[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-February-04, 02:11, said:

Is that the duty of the LC?

Nothing about responding to questions from members (or even TDs). I think the only way you could get them to answer the question is through a series of appeals (kind of like getting a case heard by the Supreme Court).

According to the ACBL BoD, the LC is "the final arbiter of the laws in North America". I should think that both the BoD and the LC would like to ensure that interpretations of the laws are uniform in North America, so that TDs and players alike know what the rules of the game are. But 'do not confuse "duty" with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different'.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2013-February-04, 03:27, said:

Really the question is not well formed. Irregular claims occur frequently, the question is not "is this legal", rather the question is "what should we do when someone claims in these circumstances?"

Since the play period has not started yet, the auction may not yet be complete, for it can be reopened in some circumstances. So you are taking a bit of a risk in claiming at this point because you may not be completely sure that the auction has finished.

There are some other amusing scenarios. You might discover that your RHO has led or is leading, and if you exposed cards in making your "claim", you might find that you are now dummy under Law 54A.

So all in all, it is probably a bad idea to claim until the opening lead has been faced, in case your claim becomes some very embarrassing UI to your partner in some circumstances you hadn't foreseen. But if the claim does happen, the question is not "is it legal" but "what should we do about it". Usually some of the amusing circumstances I mentioned will be avoided, and in such a case I expect we just resolve the claim in the normal fashion.

You ask your questions, allow me the privilege of asking mine.

Did you actually read my post #16? I did talk about the points you mention.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-04, 09:32, said:

Did you actually read my post #16? I did talk about the points you mention.

Yes I did read it, and I have now read it twice more. My mistake, for which I apologise, was in failing to spot that post #16 and the OP had the same author, and therefore that you had developed your thinking from the original post.

I did make one or two points I do not see that you made - one about auctions being reopened, and one about L54A. The former of those two points was repeated by Trinidad in his post immediately succeeding mine. Maybe it was cross-posted. But I'm very happy to see a post agreeing with me.

[StevenG]

Am I, as a defender, expected to accept a claim when I have seen neither declarer's hand nor dummy?

[barmar]

StevenG, on 2013-February-04, 13:36, said:

Am I, as a defender, expected to accept a claim when I have seen neither declarer's hand nor dummy?

If declarer doesn't show his hand and dummy when he claims, it would be reasonable for you to dispute the claim. You obviously don't have to believe everything shown in the auction.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2013-February-04, 11:12, said:

I did make one or two points I do not see that you made - one about auctions being reopened, and one about L54A. The former of those two points was repeated by Trinidad in his post immediately succeeding mine. Maybe it was cross-posted. But I'm very happy to see a post agreeing with me.

I didn't make those specific points, no. As for agreeing or disagreeing with you, let my try to clarify my position:

1. The laws do not explicitly say that claims can be made only in the play period.
2. While it makes no sense to me to allow claims before the opening lead is faced, the laws do not prohibit it.
3. If a claim is made before play starts, and it can be resolved reasonably normally, fine.
4. If such a claim cannot be resolved reasonably normally, IMO any benefit of the doubt goes to the non-claiming side. I would lean farther that way in many cases than I might if the claimer had waited for the opening lead.
5. If there is any possibility that the final contract might not be what the claimer suggested it would be, the laws give no guidance on what to do. I haven't thought this through completely, but at the moment I'd be inclined to award an ArtAS, considering the claiming side as directly at fault and the non-claiming side as in no way at fault. Can't award a procedural penalty though, since claiming outside the play period is not clearly a breach of procedure (see 1 and 2 above).

If I understand your position correctly we seem to be substantially in agreement.

[paua]

barmar, on 2013-February-04, 15:03, said:

If declarer doesn't show his hand and dummy when he claims, it would be reasonable for you to dispute the claim. You obviously don't have to believe everything shown in the auction.

"I bid 7NT. And I'm claiming 13 tricks. I'm not showing you our hands because we're still in the auction period. Wanna double me ?"

Or they could play poker.

[GreenMan]

Eddie Kantar wrote in one of his books about a hand Jim Linhart played, wherein he and pard bid to 7♦; RHO doubled and slapped the ♦A onto the table. But Linhart bid 7NT, which kept RHO off lead and made the ♦A a penalty card, and when a non-diamond was led (void or because of UI, can't remember which), Linhart managed to scramble enough tricks in the other three suits that RHO had to discard the ace. (In Kantar's telling, Big Jim had to physically wrest it from the recalcitrant defender's hand.)

Not entirely on-topic but a good story.

[pran]

GreenMan, on 2013-February-04, 22:53, said:

Eddie Kantar wrote in one of his books about a hand Jim Linhart played, wherein he and pard bid to 7♦; RHO doubled and slapped the ♦A onto the table. But Linhart bid 7NT, which kept RHO off lead and made the ♦A a penalty card, and when a non-diamond was led (void or because of UI, can't remember which), Linhart managed to scramble enough tricks in the other three suits that RHO had to discard the ace. (In Kantar's telling, Big Jim had to physically wrest it from the recalcitrant defender's hand.)

Not entirely on-topic but a good story.

Oh, I have heard plenty stories of fleeing to 7NT when a grand has been doubled to avoid a ruff (Lightner double), a crucial lead (because the other defender would have the opening lead), a bad break in trumps and similar reasons.

I have also witnessed a player holding the trump Ace not doubling a grand for just such reason.

