Playing after claim

[sanst]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakh982dc&w=s5h6dkqjc&n=s32h3d2c2&e=s9876hdtc]399|300[/hv]

In Holland there has been a discussion between directors, some of them top level TD's, about the new Law 68D2b, that allows playing on after a claim if all players concur. In this situation, S is declarer in a hearts contract, a spade is played, S wins with the ace and says 'The rest is mine'. EW are not very experienced and rather poor players who can't oversee a claim, not even when it's obvious, so W says something like 'Can't we play on, we don't like claiming'. E supports his partner and S concurs, so does N. S, smelling a rat, now plays his hearts from the top and finally the king of spades, thus making al the tricks. W thinks it probable that the declarer had forgotten about his trump and would have played the king first, in which case he (W) would have won a trick. So the TD is summoned. If you're this worthy, what would you decide? Does it make any difference that S didn't show his cards and didn't state a line of play?

[steve2005]

This hand isn't a good example as playing H is so obviously correct even if not smelling a rat.

[RMB1]

It seems clear that West has no redress.

 

I think the effect of the new law is that players will keep playing on until the first time it goes wrong. The first time it goes wrong, they will call the TD who will probably deny them redress. After that the player will not seek to play on after a claim.

[blackshoe]

My advice to players would be "if your opponent or your partner wishes to play on, don't. And don't ask to play on yourself. Call the director and let him deal with the claim."

[lamford]

My advice to players would be "if your opponent or your partner wishes to play on, don't. And don't ask to play on yourself. Call the director and let him deal with the claim."

gordontd summed it up perfectly many months ago:

 

What's difficult about saying "I've made a claim and if it wasn't clear enough we should get the director to adjudicate"?

[nige1]

IMO, the new law was half-right:

 

Claim law should be like that for Rubber Bridge or BBO on-line play: declarer claims by stating a number of tricks, facing his hand and continuing single-dummy. Defenders play on, double dummy, until satisfied. This protocol overcomes language and other communication difficulties. It's simple, fair, encourages claims, speeds up the game, and rarely involves a director.

 

For some decades, law changes seem to be geared to the WBFLC's overall aim: to achieve (mythical) "equity" by devolving responsibility to local regulators and individual directors: more director-calls and more subjective rulings are inevitable.

 

The new claim law might suit directors but it incorporates the worst of all worlds for players. When puzzled defenders ask declarer to play on, declarer will usually elect to call the director, resulting in delay and rulings that are hard to understand. It discourages claiming because it's complex, frustrating, controversial, and threatens to slow down the game.

[WellSpyder]

Claim law should be like that for Rubber Bridge or BBO on-line play: declarer claims by stating a number of tricks, facing his hand and continuing single-dummy. Defenders play on, double dummy, until satisfied. This protocol overcomes language and other communication difficulties. It's simple, fair, encourages claims, speeds up the game, and rarely involves a director.

Fortunately, in my view, not everybody agrees with you. (I'm sure the reason the law hasn't been changed in the way you suggest isn't because the lawmakers didn't think of it. After all, you must have made this exact proposal at least half a dozen times while I have been following these forums.)

 

It may not be a popular view, but I actually think the lawmakers have done a good job on this law. The new law preserves most of the advantage of the previous law in not allowing declarer to "wake up" to a problem he wasn't aware of (since experienced defenders will not be tempted by the idea of giving declarer the option to play on), while allowing less experienced defenders whose only problem is that they genuinely can't follow what declarer is saying he will do to see it played out. (I know that at least one regular poster says that as declarer he will refuse requests to play it out, but I suspect this is a minority view. At least I hope so, since to me it will mainly look like a discourtesy to less experienced players who we should be aiming to encourage rather than intimidate.)

[barmar]

IMO, the new law was half-right:

 

Claim law should be like that for Rubber Bridge or BBO on-line play: declarer claims by stating a number of tricks, facing his hand and continuing single-dummy. Defenders play on, double dummy, until satisfied. This protocol overcomes language and other communication difficulties. It's simple, fair, encourages claims, speeds up the game, and rarely involves a director.

How would that help in a case like this? The mere act of disputing the claim alerted declarer to the possibility of an outstanding trump, and got him to play it out correctly. The defenders didn't gain anything by asking to play it out.

 

What they lost was the opportunity for the TD to apply Law 70C and rule that declarer probably forgot about the outstanding trump, which they could score if he played carelessly.