They are all mine - drawing trump

[Phil]

And what happened after you made the ruling? The response may have been quite another matter, or did she take your decision with good grace?

 

The declarer was a director and the club manager. She took it in stride.

[steve2005]

. The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. “from the top down”) in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law).

[pescetom]

The EBU gives guidance (written by Gordon Rainsford), in the L&E Publications section of their website, on adjudicating claims: http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/adjudicating-claims.pdf. Pages 2&3 seem to deal with this situation.

 

I would take this to mean that the EBUs guidance is that a claim will fail if a defender holds QX.

 

That EBU guidance says "There are two normal lines here – to play the other top spade or to finesse. Only if

both of them work, ie the Qx is onside, do we allow declarer a thirteenth trick."

I take that to mean that if a defender holds Qx then the claim will succeed if he is onside and fail if he is not.

[pran]

That EBU guidance says "There are two normal lines here – to play the other top spade or to finesse. Only if

both of them work, ie the Qx is onside, do we allow declarer a thirteenth trick."

I take that to mean that if a defender holds Qx then the claim will succeed if he is onside and fail if he is not.

And if the finesse can be taken both ways then he is (obviously) deemed to try it the unfortunate way.

[barmar]

That EBU guidance says "There are two normal lines here – to play the other top spade or to finesse. Only if

both of them work, ie the Qx is onside, do we allow declarer a thirteenth trick."

I take that to mean that if a defender holds Qx then the claim will succeed if he is onside and fail if he is not.

The example in the EBU guidance isn't quite the same as this one.

 

In their example you hold AKJ opposite xxx, so there's only one possible finesse, but you're not allowed to take a winning finesse if you didn't mention it in the claim statement. But you're not forced to lead the J, as that would not be normal.

 

In our case you have a choice between 3 plays: finesse one way, finesse the other way, or play for the drop. Since you didn't say which, you're deemed to take whichever line will be unsuccessful. But I don't think you should be deemed to take an unsuccesful first-round finesse into a singleton Q -- that seems to be a bit extreme.

[blackshoe]

And what happened after you made the ruling? The response may have been quite another matter, or did she take your decision with good grace?

She should have. The Introduction to the Laws says so.

[pescetom]

The example in the EBU guidance isn't quite the same as this one.

 

In their example you hold AKJ opposite xxx, so there's only one possible finesse, but you're not allowed to take a winning finesse if you didn't mention it in the claim statement. But you're not forced to lead the J, as that would not be normal.

 

In our case you have a choice between 3 plays: finesse one way, finesse the other way, or play for the drop. Since you didn't say which, you're deemed to take whichever line will be unsuccessful. But I don't think you should be deemed to take an unsuccesful first-round finesse into a singleton Q -- that seems to be a bit extreme.

 

As I read the EBU guidance, your claim is accepted if there is no normal play that fails. Normal play seems limited to the drop, finesse one way if feasible, finesse the other way if feasible. But it is specified that “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, so I guess some rather extreme finesses must be considered.

[Tramticket]

As I read the EBU guidance, your claim is accepted if there is no normal play that fails. Normal play seems limited to the drop, finesse one way if feasible, finesse the other way if feasible. But it is specified that “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, so I guess some rather extreme finesses must be considered.

 

I suggest you re-read. It tells us that when there are two (or more) normal plays, you get the score from adopting the wrong one. This is the exact opposite of what you are saying!

[PhilG007]

I was actually in a situation like this in a real life tournament. Declarer was in a suit grand slam and after the opening lead was made,

claimed 13 tricks by "drawing trumps" and faced his hand

My partner conceded but one defenders concession is not binding upon the other. I held Qxx in trumps I immediately

called the TD and gave my reason for disputing the claim. The TD then requested declarer to play on stating that he could draw trumps as he stated

but was barred taking a finesse against me since I was the challenger. None too pleased declarer bashed out the ace and king but was

forced to concede a trick to my queen which was now the master trump. One down

The lesson to be learned here is never make a claim until you are SURE you will take the remaining tricks and draw any outstanding

trumps BEFORE claiming.

