Defensive claim

[VixTD]

Defenders (and declarer) should be allowed to claim at any point in the hand, but I would like to see the restrictions on claimer's partner's supposed play tightened up to give all benefit of the doubt against the claimer. Defenders should not be allowed to get away with avoiding a play that "couldn't possibly gain", or in the given example, to assume that partner cannot possibly have the queen of hearts because they played the king.

 

A defender who is sure partner is going to play sensibly should not be allowed to make sure of this by claiming.

[Vampyr]

This is, I think, a misunderstanding of the law. The restriction in 70D2 is not on a defender's right to claim, it's on his right to impose a line of play on his partner that requires the partner to make the correct choice when he has a choice. A defender has the right to claim, but if he proposes such a line of play, the TD will reject it, ruling on that point in favor of the declaring side.

 

Sorry, I just used a shortcut to convey the idea that certain claims (ie when partner's hand is not irrelebant) are not likely to be successful.

[barmar]

I think the way to express it is that the law has more restrictions on a defender's ability to make a valid claim.

 

Declarer knows all his side's assets, so he can claim "I'm going to take these tricks in my hand, these other tricks in dummy", and describe how he's going to get from one hand to the other. Defenders can't usually make claims that depend on such coordination between their hands.

[mink]

I think the way to express it is that the law has more restrictions on a defender's ability to make a valid claim.

 

I agree. IMO the suitable place for such restrictions is Law 70D2. Here, the director is currently advised to select the least favorable among the normal plays of the claiming defender's partner. The proposed change is to replace "normal play" by "non-irrational play". This should be defined to be any play that is normal for a player who cannot remember the tricks already played. So the director still cannot force him to ruff a trick already won by his partner or to duck when he is able to win a trick. But in such a case as this thread where it is reasonable for West to win his partners K with the A if the Q has already been played, the non-offending-side would benefit from this change, and the outcome would be the same as applying Law 57 if there was no claim an defender plays his last card prematurely.

 

Karl

[Vampyr]

The proposed change is to replace "normal play" by "non-irrational play".

 

Some people prefer "legal play". I lean towards this option.

[pran]

Some people prefer "legal play". I lean towards this option.

Are you sure?

"Legal" play will include any (legal) play however irrational it might be.

[Vampyr]

Are you sure?

"Legal" play will include any (legal) play however irrational it might be.

 

I know what "legal" means.

[barmar]

Are you sure?

"Legal" play will include any (legal) play however irrational it might be.

I think that's his point.

 

Basically, he wants to allow defensive claims only if there's no way it can possibly go wrong, e.g. if the defender has all top tricks in his hand, or he and declarer are down to all trumps and he can say something like "I get one and you get one". But if any lapse of memory or judgement by your partner can screw it up, your claim can be denied.

 

I don't think the current law really causes much problem, but I could live with this proposed change.

[pran]

I think that's his point.

 

Basically, he wants to allow defensive claims only if there's no way it can possibly go wrong, e.g. if the defender has all top tricks in his hand, or he and declarer are down to all trumps and he can say something like "I get one and you get one". But if any lapse of memory or judgement by your partner can screw it up, your claim can be denied.

 

I don't think the current law really causes much problem, but I could live with this proposed change.

In his case the claim for all remaining tricks will go down if it for instance includes four tricks from A K 4 2 versus Q J 5 3 because a legal play will be all the small cards in the first two tricks and saving the honours for the last two tricks in that suit.

[RMB1]

In his case the claim for all remaining tricks will go down if it for instance includes four tricks from A K 4 2 versus Q J 5 3 because a legal play will be all the small cards in the first two tricks and saving the honours for the last two tricks in that suit.

How does one defender know the other has HHxx ?

[pran]

How does one defender know the other has HHxx ?

If that question is material then take a slightly different example:

Claimer has A K Q J T 9 2 in a suit (the 8 is not with his partner) and his claim includes all 7 tricks in that suit.

 

A legal play will be to lead the 2 first time. :P

[Zelandakh]

If that question is material then take a slightly different example:

Claimer has A K Q J T 9 2 in a suit (the 8 is not with his partner) and his claim includes all 7 tricks in that suit.

 

A legal play will be to lead the 2 first time. :P

That is hardly a play by Claimer's partner though is it? The proposed change does not stop Claimer from making a claim statement about their own line of play.

[RMB1]

If that question is material then take a slightly different example:

Claimer has A K Q J T 9 2 in a suit (the 8 is not with his partner) and his claim includes all 7 tricks in that suit.

 

A legal play will be to lead the 2 first time. :P

The any legal plays applies to the partner of the defender who claims, not the claimer, he is allowed to state a line of play.

