Claims

[blackshoe]

I thought some here might find this correspondence between me and the ACBL amusing:

 

Me: Is it legal to claim some or all of the tricks before the opening lead is faced?

Rick Beye, for "rulings@acbl.org": Law 41C -- the play period begins when the opening lead is faced.

 

I shall try again. :blink:

 

If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Beye was the last person to hold the title "Chief Tournament Director of the ACBL", before the position was abolished. I don't know what his title is now.

[barmar]

I think his response implied that the answer is "no". The only way it makes sense is that he thinks it goes without saying that claims may only be made during the play period, and he then provided the law that defines when the play period begins.

[blackshoe]

Yeah, I thought about that. Seems to me it would have been simpler to just give a direct answer to the question. :unsure:

[lalldonn]

I mean whatever, if I have 13 tricks in my hand and open 7NT and show my hand and claim when everyone passes, it will be pretty freaking funny if they immediately call the director lol.

[blackshoe]

That's why I asked the question, but Mr. Beye seems to think that would be the thing to do. There have been other cases where I've disagreed with the advice given by HQ, and I've been told by some here that it doesn't matter - if somebody at HQ says "do it this way", that's the way I have to do it. So which is it, pray tell?

[pran]

That's why I asked the question, but Mr. Beye seems to think that would be the thing to do. There have been other cases where I've disagreed with the advice given by HQ, and I've been told by some here that it doesn't matter - if somebody at HQ says "do it this way", that's the way I have to do it. So which is it, pray tell?

if somebody at HQ says "do it this way" then request him to show you the law or regulation that says so.

[blackshoe]

Been there, done that. Got no response. (Not on this question).

[pran]

Been there, done that. Got no response. (Not on this question).

Then why bother with him, his personal assertion has little or no weight?

[blackshoe]

"Rulings" is a monthly column in the ACBL Bridge Bulletin, written by Mike Flader, who is I believe a National TD. "rulings@acbl.org" is in theory the email address associated with that column, but mail to that address is frequently answered by someone else — not always Rick Beye. So when I said "got no response" I meant that I got no response from ACBL HQ, not some particular person.

 

Even a response from Mike Flader would be a personal assertion, since the ACBL has said that the opinions in that column are not necessarily ACBL policy. IMO, the only place to get an official policy statement on the laws is the LC, and they don't respond to emails.

[blackshoe]

Latest from Rick: Well, if the play period has not begun how can a claim be legal? I think this is obvious, but I may be missing your point here.

[GreenMan]

I mean whatever, if I have 13 tricks in my hand and open 7NT and show my hand and claim when everyone passes, it will be pretty freaking funny if they immediately call the director lol.

 

LHO might lead a hippogriff.

 

Seriously though, if you claim all 13 before the opening lead, probably no one will call you on the rule violation, but it's LHO's turn to play, not yours. Let her do her duty.

[pran]

Latest from Rick: Well, if the play period has not begun how can a claim be legal? I think this is obvious, but I may be missing your point here.

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*.

[...]

This introduction in Law 68 does not request that the play period has started, only that the statement or action must refer to tricks other than the one currently in progress.

 

And as obviously no trick is currently in progress before the play period starts any such statement or action at this time certainly satisfies the given condition.

 

Nowhere else in the laws can we find any restriction of any kind against a player making a claim or a concession at any time he pleases.

 

A player holding all five honours in spades and listening to opponents reaching 7♥ in what appears a sound auction can very well sacrifice in 7♠ white against red for -2000 instead of -2210.

 

What should make it illegal for this player to claim five tricks even before the opening lead? Please show me the relevant law!

 

Unwise - yes, but illegal? Never.

[pran]

LHO might lead a hippogriff.

 

Seriously though, if you claim all 13 before the opening lead, probably no one will call you on the rule violation, but it's LHO's turn to play, not yours. Let her do her duty.

It may be unwise, but certainly not illegal to claim at another player's turn to lead.