[pran]

I was actually in a situation like this in a real life tournament. Declarer was in a suit grand slam and after the opening lead was made,

claimed 13 tricks by "drawing trumps" and faced his hand

My partner conceded but one defenders concession is not binding upon the other. I held Qxx in trumps I immediately

called the TD and gave my reason for disputing the claim. The TD then requested declarer to play on stating that he could draw trumps as he stated

but was barred taking a finesse against me since I was the challenger. None too pleased declarer bashed out the ace and king but was

forced to concede a trick to my queen which was now the master trump. One down

The lesson to be learned here is never make a claim until you are SURE you will take the remaining tricks and draw any outstanding

trumps BEFORE claiming.

Did TD refer to Law 68D2b1 with his ruling? The ruling was incorrect unless he did so and obtained agreement from all four players that play could continue.

(Assuming of course that the incident occurred under the 2017 laws)

[blackshoe]

If it occurred before the 2017 laws, I don't think there was any provision for playing on. I suppose if it was prior to 1987, I might be wrong. B-)

[pran]

If it occurred before the 2017 laws, I don't think there was any provision for playing on. I suppose if it was prior to 1987, I might be wrong. B-)

Before 2017 it was explicitly forbidden to play on after a claim.

[gordontd]

Did TD refer to Law 68D2b1 with his ruling? The ruling was incorrect unless he did so and obtained agreement from all four players that play could continue.

(Assuming of course that the incident occurred under the 2017 laws)

Law 68D2b1 does not give the TD the option to allow the players to continue. It tells him to apply Law 70 if he is summoned.

[pran]

Law 68D2b1 does not give the TD the option to allow the players to continue. It tells him to apply Law 70 if he is summoned.

This appears (literally) to be correct, however it makes no sense to understand Law 68D that way:

 

Any player may summon the Director at any time for whatever (reasonable) reason, e.g. to get clarified available options in a particular situation.

 

One of the options available to the players after a claim or a concession is that they may continue the play if all four players agree.

It cannot possibly be the intention of the laws that this option shall be forfeited just by asking the Director for advice?

[gordontd]

This appears (literally) to be correct, however it makes no sense to understand Law 68D that way:

 

Any player may summon the Director at any time for whatever (reasonable) reason, e.g. to get clarified available options in a particular situation.

 

One of the options available to the players after a claim or a concession is that they may continue the play if all four players agree.

It cannot possibly be the intention of the laws that this option shall be forfeited just by asking the Director for advice?

 

My understanding is that this option is there simply to tell the TD how to proceed if the players have continued to play on, not to give them an option to do so. I believe my understanding to be consistent with views expressed on the EBL TD forum.

[661_Pete]

I'd be inclined to reject the claim in all circumstances. Even if I as defender hold singleton Q♠, or (having seen declarer's hand) three low spades. Declarer has, as I see it, only stated an intention to "draw trumps", not any indication of how they intend to draw trumps. It's quite plausible that declarer may choose to finesse on the first round - the wrong way!

 

If this occurred on BBO, the procedure would be simple. Simply refuse the claim and ask declarer to play on. If they then guess the spades right and make their grand, no harm done.

 

In live bridge, the situation may be somewhat different, especially if one or other defender has exposed their hand. Then, I think, Law 70E(1) would come into play: "The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card". But, this being too complicated for someone like me to handle on our own, it looks like a TD call is inevitable...

 

...as seems to have happened in the hand detailed above.

 

P.S. no criticism of the TD in the above case intended - but it's really unfortunate that the declarer was so clumsy as to make her premature claim and hence suffer an adjustment. Seeing as she had a well over 50% chance of making the contract.

[pescetom]

As I read the EBU guidance, your claim is accepted if there is no normal play that fails.

 

 

I suggest you re-read. It tells us that when there are two (or more) normal plays, you get the score from adopting the wrong one. This is the exact opposite of what you are saying!

 

That seems to me to say the same thing, not the opposite.

