[lamford]

bluejak, on Jan 22 2010, 04:10 PM, said:

lamford, on Jan 22 2010, 09:45 PM, said:

mycroft, on Jan 22 2010, 12:08 PM, said:

declarer can chew on his PP as education to show his cards - at least the one that gets him to the board - next time.

I think we established in another thread that, ludicrously, the laws do not require declarer to show his hand when making a claim, nor do they confer the right on the opponents to see them. This power is only available to the TD in the event of a contested claim, and even then he is not obliged to require it - but practice is that he does do so. If South did have an entry to dummy, he would not be committing an infraction, other than the potential one that bluejak suggests.

Do we care?

we should, if we intend the PP to educate the declarer to show his cards, when he is not required to do so.

[bluejak]

I am going to fine declarer for taking a clearly misleading action. I do not care whether he is required to show his cards in the general case, and I think it irrelevant to this case. If a declarer does not show his cards out of casualness, that is one thing - though I think it is sometimes rude - but if he does not show his cards where it can mislead, that is totally different. So, for the purposes of this particular problem, I do not care, and I do not think anyone else should care whether declarer is required to show his cards with a normal claim.

If the Laws do not require him to show his cards in general, then I can give him a PP for inconveniencing other contestants, or I can give him a DP for upsetting other contestants. Whether I should do the latter is for another thread.



We have had a number of threads recently where someone changes the situation from the original post, then gives the answer. It seems unhelpful, and it is certainly unnecessary: within reason, there is no limit to the number of threads any individual may start, so if anyone wishes to discuss a different matter, please start a new thread.

Should we do anything about a claimer in a general case who does not show his hand? That is a good question, and if anyone wants to discuss it, please start a new thread.



On Monday I go to Reykjavik, Iceland, and the following weekend to San Remo, Italy [via Gatwick and Nice]. I shall take my computer, of course, but if I have no internet access I shall be missing for two weeks. I am happy to see anyone from this forum in either place. If I do have internet access, anyone who wishes to communicate with me should use my hotmail account [try "b l u e j a k 6 6 6" followed by hotmail and then com and use your intelligence ] or text me.

[lamford]

bluejak, on Jan 23 2010, 08:50 AM, said:

I am going to fine declarer for taking a clearly misleading action. I do not care whether he is required to show his cards in the general case, and I think it irrelevant to this case. If a declarer does not show his cards out of casualness, that is one thing - though I think it is sometimes rude - but if he does not show his cards where it can mislead, that is totally different. So, for the purposes of this particular problem, I do not care, and I do not think anyone else should care whether declarer is required to show his cards with a normal claim.

If the Laws do not require him to show his cards in general, then I can give him a PP for inconveniencing other contestants, or I can give him a DP for upsetting other contestants. Whether I should do the latter is for another thread.



We have had a number of threads recently where someone changes the situation from the original post, then gives the answer. It seems unhelpful, and it is certainly unnecessary: within reason, there is no limit to the number of threads any individual may start, so if anyone wishes to discuss a different matter, please start a new thread.

Should we do anything about a claimer in a general case who does not show his hand? That is a good question, and if anyone wants to discuss it, please start a new thread.



On Monday I go to Reykjavik, Iceland, and the following weekend to San Remo, Italy [via Gatwick and Nice]. I shall take my computer, of course, but if I have no internet access I shall be missing for two weeks. I am happy to see anyone from this forum in either place. If I do have internet access, anyone who wishes to communicate with me should use my hotmail account [try "b l u e j a k 6 6 6" followed by hotmail and then com and use your intelligence ] or text me.

We both agree with action being taken against the declarer. But the OP invited us to indicate which Law was infracted.

I don't think many TDs would use "inconveniences other contestants". That is surely for things like sending the boards in the wrong direction repeatedly, regularly returning late from smoking breaks, sitting at the wrong table, regularly leaving the table when dummy, transposing the E/W hands before returning them to the slots etc etc.

I think your first sentence sums it up for me. The law declarer broke was 73D2, in that his folding of the hand was a gesture which misled and there may well have been a purposeful deviation from correct procedure in that he did not state an order of play, as there was no winning order. If declarer also revoked, then "purposeful" would be proven in my eyes.