[GreenMan]

This introduction in Law 68 does not request that the play period has started, only that the statement or action must refer to tricks other than the one currently in progress.

 

And as obviously no trick is currently in progress before the play period starts any such statement or action at this time certainly satisfies the given condition.

 

Er, just the opposite: No trick is in progress, so a claim can't be made legally.

[pran]

Er, just the opposite: No trick is in progress, so a claim can't be made legally.

If Law 68 is to be understood as a trick must be in progress for a claim to be legal then any claim after a trick has been completed and before the lead to the next trick is made is illegal!

 

As declarer you pull trumps until you see that all trumps are out and then claim showing that all your remaining cards are high.

 

Director: Declarer violated Law 68 - he claimed when no trick was in progress!

[blackshoe]

There is a difference between "tricks other than the one currently in progress" [emphasis mine] and "tricks other than one [emphasis again mine] currently in progress". The former implies that there must be a trick in progress, the latter does not. So the former construction implies that claims can only be made during the play period when there is a trick in progress and the latter does not. The law uses the latter construction, which does support Sven's position.

 

It occurs to me that no one in his right mind is going to claim any tricks unless he has enough information to conclude that he has those tricks (and probably no more). So I would not expect anyone to claim during a live auction (or before the auction), even if it's legal to do so, unless he has 37 HCP in his hand. I don't know what the odds are of anyone being dealt that hand, but I'd guess they're vanishingly small.

 

All that said, I guess the TD must rule any claim, whenever made, on its merits, and probably ignore the question whether the timing is legal.

 

Edit: been thinking about this a little more. Suppose a player takes his hand out of the board, examines the faces of his cards (Law 7B2), and then claims 7NT making. "Play ceases". Now suppose the claimer's LHO has an ace. Are you going to prohibit him from doubling? After all, play has ceased. If you do, is this fair? If you do not, how are you (legally) getting around "play ceases"? The problem is even worse if he claims any lesser contract than 7NT before the auction is over, because now the opponents might sacrifice. And the claimer's side might bid on - but now "claimer's" partner has an awful lot of UI.

 

While I agree that it's silly to call the director to object to a claim solely on the basis that it wasn't made during the play period, it seems to me that whatever the law says or doesn't say about when claims are allowed, it makes no sense to allow them before the open lead is faced. I think that if there are no problems arising during the clarification period that might result in a change to the table contract, a claim in that period can probably be handled okay, but that alone is no justification for saying it's legal, or even should be legal.

 

Oh, and I assume that everyone would agree that one cannot claim before the conditions of Law 7B2 have been met. B-)

Edited February 7, 2013 by blackshoe
additional thoughts

[barmar]

IMO, the only place to get an official policy statement on the laws is the LC, and they don't respond to emails.

Is that the duty of the LC? From ACBL COMMITTEES:

In accordance with the ACBL Bylaws, the ACBL Laws Commission prepares and periodically reviews and revises the laws by which duplicate and rubber bridge games are governed. When feasible, the Commission makes these law revisions in consultation and cooperation with other national contract bridge organizations and the World Bridge Federation.

 

The ACBL Laws Commission is the final court of appeal within ACBL in disputes that involve interpretation or applicability of one or more of the laws of duplicate bridge.

Nothing about responding to questions from members (or even TDs). I think the only way you could get them to answer the question is through a series of appeals (kind of like getting a case heard by the Supreme Court).

[iviehoff]

Me: Is it legal to claim some or all of the tricks before the opening lead is faced?

Rick Beye, for "rulings@acbl.org": Law 41C -- the play period begins when the opening lead is faced.

Really the question is not well formed. Irregular claims occur frequently, the question is not "is this legal", rather the question is "what should we do when someone claims in these circumstances?"

 

Since the play period has not started yet, the auction may not yet be complete, for it can be reopened in some circumstances. So you are taking a bit of a risk in claiming at this point because you may not be completely sure that the auction has finished.

