claim without stating line...

[jillybean]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=saq2ha92d73cakq32&s=sjt987hkq65d92c84]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     Pass

 Pass  1♣    Pass  1♦

 Pass  2♣    Pass  2♠

 Pass  4♠    Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

H3 H2 HJ HQ

C8 C5 CA C6

CK C7 C4 C9

CQ CT D2 S5

DA D3 D4 D9

DQ D7 D5 S7

SJ SK SA S3

C2 CJ S8 D8

claim all remaining tricks

 

The claim after trick 8 was made without stating a line of play, one defender rejected the claim and

objected to declarer pulling trump. How do you rule?

 

My decision hidden:

 

 

Im using law 70C Contested Claims…

 

1. Failed to mention trump – YES

2 Was probably unaware of trump – NO, I think it was obvious declarer would pull trump

I asked play to continue result 4SS+1

 

 

tyia

jb

[Cascade]

I tend to agree with your hidden decision.

 

However it doesnt hurt to say pulling trump so I would be telling declarer that he should be more careful with his claims. You could easily get a similar example where you were not sure whether declarer was aware of the trump or had in fact miscounted trumps.

 

Declarer should therefore make a statement.

[mrdct]

I agree with parts 1 and 2 of your hidden decision, however the last bit is absolutely wrong and against the laws of bridge. Once a claim is made there should be no further play and any play that does occur after a claim is made is irrelevant.

[vang]

i don't know the laws so well, but agree with decision. it's obvious declarer would pull trump.

[Echognome]

I agree with parts 1 and 2 of your hidden decision, however the last bit is absolutely wrong and against the laws of bridge. Once a claim is made there should be no further play and any play that does occur after a claim is made is irrelevant.

Yes. And I agree as to why that is. However, that's what the bbo software does when a claim is reject. It asks you to carry on. So isn't there a practice issue here?

[jillybean]

I agree with parts 1 and 2 of your hidden decision, however the last bit is absolutely wrong and against the laws of bridge. Once a claim is made there should be no further play and any play that does occur after a claim is made is irrelevant.

Point noted, I was chosing the easiest option for me. :rolleyes:

[Walddk]

Well, Kathryn got the last part wrong, but I'd like to commend her for being very keen on these subjects. She is very interested in this aspect of the game and she puts a lot of effort into it. Therefore, I can safely recommend every tournament she runs!

 

With her at the wheel you (virtually always) know that you will be treated fairly. She takes the time to look it up if she has doubts ... or asks here for future use. How many of the BBO TDs do that?

 

Roland

[Winstonm]

I would rule that whomever objected was a jerk.

 

Another example of someone trying to get something for nothing by rule instead of showing a little class.

 

Winston

[jillybean]

I would rule that whomever objected was a jerk. 

 

Another example of someone trying to get something for nothing by rule instead of showing a little class.

 

Winston

Or someone who misunderstand the rules,, we have so many 'rules' quoted - automatic penalty for no alert, no psyche in position 1, you cant bid again after a pre-empt and so on :rolleyes:

[cherdano]

I would rule that whomever objected was a jerk. 

 

Another example of someone trying to get something for nothing by rule instead of showing a little class.

 

Winston

Or someone who misunderstand the rules,, we have so many 'rules' quoted - automatic penalty for no alert, no psyche in position 1, you cant bid again after a pre-empt and so on :rolleyes:

Yeah, yesterday my opponent instructed me I can't make a takeout double after I passed first time (auction (1D)-P-(1H)-P-(2H)-P-(P)-X). The TD did not know this law, however.

 

Arend

[barmar]

I agree with all the other replies that drawing trumps is obvious. If declarer had played two rounds of trumps there's a possibility that he might not notice that someone had shown out and there was still a trump out that needed to be pulled. But in this case he had only drawn one round, and only the most clueless would forget to draw trumps first.

[jdonn]

You made the right decision (other than making play continue), whoever complained is a first class whiner.

 

Even if the laws specifically said "Any claim when there are any trump outstanding automatically results in a trick to the nonclaiming side", it would still be beyond my comprehension why anyone would want to try to enforce this law and win a trick in that manner.

[kenrexford]

I have no position as to the ruling merits. However, I would note that one of the most frequent bonehead errors at bridge is miscounting trumps and losing a surprise trick there. One of the most common errors in making a claim is in failing to mention pulling an outstanding trump. Objecting to a claim is almost always done by someone who has a trump that has not been pulled. These three events usually occur after a series of plays where both sides are trumping tricks here and there.

