Claims

[blackshoe]

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.

I didn't make those specific points, no. As for agreeing or disagreeing with you, let my try to clarify my position:

 

1. The laws do not explicitly say that claims can be made only in the play period.

2. While it makes no sense to me to allow claims before the opening lead is faced, the laws do not prohibit it.

3. If a claim is made before play starts, and it can be resolved reasonably normally, fine.

4. If such a claim cannot be resolved reasonably normally, IMO any benefit of the doubt goes to the non-claiming side. I would lean farther that way in many cases than I might if the claimer had waited for the opening lead.

5. If there is any possibility that the final contract might not be what the claimer suggested it would be, the laws give no guidance on what to do. I haven't thought this through completely, but at the moment I'd be inclined to award an ArtAS, considering the claiming side as directly at fault and the non-claiming side as in no way at fault. Can't award a procedural penalty though, since claiming outside the play period is not clearly a breach of procedure (see 1 and 2 above).

 

If I understand your position correctly we seem to be substantially in agreement. :unsure:

[paua]

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.

 

"I bid 7NT. And I'm claiming 13 tricks. I'm not showing you our hands because we're still in the auction period. Wanna double me ?"

 

Or they could play poker.

[GreenMan]

Eddie Kantar wrote in one of his books about a hand Jim Linhart played, wherein he and pard bid to 7♦; RHO doubled and slapped the ♦A onto the table. But Linhart bid 7NT, which kept RHO off lead and made the ♦A a penalty card, and when a non-diamond was led (void or because of UI, can't remember which), Linhart managed to scramble enough tricks in the other three suits that RHO had to discard the ace. (In Kantar's telling, Big Jim had to physically wrest it from the recalcitrant defender's hand.)

 

Not entirely on-topic but a good story.

[pran]

Eddie Kantar wrote in one of his books about a hand Jim Linhart played, wherein he and pard bid to 7♦; RHO doubled and slapped the ♦A onto the table. But Linhart bid 7NT, which kept RHO off lead and made the ♦A a penalty card, and when a non-diamond was led (void or because of UI, can't remember which), Linhart managed to scramble enough tricks in the other three suits that RHO had to discard the ace. (In Kantar's telling, Big Jim had to physically wrest it from the recalcitrant defender's hand.)

 

Not entirely on-topic but a good story.

Oh, I have heard plenty stories of fleeing to 7NT when a grand has been doubled to avoid a ruff (Lightner double), a crucial lead (because the other defender would have the opening lead), a bad break in trumps and similar reasons.

 

I have also witnessed a player holding the trump Ace not doubling a grand for just such reason.

 

Well known situations.

[iviehoff]

5. If there is any possibility that the final contract might not be what the claimer suggested it would be, the laws give no guidance on what to do. I haven't thought this through completely, but at the moment I'd be inclined to award an ArtAS, considering the claiming side as directly at fault and the non-claiming side as in no way at fault. Can't award a procedural penalty though, since claiming outside the play period is not clearly a breach of procedure (see 1 and 2 above).

Sometimes we can rule that a purported claim is not a claim, rather it is extraneous information and/or illegal communication, and not to be treated as a claim. For example, it is clear that a purported claim by dummy is not a claim at all, and will not be ruled on that basis.

 

If it transpires that the auction has not yet been completed, or may be reopened, then I will allow the auction to move to completion. If anything happens that disrupts the essential features of the claim, eg the claimer becomes dummy, or the contract is not what the claimer supposed, then I think we can usually rule that it isn't a claim.

 

Rather less clear is what to do if the auction moves to completion, with some actual action (ie more than just "we choose not to reopen the auction") but the contract remains what the claimer suggested, or essentially what the claimer suggested, for example it is doubled. I think it would usually be too generous to the claimer to let him play it out if he is playing essentially what he suggested when he claimed.

 

Things would have to have been quite seriously messed up in some way for an artificial adjusted score. Maybe if everyone has exposed their cards and then realises the auction isn't finished.

