Defensive Claim?

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakjthaq4d73ck872&w=sq65432hk7dqt2c63&n=s98hj3dk9654caj94&e=s7ht98652daj8cqt5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1np3nppp]399|300[/hv]

This was a genuine hand at a club not in North London, and led to a ruling. West led a low spade to South's jack and South cashed the king of clubs and finessed the jack. East won and switched to the ten of hearts to West's king and a second heart. Declarer played a diamond to the king and East won and returned a heart on which West pitched a spade. South cashed two club winners with East pitching a heart while West pitched another spade and the queen of diamonds. Declarer led a spade from dummy, but West showed his four cards before his partner had played to this trick, silently but in manner that suggested a defensive claim of an unspecified number of tricks. South, a visitor from overseas, did not think this was correct behaviour and called the director as he thought that East's defence had been made easier, and the TD ruled one trick only to the defenders, but later changed his ruling to two tricks after looking at the hand.

 

Two questions arise. Is this a defensive claim, even though not accompanied by a statement such as "I get two tricks"? Also, would it be worse than careless of East to discard a heart on the spade (perhaps not having noticed the queen of diamonds discard and keeping his jack guarded) and then worse than careless not to overtake the ten of diamonds despite setting up dummy's nine?

 

South was later criticised quite scathingly for calling the director by West!

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakjthaq4d73ck872&w=sq65432hk7dqt2c63&n=s98hj3dk9654caj94&e=s7ht98652daj8cqt5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1np3nppp&p=S2S8S7SJCKC3C4C5C2C6CJCQHTH4HKH3H7HJH2HQD3D2DKDAH5HAS3D4C7S4CACTC9H6C8DQS8]399|300|Lamford writes "This was a genuine hand at a club not in North London, and led to a ruling. West led a low spade to South's jack and South cashed the ace of clubs and finessed the jack. East won and switched to the ten of hearts to West's king and a second heart. Declarer played a diamond to the king and East won and returned a heart on which West pitched a spade. South cashed two club winners and West pitched another spade and the queen of diamonds. Declarer led a spade from dummy, but West showed his four cards before his partner had played to this trick, silently but in manner that suggested a defensive claim of an unspecified number of tricks. South, a visitor from overseas, did not think this was correct behaviour and called the director as he thought that East's defence had been made easier, and the TD ruled one trick only to the defenders, but later changed his ruling to two tricks after looking at the hand.Two questions arise. Is this a defensive claim, even though not accompanied by a statement such as "I get two tricks"? Also, would it be worse than careless of East to discard a heart on the spade (perhaps not having noticed the queen of diamonds discard and keeping his jack guarded) and then worse than careless not to overtake the ten of diamonds despite setting up dummy's nine? South was criticised quite scathingly for calling the director by West!"

 

Click Next to see the ending.

I agree with Lamford that West's premature claim facilitates East's defence, so the director should rule at most 1-down. When claim laws were simpler, Declarer could nominate all East's cards as penalty cards :) [/hv]

[lamford]

I agree with Lamford that West's premature claim facilitates East's defence, so the director should rule at most 1-down. When claim laws were simpler, Declarer could nominate all East's cards as penalty cards :) [/hv][/size]

I don't think the simpler claim laws were that good, but if you think that West's claim facilitates East's defence (as I do) then you would rule 3NT=, as the TD originally did. If East defends correctly, it is only 3NT-1, as declarer will just cash out for one off if East throws the eight of diamonds. Also throwing the jack of diamonds (he knows partner has the ten), may be worse than careless, but that is a value judgement.

[mycroft]

I've missed a pitch or two by N and E, because I come down to:

[hv=pc=n&s=sakthd7c&w=sq65hdtc&n=s9hd965c&e=sh986dJc]399|300[/hv]

 

And I can't see why I wouldn't pitch a heart and keep pitching hearts, as I'm the only one what has them. If this is East's hand left, it would be far beyond careless not to overtake the diamond and take as many tricks as I can get. However, if East's hand is Hxx DJx (as Nigel works out), then yes, it's a matter of is it normal* to not have noticed the ♦Q. Given that that is the *immediately previous trick*, however...

 

As for the questions: Yes, of course it's a claim. West was showing his hand intending to curtail play. Whether or not South has a valid argument, when attention has been drawn to an irregularity (and a contested claim counts, even if it isn't exactly) the director should be summoned. Depending on the last four cards in dummy and East, it might not be as blindingly obvious as it is in my diagram what to do, so yes, declarer has a point - a point relatively common to defensive claims. If the TD rules that E/W get all the tricks they would "expect to get", though, then shouldn't everybody be happy?