 

Thus, I reach a conclusion. The claim in this situation may well be more often than not made by a person who actually did forget about a missing trump, and that person may very well have lost a silly trick by carelessness but for the claim. However, the rules do not address this concern well.

 

Personally, I would support a laws change wherein any claim made with an outstanding trump in the opponents' hand(s) must include at least a statement that "X trumps are out" or something to that effect. If not, then a trick should be forfeit unless the person with the outstanding trump cannot make surprise use of it effectively. In other words, that trump card must be capable of trumping a side suit with no higher trump in the next hand to play capable of beating it. "Inevitable discovery" perhaps.

 

This may be Draconian, but this claim problem recurs too often. Coupled with the reality of missing trumps being a huge cause for errors, I can see the gripe.

[badderzboy]

I believe that there is only 1 trump left out here so declarer may have forgotten ...

 

However how do !Hs split 3-3 or 4-2 in the hand with the spare trump?

 

There is no evidence in his line of play that says he knows about last trump

 

The law book says that in a disputed claim then the result may be affected by a careless or inferior play but not an irrational one ie declarer is allowed some common sense

 

It would be careless to pull another two rounds of Hearts b4 playing another spade but not irrational...so if ♥s 4-2 with 2 in hand with last trump then 10 tricks only

 

 

Sadly I would rule against a player in the club if they made this claim and allow them 10 only if opps can ruff a 3rd heart!

 

Also why did declarer not lead a trump and then claim ?

 

Steve

[kfgauss]

I believe that there is only 1 trump left out here so declarer may have forgotten ...

No, there are two outstanding (the 4 and 6).

 

I agree with the ruling, and probably would even if there were only 1 trump outstanding in a similar situation. I would warn declarer to state "drawing trumps" when claiming in the future lest there be a less sympathetic director or a murkier situation.

 

I will note that if this is on BBO, claiming etiquette seems to be rather different and I at least tend not to state any line when claiming, largely because I mostly play informally with friends. I suppose if I were playing against random opponents in a tournament on BBO I'd probably state my line, though.

 

Andy

[McBruce]

If the defenders have a possible heart ruff, they have a point here: declarer has only played one round of trumps and then gone back to the crossruff. Eventually declarer will have to play hearts. And declarer has had lots of opportunities to pull trumps, or say so in the claim statement. Don't forget, it is the TITLE of Law 70C2 that says "was probably unaware of trump." The actual wording of the Law is "it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand..." Not quite the same.

 

When a claim is made and the defenders see all the cards, they should be able to see immediately whether they can make a trick. If hearts divide and no ruff is possible, as TD you simply say so. If there is a possible heart ruff, I think you need to give the defenders that trick.

 

When a defender with no possible trick complains about not getting a trick in this situation is when you need to explain the rules. For some this is a simple misunderstanding--some other silly person has given them the idea that you automatically get a trick for each trump out when declarer claims. A quick reading of the Law should be sufficient to educate them. (For the uneducatable obtuse, a penalty for repeated infractions of this type after having the rules explained to them, is in order...)

[blackshoe]

Hm. One poster mentioned "online etiquette", saying that it seems to him that, online, people don't seem to state lines of play when claiming. Well, they quite often don't do it in f2f bridge either. Nonetheless, both online and offline, the laws require a line of play be stated. The wording used is "should state a line of play", so failure to do so should rarely draw a procedural penalty (see the Preface to the laws), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't rule some number of tricks to the non-offending side.

 

I don't think it very likely that declarer has forgotten that he only drew one round of trump, but is it "at all likely"? Sure. People forget things like that all the time.

 

There are two trumps out. At claim time declarer has Ax in dummy and T9 in hand. If he plays on hearts, and they break 4-2, he's gonna get ruffed, and he won't be able to overruff. So if the hearts are 4-2, a trump trick to opponents from play on hearts. If the hearts break 4-2 and he tries to pitch his fourth heart on the fifth club, declarer may lose a second ruff as well. For many players it would be careless, but not irrational, to play on clubs at this point, so there's a second trick to defenders.