[bluejak]

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

Most claims are made when no trick is in progress. But they are perfectly legal.

 

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

Your opinion would only be of interest in the correct forum, which this isn't. The question here is whether it is legal to claim before the play period starts, which I believe it is.

 

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

As a non-claimer, you are expected to either accept the claim or call the TD and dispute it. This applies to every claim, whether you have seen other hands or not.

[blackshoe]

Director: What is your objection to the claim?

Player: That, the auction not yet being over, claimer has very little information on which to base his claim, and that my partner and I have correspondingly too little information to determine whether the claim is valid, and that since the auction is not over, the final contract which the claim assumes may not in fact be the final contract.

or Player: That, dummy having not yet been faced, claimer has very little information on which to base his claim, and that my partner and I have correspondingly too little information to determine whether the claim is valid.

 

An additional objection may be that claimer has not stated a clear line of play. IMO, that alone is often* sufficient for an objection to a claim.

 

*In every case except those in which there is clearly no reasonable line of play under which the claim fails - which is highly unlikely to be the case when the claim is made prior to the play period starting.

[bixby]

I don't have it in front of me, but I recall that in Alan Truscott's book "Grand Slams" one of the deals discussed concerns an eminent player who bid a grand slam as a sacrifice, and (after three passes) told his LHO, "No lead, down five," and then proceeded to say in some detail what LHO held based on the bidding -- I seem to recall that declarer was able to infer that LHO held the 8 of a particular suit.

 

So this eminent player obviously thought it was proper to claim before the opening lead.

 

David Stevenson's Laws Page (at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_crit.htm) contains the story of a leading pair who bid to a grand slam and then put their hands back in the board, another example of strong players who obviously believed it was appropriate to claim before the opening lead.

 

Although in that story the bidding had not concluded, and one of the opponents outbid them as a sacrifice. I would say it is illegal to claim before the conclusion of the bidding, but legal (if often unwise) to claim before the opening lead is faced.

[bluejak]

Please tell me the Law that says it is illegal to claim before the bidding ends.

[bixby]

You raise a good point and I have to concede that I see no law expressly forbidding it, but I still think that some claims are so far outside the structure implied by the laws as to be illegal.

 

Example: the players take their hands out of the board, North opens 1NT, and West immediately exposes all his cards and says, "I claim 5 tricks." North/South dispute the claim.

 

Is the Director really supposed to simply "adjudicate[] the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides," while resolving doubtful points against the claimer (Law 70A)? How would the Director do that? By imagining everything about the subsequent auction and play, and although resolving doubtful points against E/W, being equitable to both N/S and E/W? If we say yes, then weak players could protect themselves from making gross errors when playing against strong players by simply claiming before the bidding even starts. They might get better results than if they had played the deal.

 

So while, as I concede, I see no law expressly covering the point, I would still say that this hypothetical claim would be illegal.

[blackshoe]

"It violates no law. Still, it's illegal." Nonsense.

[bixby]

If you really think it's nonsense, I would like to know what you would do if you, as Director, were summoned to the table in such a case.

 

Here's the case: the players take their cards out of the board, North opens 1C, and West immediately faces his cards and claims that E/W will take five tricks and N/S eight.

 

What will you do? I would be particularly interested to know whether you would consider imposing a procedural penalty on E/W.

[blackshoe]

Read my post #26 in this thread. Note: an ArtAS is a last resort, not an excuse to avoid trying to figure out the result of the claim.

[bixby]

OK, sorry, I missed that in Post 26 you said that you cannot impose a procedural penatly.

 

But let me up the ante: if that's true once, it's presumably true every time. So now let's suppose West does this on every deal throughout a session. For 26 deals in a row, West exposes his cards and claims before the first round of bidding is over. Are you really going to simply adjudicate every claim as stated in your post 26, and not even suggest to West that he is proceeding at all improperly?

 

I think a large percentage of directors actually faced with this situation would instruct West that he is acting improperly.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps they would, but are they right to do so? What law permits the TD to say this? If the player says "show me what law I'm violating" what is the director going to say?

