHO cards... when he tabled his.

[skjaeran]

bid_em_up, on Mar 29 2007, 09:55 PM, said:

Ummm, lets be a little more specific.

You are supposed to ask as a courtesy, there is no law requiring this one way or another. This courtesy is almost universally granted.

If I have a valid reason to want to see your hand (i.e. I think you revoked and I want to see how many spades you had) and you say no, I will call the director, explain the problem, and then either I or the director will look at the hand to establish this point.

If I just wanted to see your hand and you said no, I will just mark you down as jerk because I can always look at either the hand records after the game, or come back and find the board and look at it then. (And how do you know that declarer did not do this.....you only know that they did not get to see the hand at that time).

In both cases, I will be able to see your hand eventually, so you may as well allow me to so when the question is asked.

If asked, I'll generally show my hand.

Exceptions might be made if:
- The player asking is really a jerk.
- Opps are playing slowly and we might be in time trouble.

My previous reply was just for making clear the "legal" side of the issue.
And as Ben said - you'll always get to see the hand if you need to.

[mikegill]

Yes I don't normally forcibly looking at other players' cards. I was actually just trying to be polite, since she was busy talking to her partner at the time and I didn't want to interrupt. I'm not sure what (if any) of the rules we're discussing apply to after the round is over and there is no more bridge to be played. Law 66D seems to apply only to directly after the play is finished. Law 7B2 seems to suggest that this is always illegal - although clearly that law is violated so frequently as to not be enforced.
This was a hand on which I had made a claim to save time, but I wanted to know if I had been given a trick on the lead or not. I do like to have some idea of how I am doing at matchpoints - clearly seeing an opponents' cards is not an unfair advantage, since if I had played it out I would have seen them all. Claiming is good for the game, since it saves time, but if I can be disallowed from viewing my opponents' hands, then I might not want to claim so that I can see whether I got a good score or not. It seems like you should just be allowed to do this after the round if there is time, since there really is no logical reason an opponent could want you to not do it (other than to be pedantic and/or annoying).

[pclayton]

There are certain situations where it is proper to look at an opponent's hand, but its good form to ask permission.

A few cases I can think of:

1. You suspected your opponent may have revoked, but a claim or concession may have obscured their hand.

2. You may have been misinformed during the auction, and a claim / concession may have made an opponents hand unclear.

If a player refuses to let you look at his hand, I would mention why I wanted to. If he still refused, I wouldn't hesitate to call the director.

If you just wanted to look at their hand to try to analyze your play post-mortem, and your opponent refuses, I wouldn't press the issue.

By the way, I have no idea if or where this is covered in the rules.

[mycroft]

I have refused to let another player see my cards. For the same reasons I refused, I won't play with that CHO any more.

I really don't like people who whip out my hand after it's put away, partner or opponent.

I almost always will show them if they ask, but I control the cards.

There is a bridge reason behind this law, not just a courtesy one - and the one that says that a member of each side, or the TD, must be at the table to look at cards. It only happens once in 1000 times, but one switch of E/S cards, or N/S cards, at round 4 of 13, is enough to cause enough of a headache for the TD for him to be *very touchy* about it. Especially if it happens in a "scored across the field" event.

Michael.

[FrancesHinden]

I won't let someone else take my hand out of the board for the reasons mycroft says - in case it gets misboarded and then I'll be blamed. If someone asks I'll usually show them or tell them what I had.

Quote

I had an opponent (who may, in fact, be the most irritating bridge player on the planet)

That's wildly improbable. I get to play the most irritating bridge player on the planet more frequently than I'd like, and I don't think we even play in the same country.

On a slight side note, some advice on how to be popular at the bridge table:

If someone irritating asks to look at your partner's hand, and he/she is unwilling, you can always win the exchange by telling them exactly what was in partner's hand. Preferably in a condenscending tone of voice, implying "you've just played the hand and you _still_ don't know what someone held?"

Even better, when an unpleasant dummy asks declarer at the end of the hand something like "how many points did you have" and declarer looks confused for an instant, jump is as a defender and tell them the answer.

[nickf]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 31 2007, 04:39 AM, said:

That's wildly improbable.  I get to play the most irritating bridge player on the planet more frequently than I'd like

Double.

nickf
sydney

[blackshoe]

mikegill, on Mar 30 2007, 11:22 AM, said:

Law 7B2 seems to suggest that this is always illegal - although clearly that law is violated so frequently as to not be enforced.

If Law 7B2 is violated where I am directing, and I find out about it, I will certainly tell the players what the law says, and tell them not to violate it again. If the violation causes another problem (e.g., a fouled board), the player responsible will get a procedural penalty from me.

The expectation (or not) of being able to look at an opponent's hand later should have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not you claim.

[blackshoe]

pclayton, on Mar 30 2007, 12:34 PM, said:

There are certain situations where it is proper to look at an opponent's hand, but its good form to ask permission.