 

West may have a legitimate issue with the intelligence purported by South to his partner, but "calling the director"? So, is he going to be "criticizing quite scathingly" the callback for the TD after the first criticism, as well?

 

I will note that West's is a strategy (complete with the bluster if called on it) that does work in many cases to stop [one's clearly inferior] partner from making a[nother] mispitch mistake, and I have seen it done on purpose.

[lamford]

I've missed a pitch or two by N and E, because I come down to:

<snip>

East did pitch a heart on the third club, so he did have J8 of diamonds left, and the ending is as given by Nigel. Replace your 6H with the 8D and the diagram is right.

[pran]

[...]

Declarer led a spade from dummy, but West showed his four cards before his partner had played to this trick, silently but in manner that suggested a defensive claim of an unspecified number of tricks. South, a visitor from overseas, did not think this was correct behaviour and called the director as he thought that East's defence had been made easier, and the TD ruled one trick only to the defenders, but later changed his ruling to two tricks after looking at the hand.

 

Two questions arise. Is this a defensive claim, even though not accompanied by a statement such as "I get two tricks"? Also, would it be worse than careless of East to discard a heart on the spade (perhaps not having noticed the queen of diamonds discard and keeping his jack guarded) and then worse than careless not to overtake the ten of diamonds despite setting up dummy's nine?

 

South was later criticised quite scathingly for calling the director by West!

This post is unclear on one very important point:

Did West show his Cards to Declarer ONLY, or expose them so that they were visible also to East?

 

In the first case it is (technically) NOT a claim and play just continues (with some UI been given to East by West's action) unless Declarer concedes any particular number of tricks (and claims the rest).

 

I assume, however, that East "could have seen the cards", in which case West must either immediately provide a claim statement or have all his cards become penalty cards.

 

No player should ever be criticized for calling the Director, but the manner in which the director is called can give reason for critics.

[aguahombre]

Here are 261 more replies if you are interested.

[pran]

Here are 261 more replies if you are interested.

I read the first post and briefly glanced a bit down the comments.

 

The entire story just proves to me that I am right when saying that claiming hardly ever saves more than at best a couple of seconds, and more often than not wastes far more time. The only exception is when Declarer clearly (to everybody) has all remaining tricks and there are no outstanding trumps.

[lamford]

This post is unclear on one very important point:

Did West show his Cards to Declarer ONLY, or expose them so that they were visible also to East?

 

In the first case it is (technically) NOT a claim and play just continues (with some UI been given to East by West's action) unless Declarer concedes any particular number of tricks (and claims the rest).

 

I assume, however, that East "could have seen the cards", in which case West must either immediately provide a claim statement or have all his cards become penalty cards.

 

No player should ever be criticized for calling the Director, but the manner in which the director is called can give reason for critics.

West showed his cards to the entire table. I saw them as dummy. West made no claim statement, but I don't think his cards become penalty cards. Could you explain why you think that?

 

It seems that the key is whether the following two possible defences by East are "normal".

 

a) To discard a heart, and then to fail to overtake the ten of diamonds on the next round.

b) To discard the jack of diamonds now.

 

The benchmark for "normal" when a defender has claimed is similar to when a declarer claims, I believe. I think that a) above is completely normal and b) is not. So the correct ruling is that the contract makes. It is worth noting that West asked declarer to confirm that 1NT was 15-17 prior to discarding the queen of diamonds, even though it was announced and on both CCs (2/1 strong).

[ahydra]

I'm assuming here that East is a player of about my standard (advanced but not expert).

 

I think East would surely notice the ♦Q - throwing honours somewhat draws attention to itself. The question becomes whether he would overtake the ♦10, and I think he would get this right for the following reasons:

 

- according to West, East "threw a diamond in tempo" as West claimed (see the BW thread) [1]

- only one round of diamonds had been played, no diamonds except the Q were pitched, so East knows the diamond position (declarer never discarded so there's no question of "wait a minute, did declarer throw a diamond?")

- the hearts are winners and, having noticed the DQ, the DJ is now an entry; with dummy's guarded D9, the D8 is the only logical card to throw, thus East has no way to go wrong when West leads the D10 as his DJ is now singleton

- there is no way he would throw the DJ in preference to the eight spot.

 

I would therefore rule the contract is down but remind West he needs to be careful about making claims on defence if partner could still go wrong, and to clearly state the line when claiming.

 

If East is of weaker standard, I would rule the contract down, as he may not realise that the DQ is an unblock and hence hang on to his supposed finesse position in diamonds.

 

ahydra

 

[1] Though obviously we should take West's comments with a pinch of salt, especially given the attitude he appears to present in the BW OP.

