Did she claim?

[ahydra]

What is it with me and claims? Well, anyway, I was dummy this time so it wasn't really my claim.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shdc32&w=sha8dc&n=shj4dc&e=shqdcq]399|300[/hv]

 

South was in 3NT and had made 10 tricks. At trick 11 she led a small heart off the dummy and East won with the ♥K (declarer throwing a club), leaving the position above. Then East played the ♥Q, but before anyone else played she also placed the ♣Q on the table. East made no statement as she put down the two cards.

 

Declarer started to score the hand as 10 tricks, but I pointed out that if that East intended to claim, the director might rule 11 tricks (i.e. that a careless line under Law 70D2 would be for West to play the HA on the HQ and hence dummy wins the last trick). Of course, I should have called the director (Law 68D)! But I thought it best first to establish the facts - primarily, that East had claimed the last two tricks.

 

West was having none of it. He should probably have called the Director as well (lol). But instead he kept insisting that he'd followed with the H8 to the HQ (though I didn't see him play H8, and if he had played H8 he was playing out of turn because declarer had not played to that trick), and that "only a moron" would overtake the HQ with the Ace. I never got to explain that the bar for "moron-ness" when it comes to claims is actually rather low, particularly when a defender is claiming and the number of tricks for each side depends on the play of her partner's cards. But to West, that would have been "irrelevant" anyway since he did not think a claim occurred.

 

Wow, it almost sounds like a lamford post - but it happened, I promise you! So, over to you. How would you rule?

 

Thanks,

 

ahydra

[c_corgi]

10 tricks and North incurs a dirty look.

[gordontd]

South was declarer? So North's cards are on show? So West overtaking the HQ guarantees a loser for their side? Why would he do that?

[nige1]

IMO director should rule 11.

[blackshoe]

It may be normal to make a play that is going to lose when you can't see the winning card. It is insane to make a play that is going to lose when you can see the winning card. Two tricks to East.

[axman]

What is it with me and claims? Well, anyway, I was dummy this time so it wasn't really my claim.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shdc32&w=sha8dc&n=shj4dc&e=shqdcq]399|300[/hv]

 

South was in 3NT and had made 10 tricks. At trick 11 she led a small heart off the dummy and East won with the ♥K (declarer throwing a club), leaving the position above. Then East played the ♥Q, but before anyone else played she also placed the ♣Q on the table. East made no statement as she put down the two cards.

 

Declarer started to score the hand as 10 tricks, but I pointed out that if that East intended to claim, the director might rule 11 tricks (i.e. that a careless line under Law 70D2 would be for West to play the HA on the HQ and hence dummy wins the last trick). Of course, I should have called the director (Law 68D)! But I thought it best first to establish the facts - primarily, that East had claimed the last two tricks.

 

West was having none of it. He should probably have called the Director as well (lol). But instead he kept insisting that he'd followed with the H8 to the HQ (though I didn't see him play H8, and if he had played H8 he was playing out of turn because declarer had not played to that trick), and that "only a moron" would overtake the HQ with the Ace. I never got to explain that the bar for "moron-ness" when it comes to claims is actually rather low, particularly when a defender is claiming and the number of tricks for each side depends on the play of her partner's cards. But to West, that would have been "irrelevant" anyway since he did not think a claim occurred.

 

Wow, it almost sounds like a lamford post - but it happened, I promise you! So, over to you. How would you rule?

 

Thanks,

 

ahydra

 

I should think that the provisions of L57A come to bear.

[iviehoff]

I should think that the provisions of L57A come to bear.

For those unfamiliar, 57A is a little known law whose wording might surprise you.

 

When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn before his partner has played, the card so led or played becomes a major penalty card, and declarer selects one of the following options. He may:

1. require offender’s partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led, or

2. require offender’s partner to play the lowest card he holds of the suit led, or

3. forbid offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer.

 

The defender has exposed their final card before anyone else has played to trick 12. They can't have it both ways - either they claimed, or it is a law 57A situation. If they wish to insist it isn't a claim, tell them you will apply Law 57A. A wise defender would at this point allow that in fact they claimed. As usual, there is not unanimity on the adjudication of the claim. Observe that 68B1, that surprising law that sometimes allows a defender's claim to be cancelled and play to be restarted, cannot apply here, because it requires that at least one trick be conceded.

