jillybean Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Declarer is in a 2♥ contract, has won 6 tricks, looses trick9 to LHO, faces hand and claims with high Diamond and 3 top trump. No line is stated. RHO says "No, play a diamond partner" LHO has diamond remaining, RHO is void in diamonds and holds a small trump. Eventually the director is called, what should happen now? Is "play a diamond partner" UI,AI? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 It's UI, but that's irrelevant. Play ceases when a claim is made. Now the TD has to decide whether a trick could be lost to RHO's trump by "any normal play" (Law 70C3). That depends on the cards LHO currently holds, and how the play has gone to the point of the claim. It seems likely that a diamond lead now would be classed as "normal", so I would probably award a trick to the defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted January 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Thanks, next time I will be a little wiser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wank Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 play ceases and you talk to partner about the play and it's UI? i call it the post-mortem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Let me rephrase then. It would be UI if play were to continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted January 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Let me rephrase then. It would be UI if play were to continue.This is exactly what they wanted to do, often when a claim is rejected someone will say 'just play on'. After the statement 'lead a diamond partner' and once the director arrivesI assume a claim that they would lead a diamond would be disallowed had it not been a normal lead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 It's UI, but that's irrelevant. Play ceases when a claim is made. Now the TD has to decide whether a trick could be lost to RHO's trump by "any normal play" (Law 70C3). That depends on the cards LHO currently holds, and how the play has gone to the point of the claim. It seems likely that a diamond lead now would be classed as "normal", so I would probably award a trick to the defense.I can't imagine any card from a defender being classified as "not normal" when it comes to settling a disputed claim. I don't think a director has to consider how likely a defender is to find a play. If RHO in the case in hand were to simply say to the director "declarer claimed the remaining tricks, but if my partner leads a diamond, then the defense gets one trick" the director would need to only confirm that LHO has a diamond remaining to lead (and that it results in the defense winning one of the remaining tricks) to award a trick to the defense. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Next, the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections)A statement from RHO to the effect: "If partner (who has the lead) plays a diamond I shall win a trick with my trump" is both a legal objection to the claim and definitely relevant in the situation. (This statement will of course be void if LHO has no diamond to play!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Jilly is right, but so are Tim and Sven. It would be very rare for the TD to rule such a lead "not normal". I would explain to these defenders that once declarer has made a claim, they cannot play on, and in general they should not make comments that look like they're trying to pass information to partner. They should just call the TD and let him deal with it. Part of the TD's "dealing with it" will be asking the defenders for their objection to the claim, and that's the time to say "if partner leads a diamond, I get a ruff". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Sounds like the defender who said "lead a diamond" is used to rubber bridge rules, where telling partner how to find the killing defense is allowed. But since declarer faced his cards when he claimed, not only is a diamond lead normal, it's likely to be obvious if LHO has been keeping count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 With the declarer's hand in view, the only possibilities for another defensive trick are a diamond ruffed by declarer's RHO, or a high trump in that player's hand. So a diamond lead is obvious even if LHO hasn't been keeping count. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 With the declarer's hand in view, the only possibilities for another defensive trick are a diamond ruffed by declarer's RHO, or a high trump in that player's hand. So a diamond lead is obvious even if LHO hasn't been keeping count. :) As I understand it, after declarer claims, play has ceased, and therefore the defenders are entitled to see their partners remaining cards before they assent to a claim. Of course, this is really just a courtesy, as soon as declarers cards are faced each defender can work out what their partner holds. Since they are entitled to see their partners cards they can instantly see if there is a defence to beat the contract. Of course, that is the ideal, I did once claim in a partscore at trick one, and DD said it couldnt be made despite apparently having 8 tricks. After some ten to twenty minutes we realised that if the defenders ducked their winners an appropriate number of times they could effect a squeeze on dummy and remove an entry. Fortunately by this time the correction period had long since passed, and it was implausible that they would find this defence anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 [...]After some ten to twenty minutes we realised that if the defenders ducked their winners an appropriate number of times they could effect a squeeze on dummy and remove an entry. Fortunately by this time the correction period had long since passed, and it was implausible that they would find this defence anyway.If a claim is contested within the correction period the fact that the question is not resolved until after the expiration of the correction period is immaterial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 If a claim is contested within the correction period the fact that the question is not resolved until after the expiration of the correction period is immaterial. The didnt contest obviously, they thoguht it was cold too. Only later in the pub, and with the help of the DD solver, did we spot that it was not in fact cold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 But since declarer faced his cards when he claimed, not only is a diamond lead normal, it's likely to be obvious if LHO has been keeping count.I'd like to counter my original comment. When the TD is deciding what's "normal", I assume he's supposed to imagine potential actions had play continued. And in that case, LHO would not have seen declarer's cards. So even though the defense may be obvious after the claim is made, it could conceivably be difficult to find single dummy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Sounds like the defender who said "lead a diamond" is used to rubber bridge rules, where telling partner how to find the killing defense is allowed. What are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 What are you talking about?It seems clear to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 It seems clear to me.If this was about discussing the defense while the hand is being played, such a player would be banned from any reputable club. And if the game is held privately, I think that his opponents on the hand are justified in refusing to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 It's about how the play will go after a claim. Rubber Law 69, in part: When his claim or concession is not allowed, declarer must play on, leaving his hand face up on the table. At any time, either defender may face his hand for inspection by his partner, and declarer may not impose a penalty for any irregularity committed by a defender whose hand is so faced. Yes, the defender in question should have faced his hand. Had he done so, the diamond lead would be obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 If this was about discussing the defense while the hand is being played, such a player would be banned from any reputable club. And if the game is held privately, I think that his opponents on the hand are justified in refusing to pay.You seem to have missed that a claim has been made, and the way the rubber bridge laws are usually interpreted would have made this acceptable practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 You seem to have missed that a claim has been made, and the way the rubber bridge laws are usually interpreted would have made this acceptable practice. I don't understand? Is this not also duplicate law? If play has ceased I am allowed to see my partners cards before I decide whether to accept the claim or not. If this was not the case, surely I would not be able to contest a claim later when I see from the hand records that there is a winning defence. I dont see how this is different from being able to ask to see partners cards after the hand is over. Obviously this is just kind of a courtesy, since I can always work out what partner has if I can see declarers hand, but for players who don't necessarily count every card there could be an issue, especially when the defence needed is non trivial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Is this not also duplicate law? No, in Duplicate play is meant to stop. In rubber bridge they play on with the benefit of seeing declarer's hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Deleted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 You seem to have missed that a claim has been made, and the way the rubber bridge laws are usually interpreted would have made this acceptable practice. Well, in my experience this is pretty normal in duplicate too, so I thought that the practice in question was something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Jilly is right, but so are Tim and Sven. It would be very rare for the TD to rule such a lead "not normal".By "very rare", do you mean that there are circumstances where he would make such a ruling? It seems unreasonable to allow declarer's claim to prevent the defenders' finidng the winning defence. I would explain to these defenders that once declarer has made a claim, they cannot play on, and in general they should not make comments that look like they're trying to pass information to partner. They should just call the TD and let him deal with it. Part of the TD's "dealing with it" will be asking the defenders for their objection to the claim, and that's the time to say "if partner leads a diamond, I get a ruff".I don't understand this either. A claim has occurred, so play has ceased. The next step is for the defenders to decide whether to accept the claim. Why shouldn't they discuss the validity of the claim, in order to help them to make this decision? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.