[dwar0123]

Can the declarer face all their cards while declining to give a line of play. Intending the defense to either concede or play out the hand normally with the defense doing it in full view of declarer's hand.

This came up recently when a defender went into a long tank while on lead and I faced my cards. The line of play was quite different and somewhat convoluted depending on which card the defender played. I didn't want to declare a line of play because I might stumble over the explanation despite it being fairly clear in my head.

It was moot as the defenders did just concede, but I was wondering what would happen if they didn't and didn't want to continue with the play.

[ArtK78]

Of course declarer can face his cards. He should probably state something like "I am not claiming, but here is my hand." He can play the whole hand with his cards face up if he likes.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 68A: Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim — for example, if declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn, Law 54, not this law will apply).

In this case, when you faced your cards, you claimed.

Quote

Law 68D: After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3).

It is not legal to play on after a claim.

Quote

Law 68C: A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

Quote

Introduction to the Laws: Established usage has been retained in regard to … “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)…

You should provide a line of play statement. Declining to do so is illegal. So no, you cannot legally do what you did. If they didn't concede, and did want to continue the play, that's illegal. If it happened anyway:

Quote

Law 70D3: In accordance with Law 68D, play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim, this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The Director may accept it as evidence of the players’ probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim.

If they did not concede, and asked for a ruling on the claim:

Quote

Law 70D1: The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful.

Since you didn't state a line of play, the director will rule on the basis of the least successful normal line of play.

[billw55]

dwar0123, on 2012-October-22, 14:18, said:

The line of play was quite different and somewhat convoluted depending on which card the defender played. I didn't want to declare a line of play because I might stumble over the explanation despite it being fairly clear in my head.

Sounds like an excellent reason to not claim.

[dwar0123]

billw55, on 2012-October-22, 14:55, said:

Sounds like an excellent reason to not claim.

Well, that was the question, I wasn't trying to claim I was merely trying to assist the defense in speeding up their play.

[quiddity]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-22, 14:33, said:

In this case, when you faced your cards, you claimed.

On the other hand, Law 48 says that declarer cannot be penalized for exposing a card and that if he faces his cards he "may" be deemed as having made a claim or concession. The wording seems silly - if declarer can expose any card why can't he expose all of them? If he says "I am not claiming or conceding", how can he be deemed as having made a claim or concession?

[blackshoe]

I seem to remember some of our English colleagues suggesting that declarer might show his hand to one defender only (here, presumably the one on lead) and that is not a claim.

In the case at hand, had he said "I am not claiming or conceding" when he faced his hand (which, btw, he did not do, on the evidence we have) I would ask him what he was doing.

[quiddity]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-22, 15:21, said:

In the case at hand, had he said "I am not claiming or conceding" when he faced his hand (which, btw, he did not do, on the evidence we have) I would ask him what he was doing.

The OP says "face his cards while declining to state a line of play". I take this to mean that he specifically indicated that he was not claiming or conceding. This is different from facing his cards while saying nothing; I guess I can see a danger there that defenders might assume a claim was being made and might give away something about their hands as a result.

As for what he was doing, maybe he was trying to speed up play. Maybe he felt sorry for torturing his opponents over a meaningless decision. Maybe his wrist was tired. Maybe he just enjoys letting his opponents play double-dummy. He cannot be penalized for exposing his cards, and as long as he makes it clear that he isn't claiming it doesn't seem to make a difference what he was doing.

[quiddity]

I guess I was looking at an old set of ACBL rules; the 2008 revised rules are clearer:

Rule 48B, part 2:
When declarer faces his cards at any time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)...

[jeffford76]

dwar0123, on 2012-October-22, 14:18, said:

Can the declarer face all their cards while declining to give a line of play. Intending the defense to either concede or play out the hand normally with the defense doing it in full view of declarer's hand.

Yes, you can do this. You should say that you're not claiming though.

