Key to Abbreviations
MI: misinformation
UI: unauthorised information
TD: tournament director
LA: logical alternative
Other bridgetalk forums
Polling Booth
The Bridge Table
Bridge Issues
Ask an Expert
Information
Click here for Code Guide
Click here for Emoticon Key
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search
David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF
bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings :: statement with claim

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message.
Please specify your country in your query where indicated.
Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations.

Welcome, Register :: Log in 

View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ]

[ Get Email Advice of Replies ][ Print ][ Send ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ]

Danny Neill

Reply
statement with claim ( 22:16:12 SatMay 10 2003 )
Country: USA

Hi all,
If a declarer faces his cards in a claim, but nothing is uttered, is it required for the defenders to ask for a statement? Sometimes declarer is silently preparing a statement, but sometimes declarer isn't and is really just claiming the rest without a statement. If the defenders aren't required to ask, how much silence does the declarer get before it becomes a claim without a statement?

Also, the Larry Harris director's companion says something like this:

1. Repeat claim. If trumps were not mentioned state why not.

2. Make statement if none given.

3. Face remaining cards.

4. State objection.

Make statement if none given? I thought that there either was an original statment or there wasn't.

Thanks,
Dan

  
bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host
Reply
Re: statement with claim ( 21:59:07 SunMay 11 2003 )
The simple answer is No, the defenders are not required to ask for a claim statement. If declarer has claimed and said nothing then it is assumed that the claim is so obvious that it does not need one.

And quite often this is right. If part of the claim is to make three tricks from

Kx opposite AQx

then declarer does not need to explain how he is going to make three tricks. Defenders have been know to make silly objections saying "But he did not say how he was going to play it". When it is completely obvious the he does not have to. These defenders need the ethics of the game explained to them.

Another problem with claims which bears on what you are talking about is that some defenders have a habit of interrupting {often in a most rude fashion} before declarer has had a chance to make his statement. Like the defenders in the last paragraph such players need someone to explain that bridge is won by better play, not by clever ploys through the Laws.

As for how much silence is required to give a chance for declarer to utter his claim statement normal good manners are all that is required: give him a chance and if he says nothing then look at and if necessary challenge his claim.

I am afraid the Larry Harris recommendation is not in line with the Laws nor generally accepted international practice. However, a fair amount of tolerance is always given in claims.





---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm
 		 

View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ]

[ Get Email Advice of Replies ][ Print ][ Send ] [ Watch ] [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ]

6 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 5 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

 Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

 Register :: Log in

The time is now 00:31:17 Wed Aug 27 2003

Powered By BbBoard V1.4.2
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
top up
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search
David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF

Legend :: Read Topic :: Unread Topic

Email Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status