 

If you let people claim without a line of play statement, and then give them all the tricks they claimed unless the probability they won't get them all is overwhelming, they won't learn to state a line of play. I would rule two tricks to the defense, IAW Law 70.

 

Telling them to play on, unless the software requires they play on (in which case the error is in the software), is clearly director error [Law 68D]. Law 82C now requires an adjusted score, both sides being treated as non-offending. So defenders get their two tricks on their side of the score, and declarer gets them on his side - but it should be made clear the reason for ruling this way is the director error, and if he hadn't said "play on" declarer wouldn't get those tricks.

 

Directors often do things to make their jobs easier, and so they should - so long as those things are not themselves violations of the laws. As Law 82A says "It is the duty of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws." [Emphasis mine]. ;)

 

I've had players (in f2f bridge) ask me to play on, sometimes on very simple claims, because they "can't see how it'll work out". Sorry, but too bad. I'll try to explain it more clearly, but we are not playing it out.

 

IMO, the legal basis for all rulings should be a part of the ruling. It will give the players confidence that you know what you're doing, and will direct the attention of the CTD or appeals committee to the right laws if your ruling is reviewed. At the very least, state which Law(s) you're using.

[jillybean]

If you let people claim without a line of play statement, and then give them all the tricks they claimed unless the probability they won't get them all is overwhelming, they won't learn to state a line of play. I would rule two tricks to the defense, IAW Law 70.

I think the job of a TD is to restore equity when an irregularity has occurred. I do not believe the TD should make decisions in any way related to "teaching players the rules" – ie so that next time they will state a line of play.

 

The question to whether it is at all likely that the declarer has forgotten only one round of trumps has been pulled or not is debatable, a judgement call.

 

Asking for the board to be played out was clearly against the laws.

 

jb

[Winstonm]

If the defenders have a possible heart ruff, they have a point here: declarer has only played one round of trumps and then gone back to the crossruff.  Eventually declarer will have to play hearts.  And declarer has had lots of opportunities to pull trumps, or say so in the claim statement.  Don't forget, it is the TITLE of Law 70C2 that says "was probably unaware of trump."  The actual wording of the Law is "it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand..."  Not quite the same.

 

When a claim is made and the defenders see all the cards, they should be able to see immediately whether they can make a trick.  If hearts divide and no ruff is possible, as TD you simply say so.  If there is a possible heart ruff, I think you need to give the defenders that trick.

I do not direct, but I believe declarer cannot be forced into an unreasonable line of play due to not stating that trumps will be pulled. One the line of play, it seems obvious that declarer knew what he was doing, ruffing out the club suit for a heart pitch and never intended a crossruff. Only 2 spades remain outstanding so declarer "knows" that trumps can be drawn either ending in dummy with the Queen or in hand as the heart Ace is still an entry to the long club.

 

It would be unreasonbale to embark on a cross-ruff, as this line requires a 3-3 heart break (in which case the crossruff is not needed) or the long spade hand to hold the long hearts.

 

It is just as unreasonable to think a declarer so weak as to not know how many trumps there were outstanding would try a crossruff rather than drawing trump and relying on the hearts to break - if he really didn't know the club suit had been set up.

 

The very fact that declarer claimed to me indicates that he was aware of the situation, as a declarer so weak as to not know the spade situation or the club situation would not be in a position to claim.

 

Somewhere in the rules there should be some common sense that overrides rule-itis.

 

Winston

[epeeist]

I found the discussion of the problem with telling the players to play it out interesting, though I had some (mostly practical) concerns. For one thing, the default BBO position (from the help index, "claim" as well as how it works in the software) seems to be that one is entitled to reject claims and play out the hand. And since the non-claiming side sees all four hands after a rejected claim, it's essentially the same as being allowed to consult on the defence.

 

However, if I understand this thread correctly, the opinion is that the TD is not allowed (not supposed to) to tell the players to play on. Thus, if declarer claims and defenders reject the claim, the declarer is entitled to refuse to play on, the TD has to make an adjusted score?

 

How do you deal with (for instance) enough claims each round that the time required for the TD to analyze them exceeds the length of the round, every round? While TD calls relating to all sorts of other problems are also coming in... What about (possibly totally correct and adequate) explanations which are beyond the ability of the TD to analyze in a reasonable period of time? What if the explanation is understood by the defenders and TD but is beyond their skill to analyze? E.g. if someone writes explanations filled with terms like "devil's coup", "smother play", "vienna coup" etc. those might be part of a perfectly defined and adequate claim explanation -- which neither the defenders nor TD will understand without referring to bridge websites or the ACBL encyclopedia.

