[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-April-08, 15:30, said:

The OP said that SB wanted to call the TD, and then started reciting the relevant law, and East interrupted this by making his claim. Thus, East violated the law that says that no action should be taken until the TD arrives. Worse, he was trying to prevent calling the TD -- he said they didn't need the TD, because nothing mattered at that point.

I think SB is at worst guilty of violating proprieties by showing off his knowledge of the law instead of just calling the TD. But once he indicates that he wants to call the TD, it's more wrong for another player to take action.

I suppose it depends on how you read Law 9B2. I've always considered it to apply once the director is called. The director wasn't called here because SB was too busy showing off. So SB violated Law 9B1{a} by not summoning the director at once, as that law requires, and unless 9B2 is to be read that "no action shall be taken" after attention is drawn to an irregularity (which is a possible interpretation), East did not violate that law.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-08, 10:17, said:

Does L23 apply? Declarer wouldn't likely have found the winning line. She admitted that in the first Lamford case. Could the person who made the defensive claim have known she might have found it? The winning line is staring him in the face; I say he could have known.

The thing is, and maybe this comment should be in the other thread, the winning line is quite obvious once the defender faces his cards. I am sure that declarer is now allowed to find the right line even though she may have been playing mechanically before seeing the oponnents' cards.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2014-April-08, 21:36, said:

The thing is, and maybe this comment should be in the other thread, the winning line is quite obvious once the defender faces his cards. I am sure that declarer is now allowed to find the right line even though she may have been playing mechanically before seeing the oponents' cards.

Declarer doesn't need to find the right line, although it would be nice. That's the whole point of what should be the correct ruling. If the TD, whose job it is to find your winning line and rule accordingly, is not capable, then either of the two non-claimants can point him in the right direction. Failing that, you go to committee where hopefully they can see it.

In the first thread (your case), the solution is not even double-dummy or requisite on seeing the claimer's hand; it is knowable from the play of the cards exactly what the situation is. The claimer who can see both dummy and his own cards can see declarer's winning line staring him in the face. Hence, my L23 reference. I know L23 requires there to have been an irregularity (offense). A false claim is an irregularity on my planet.

In fact your case is so obvious, I would start wondering why, by now, the claimer himself hasn't conceded that his side was only entitled to one of the four remaining tricks solely because of his claim when you admit you would have gone wrong.

You might consider keeping that question in the back of your mind for future reference.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-08, 22:17, said:

In the first thread (your case), the solution is not even double-dummy or requisite on seeing the claimer's hand; it is knowable from the play of the cards exactly what the situation is.

Yes, quite. But it is true that I was tired and not really paying attention, so I would probably have gone wrong without the reminder of seeing LHO's cards.