Well known situations.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-04, 15:30, said:

5. If there is any possibility that the final contract might not be what the claimer suggested it would be, the laws give no guidance on what to do. I haven't thought this through completely, but at the moment I'd be inclined to award an ArtAS, considering the claiming side as directly at fault and the non-claiming side as in no way at fault. Can't award a procedural penalty though, since claiming outside the play period is not clearly a breach of procedure (see 1 and 2 above).

Sometimes we can rule that a purported claim is not a claim, rather it is extraneous information and/or illegal communication, and not to be treated as a claim. For example, it is clear that a purported claim by dummy is not a claim at all, and will not be ruled on that basis.

If it transpires that the auction has not yet been completed, or may be reopened, then I will allow the auction to move to completion. If anything happens that disrupts the essential features of the claim, eg the claimer becomes dummy, or the contract is not what the claimer supposed, then I think we can usually rule that it isn't a claim.

Rather less clear is what to do if the auction moves to completion, with some actual action (ie more than just "we choose not to reopen the auction") but the contract remains what the claimer suggested, or essentially what the claimer suggested, for example it is doubled. I think it would usually be too generous to the claimer to let him play it out if he is playing essentially what he suggested when he claimed.

Things would have to have been quite seriously messed up in some way for an artificial adjusted score. Maybe if everyone has exposed their cards and then realises the auction isn't finished.

[bluejak]

GreenMan, on 2013-February-03, 17:09, said:

Er, just the opposite: No trick is in progress, so a claim can't be made legally.

Most claims are made when no trick is in progress. But they are perfectly legal.

Trinidad, on 2013-February-04, 06:28, said:

IMHO, it should only be possible to claim after the play period has started.

Your opinion would only be of interest in the correct forum, which this isn't. The question here is whether it is legal to claim before the play period starts, which I believe it is.

StevenG, on 2013-February-04, 13:36, said:

Am I, as a defender, expected to accept a claim when I have seen neither declarer's hand nor dummy?

As a non-claimer, you are expected to either accept the claim or call the TD and dispute it. This applies to every claim, whether you have seen other hands or not.

[blackshoe]

Director: What is your objection to the claim?
Player: That, the auction not yet being over, claimer has very little information on which to base his claim, and that my partner and I have correspondingly too little information to determine whether the claim is valid, and that since the auction is not over, the final contract which the claim assumes may not in fact be the final contract.
or Player: That, dummy having not yet been faced, claimer has very little information on which to base his claim, and that my partner and I have correspondingly too little information to determine whether the claim is valid.

An additional objection may be that claimer has not stated a clear line of play. IMO, that alone is often* sufficient for an objection to a claim.

*In every case except those in which there is clearly no reasonable line of play under which the claim fails - which is highly unlikely to be the case when the claim is made prior to the play period starting.

[bixby]

I don't have it in front of me, but I recall that in Alan Truscott's book "Grand Slams" one of the deals discussed concerns an eminent player who bid a grand slam as a sacrifice, and (after three passes) told his LHO, "No lead, down five," and then proceeded to say in some detail what LHO held based on the bidding -- I seem to recall that declarer was able to infer that LHO held the 8 of a particular suit.

So this eminent player obviously thought it was proper to claim before the opening lead.

David Stevenson's Laws Page (at http://www.blakjak.d...uk/law_crit.htm) contains the story of a leading pair who bid to a grand slam and then put their hands back in the board, another example of strong players who obviously believed it was appropriate to claim before the opening lead.

Although in that story the bidding had not concluded, and one of the opponents outbid them as a sacrifice. I would say it is illegal to claim before the conclusion of the bidding, but legal (if often unwise) to claim before the opening lead is faced.

[bluejak]

Please tell me the Law that says it is illegal to claim before the bidding ends.

[bixby]

You raise a good point and I have to concede that I see no law expressly forbidding it, but I still think that some claims are so far outside the structure implied by the laws as to be illegal.

Example: the players take their hands out of the board, North opens 1NT, and West immediately exposes all his cards and says, "I claim 5 tricks." North/South dispute the claim.

Is the Director really supposed to simply "adjudicate[] the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides," while resolving doubtful points against the claimer (Law 70A)? How would the Director do that? By imagining everything about the subsequent auction and play, and although resolving doubtful points against E/W, being equitable to both N/S and E/W? If we say yes, then weak players could protect themselves from making gross errors when playing against strong players by simply claiming before the bidding even starts. They might get better results than if they had played the deal.

So while, as I concede, I see no law expressly covering the point, I would still say that this hypothetical claim would be illegal.

[blackshoe]

"It violates no law. Still, it's illegal." Nonsense.

[bixby]

If you really think it's nonsense, I would like to know what you would do if you, as Director, were summoned to the table in such a case.

Here's the case: the players take their cards out of the board, North opens 1C, and West immediately faces his cards and claims that E/W will take five tricks and N/S eight.

What will you do? I would be particularly interested to know whether you would consider imposing a procedural penalty on E/W.

[blackshoe]

Read my post #26 in this thread. Note: an ArtAS is a last resort, not an excuse to avoid trying to figure out the result of the claim.

[bixby]

OK, sorry, I missed that in Post 26 you said that you cannot impose a procedural penatly.

But let me up the ante: if that's true once, it's presumably true every time. So now let's suppose West does this on every deal throughout a session. For 26 deals in a row, West exposes his cards and claims before the first round of bidding is over. Are you really going to simply adjudicate every claim as stated in your post 26, and not even suggest to West that he is proceeding at all improperly?

I think a large percentage of directors actually faced with this situation would instruct West that he is acting improperly.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps they would, but are they right to do so? What law permits the TD to say this? If the player says "show me what law I'm violating" what is the director going to say?