[pran]

West showed his cards to the entire table. I saw them as dummy. West made no claim statement, but I don't think his cards become penalty cards. Could you explain why you think that?

[...]

Except in the normal course of play or application of law (see for example Law 47E), when a defender’s card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but see the footnote to Law 68 when a defender has made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress, and see Law 68B2 when partner objects to a defender’s concession.

Isn't this clear enough for you? (West's action concerns more than the trick currently in progress!)

 

The fact that West gave no claim statement is immaterial.

 

Play continues with all West's card being penalty cards unless he makes it clear that he claims or concedes, in which case play ceases immediately. In that case he should be invited to provide a claim statement (or name it a clarification statement).

[lamford]

I'm assuming here that East is a player of about my standard (advanced but not expert).

 

I think East would surely notice the ♦Q - throwing honours somewhat draws attention to itself. The question becomes whether he would overtake the ♦10, and I think he would get this right for the following reasons:

 

- according to West, East "threw a diamond in tempo" as West claimed (see the BW thread) [1]

- only one round of diamonds had been played, no diamonds except the Q were pitched, so East knows the diamond position (declarer never discarded so there's no question of "wait a minute, did declarer throw a diamond?")

- the hearts are winners and, having noticed the DQ, the DJ is now an entry; with dummy's guarded D9, the D8 is the only logical card to throw, thus East has no way to go wrong when West leads the D10 as his DJ is now singleton

- there is no way he would throw the DJ in preference to the eight spot.

 

I would therefore rule the contract is down but remind West he needs to be careful about making claims on defence if partner could still go wrong, and to clearly state the line when claiming.

 

If East is of weaker standard, I would rule the contract down, as he may not realise that the DQ is an unblock and hence hang on to his supposed finesse position in diamonds.

 

ahydra

 

[1] Though obviously we should take West's comments with a pinch of salt, especially given the attitude he appears to present in the BW OP.

I don't think East was of your standard. His national ranking, admittedly not completely reliable, put him in the bottom half of the field in question, while West, who made the claim before his partner had played, was in the top 10%. I don't know which camp that puts you in; my partner and I accepted both the original and the amended ruling without complaint. I was dummy, and not paying that much attention, but East played his card around two seconds after West had exposed his hand.

[billw55]

The entire story just proves to me that I am right when saying that claiming hardly ever saves more than at best a couple of seconds, and more often than not wastes far more time. The only exception is when Declarer clearly (to everybody) has all remaining tricks and there are no outstanding trumps.

Agree. Even though disputes occur on a minority of claims, they cause much hassle. I have even had a few opponents say that after I claim, they can play all four hands in any fashion they like.

 

From these experiences I have developed the following claim policy with opponents I do not know well: claim only all remaining tricks, and only when it is impossible to lose a trick by any sequence of legal plays. So now if I get a dispute (rare but happens - some people auto reject all claims) I just lay my cards on the table and wait.

 

 

There are good claim stories also. I remember once trying a free finesse in dummy for an overtrick. It lost, but I now had the rest. RHO however did not know this and started tanking. After about 30 seconds I told him I could claim and showed. He thanked me for saving him the effort, and we went on to the next board without incident. Most people are reasonable..

[lamford]

Isn't this clear enough for you? (West's action concerns more than the trick currently in progress!)

 

The fact that West gave no claim statement is immaterial.

 

Play continues with all West's card being penalty cards unless he makes it clear that he claims or concedes, in which case play ceases immediately. In that case he should be invited to provide a claim statement (or name it a clarification statement).

You could be right. I would have interpreted West's action as a silent defensive claim, and as he did not make a claim statement he cannot be asked to repeat it. I don't think West's cards become penalty cards because he does not make it clear how many tricks he is claiming and how. In the main line, he actually makes no tricks, when his partner discards a heart and overtakes the ten of diamonds, but then his partner makes two!

[mgoetze]

In my mind, there is a certain standard of player, at or below my own level (that being NGS ♣A), for whom not discarding the ♦8 on the next spade is worse than careless. Whether the East player in question is of that standard I cannot say.

[lamford]

In my mind, there is a certain standard of player, at or below my own level (that being NGS ♣A), for whom not discarding the ♦8 on the next spade is worse than careless. Whether the East player in question is of that standard I cannot say.

This particular East had an NGS of 10, and had misplayed the suit combination of J92 opposite AT753 (for one loser) on the previous hand. Mind you this was only pointed out by Michael Rosenberg, so no disgrace there! However he was ranked in the bottom half of the field, and was described by his partner as "not a terribly strong player".

