Claims

[gnasher]

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

 

Perhaps Rick Beye's original response was a polite way of saying the same thing.

[iviehoff]

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.

The law gives the TD no power to consider alternative auctions in resolving a claim, only alternative plays of the cards.

 

It is only play which ceases when a claim is made, so I think the auction can proceed. I think that the TD has to let the auction proceed to completion, including possible reopenings for MI, and when it is complete decide whether the earlier words having the form of a claim can now be construed as a claim, or else have to be construed as extraneous comment. As I mentioned, not every form of words which sounds like a claim can be construed as a claim and adjudicated as such, for example an apparent claim by dummy is construed as extraneous comment.

[Zelandakh]

I do not see anything in 70(A) restricting the TD's adjudications to the playing of the cards. Nor is there any restriction for objections, so "I would have bid 7♠" is a perfectly reasonable objection.

[iviehoff]

I do not see anything in 70(A) restricting the TD's adjudications to the playing of the cards. Nor is there any restriction for objections, so "I would have bid 7♠" is a perfectly reasonable objection.

70A is one of those vague sections, like 12B1, which give some high level objectives, but which are always subject to the definitive detail present elsewhere, even if it apparently contradicts the high level objective. 70A is even more explicit than 12B1, in that it instructs the director to proceed as in 70B to 70E. In the subsequent sections, it only mentions how the Director distinguishes between alternative possible lines of play. In the absence of any explicit power to distinguish between different completions of the auction, the director should be wary of treading off-piste.

 

But more important than that is the clear fact that the auction is not halted by a claim. 68D only halts the play. So unless the claim is agree, and since the auction has not been halted, I see no reason the auction should not proceed to completion.

[barmar]

Since it says "play ceases", doesn't that imply that play has started, which means that you can't have a claim before the play period?

[bluejak]

Perhaps Rick Beye's original response was a polite way of saying the same thing.

Perhaps. But there have been claims during the bidding, usually obviously correct.

 

I think there is some use in discussing what we should do if a pair bids up to 7NT, then puts their hands away in the board, but the opponents challenge it. This has been known to happen.

 

I don't think there's any pointing discussing a player who, after his LHO has bid a forcing 3♠, says "I shall take four tricks.". This is merely an attempt to disrupt the game and should be treated accordingly: discussions on how to deal with it as a claim are not going to help us become better TDs.

[nige1]

:) 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) :)

My thinking is that the other side having claimed it can be enforced that they face their unplayed cards. And having faced their unplayed cards during the auction period L24C comes to bear. It being notable that both being offenders an enforced pass comes to bear against them. The movies script might be:

Well, let's see them.

Now we need some help…………

Director, our opponents have exposed their cards during the auction. Do I believe correctly that they both must pass for the remainder of the auction?

Yes.

7S. P P P

And by the way there are lead penalties….and PCs.

Did I forget to mention that the other side claimed all the tricks and I'm objecting.

[hv=pc=n&s=s5432h753d75432c4&w=sakqjhdkqjcakqjt3&n=s876hdt986c987652&e=st9hakqjt98642dac]399|300|

 

 

Good stuff, axman! :)

 

Proceeding down that path,

Yarborough Fair,

one of Richard Pavlicek's fascinating Bridge Puzzles, features a deal like that on the left.

 

Against an opponent's 7♥.

if South sacrifices in 7N (rather than 7♠), and

if the director rules that all cards in defender's hands are penalty cards, then

South can make his contract!

[/hv]

Tell her to make me a notrump grand;

Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme.

With barely a seven held in her hand,

She will ever be a true love of mine.