[pigpenz]

opp made a faulty claim in a 3 card ending where he claimed he had the rest of the tricks but he didnt. He only had 2! Now it used to be that play quit at that point and opps could say play this card if you have it. Especially if you havent designated your line of play.

One opp said thats only at club bridge

So what laws apply here and what options does non offending side have in this, dont have my rule book here. The ACBL director said blah blah and thats my ruling. I didnt think it was a matter of ruling here but enforcing the laws of bridge?

Just curious?

[pigpenz]

ok found it
LAW 69
PROCEDURE FOLLOWING DECLARER'S CLAIM OR CONCESSION
(Club Law 69)

When declarer has made a claim or concession, play is temporarily suspended and declarer must place and leave his hand face up on the table and forthwith make a comprehensive statement as to his proposed plan of play, including the order in which he will play the remaining cards.
Declarer's claim or concession is allowed, and the deal is scored accordingly, if both defenders agree to it. The claim or concession must be allowed if either defender has permitted any of his remaining cards to be mixed with another player's cards; otherwise, if either defender disputes declarer's claim or concession, it is not allowed. Then, play continues.
When his claim or concession is not allowed, declarer must play on, leaving his hand face up on the table. At any time, either defender may face his hand for inspection by his partner, and declarer may not impose a penalty for any irregularity committed by a defender whose hand is so faced.
The objective of subsequent play is to achieve a result as equitable as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point must be resolved in favor of the defenders. Declarer may not make any play inconsistent with the statement he may have made at the time of his claim or concession. And if he failed to make an appropriate statement at that time, his choice of plays is restricted thereby:
(a) if declarer made no relevant statement, he may not finesse* in any suit unless an opponent failed to follow in that suit before the claim or concession, or would subsequently fail to follow in that suit on any conceivable sequence of plays.
( if declarer may have been unaware, at the time of his claim or concession, that a trump remained in a defender's hand, either defender may require him to draw or not to draw the outstanding trump.
© if declarer did not, in his statement, mention an unusual plan of play, he may adopt only a routine line of play.
If declarer attempts to make a play prohibited under this law, either defender may accept the play or, provided neither defender has subsequently played, require declarer to withdraw the card so played and substitute another that conforms to his obligations.

[mike777]

pigpenz, on Nov 17 2005, 04:00 PM, said:

opp made a faulty claim in a 3 card ending where he claimed he had the rest of the tricks but he didnt. He only had 2! Now it used to be that play quit at that point and opps could say play this card if you have it. Especially if you havent designated your line of play.

One opp said thats only at club bridge

So what laws apply here and what options does non offending side have in this, dont have my rule book here.  The ACBL director said blah blah and thats my ruling. I didnt think it was a matter of ruling here but enforcing the laws of bridge?

Just curious?

You can tell your partner to play a card, true, but you cannot make declarer play any random silly card even if they have not stated a line of play. Equitable result is the key word here.

[pigpenz]

i think where we go off line here, is that TD's and online bridge in general dont really require TD's to frequent the rule book like real life directors do. If TD said law 69 etc that would be great and quite impressive. Online bridge doesnt seem to have any penalties that can be served up like in real life bridge, maybe we will progress someday to the point where we can have bids/leads etc out of turn and penalties can be made. Which if we are tring to simulate real bridge should be allowed to happen.

[FrancesHinden]

I don't recognise the 'Law' you are quoting at all. It certainly doesn't come out of my copy of the laws, and is actually quite different to what the official rulebook says. What reference are you using?

[pigpenz]

i didnt have my official copy for directing so just did a search on google, believe it or not it was hard to find anywhere that had the laws of bridge

[MickyB]

Not really - I typed "bridge laws" into google and got this.

[jillybean]

Try these too

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/clubs...Decisions04.pdf

http://www.worldbrid...tems/policy.asp

[epeeist]

Online, if a faulty claim is made by the declarer, no harm to opps. Indeed, benefit to them, they can see each other's hands and thus (effectively) it's like allowing them to consult on defence, they can play cards to best advantage since see all hands.

If fault claim made by a defender, no harm to declarer, since each defender will not see the other's hand (unlike face-to-face), only declarer sees all, and again, can simply play to his or her best advantage.

Unless the fact that a claim made by one defender is somehow a signal to the other, but that seems rather tenuous.

Thus, there is (1) no harm, and (2) potentially great benefit (if seeing cards makes a difference) to having an opponent make a faulty claim on BBO. So why the problem?

[pigpenz]

Did look up the rules in Encylopedia of bridge, and one thing that happens is that all four hands are now face up! Delcarer cant pull trump if one outstanding and cant play suit in a way that has not been accounted for by earlier play, say opp showing out declarer cant finesse.

Is Directors responsiblity to try and restore equity with all bias going towards the defenders.

[epeeist]

pigpenz, on Nov 20 2005, 12:59 PM, said:

Did look up the rules in Encylopedia of bridge, and one thing that happens is that all four hands are now face up! Delcarer cant pull trump if one outstanding and cant play suit in a way that has not been accounted for by earlier play, say opp showing out declarer cant finesse.

Is Directors responsiblity to try and restore equity with all bias going towards the defenders.

I don't undestand why you're dealing with things that can only happen in face-to-face bridge, not on BBO.

On BBO, the hands are NOT all "face up" after a claim! To the perspective of the non-claiming side, they are, but that's presumbaly intended to benefit them (rough justice) if the other side has misclaimed.

The claiming side (whether the defenders, or declarer), however, does NOT see each others hands when they claim, on BBO.

Just like outside of claiming, if you're dummy, and see all 4 hands (if set that way), that's only you. The others do NOT see all 4 hands, only the dummy and their own.

[barmar]

The problem is that declarer may be able to infer how to play the hand when the claim is declined.

For instance, if he claimed on the assumption that a suit would split evenly so he could run it from the top, but didn't say this explicitly when claiming, he might infer from the decline that this isn't happening, and then take a finesse. To protect against this, the defenders must decline whenever they can see that their cards could have been distributed some other way.

To protect against this better, we need more enforcement of the requirement to state a line of play. If the claim is declined, declarer must still follow that line. So during the claim he should be required to say whether he's running the suit or finessing, and the defenders can acquiesce or decline based on that. If they decline, he can probably then claim a lesser number of tricks, explaining something like "losing the finesse, taking the rest".

In friendly games or f2f bridge, this can often be speeded up: declarer asks "I'm going to finesse, is it on or off?" or "I'm running the suit from the top, do they split?", and then claims the appropriate number of tricks.