[Ethel]

I was not party to this event, but I am interested in the LAWS which would govern it.

Declarer makes a claim. He does not state what he is going to do. His LHO is on lead. His RHO jumps in and says to her partner: "I direct you to lead such and such a suit". This will put the contract down as declarer has to follow suit, RHO has a trump and can trump this suit. On the table is the ACE of the suit that RHO wants led. LHO had just won a trick with the K of a suit, there were more of the suit on the table and as LHO was also holding the Ace of the suit, probably would have continued with that suit, thinking that that would put the contract down. The director was NOT called. If RHO is allowed to direct the suit that her partner can lead would you please tell me under which law this is. I understand that declarer could lose a trick with an unmentioned trump, with rational play: however, I cannot find the wording in the laws that allows RHO opponent to direct a certain lead from her partner.

Thank you very much.

Sorry was not specific - This was duplicate bridge. As the comment had been made what should the director allow the LHO to lead? What do you suggest for the RHO - PP or warning or??? This is ACBL land and not too many PP's are given out. Would you be interested to know that the RHO was a director herself? Any suggestions now that you know that?

[bluejak]

At rubber bridge after a claim defenders can show their cards and suggest plays to each other.

But not at duplicate. When a player claims his opponents have two options: either to accept the claim, or to call the Director who will sort it out.

[wyman]

In the ACBL, this is governed by Law 68(d). Play ceases as soon as there is a claim. The director should sort it out if anyone refutes the claim. Even if you concede all of the tricks at the time, you can (per law 69d "withdraw your acquiescence to the claim", so long as you do so within 30 minutes of the scores being posted (per law 79c).

[jeremy69]

Quote

however, I cannot find the wording in the laws that allows RHO opponent to direct a certain lead from her partner.

For a good reason. It isn't there. Of course the director should have been called and when he eventually arrived in addition to dealing with the claim he might also deal with RHO for inventing a right to direct what is done.

[Siegmund]

I wouldn't be giving any PPs to RHO here, though I would encourage him to use a different choice of words in the future.

After a claim, he has every right to see his partner's cards and call attention to the fact that there exists a line of play that costs declarer a trick. As already mentioned, in rubber bridge he'd tell his partner to lead suit X, while in duplicate he'd call the director and state his objection: "partner can lead suit X and I can ruff." Once the director finally shows up he'll surely be awarding this trick to the defense. (If you are worried about UI issues talking to one's partner, there aren't any after a claim.)

[pran]

Siegmund, on 2010-October-21, 13:42, said:

I wouldn't be giving any PPs to RHO here, though I would encourage him to use a different choice of words in the future.

After a claim, he has every right to see his partner's cards and call attention to the fact that there exists a line of play that costs declarer a trick. As already mentioned, in rubber bridge he'd tell his partner to lead suit X, while in duplicate he'd call the director and state his objection: "partner can lead suit X and I can ruff." Once the director finally shows up he'll surely be awarding this trick to the defense. (If you are worried about UI issues talking to one's partner, there aren't any after a claim.)

Law 68D states that play ends.
Law 70 specifies the procedure to be followed if either opponent disputes the claim.
Law 70B1 requires the claimer to repeat his claim statement (if any)
Law 70B2 then allows both opponents to dispute the claim, and it is perfectly legal for partner to the opponent at lead at this time to ask for a specific lead.

Eventually the Director shall adjudicate the claim and must then also consider whether Law 70D2 prohibits the requested lead.

[blackshoe]

wyman, on 2010-October-21, 11:36, said:

In the ACBL, this is governed by Law 68(d). Play ceases as soon as there is a claim. The director should sort it out if anyone refutes the claim. Even if you concede all of the tricks at the time, you can (per law 69d "withdraw your acquiescence to the claim", so long as you do so within 30 minutes of the scores being posted (per law 79c).

This Law is the same everywhere, not just in the ACBL.

[karlson]

What would the circumstances have to be for the director not to award a trick to the defense here?