If there is even one normal play that fails, your claim is not accepted.

If there is not, your claim is accepted.

 

But I see Gordon Railsford is writing here, maybe he could comment.

[barmar]

I'd be inclined to reject the claim in all circumstances. Even if I as defender hold singleton Q♠, or (having seen declarer's hand) three low spades. Declarer has, as I see it, only stated an intention to "draw trumps", not any indication of how they intend to draw trumps. It's quite plausible that declarer may choose to finesse on the first round - the wrong way!

I can't imagine anyone actually saying "drawing trumps" if they mean they're going to take a first-round finesse for a queen, and I think it's cruel to interpret it that way.

[barmar]

My understanding is that this option is there simply to tell the TD how to proceed if the players have continued to play on, not to give them an option to do so. I believe my understanding to be consistent with views expressed on the EBL TD forum.

I think 68D2 is very clear that playing on is an alternative to calling the TD. It says "either a. the TD may (not must) be called; or b. if all 4 plays agree, play may continue. If option b is chosen, the claim is void and not subject to to adjudication, so I don't see how it can be an instruction to the TD on what to do if they play on.

 

You may be thinking of the old Laws, which had an additional 68D3:

In accordance with Law 68D, play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim, this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The Director may accept it as evidence of the players’ probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim.

[661_Pete]

I can't imagine anyone actually saying "drawing trumps" if they mean they're going to take a first-round finesse for a queen, and I think it's cruel to interpret it that way.

Precisely why I'd want to defer judgement to the impartial TD.

[blackshoe]

Before 2017 it was explicitly forbidden to play on after a claim.

Yeah. I wasn't sure about before 1987, that's all.

[blackshoe]

Agree with Gordon. The law says that if the TD is summoned, Law 70 applies. So no option to play on.

[pran]

Before 2017 it was explicitly forbidden to play on after a claim.

Yeah. I wasn't sure about before 1987, that's all.

During the years 1932 until 1976 the laws allowed play to continue after a claim on essentially these terms (there were some variations during the period):

 

A defender was allowed to show his cards to declarer (only!) for the purpose of claiming any number of the remaining tricks.

 

Declarer could claim by facing his hand and state how he intended the play to continue.

If either defender disputed the claim they were allowed to face their hands, confer, and then direct the continued play while deciding on any point that had not been completely clarified in declare's original statement.

[axman]

This appears (literally) to be correct, however it makes no sense to understand Law 68D that way:

 

Any player may summon the Director at any time for whatever (reasonable) reason, e.g. to get clarified available options in a particular situation.

 

One of the options available to the players after a claim or a concession is that they may continue the play if all four players agree.

It cannot possibly be the intention of the laws that this option shall be forfeited just by asking the Director for advice?

 

If one notes history, the view was that it was good policy to not resume play once a claim has occurred. I can name one compelling reason- the claim must resolve without issue, and once a dispute is raised then claimer has been alerted to the likelihood that he had not been careful enough and from such inferences he is in a position to get the alternatives 'right' so to speak, but in an unfair manner.

 

I can imagine a reason for repudiating that view; and even if it is the best reason available, it at best is unsatisfactory: from time immemorial contestants have ignored the admonition and played on, often to their chagrin. And due to that persistence the idea germinated to placate the malcontents. And realizing the dissonance they drew the line between where the players act solely on their own and the point at which they seek help. And from such a vantage point one might draw the conclusion that if one of the players who wonders if it is ok to play on and seeks the TD out, the TD will say that if you want to know the law, it says that once the TD is involved he will require all disputed claims to be resolved by L70, but if you had not asked and played on without permission then the claim will be treated as if it had not happened.

 

What is problematic concerns the playing on without calling the TD when the of assent of the four players is not gained. Now, that is real mumbo jumbo.

[gordontd]

That seems to me to say the same thing, not the opposite.

If there is even one normal play that fails, your claim is not accepted.

If there is not, your claim is accepted.

 

But I see Gordon Railsford is writing here, maybe he could comment.

I agree that you both seem to be saying the same thing!