rejected defenders claim

[bendare]

I was kibbing when following occurred--

 

E-W were in 5D. N-S had taken two tricks. With two tricks left to play North claimed last two tricks for down two. The claim was rejected. West had 1D and 1H left (apparently N had miscounted Ds). West played D and N had to pitch from Aof S and J H. N pitched wrong and contract made.

 

No TD was called, but I thought the situation interesting. Had a TD been called, what would be the proper ruling? It seems I recall in that situation, if opp cannot follow suit, declarer can choose which card opps play? Is that correct or has my memory failed me? (again)

[jillybean]

I don’t know how the laws apply here but if a hand had been played out I would not adjust the result.

[bendare]

Sorry if I did not make my question clear. I meant IF director had been called when the claim was rejected and was asked to rule BEFORE play continued.

[Guest Jlall]

I see your point, basically would the director have forced north to get pseudo squeezed or would this be considered "irrational." Since north had clearly miscounted the hand, causing them to get psuedo squeezed is imo the right ruling, though north would obviously be unhappy. IF and only if no UI had been passed by the time the director had come to the table, it would be reasonable to ask north what he planned to pitch on the trump.

 

In live bridge once, I was in the middle of executing a pseudo squeeze. In the 2 card ending, LHO followed and then simultaneously played her last card, claiming it (the heart king). I had carefully saved my spade 2, and thought RHO with the master SQ and HA (and not a very good player) was very likely to get pseudo squeezed. I was upset with LHO and called the director. He did rule that RHO must get pseudo squeezed depsite her claims "of course I would pitch the heart!" She was very upset with both me and the director. Oh well.

[Flame]

As I see it there is no law for online bridge yet, obviously if this was offline game the director would take action, but imo the online claim is a different mechanizm, it design to work automatically, and therefore i dont believe in adjustments in claims situations. The idea of a law is to create fairness and as long as everybody works by the same law we better use law that fit the online play better.

This has a side effect, sometimes ppl can claim when they arent sure they can make what they claimed, for this resson, i dont accpet claims unless they are good claims, for example if someone claim and i see he is right but only because trumps are 3-2 i will not accept the claim.

[paulg]

In a serious online tournament I would expect the same rules to be used in assessing claims as the offline game - that is, the play stops and, if necessary, the director is called and makes a ruling. I see no reason why the online game should be treated differently. The principal reason for maintaining the same rules is that a rejected claim can provide UI to declarer.

 

In practice there are few serious online tournaments around and in most of the play on BBO continuing after a rejected claim is the practical solution. However in a pay tourney I would expect the TDs to do their job - after all, this is why you are paying.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[paulg]

For reference the WBF did produce a set of Online Laws (PDF) in 2001.

 

The Laws governing claims are largely unchanged from offline play- in particular play ceases upon a claim.

 

The relevance of the Online addendum to the Laws has been questioned given software developments over the past few years, although in my opinion their stance on claims is correct.

 

Paul

[barmar]

It sounds like one of the problems here is that North didn't state his line of play when he claimed.

 

If a TD had been summoned, I would expect him to ask North to state his planned defense to get the remaining tricks. This should reveal the fact that he forgot about the outstanding trump. He then has to determine whether North might discard incorrectly. If there's nothing for North to go on, i.e. it would just be a guess, I think Law 70A applies: any doubtful points should be resolved against the claimer.

[mycroft]

The only difference in a defender's claim is that if partner immediately objects to a concession of at least one trick, there has been no such concession. Note that "2 of the last 3" is a concession of the third. There is UI once partner's hand is known, and unless (for instance) falling for the pseudo can be shown to be irrational, the TD will rule it works, same as any UI case (all of this is in Law 68B).

 

If as in the OP case, the defender claims 'em all, then yep, he'll lose both unless he can show that he's counted out the hand and that pitching the wrong card on the diamond isn't "doubtful".

 

Michael.