 

As a player (I've only rarely TD'd on BBO, and not recently), I generally refuse a claim automatically (i.e. without trying to analyze it) and want to play on if either (1) my profile notes indicate that the claiming party has in the past misclaimed (either carelessly or fraudulently) or otherwise behaved in a manner to make their claims untrustworthy; or (2) if analyzing the claim is too complicated (for me) so that it would be much faster to play it out. Am I expected, as a player, to try to analyze the claim and if I can't call the TD to do so? If a player has a claim rejected by the opponents, are they entitled to sit there and refused to play on until the TD analyzes the hand and assigns an adjusted score?

 

As for always requiring claim explanations, is that required when it's totally obvious? When there's one card left in each hand?! When there are two cards left in each hand, two trump in declarer's and none in any other hand? Etc.

[jillybean]

If a player has a claim rejected by the opponents, are they entitled to sit there and refused to play on until the TD analyzes the hand and assigns an adjusted score?

Yes,

Law 68D. Play Ceases

After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or

concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is

acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy

included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or

Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director’s arrival.

 

Generally what happens on BBO is that the director is not called and play continues, I think it would be fair to say the TD is only called if:

 

1. A finesse is required and the defenders know that once a claim is made the declarer is not automatically allowed to take the finesse.

 

2. One side neither plays on or calls the TD.

 

In regards to a claim being made stating "devil's coup", "smother play", "vienna coup" the laws say...

Law68C. Clarification Required for Claim

A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to

the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defence through

which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

 

The TD would be called and follow "Law70 CONTESTED CLAIMS"

How do TD’s deal with these calls under the time constraints? I think we just do our best and if needed go over the decision with the players after the tournament, this type of call is not frequent.

Perhaps if players become aware of the laws calls will increase or players will correctly state a line of play. ;)

 

jb

[paulg]

If a player has a claim rejected by the opponents, are they entitled to sit there and refused to play on until the TD analyzes the hand and assigns an adjusted score?

Yes,

...

jb

In practice there is no requirement for the TD to assign the adjusted score in real time. Once I have established what facts there are, I tell the declarer to claim again and for the defence to accept so that play can commence on the next board.

 

I can then adjust at leisure.

 

Paul

[blackshoe]

I think the job of a TD is to restore equity when an irregularity has occurred.

That turns out not to be the case. The TD's job is to follow the laws. As the Scope of the Laws says "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure".

 

I do not believe the TD should make decisions in any way related to "teaching players the rules" – ie so that next time they will state a line of play.

 

You misunderstood. What I was saying is that the TD should not make a ruling that gives benefit to the OS when the laws require otherwise. That the correct ruling has a "teaching" effect is just gravy. :lol:

 

The question to whether it is at all likely that the declarer has forgotten only one round of trumps has been pulled or not is debatable,  a judgement call.

 

Indeed. I left something out of my ruling. The TD should inform the players of their right to appeal [Law 83].

[blackshoe]

I do not direct, but I believe declarer cannot be forced into an unreasonable line of play due to not stating that trumps will be pulled. 

When a player objects to an opponent's claim, the TD is required to judge whether the claim or the objection is valid. There is no question of "forcing" the claimer into anything.

 

What is unreasonable to one player is not necessarily so to another.

 

The very fact that declarer claimed to me indicates that he was aware of the situation, as a declarer so weak as to not know the spade situation or the club situation would not be in a position to claim.

 

I've seen people do some pretty strange things at the bridge table - including claiming when they shouldn't. Heck, I've done that myself. :D

 

Somewhere in the rules there should be some common sense that overrides rule-itis.

 

TDs are required to use their judgement in many rulings. Sometimes there's disagreement whether we got it right. That's hardly "rule-itis".

 

And, as I believe Will Rogers once said, "common sense... isn't". B)

[blackshoe]

I just looked at the help files someone mentioned up thread. They say "If either defender rejects the claim, it is treated as rejected and play continues with the defenders able to see all the hands."

 

This may be allowed by the software, but it is illegal according to the laws.

 

It may be faster to play it out, but that's not an option under the laws. I believe also that it is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter of the law to reject claims out of hand.