|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
International Bridge Laws ForumIf you need help with the Laws or rulings from |
| 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 ] [ > ] |
|
[James Vickers] Reply |
Dummy: J / Q 10 x x / - / -
Declarer: 4 3 / x / Q / Q Contract is 4S, all the queens are masters. LHO is on lead. Declarer faces his cards to claim, realises he has made a mistake as RHO has a higher trump than the four, and picks the cards up again. I (dummy) see that the players intend to continue playing and call the director. The TD requires declarer to face his cards and make a claim statement. Declarer says he has to know what LHO intends to lead first, and the TD prompts him to say what he would do if, say, a heart were led. LHO protests that she is not going to lead a heart. TD asks what she is going to lead, and she places a diamond on the table. The TD rules that declarer makes all the remaining tricks. A club lead would have defeated the contract, as RHO is void in the suit. In such situations the director has to rule as equitably as possible to both sides, resolving doubtful points against the claimer. Since there is a reasonable line of play which would give the defenders a trick I would have awarded this outcome. I think it is wrong to hold LHO to her diamond lead as this is tantamount to allowing play to continue. However, the fact that she failed to find the killing lead even with declarer's hand on view makes me question whether this counts as a "doubtful point". I think that the director got this one wrong, but are there any circumstances in which the director should not award the results of best defence? What if the only winning defence is extremely unlikely to be found? |
bluejak  428 posts Forum Host Reply |
Claims test the TD's judgement almost more than any other type of ruling!
 I should be very interested to see what Ed and Jim say about this one. My guess is I would give the defence a trick. The TD seems to have bullied a lead out of the defender, and if left to her own devices with no TD to bully her she might have got it right. However, it is up to the TD to judge, or perhaps better, the Appeals Committee. That does not mean I like leaving decisions to Appeals Commmittees, but in this case the TD seems to have created the problem. The TD should have stuck to his original idea of a claim statement to apply on every lead. 
|
bergid  35 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
This is a very interesting situation with many facets!
 I would like to ask three questions, if I may: (1) Is dummy allowed to call the director? (2) Is declarer allowed to retract a claim? (3) Is it legal for either defender to dictate a line of play and if so, under what circumstances? I thought it was permissible, if a line of play was not clearly stated and/or if there was an outstanding trump, that either defender could do so, such as, in this case, requesting partner to lead a club. |
|
JimO 175 posts Forum Host Reply |
1. Did a claim occur? The TD apparently decided that declarer's actions constituted a claim under Law 69A.
Once a claim has occurred, play ceases. 2. The TD should follow the procedure outlined in Law 70B. He should ask declarer to repeat his "clarification statement". If declarer made no such statement, he should require declarer to state the line of play he intended at the time he claimed. (If this is the case, the TD should not allow declarer to use any inferences from a Defender's objection, nor should Declarer be allowed time to think up a line of play.) Subsequently, ALL the hands are faced, and the Defenders can state any objections to the claim. (If LHO can't find a club lead now...) 3. It appears that all 3 conditions are met under 70C for awarding a trick to the defenders. Assuming LHO has something like -,xx,x,x and RHO 5,Jx,x,- I would award a trick to the defenders if they can find a club lead from RHO's hand with all 4 hands exposed. To answer Bergid's questions: 1.) Dummy may call the Director after play has concluded - this includes a claim being made. (Law 42B3). 2.) Declarer may not retract a claim. 3.) Defender may not "dictate a line of play", that is, may not require Declarer to play irrationally, nor may he require to play in a way contrary to any "clarification statement". But if there is any line of play, not inconsistent with such a statement, that allows a trick or tricks to be won by the defenders, they should be awarded those tricks.
|
|
Ed 172 posts Forum Host Reply |
I agree completely with Jim, except where he says "if they can find a club lead from RHO's hand", since it's LHO who's on lead, and RHO who's void in clubs.
Clarification on the question whether declared actually claimed: "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)." -- Law 68A Declarer did show his cards, and he did intend to claim when he did that, so in fact he did claim. All else follows. |
|
JimO 175 posts Forum Host Reply |
Oops. Of course I meant "a club lead from LHO's hand".
And yes, if Declarer placed his cards on the table, that clearly constitutes a claim. But one problem I always seem to have when determining whether or not a claim was made, or a card was played, is that the two sides often disagree. I have players demonstrate how they held their cards. "The card was put like this!" "No, it was touching the table!" "No, it was at least 6 inches off the table." A bridge Director is rarely at the table at the time of such a play. Imagine being a baseball umpire sitting in the dugout when a pitch was made, then being called to the plate to determine whether the pitch was a ball or strike. (For you non-Americans: imagine being a football linesman at the one end of the field, called to the other end of the field to determine whether a player was offside or not). OK, enough ranting.
|
|
bluejak 428 posts Forum Host Reply |
What you are thinking of is some Rubber Bridge Laws, and not even the most recent! But in duplicate there is no playing on, so the TD will make decisions: there is no need and no advantage to defenders telling each other what to do. Yes, it might have helped in the actual case, but only because the TD handled it very badly! 
|
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
7 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 6 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 00:45:34 Wed Aug 27 2003 |
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
Legend :: 
Read Topic :: 
Unread Topic
Read Topic :: Unread Topic
Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status