 

There are some other amusing scenarios. You might discover that your RHO has led or is leading, and if you exposed cards in making your "claim", you might find that you are now dummy under Law 54A.

 

So all in all, it is probably a bad idea to claim until the opening lead has been faced, in case your claim becomes some very embarrassing UI to your partner in some circumstances you hadn't foreseen. But if the claim does happen, the question is not "is it legal" but "what should we do about it". Usually some of the amusing circumstances I mentioned will be avoided, and in such a case I expect we just resolve the claim in the normal fashion.

[Trinidad]

IMHO, it should only be possible to claim after the play period has started.

 

All is well if you have bid 7NT and hold 13 tricks. But what if you have bid 4♠ and claim 10 tricks? Maybe the opponents want to ask questions, it comes to light that there was MI, maybe they are entitled to change the last call. And now we have a problem.

 

I think it is best to just leave the claims for the play period.

 

Rik

[pran]

IMHO, it should only be possible to claim after the play period has started.

 

All is well if you have bid 7NT and hold 13 tricks. But what if you have bid 4♠ and claim 10 tricks? Maybe the opponents want to ask questions, it comes to light that there was MI, maybe they are entitled to change the last call. And now we have a problem.

 

I think it is best to just leave the claims for the play period.

 

Rik

That might be desirable, but it isn't the law.

 

Instead all the possible problems you (and others) might anticipate with a claim during the auction period is to be resolved by the director when ruling on the claim. And do not overlook that a possible reopening of the auction is one of the circumstances he must take into his consideration.

 

This discussion should be limited to the existing laws, i.e. whether a claim is legal or not.

 

We have a separate forum for discussing possible changes in the laws.

[blackshoe]

Is that the duty of the LC?

 

Nothing about responding to questions from members (or even TDs). I think the only way you could get them to answer the question is through a series of appeals (kind of like getting a case heard by the Supreme Court).

According to the ACBL BoD, the LC is "the final arbiter of the laws in North America". I should think that both the BoD and the LC would like to ensure that interpretations of the laws are uniform in North America, so that TDs and players alike know what the rules of the game are. But 'do not confuse "duty" with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different'. B-)

[blackshoe]

Really the question is not well formed. Irregular claims occur frequently, the question is not "is this legal", rather the question is "what should we do when someone claims in these circumstances?"

 

Since the play period has not started yet, the auction may not yet be complete, for it can be reopened in some circumstances. So you are taking a bit of a risk in claiming at this point because you may not be completely sure that the auction has finished.

 

There are some other amusing scenarios. You might discover that your RHO has led or is leading, and if you exposed cards in making your "claim", you might find that you are now dummy under Law 54A.

 

So all in all, it is probably a bad idea to claim until the opening lead has been faced, in case your claim becomes some very embarrassing UI to your partner in some circumstances you hadn't foreseen. But if the claim does happen, the question is not "is it legal" but "what should we do about it". Usually some of the amusing circumstances I mentioned will be avoided, and in such a case I expect we just resolve the claim in the normal fashion.

You ask your questions, allow me the privilege of asking mine.

 

Did you actually read my post #16? I did talk about the points you mention.

[iviehoff]

Did you actually read my post #16? I did talk about the points you mention.

Yes I did read it, and I have now read it twice more. My mistake, for which I apologise, was in failing to spot that post #16 and the OP had the same author, and therefore that you had developed your thinking from the original post.

 

I did make one or two points I do not see that you made - one about auctions being reopened, and one about L54A. The former of those two points was repeated by Trinidad in his post immediately succeeding mine. Maybe it was cross-posted. But I'm very happy to see a post agreeing with me.

[StevenG]

Am I, as a defender, expected to accept a claim when I have seen neither declarer's hand nor dummy?

[barmar]

Am I, as a defender, expected to accept a claim when I have seen neither declarer's hand nor dummy?

If declarer doesn't show his hand and dummy when he claims, it would be reasonable for you to dispute the claim. You obviously don't have to believe everything shown in the auction.