[pran]

I should think that the provisions of L57A come to bear.

There is no doubt about that (and the question whether East has claimed or not is just a "red herring").

 

But South must "guess" which alternative he should request from West without seeing West's cards, so if he makes the (lucky?) request that West shall play his highest card in the suit led then South will get the last trick.

[RMB1]

I think that this was a claim and that the play of ♥A is not normal so the last two tricks to the defence (= making 10 tricks).

 

Wow, it almost sounds like a lamford post - but it happened, I promise you!

 

Lamford would have ♥Jx in the hidden hand. :)

[ahydra]

Re law 57A - suppose the director rules that West did play the H8, but out of turn (South having not yet played). Now what?

 

ahydra

[gnasher]

The defender has exposed their final card before anyone else has played to trick 12. They can't have it both ways - either they claimed, or it is a law 57A situation. If they wish to insist it isn't a claim, tell them you will apply Law 57A. A wise defender would at this point allow that in fact they claimed.

It's not up to the defenders to determine whether it was a claim or not. Regardless of what the defenders insist, the director should make his own judgement.

 

In this case, it seems to me completely clear that East did claim: she showed her cards with the intention of indicating that they were both winners.

[iviehoff]

It's not up to the defenders to determine whether it was a claim or not. Regardless of what the defenders insist, the director should make his own judgement.

Correct. Nevertheless, in determining whether it is a claim, the director will ask what East thought she was doing in exposing the card. East may give me an answer consistent with applying 57A. But if the director has acquainted East with the contents of that law ("think very carefully before you answer, you might like to be aware of the contents of this law"), I think East will give an answer consistent with making a claim.

[iviehoff]

But South must "guess" which alternative he should request from West without seeing West's cards, so if he makes the (lucky?) request that West shall play his highest card in the suit led then South will get the last trick.

East has faced their cards, and that is authorised information. Not difficult for South to work it out.

[bluejak]

I appreciate the OP admits he should have called the TD, but let me stress the point. What happened when he didn't? There was an argument. It is still my belief that the most common cause of arguments in bridge is not calling the TD. Note that the level of the event is not relevant: even in clubs, the most common cause of arguments is not calling the TD.

 

If I was the TD had discovered the full facts, ie including arguments and so forth, when arriving at the table, I would be tempted to start with a PP to both sides for failure to call the TD.

[ahydra]

I appreciate the OP admits he should have called the TD, but let me stress the point. What happened when he didn't? There was an argument. It is still my belief that the most common cause of arguments in bridge is not calling the TD. Note that the level of the event is not relevant: even in clubs, the most common cause of arguments is not calling the TD.

 

If I was the TD had discovered the full facts, ie including arguments and so forth, when arriving at the table, I would be tempted to start with a PP to both sides for failure to call the TD.

 

Definitely a valid point - though there was one incident at my club where an argument ensued even after the TD was called, eventually making the TD flip out and assign an artificial score of 100%/0%. Probably illegal but that's what you get for obstructing the TD...

 

ahydra

[c_corgi]

I think this would have appeared to E/W as follows:

 

1. North is trying to pull a fast one.

2. North is trying to bully us into stating that a claim occurred.

 

I would be inclined to treat self-incriminating statements by E/W with less than their usual weight in these circumstances.

[ahydra]

I think this would have appeared to E/W as follows:

 

1. North is trying to pull a fast one.

2. North is trying to bully us into stating that a claim occurred.

 

I would be inclined to treat self-incriminating statements by E/W with less than their usual weight in these circumstances.

 

Yet another reason I should have called the TD -.- But I wasn't trying to bully or pull anyone/thing. I kept trying to establish the facts, West kept arguing. Ugh.

 

ahydra

[mycroft]

So, next time, call the TD before trying to ascertain the facts. After all, it's not *your* job to do so, it's hers; and she's less obviously biased in favour of your side, in the opponents' (valid) view.

 

If there's still an argument, oh well. But it's much less likely - especially when one of your ideas is that west may choose to play with his eyes shut; and that that way to play is merely careless and not insane "not normal*".