Partner (declarer) makes a bad claim

[mangurian]

With 4 tricks to go, the defenders are on lead and my partner claims the remaining tricks.

There is one trump out.

The claim is accepted.

 

As dummy, I see several obvious lines of play where the defenders get another trick.

 

Do I, as dummy, challenge their acceptance of the claim or must they discover their error.

 

I do not see this addressed in the rules.

[mangurian]

Forget it. Rule 68 says dummy must speak up & director must be called.

[nige1]

With 4 tricks to go, the defenders are on lead and my partner claims the remaining tricks. There is one trump out. The claim is accepted. As dummy, I see several obvious lines of play where the defenders get another trick. Do I, as dummy, challenge their acceptance of the claim or must they discover their error. I do not see this addressed in the rules.

Forget it. Rule 68 says dummy must speak up & director must be called.

Dummy is allowed to speak up but I don't think the law obliges him to speak up, if some defences allow declarer to make the rest of the tricks.

[blackshoe]

The law says "if it (the claim or concession) is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies". It sounds to me like dummy is obliged to speak up.

[mycroft]

I don't think this is an exception to Law9A4 (nor do I think it should be, for the same reason I don't think it should be required to mention a revoke you saw or did). If it is required, then I'm suddenly going to pay more attention to my rule of paying as little attention to play as dummy as possible. That way, the next bad claim partner makes I won't notice.

 

If I did think it necessary to point it out, I'd certainly wait until Law 69 is in play. If I ran into a pair too inexperienced to notice the issue, maybe I'd worry about it; but I've yet to run into one. What I get is either "play it out", or "I have a trump, and you can't claim and..." (which I *do* call the TD over, because partner (or declarer, anyway) is going to immediately rationalize why he'd get this one right, and potentially convince the opponents to give him a trick the Law says he can't have).

[billw55]

If it is required, then I'm suddenly going to pay more attention to my rule of paying as little attention to play as dummy as possible. That way, the next bad claim partner makes I won't notice.

I was thinking same. I generally don't have this problem because I pay no attention as dummy. I just pull the cards partner calls for, and beyond that I am thinking of other things entirely, perhaps a postmortem of a previous board, or maybe making a grocery list.

[mikeh]

I was thinking same. I generally don't have this problem because I pay no attention as dummy. I just pull the cards partner calls for, and beyond that I am thinking of other things entirely, perhaps a postmortem of an previous board, or maybe making a grocery list.

I can understand why it makes sense to do this, but if one has the stamina, then my advice is that one should always pay attention, unless one is so expert that one doesn't need the practice.

 

One of the most important skills that a declarer or defender can possess is the ability to place cards, specific cards and distribution, by drawing inferences from the plays made by the opponent or partner.

 

It is a skill that can be difficult to develop even when one is looking at 26 cards: one's hand and dummy. Practicing doing this when one sees only dummy can be very useful.

 

I can't help myself: I almost always follow the play and try to reconstruct the hand, and the problems that defenders can cause declarer and vice versa. I'm a fairly good declarer and defender and I (perhaps erroneously) think that this habit is an important part of the reason for that relative strength in my game.

 

It can also help partner if partner is interested in getting better, since you can maybe make a mental note of a play that you felt was incorrect, and discuss the hand after the game (my biggest problem is trying to raise the issue too early, and that is a bad habit).

 

And sometimes partner will ask: could/should I have played differently, and you really can't help if you've been wondering what flavour of pizza to order after the game.

[ggwhiz]

I do not see this addressed in the rules.

 

I don't work on Wall Street and don't want what doesn't belong to me. Rules, shmmools I think bridge would do well to adopt a code of conduct similar to golf where players are expected to call penalties on themselves let alone on partners.

[nige1]

After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director's arrival ...

Agreement is established when a contestant assents to an opponent's claim or concession, and raises no objection to it before his side makes a call on a subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever occurs first. The board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play.

There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2).

A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose.

The law says "if it (the claim or concession) is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies". It sounds to me like dummy is obliged to speak up.

Does that still apply if defenders agreed the claim before dummy notices and there are defences that allow declarer to make, Blackshoe? Blackshoe is the law expert but players can find the law hard to understand :(

[billw55]

...

 

It can also help partner if partner is interested in getting better, since you can maybe make a mental note of a play that you felt was incorrect, and discuss the hand after the game (my biggest problem is trying to raise the issue too early, and that is a bad habit).

 

And sometimes partner will ask: could/should I have played differently, and you really can't help if you've been wondering what flavour of pizza to order after the game.

Yes, if it is a teaching situation I will try to follow it. If partner is an equal (roughly) and asks what I think, I will say, let's look at it later. If he says well we have time right now ... eventually I will have to admit I was ignoring. Although usually they already know this, as I often pay so little attention that I point the tricks the wrong way.

 

Anyway, I prefer to save my mental energy for my own decisions. Dummy is a nice mental break from all the bidding, declaring, and defending. Sometimes my brain gets tired.

[nige1]

Another example: Defenders are in no doubt that the contract makes against any defence, so they agree to declarer's claim. Dummy belatedly works out that inspired defenders could force declarer to cash dummy's winners prematurely; and that would squeeze declarer's hand (with double-dummy defence). Must he recall the director?

[mycroft]

I can understand why it makes sense to do this, but if one has the stamina, then my advice is that one should always pay attention, unless one is so expert that one doesn't need the practice.

Absolutely. If I ever have the stamina, I will.

 

I have mentored once or twice, and had to pay attention as dummy. Random club game, and teaching doesn't affect my stamina any, from other experience. I was a *wreck*, at the end of a "don't care about results" club game, every time.

 

Certainly, not paying attention hurts my game long-term. It also helps *this* game, and not just in stamina - something I didn't notice, I don't have to fight the urge to comment on to my partner after the hand.

[blackshoe]

Does that still apply if defenders agreed the claim before dummy notices and there are defences that allow declarer to make, Blackshoe? Blackshoe is the law expert but players can find the law hard to understand :(

No. Law 69A applies. Agreement is established when the opponents consent to the claim. Score it up and move on. However, if the dummy believes that his side has received credit for a trick they did not win or a trick their opponents could not lose, he can ask for a ruling under Law 79A2.

[nige1]

No. Law 69A applies. Agreement is established when the opponents consent to the claim. Score it up and move on. However, if the dummy believes that his side has received credit for a trick they did not win or a trick their opponents could not lose, he can ask for a ruling under Law 79A2.

Thank you, Blackshoe.

[1eyedjack]

I am not sure that law 72B2 is relevant. An invalid claim is not an infraction of law.

 

Should this thread be moved to the laws subforum?