Do I have to show my hand?
Trick won in dummy. Declarer says "dummy is good". It isn't, opposition object.
Opposition can take two tricks if they can see declarer's hand, but only one (unless they're very lucky) if they can't.
Declarer doesn't want to face his hand because he's giving them "an unfair advantage" if he does. According to 68C ("The player making the claim or concession faces his hand.") he has to, but on the principle that the laws seek to allow play to continue as normally as possible, is there any way he can avoid doing so?
This is a thought experiment (based on a similar situation), so yes I know Declarer is already giving info away by not wanting to face his hand, but please ignore that.
Comments
Hi Jeremy
As you say 68 C is pretty clear
"..The player making the claim or concession faces his hand."
This comes before any thing else, including 68 D 'play is suspended'
So I don't think the Claimant has any choice in the matter whatsoever
I see 68 D 2 a and b and as 'either / or' so once the director has been called then we immediately go to Law 70
The non-claimants would be crazy to agree to play on so let's assume that doesn't happen
Law 70: "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer."
I'm probably missing the point you're making (it's been known :) ) but 70 B 2 says
"Next, the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections)."
So the non-claimants may not know they can get two tricks (except they should have been allowed to see claimants hand as above) but the director does and the director then determines the single outcome they will rule as occurring following the rules in 70 D, E, and F
Peter Bushby Suffolk
It's just another faulty claim and defenders get two tricks unless the TD sees how they can reasonably get more. Bear in mind that declarer thinks his own hand is now irrelevant, since "Dummy is good", until proven otherwise.
I don't understand the problem. The defenders have objected to the claim, so they call the TD, who applies Law 70B. The director can require the remaining cards to be faced and then rules. Once the claim is found to be faulty, the defence will get what tricks they could.
Actually I guess declarer's best option is to get defenders to agree to play on.
Interestingly the requirement for claimer to face their hand comes when the claim is made - i.e. before the option to play on is available. Do the laws intend that it is "played on" with claimers hand faced? Surely not (and that's not what happens in practise).
Note that if the defenders agree to play on at declarer's request, they may still dispute the result and ask for the director's adjudication after the hand is played out. Only if the non-claiming side requests play to continue will the result from play stand.
Declarer can't suggest that defenders play on.
Although the laws are written describing the process of how play may resume after a claim, they really want to wash their hands of what happens. Once the non-claiming side have suggested that play continue and everyone agrees, the laws do not take any further interest. The intention is that the players 'write down' a score at the end of play and director will not interfere with what happened.
That was a subtlety I had missed - thanks Tag (and Robin).
I presume declarer could inform defenders they have the right to request to play on (although I'm against players quoting the law). The twist here is that if the director is called to give a definitive statement of the option, then the option no longer exists.
I take Robins point about the law washing its hands. It's a bit like accepting a COOT or IB - it shouldn't happen but it does so we have to account for it.
I would not look kindly on a declarer who was told (correctly) his claim was invalid and then suggested to the defence that they allow him to play on.
The playing on Law is there to make the following scenario legal:
Declarer: "I've got the rest with a cross-ruff" (or whatever - some not very detailed but eminently correct claim)
Defender: "I don't understand can't we just play it out"
Declarer assesses whether that is quicker or slower than calling the TD, decides it would be quicker, and plays it out.