[WellSpyder]

The entire story just proves to me that I am right when saying that claiming hardly ever saves more than at best a couple of seconds, and more often than not wastes far more time. The only exception is when Declarer clearly (to everybody) has all remaining tricks and there are no outstanding trumps.

 

Agree. Even though disputes occur on a minority of claims, they cause much hassle.

 

I very strongly disagree with both of you. I played for the first time last night with quite a strong partner, but one who appeared to have a complete aversion to claiming. It was painful, and we were slow to move for almost every round (though I should stress she was a pleasure to play with in other respects). I was more than once tempted to claim as dummy when it was obvious the hand was over, and even once as defender when it was clear my partner had the remaining tricks....

[billw55]

I very strongly disagree with both of you. I played for the first time last night with quite a strong partner, but one who appeared to have a complete aversion to claiming. It was painful, and we were slow to move for almost every round (though I should stress she was a pleasure to play with in other respects). I was more than once tempted to claim as dummy when it was obvious the hand was over, and even once as defender when it was clear my partner had the remaining tricks....

Oh, I am aware that these things happen. I have played against such players that not only do not claim, but play out each cold trick ponderously slowly. I get the frustration. And I assure you that I at least play quickly - the extra few tricks to reach my self-imposed claim requirement take little time. If it's a team match, after a few boards I may judge ops as able to process claims correctly and modify my behavior. Also note that I am not talking about never claiming at all: rather, claiming at (say) trick 8 when I could have claimed at trick 5.

 

But as a precaution against strangers, I do believe I save time in the long run. For example, look at the event this thread is based on. These were very competent players, and yet there came an undoubtedly time consuming director call, surely much longer than just playing another trick or two would have taken. And possibly some hard feelings as well, to read the thread on bridgewinners.

 

And for the record, while I have had my claims disputed many times, I have only once ever been chided for not claiming.

[lamford]

And I assure you that I at least play quickly - the extra few tricks to reach my self-imposed claim requirement take little time.

I hope you are not varying your tempo for a non bridge reason ... :)

[pran]

You could be right. [...]

What more do you need?

West held his cards in such a way that they "could be seen by East", in fact according to your story they were indeed seen.

 

Don't you understand Law 49?

[barmar]

This particular East had an NGS of 10, and had misplayed the suit combination of J92 opposite AT753 (for one loser) on the previous hand. Mind you this was only pointed out by Michael Rosenberg, so no disgrace there! However he was ranked in the bottom half of the field, and was described by his partner as "not a terribly strong player".

Doesn't a statement like that depend on the strength of the field? The bottom of the leaderboard on the 3rd day of the Blue Ribbon Pairs includes a number of champion players.

[lamford]

Doesn't a statement like that depend on the strength of the field? The bottom of the leaderboard on the 3rd day of the Blue Ribbon Pairs includes a number of champion players.

Indeed. The player in question had a UK NGS ranking of 10, which I think put him in the top half of the country, but the bottom half of a strong club duplicate, such as the YC.

[axman]

You could be right. I would have interpreted West's action as a silent defensive claim, and as he did not make a claim statement he cannot be asked to repeat it. I don't think West's cards become penalty cards because he does not make it clear how many tricks he is claiming and how. In the main line, he actually makes no tricks, when his partner discards a heart and overtakes the ten of diamonds, but then his partner makes two!

 

Sometimes the implications of language can be obscured. Is it probable that, by law, a defender can claim for his side only those tricks that his hand will take? that is, referring to L70D2:

 

The Director does not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner’s selecting a particular play from among alternative normal* plays.

[pran]

Sometimes the implications of language can be obscured. Is it probable that, by law, a defender can claim for his side only those tricks that his hand will take? that is, referring to L70D2:

 

The Director does not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner’s selecting a particular play from among alternative normal* plays.

No, a defender may claim any number (including all) of the remaining tricks. And his partner may immediately reject any claim that implies conceding one or more of the remaining tricks (such rejection makes that claim void).

 

But that part of Law 70D2 applies when resolving the claim if contested.

[mycroft]

That is the key. If West claimed to avoid East's misplay (whether it was because it was "obvious" to West, or whether West was actually concerned), then there's a problem. If it was deliberate, even more so.

 

But the claim is ruled under L70D2, and it's a question of whether, knowing that your hearts are alone, and having seen partner pitch the "queen-that-makes-your-jack-an-entry" on the last trick, it's careless or inferior not to keep all your winners, and not pitch the only entry card you can have. I would claim that clearly, had it been a few tricks earlier, yes, you could forget that the ♦J was an entry, but when the queen was just played, I would expect for most it would be beyond careless.