[blackshoe]

quiddity, on 2012-October-22, 15:38, said:

The OP says "face his cards while declining to state a line of play". I take this to mean that he specifically indicated that he was not claiming or conceding.

He said "declining to state a line of play", so I took him to mean he was declining to state a line of play.

[blackshoe]

quiddity, on 2012-October-22, 15:48, said:

I guess I was looking at an old set of ACBL rules; the 2008 revised rules are clearer:

Rule 48B, part 2:
When declarer faces his cards at any time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)...

You left out "and Law 68 then applies".

[blackshoe]

jeffford76, on 2012-October-22, 16:33, said:

Yes, you can do this. You should say that you're not claiming though.

More "you can do this if you say that you're not claiming". Otherwise, it's a claim. Why? Because a lot of people do this when they do intend to claim, so "demonstrably did not intend to claim" can't apply if he says nothing (or says "i'm not going to make a line of play statement", although I don't think it likely anyone would say that).

[barmar]

Most of the time when declarer doesn't state a line of play, it's because the line is incredibly obvious or makes no difference. At least 90% of my claims are like that -- I just say something like "You get the high trump" or "my hand is good", and everyone can see that this is true.

But it sounds like this declarer didn't even do that. He didn't say anything about how many tricks he expected to win/lose. To avoid confusion, he certainly should have said something about why he was exposing his cards. Sometimes declarers will expose their cards with the meaning that all their cards are good, expecting the other players to recognize this without even such a simple statement, and it's easy to understand why this situation would be interpreted as such a claim. The law specifically gives him an out if he "demonstrably didn't intend to claim", and the simple statement "I'm not claiming" would meet that requirement.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-22, 20:21, said:

(or says "i'm not going to make a line of play statement", although I don't think it likely anyone would say that).

Well I have heard from a friend of mine about an incident where his (very experienced) opponent faced his cards saying "I'm not going to insult your intelligence by stating a line"

[iviehoff]

barmar, on 2012-October-23, 09:47, said:

The law specifically gives him an out if he "demonstrably didn't intend to claim", and the simple statement "I'm not claiming" would meet that requirement.

Some people try to have it both ways, in the sense that they are really trying to claim while trying to avoid strict compliance with their own duties. So I wouldn't always take the statement "I'm not claiming" at face value.

If it does turn out there are still choices to be made, and you might gather information from the opponents' reaction to your behaviour, I'll be looking carefully out for any damage to the opponents.

[quiddity]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-22, 20:15, said:

He said "declining to state a line of play", so I took him to mean he was declining to state a line of play.

If declarer says something like "I'm not stating a line; I'm just showing my hand to speed up play" while facing his hand, I think it should be sufficient.

[blackshoe]

quiddity, on 2012-October-23, 12:09, said:

If declarer says something like "I'm not stating a line; I'm just showing my hand to speed up play" while facing his hand, I think it should be sufficient.

Perhaps, but we have no evidence that's what happened here.

[gnasher]

campboy, on 2012-October-23, 09:59, said:

Well I have heard from a friend of mine about an incident where his (very experienced) opponent faced his cards saying "I'm not going to insult your intelligence by stating a line"

I hate this sort of behaviour, almost as much as I hate it when someone claims without showing his hand. Why should I be expected to waste my time and energy on judging whether they know what they're doing?

[mycroft]

Yeah, this almost always means "I'm claiming, but once when I did it and there was a line I missed, I got a bad result that I Would Never Have Got if I had played it out, because I'm Better Than the TDs. So I'll let you concede - then it's *your* fault if we're slow - or if I missed a line, I might be able to work it out myself." Another category of the "I never claim because I once got a bad board" type.

I will admit that in the OPs case, where the claim statement would take a long time, it might be helpful. But you can just wait until they work out what is their best shot and then claim on that line. I may have done it once or twice. I certainly will show my hand once we're boardlocked to show that there's no guess or whatever - but that *is* a claim :-)