A few cases I can think of:

1. You suspected your opponent may have revoked, but a claim or concession may have obscured their hand.

2. You may have been misinformed during the auction, and a claim / concession may have made an opponents hand unclear.

In both these cases, the proper procedure is to call the director and let him sort it out. In case 1, you need to call him before the opponent in question mixes his cards.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on Mar 30 2007, 05:42 PM, said:

pclayton, on Mar 30 2007, 12:34 PM, said:

There are certain situations where it is proper to look at an opponent's hand, but its good form to ask permission.

A few cases I can think of:

1. You suspected your opponent may have revoked, but a claim or concession may have obscured their hand.

2. You may have been misinformed during the auction, and a claim / concession may have made an opponents hand unclear.

In both these cases, the proper procedure is to call the director and let him sort it out. In case 1, you need to call him before the opponent in question mixes his cards.

That is not entirely true. You must call the TD when attention has been drawn to an irregularity. In these cases, there is only a suspicion of an irregularity.

There is nothing wrong with asking an opponent to see his cards, him showing you them, you concluding that nothing is wrong and going on with the next hand.

Rik

[JoAnneM]

At the 2006 Dallas NABC our opponents had left the table and I took my LHO cards from the last hand out of the pocket to look at them. She came flying back to the table from who knows where yelling, "Director! Director!", and then yelling at me " YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!" I was so startled I dropped the whole hand on the floor.

The Director came and told me I was a very bad girl and might have to go home.

Sheesh.

[Trinidad]

JoAnneM, on Apr 14 2007, 06:33 PM, said:

At the 2006 Dallas NABC our opponents had left the table and I took my LHO cards from the last hand out of the pocket to look at them.  She came flying back to the table from who knows where yelling, "Director! Director!", and then yelling at me " YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!"  I was so startled I dropped the whole hand on the floor.

The Director came and told me I was a very bad girl and might have to go home.

Sheesh.

Hi JoAnne,

The incident was blown out of proportion. Your opponent's reaction could have been a lot calmer, more polite, ..., etc. And the director might have told her that too.

However, it is clearly against the rules to take an opponent's cards out of the slot. To do so without the opponents present is an even worse infraction. Your opponent was absolutely right to react to that. After all, if you would have dropped a card / put a card upside down or make somekind of other error with it, she would have been the one to get the penalty for it. (And at an NABC she would have definitely gotten a penalty. Who knows, maybe she had gotten one already?!)

Therefore, stay a way from an opponent's cards. If you have a reason to ask for them (check for a revoke, possible use of unauthorized information, ...) ask them to show your cards to you.

At an NABC you do not have any other reason to look at another hand. After the session you will get hand records. Then you will see all hands.

Finally, what would I do if I would see someone take my cards out of the pocket while I was walking away from the table? I would probably retake my seat, show my opponent my hand, and ask a nearby director to come to explain the rules. It hasn't happened to me yet.

I realize it looks a lot like your opponent's reaction except for the yelling. This may be an important difference.

Greetings,

Rik

[mycroft]

JoAnneM, on Apr 14 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

At the 2006 Dallas NABC our opponents had left the table and I took my LHO cards from the last hand out of the pocket to look at them.  She came flying back to the table from who knows where yelling, "Director! Director!", and then yelling at me " YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!"  I was so startled I dropped the whole hand on the floor.

The Director came and told me I was a very bad girl and might have to go home.

Sheesh.

And, apart from the yelling, they were all very right to do what they did.

I repeat: It doesn't happen often, but when one person pulls out two hands at a table, *sometimes*, she puts them back in the wrong order, or with one card switched. Even if you were only pulling out one hand, you could have dropped a card, or put one in the wrong slot, or turned one face up, or put it back sorted (thus telling the next to play that there was something interesting about it) or unsorted (and your opponents are English, and always sort their hands after playing, again; "this hand is interesting"). And the hassle that results, especially when the session is scored across multiple sections, is incredible; totally out of proportion with the innocent mistake.

As such, fouling a board tends to be penalized if it is at all possible to find out who did it.

Your opponents could very easily have been penalized if it was found that the board was fouled at their table; convincing everyone to remove that penalty - as they *weren't there at the time* - would be possible, but again cause much more hassle than necessary. And if this happened to them before, or they had been the cause of this happening before and got the lecture, I can see them being rather legalistic about it all.

You were a bad girl, and you shouldn't do it again. It turned out not to be a problem, but like other laws that are in the book that only cause problems, when violated, one time in a hundred (lead face down, stop card procedure, calling the TD when a revoke is corrected are three I can think of without trying hard), when it does go wrong, it goes very wrong.

In addition, some people are very protective of their cards. They have a right to be, after all - until the boards get passed, they're *theirs*, and they are responsible for them. I don't get it myself, but I have several things I get twitchy about that others don't understand the problem. Who am I to complain?

Michael.