gordontd

I had heard the same thing, from someone on the WBF Laws Committee, in the Bridge Laws Mailing List some time ago, but perhaps it was before the current laws which softened the position on things that happen after the claim statement. In any case I'm told there was a relevant high-profile appeal at Lille, including the same WBFLC member on the committee. In that appeal the Director in Charge (DIC) was told by the floor TD that a player had started to make a claim but realised before the end of his statement (without any sort of prompting by other players) that there was a problem with what he was saying, and withdrew his claim. The DIC ruled as a matter of law that no claim had been made. This went to appeal where it was established that in fact there had been a pause after the end of the statement, which may have been what prompted the attempt to withdraw the claim. The AC sent this back to the DIC who ruled that with the new facts the claim had been made. The DIC said to me that it seemed to him that both high-profile teams and the AC seemed to accept his view that a claim has not been made until the statement has been completed (if any statement is being made), but that once the claim statement has been completed, and any pause however small has followed, then the claim cannot be withdrawn. So I don't think it's absolutely the case that you've only got one chance to get it right, although in the Pula case of this thread it's clear that a claim had been made.

Actually, no, I don't, but I was responding to iviehoff's post and I think that's what follows from his argument. In practice I take the view that we should not punish players for poorly expressed claims if we think the claim itself is ok. We are working with L70A, and that can mean that we need to try to find out what was in the claimer's mind, but when we are still in doubt we rule such points against the claimer.

I think you are confusing playing tricks with clear-cut tricks.

Me too (using the concept of "the barrier", which I think is better for explaining than the odd-sounding "reverse"). They always seem to understand it when it's explained to them. And how often do they recognise it when it comes up? Never!

Indeed, so let us discount everything he said after the claim.

It sounds as though he may already have noticed this, unless there was another reason for him wanting to withdraw his claim - like not having enough tricks. Certainly leading low to the Q is not a normal line for a player who knows he is missing the K, and it seems from what we have been told that he would not have done it had he played it out. Now I know that the claim laws do not tell us to rule according to what would have happened had it been played out, but nor do they tell us that declarer is bound by a mis-apprehension that was not part of his claim statement. What was his claim statement? Nothing. Is leading low to the Q a normal line consistent with that? I don't think so.

Actually it's quite widespread for a reverse not to promise extra after a 2/1 response - lots of 2/1 players do exactly that. Of course they aren't then going to be left to play in opener's rebid!

No, they just recognise that beginners have a lot of trouble understanding (and recognising) reverses, so if they don't treat them differently from other suit rebids they gain some advantages at the price of sometimes getting too high on unsuitable hands. In this way they never miss a fit in opener's second suit, and a rebid of opener's first suit absolutely guarantees six cards. Eventually learners will reach the stage where they wonder why they are getting too high on minimum two-suited openers, and when they do they can be told to "lie" on such hands - ie they will understand why reverses & high-reverses should show extra. On several occasions I've seen players who've progressed from ARBC to play in county or national events, with "we don't play reverses" written on their convention card. On one of those occasions the player said that he didn't really understand what it meant, but someone told him to write it on so that the other players wouldn't get annoyed with them. I think it's a method of teaching that has a lot to commend it - and ARBC is far and away the most successful teaching club in the country.

SHOUT!

Presumably you wouldn't take that view if the only reason he realised that his CJ was not the CK (and therefore leading low to the CQ was not a normal play) was by being prompted by his partner?

Presumably he did this unprompted?

The method taught at Andrew Robson's bridge club is that reverses do not promise extra.

Oh yeah, hands where you have AKQ in an unbid suit are just the worst!

Your third bid strikes me as very dangerous, given your partner's level of knowledge & experience.

Which information you wouldn't have been able to use.

Twenty-five? That's an extraordinary number of private replies to get on any subject.

I don't think it's quite reached accepted usage over here yet, though it's increasingly common. However, the question itself "How are you?", asked by unknown shop assistants and waiters, or when being introduced for the first time, seems to be becoming accepted. I have a friend who feigns surprise when asked it, and replies "Oh, are you a doctor?"

That one has been adopted quite widely over here, but I have the impression it's quite deliberate slang rather than being due to any problem distinguishing adjectives from adverbs.

I think that's a bit of an over-statement. In general people in that position claim, rather than play it out. However, when they do play it out and they have an unavoidable loser (as this declarer seemed to think he had), they do sometimes play to lose it first, perhaps for the clarity of making the rest of their hand good.

Nope. He's made a claim and I'll treat it as such.

Who's going to give you that ruling?

They use it in other parts of Scotland too. My aunt who lives near Glasgow (and therefore would be appalled to be thought to be from Edinburgh) says it, and my mother used to until we ridiculed her out of it when we were children.

Is it really so hard for South to wait for East to call before bidding?

Sounds like a terrible idea. It really would be easy to see the shape of the hands of the players who re-order their suits the way they like, to say nothing of the scope for deliberate cheating. And it wouldn't take the same amount of time, since some of the time spent sorting is also used in assessing the value of the hand. The current regulation is fine, as long as it's followed.

I think it would be quite noticeable if a player took a few seconds looking at their hand before starting to sort it. I would suggest most players start to sort before getting sight of the whole hand, and that they start on that a fraction of a second after turning their cards towards them. In that context, a few seconds looking at the whole hand would be a conspicuously long time.