[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]

pescetom, on 2018-June-12, 09:39, said:

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

Tramticket, on 2018-June-12, 11:18, said:

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]

661_Pete, on 2018-June-13, 04:57, said:

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]

gordontd, on 2018-June-13, 02:11, said:

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:

Quote

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]

barmar, on 2018-June-13, 08:35, said:

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]

pran, on 2018-June-12, 23:37, said:

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]

pran, on 2018-June-12, 23:37, said:

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

blackshoe, on 2018-June-13, 10:15, said:

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]

pran, on 2018-June-13, 01:28, said:

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]

pescetom, on 2018-June-13, 07:31, said:

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!

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2018-June-13, 08:51, said:

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:

No I’m not thinking of the old laws. Yes they may call the TD or else play on if they all agree and it is first suggested by the non-claiming side, but IF they do call, the TD is required to apply Law 70.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2018-June-13, 13:04, said:

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.

One could, I suppose, rule after the fact that if a player actually plays on, he has assented to that, willy-nilly. Or one could rule after the fact that assent was not gained from all four players (I suspect the one who didn't assent here would be dummy) and so the director will investigate what the situation was at the time of the claim and then apply Law 70 to that. If he can't determine that, perhaps he should award an artificial adjusted score (yes, I know that's not normally an available option here). IAC a PP to both sides unless both players of a side didn't assent and play continued anyway. Perhaps it depends on how far play got before a dissenter finally called the director. IAC, I don't think "mumbo-jumbo" is an accurate description of the situation.

[cherdano]

Stephen Tu, on 2018-June-11, 07:13, said:

I'm inclined to allow the claim if there is singleton Q.

That seems reasonable at first. However, given the lack of a trump lead, it seems fairly clear to play LHO for the Q of trump. Starting with a first round finesse avoids the guess of which suit to use to return to hand when trumps break 4-0, and only loses to the singleton Q off-side and no trump lead from xxx of trumps, which would be very unusual.

Sure, the first-round finesse is clearly inferior and a little careless, but surely it is not more irrational than the following:

barmar, on 2018-June-11, 08:34, said:

I've moved this thread to the Laws & Rulings forum. There's nothing about it that's specific to offline (versus online) bridge, and it's a question about rulings (I also considered "Simple Rulings").I would allow it if the queen is singleton or doubleton. Since declarer hasn't stated that he's taking any finesses, it suggest that he's playing trumps from the top and expects the queen to drop.I'll bet someone will say that his claim suggests that he doesn't even realize he's missing the queen, so that playing a middle honor on the first trump trick would be "careless, but not irrational". I'm not going to go that far.

So Barry, a frequent poster and presumably reader of the Laws Forum makes the following mistakes:

• He does not realise that this problem is specific to offline bridge (since claims on online bridge=BBO are handled differently by the software).
  
• Then, he actually awards the claimer all tricks on a layout where a world class declarer would quite likely go down (xx with opening leader), apparently unaware that "9 Never" is based only on a miniscule percentage difference that should be overruled on even the slightest clue in the actual hand.

We could argue that is a completely irrational mistake that could happen to a competent poster only once in a blue moon, and doesn't qualify for "careless or inferior". Yet he isn't even the only poster that got such a basic claim ruling completely wrong...


To get slightly more serious, I could see the merit of allowing or disallowing the claim with a singleton Q. But when trumps are 2-2 it seems just so obviously the wrong ruling. Yet when a number of posters with interest in the laws can't even agree on such a basic case, the rules of the game do not seem in an entirely sound state...

[kchatz]

I'd allow the claim if trumps are 2-2 or the Q falls singleton. Declarer isn't allowed to guess which side may be void, even though the K of spades is correct first play.

[pran]

kchatz, on 2018-June-13, 20:13, said:

I'd allow the claim if trumps are 2-2 or the Q falls singleton. Declarer isn't allowed to guess which side may be void, even though the K of spades is correct first play.

1: Declarer plays a high trump, both follows small.
2: Then declarer plays a trump towards the other high trump (Jack towards the King or small towards the Ace) and LHO follows small.
3: Declarer suddenly realizes that he must choose between trumps 2-2 and play for the drop or trumps 3-1 and play the finesse.

The correct ruling is that declarer selects the unfortunate alternative:

Law 70E1 said:

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, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal [21] line of play.

I am surprised how many will allow the claim with trumps 2-2, how can declarer know that this is the case?

[StevenG]

pran, on 2018-June-14, 01:52, said:

The correct ruling is that declarer selects the unfortunate alternative:

I am surprised how many will allow the claim with trumps 2-2, how can declarer know that this is the case?

I don't. But banging out the top two trumps is the only line consistent with the claim statement. The law says "In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director
adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." I do not understand how "as equitably as possible to both sides" turns into "we must fabricate lines, however unlikely, and however inconsistent with the claim statemaent, so as to guarantee that the claim fails".

[lamford]

We don't know what declarer was thinking when she claimed. Two possibilities are that she thought she had the queen of spades, or she thought she had ten trumps, but in both cases there was still a possible trump loser. It also seems possible that she thought she had AQJTx opposite Kxxx.

If it had been played out, she would not have taken a first round finesse, but might have finessed on the second round. This would certainly be a normal line, and might even be best depending on the inferences from the carding at tick one. So, I would allow the claim only when there is a singleton queen of spades, as to take a first round finesse is worse than careless even for a beginner.

[pran]

StevenG, on 2018-June-14, 02:10, said:

I don't. But banging out the top two trumps is the only line consistent with the claim statement. The law says "In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director
adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer." I do not understand how "as equitably as possible to both sides" turns into "we must fabricate lines, however unlikely, and however inconsistent with the claim statemaent, so as to guarantee that the claim fails".

So you will unconditionally hold declarer to his statement to the effect that even if he cashes the King and RHO shows out he may still not be allowed to take the now obvious finesse over LHO's remaining Qxx but (blindly) draw trumps (from the top)?
Please do read Law 70E1 again and understand it.

[StevenG]

pran, on 2018-June-14, 03:00, said:

So you will unconditionally hold declarer to his statement to the effect that even if he cashes the King and RHO shows out he may still not be allowed to take the now obvious finesse over LHO's remaining Qxx but (blindly) draw trumps (from the top)?
Please do read Law 70E1 again and understand it.

I have read 70E1 again. It explicitly allows the 4-0 trump case, but only as an exception to the generalised rule. That will, of course, only work here if declarer has played the correct top honour on trick one, and we cannot say which top honour declarer will play first, so I think it a red herring.

Otherwise, "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". Declarer has not stated such a line, so I do not see why you think it relevant.

[barmar]

axman, on 2018-June-13, 13:04, said:

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.

This is why the request to play on has to be made by the non-claiming side, and assent is required from all players. You should not ask or agree to play on if you think there's a chance declarer will make a correct inference from the dispute of the claim. This clause assumes the players know what they're doing.