[bixby]

I have already conceded that I cannot produce such a law; I am instead relying on the overall structure of bridge that is implicit in the laws. I know you think that is nonsense, but I would say that written rules don't necessarily cover everything. Sometimes competitors dream up violations that the rulesmakers never imagined, and they are not necessarily let off on that basis.

 

Indeed, since you contemplate the possibility of awarding an artificial adjusted score, are you not implicitly determining that claiming before the bidding is over can be an irregularity? Can a director award an artificial adjusted score in a case in which there is no irregularity or violation?

[Vampyr]

Perhaps they would, but are they right to do so? What law permits the TD to say this? If the player says "show me what law I'm violating" what is the director going to say?

 

Laws 22 and 41 stipulate that the auction ends with three passes, after which play begins. Actually, there is an intervening "Clarification period" as well.

 

Do we really need a law to tell us that first we bid, then we play the cards? There seems to be no law that says that cards must be played clockwise either. Perhaps such irregularities are violations of Law1, which begins "Duplicate Bridge is played..."

 

Anyway I think that it would be suitable to rule under L24 "Card Exposed or Led Prior to Play Period". There is no exception in this law for an attempt to claim. Also L23 may well come into play.

[bluejak]

I really don't see the point in bringing up meaningless and impossible scenarios, and I suggest we do not discuss them. BLML will be happy to accept such discussions.

 

The point is that you might get one claim during the auction every ten years or so where you are involved, even if only peripherally. There is no point in worrying about ones that will never happen. But if one does occur, without all the stupidities, we will have to rule. And whatever we rule, ruling "it is illegal because it is during the auction" seems wrong.

[Vampyr]

I really don't see the point in bringing up meaningless and impossible scenarios, and I suggest we do not discuss them. BLML will be happy to accept such discussions.

 

The point is that you might get one claim during the auction every ten years or so where you are involved, even if only peripherally. There is no point in worrying about ones that will never happen. But if one does occur, without all the stupidities, we will have to rule. And whatever we rule, ruling "it is illegal because it is during the auction" seems wrong.

 

OK. But I would be interested to learn how to adjudicate a claim when no contract has been reached.

[blackshoe]

OK. But I would be interested to learn how to adjudicate a claim when no contract has been reached.

So would I, but David's right - until it actually happens there's not much point in discussing it.

[Vampyr]

So would I, but David's right - until it actually happens there's not much point in discussing it.

 

I for one would like to be prepared!

[blackshoe]

I suppose I'd be more concerned about it if I thought I'd ever see it before I die.

[Zelandakh]

Presumably the TD would have to judge potential auctions, resolving doubtful points in favour of the non-claiming side. That might make for a fun time if 2 pairs playing complex artificial methods got together for this scenario.

[pran]

Presumably the TD would have to judge potential auctions, resolving doubtful points in favour of the non-claiming side. That might make for a fun time if 2 pairs playing complex artificial methods got together for this scenario.

Precisely!

[nige1]

Eddie Kantar wrote in one of his books about a hand Jim Linhart played, wherein he and pard bid to 7♦; RHO doubled and slapped the ♦A onto the table. But Linhart bid 7NT, which kept RHO off lead and made the ♦A a penalty card, and when a non-diamond was led (void or because of UI, can't remember which), Linhart managed to scramble enough tricks in the other three suits that RHO had to discard the ace. (In Kantar's telling, Big Jim had to physically wrest it from the recalcitrant defender's hand.) Not entirely on-topic but a good story.

:) Another old story: Bob and Jim Sharples crafted a typically beautiful unapposed auction to 7♥. The brothers replaced their hands in the board, "Not so fast!" protested John Collings. "You're disputing the claim?" asked the incredulous would-be declarer. Collings, who held four small spades, replied "No I I'm bidding 7♠." One of the Sharples held ♠AKQJ but, before he had a chance to double, the other Sharples contracted for 7N (also solid) :)