[jnichols]

A reasonable restriction could for instance be that no player may claim or concede before the opening lead has been made.

 

Whyever not. I have had two hands that I can remember where I was in 7NT and based on my partners Blackwood responses I was able to claim before the opening lead. (I doubt there were more than two - I would certainly remember!)

 

Obviously, my partner could have fouled up her responses, but that would be my problem.

[Zelandakh]

Whyever not.

etc

It happens quite a lot when playing a relay system. Nonetheless, I would never claim before the opening lead was faced. If nothing else it is rude (and smug).

[blackshoe]

smug: having or showing excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements

rude: offensive, impolite, or ill mannered

 

I don't think the mere act of claiming before the opening lead is faced meets either of these two definitions. However, it is IMO illegal: claims occur during the play period, and that period doesn't start until the lead is faced.

[mycroft]

Oh, the one time I did it, there was definitely some smug by that exact definition...

[pran]

smug: having or showing excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements

rude: offensive, impolite, or ill mannered

 

I don't think the mere act of claiming before the opening lead is faced meets either of these two definitions. However, it is IMO illegal: claims occur during the play period, and that period doesn't start until the lead is faced.

Nothing in the laws prohibits claims before the play has started.

 

When

For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress*.

it clearly applies also when no trick (yet) is currently in progress.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough, particular when using the WBF version of the laws, which is basically just a list of laws with no subdivisions. However, the ACBL version still divides the laws into Chapters, Sections, and Parts, and "Claims and Concessions" is Part V of Chapter VI "The Play", so here, at least, claims are clearly part of the play.

[barmar]

How does one defender know the other has HHxx ?

Declarer has shown out, and he can see dummy.

[pran]

Fair enough, particular when using the WBF version of the laws, which is basically just a list of laws with no subdivisions. However, the ACBL version still divides the laws into Chapters, Sections, and Parts, and "Claims and Concessions" is Part V of Chapter VI "The Play", so here, at least, claims are clearly part of the play.

Are headings (etc.) part of the laws in ACBL? They are (as far as I know) not in other parts of the world.

[blackshoe]

No, they're not, but they do provide a guide.

 

I would organize the law book thusly:

 

I. Correct Procedure

....A. Preliminaries (current Laws 1-8, and probably Law 40)

....B. In the Auction (current Laws 17-22)

....C. In the Play (current Laws 41-45 and 65-71)

II. Irregularities

....A. General (current Laws 9-16) (Law 23 might be better here)

....B. In the Auction (current Laws 23-39)

....C. In the Play (current Laws 46-64)

III. After Play Ends (I might put some of the claim laws in here instead of in I.C.)

....A. Scoring (current Laws 77-79)

IV. Proprieties (current Laws 72-76) (Law 76 might well go under "Administration", and the Proprieties might be better at the very beginning of the law book. Law 75 should be with or part of Law 20)

V. Administration

....A. Tournament Organization (current Law 80)

....B. The Tournament Director (current Laws 81-91)

....C. Appeals (current Laws 92 and 93)

 

That's rough and off the top of my head; some adjustments to the individual laws or the placing of them might be appropriate. Of course, this scheme would require renumbering the laws, and it ignores the fact that renumbering was a "show stopper" in the last revision.

 

In this scheme, putting the claim laws under "correct procedure in the play" would make it clear that claims should occur only during the play period. Putting them under "after play ends" would allow for claims any time (but I think there should be a law in "correct procedure in the auction" as well as one "... in the play" specifying that claims can be made, and referring to what is now Law 68 about how they are made).

 

IMO there are too many cases of laws which contain both "correct procedure" and "what to do about irregularities", and too many laws which are usually interpreted as "general" (as you want to interpret the claims laws) which are not clearly specified as such.

[gnasher]

I would organize the law book thusly:

 

Have you told the WBFLC?

[Finch]

It happens quite a lot when playing a relay system. Nonetheless, I would never claim before the opening lead was faced. If nothing else it is rude (and smug).

 

I don't think so.

I've claimed in 7NT before the opening lead (only once that I can remember) saying "If partner has got what he's shown I have 13 top tricks", after we have explained what the auction means (so partner knows what I think he's shown).

It saves defender wasting time thinking about what to lead.

[Finch]

The only suggestion I can imagine as workable is not on the list:

 

A player (declarer or defender, but not dummy) may only claim or concede at his own turn to play.

 

I know quite a few players who already think that is the law.

It slows down the game horribly. It's common to sit there as a defender trying to decide how you can possibly beat the contract; you finally lead something and declarer immediately says "I've got the rest"