Penalty Cards

[InTime]

Declarer to play with 2 cards remaining, one winner one loser.

Hand on left places 2 cards exposed on the table one a winner one loser , before declarer plays.

No statement of claim or concession is made by defender.

Declarer calls director and asks for ruling.

Are those 2 cards major penalty cards and if so can declarer direct defender to play either one if he can not follow suit to next trick?

Regards

[blackshoe]

A player claims when he faces his cards, unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim. Since he said nothing, the caveat does not apply — this is a claim. So there are no penalty cards.

 

The information you provided is incomplete. If there is a normal (within the meaning of the law) line of play by which defender loses two tricks, then he loses two tricks. Otherwise, apparently, he gets one and declarer gets one.

[wyman]

If defender tables his hand, it's a claim (Law 68A), as blackshoe says.

 

For my own edification (had to look this up: Law 50D), in general with 2 or more penalty cards, all become major penalty cards, and declarer may select (from among legal options) the penalty card to be played at subsequent tricks.

[bluejak]

It is true that if a player has more than one penalty card, they are all major. However, when a player claims, as here, there are no penalty cards.

 

Players do not get to play cards after a claim either for themselves or for anyone else. The TD decides how many tricks are made after a claim if it is disputed.

[InTime]

A player claims when he faces his cards, unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim. Since he said nothing, the caveat does not apply — this is a claim. So there are no penalty cards.

 

The information you provided is incomplete. If there is a normal (within the meaning of the law) line of play by which defender loses two tricks, then he loses two tricks. Otherwise, apparently, he gets one and declarer gets one.

 

This is very interesting. So, what you are saying is that if a defender is unsure which card to pitch, he tables his cards and the tournament director will come and sort it out for him?

Regards

[iviehoff]

So, what you are saying is that if a defender is unsure which card to pitch, he tables his cards and the tournament director will come and sort it out for him?

Regards

The laws of bridge do indeed mean that you have no necessity to carry on playing the hand at any point, even trick 1. You can just claim without specifying an order of play, and the poor director will have to come along and decide how it finishes. But his decision will be pretty much as disadvantageously as possible for you, short of weird deliberate misere plays. And if he does form the view that you claimed capriciously, he will no doubt rule that you have violated the proprieties.

[mycroft]

This is very interesting. So, what you are saying is that if a defender is unsure which card to pitch, he tables his cards and the tournament director will come and sort it out for him?

Regards

Yep. But the player probably won't like how the TD "sorts it out"...read the law on contested claims, and in particular the footnote defining "normal".

[nige1]

The laws of bridge do indeed mean that you have no necessity to carry on playing the hand at any point, even trick 1. You can just claim without specifying an order of play, and the poor director will have to come along and decide how it finishes. But his decision will be pretty much as disadvantageously as possible for you, short of weird deliberate misere plays. And if he does form the view that you claimed capriciously, he will no doubt rule that you have violated the proprieties.

In practice, players often claim without a claim-statement. If you have doubts about some claims during a match, played at home, then you may have problem, unless you deem that your concerns justify telephone-rulings. Does anybody know of a case where a director ruled that a claim "violated the proprieties".

[campboy]

In practice, players often claim without a claim-statement. If you have doubts about some claims during a match, played at home, then you may have problem, unless you deem that your concerns justify telephone-rulings. Does anybody know of a case where a director ruled that a claim "violated the proprieties".

It's not the lack of a statement (I think) that he is objecting to, it's the idea of claiming because you don't know how to play the hand or how many tricks you can take. I'm pretty sure that would violate laws 74A2 and 74B1, if not others.

[blackshoe]

It's not the lack of a statement (I think) that he is objecting to, it's the idea of claiming because you don't know how to play the hand or how many tricks you can take. I'm pretty sure that would violate laws 74A2 and 74B1, if not others.

 

Do people actually do that? Seems highly unlikely to me.

[nige1]

It's not the lack of a statement (I think) that he is objecting to, it's the idea of claiming because you don't know how to play the hand or how many tricks you can take. I'm pretty sure that would violate laws 74A2 and 74B1, if not others.

Do people actually do that? Seems highly unlikely to me.

Players often claim without a statement. It saves time and It seems to be a highly effective ploy. Unless you have been on the Director's Mind-Reading Course, however, it is hard to know what else motivates such claimers.

[blackshoe]

I wasn't talking about claiming without a statement — I'm well aware of that. I'm just surprised that anyone would think that players are claiming for the reasons stated. Of course, if there are as many cheats out there as some posters here seem to think, I'm probably wrong. :blink:

[pran]

It's not the lack of a statement (I think) that he is objecting to, it's the idea of claiming because you don't know how to play the hand or how many tricks you can take. I'm pretty sure that would violate laws 74A2 and 74B1, if not others.

 

Do people actually do that? Seems highly unlikely to me.

 

I have experienced players claiming in situations where they believe (hopefully) that their claim will work, but they are too exhausted after hours and hours of bridge to work it out completely for themselves.

 

The other year I kibitzed the last board in the Norwegian championship final. We (kibitzers) knew that this board actually decided the whole match, and I believe that during the last tricks I counted four (next to irrational mis-)plays from each side that transferred the victory from one team to the other or back again. Luckily nobody tried to claim, because the director would have had some job to decide what lines of play should be excluded due to being irrational?

[paulg]

Players often claim without a statement. It saves time and It seems to be a highly effective ploy. Unless you have been on the Director's Mind-Reading Course, however, it is hard to know what else motivates such claimers.

Probably because 90% of claims are blindingly obvious. And 95+% of claims are considered to be blindingly obvious by the claimant. I don't think I've ever seen anyone try it as a ploy in real life, though I've had my suspicions at some BBO tables.

[campboy]

Do people actually do that? Seems highly unlikely to me.

Of course they don't. Ivan was talking about this hypothetical case, though, not just claims without a statement.

 

Incidentally, it is rare that someone claims without saying anything unless they are obviously claiming all the tricks. Even stating a number of tricks should make it clear that the player wasn't just messing about.

[RMB1]

... though I've had my suspicions at some BBO tables.

 

It seems rife in the main bridge club. People claim the rest hoping that opponents will accept. Someone claimed against me when trump ace was out and at another table they avoided an inevitable club loser by claiming (the rest) with Axx opposite K10x, and mirror distribution.

[nige1]

It seems rife in the main bridge club. People claim the rest hoping that opponents will accept. Someone claimed against me when trump ace was out and at another table they avoided an inevitable club loser by claiming (the rest) with Axx opposite K10x, and mirror distribution.

• On-line, on BBO, declarer's faulty claims almost always operate in defenders' favour. It is easy for defenders to reject declarer's claim. Usually declarer has just made a mistake and reclaims for the correct number of tricks. Otherwise, defenders play on, double dummy. Usually this still saves time :)
• At face-to-face Bridge, faulty claims are equally common but more successful. Some face-to-face declarers get annoyed if you ask them to leave their cards face-up, long enough for you to examine the claim. The more arrogant declarers, simply return their hands to the slot, without showing them. Disputing face-to-face claims involves hassle and wastes time.

[iviehoff]

Do people actually do that? Seems highly unlikely to me.

Of course they don't. But I was commenting on a question where InTime was thinking the claim laws meant that you didn't have to think for yourself, because if you just claimed without a statement, the director would come along and assume that you would get it right. I was disabusing him of this notion, as Campboy recognised.