[Siegmund]

Quote

Eventually the Director shall adjudicate the claim and must then also consider whether Law 70D2 prohibits the requested lead.

70D2 applies only if one defender initiates a claim, at a time when his partner still has a choice to make and one of partner's choices prevents the claim from working. By all means, consider it if it applies. If declarer claims, it never applies.

[Ethel]

Hello everyone,
This does not seem to be getting any easier. Could someone please answer the question that Karlson posed? I understand that some directors in the ACBL at the tournament level are okaying the fact that RHO can "direct that partner lead suit X". If RHO has made the comment before his partner LHO has pulled out a card, and before the director has been called, how do you determine that LHO probably would NEVER have led the suit "directed"? In the situation I started with, declarer has all winning tricks if the "directed" suit is not led.
This is law 70 D2
2. The Director shall not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner’s selecting a particular play from among alternative
normal* plays.

It appears to me that once all the cards are on the table LHO can see that the "directed" suit would allow partner to trump the suit and put the contract down. Ergo, it should be ruled as ok, even tho that lead would probably under normal* circumstances would never be led. When rulings have to be made at the table, it would be helpful if all situations are made abundantly clear or should just be thrown out. I understand that my last statement has no bearing on the question in mind. It is just very frustrating to not be able to state that: THIS IS THE LAW and that is all there is to it.

[blackshoe]

There are so many problems with the given scenario.

If the director never got involved in this mess, then unless the correction period is still open, both sides are stuck with whatever outcome obtained at the table. The first thing that the defense should have done when the claim was made is to call the TD.

The answer to Karlson's question is that if the TD had been called, he would not award a trick to the defense only if there was no normal line of play that could result in them getting a trick. Law 70 applies. However, as was pointed out upthread, Law 70D2 applies only to a defender's claim, so it is irrelevant here.

[bluejak]

Ethel, on 2010-October-21, 19:26, said:

Hello everyone,
This does not seem to be getting any easier. Could someone please answer the question that Karlson posed? I understand that some directors in the ACBL at the tournament level are okaying the fact that RHO can "direct that partner lead suit X". If RHO has made the comment before his partner LHO has pulled out a card, and before the director has been called, how do you determine that LHO probably would NEVER have led the suit "directed"? In the situation I started with, declarer has all winning tricks if the "directed" suit is not led.
This is law 70 D2
2. The Director shall not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner’s selecting a particular play from among alternative
normal* plays.

It appears to me that once all the cards are on the table LHO can see that the "directed" suit would allow partner to trump the suit and put the contract down. Ergo, it should be ruled as ok, even tho that lead would probably under normal* circumstances would never be led. When rulings have to be made at the table, it would be helpful if all situations are made abundantly clear or should just be thrown out. I understand that my last statement has no bearing on the question in mind. It is just very frustrating to not be able to state that: THIS IS THE LAW and that is all there is to it.

I think you are getting confused. TDs do not allow any play to happen, so they are not going to allow one player to direct his partner to do anything. It does not matter at all what LHO sees or does not see: he is not deciding how the play goes, the TD is. All that happens is that the TD hears all the arguments before he retires to consider consult then return and rule.

If the TD decides some play will never happen then he will not rule on that basis. He decides the probable outcomes, and gives the benefit of any doubt to the non-claimers.

[Phil]

The law is clear about what should happen. I cannot imagine a situation under the facts presented by the OP that the defenders would not get a trick. It does not really matter if a defender speaks up or not, but as a director I would prefer they didn't.

[bluejak]

An interesting view: I have the exact opposite. While I am seeking facts about a judgement ruling [which claim is] I want everyone to have their say.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2010-October-22, 06:28, said:

An interesting view: I have the exact opposite. While I am seeking facts about a judgement ruling [which claim is] I want everyone to have their say.

You just have to be careful in accepting what they say, since they're likely to be biased, even if it's unintentional. For instance, once RHO makes the comment about directing a lead of a specific suit, LHO might say that he might have led that suit.

[mycroft]

But what LHO says he "might have done" is effectively irrelevant and will be discounted. After all, "any normal* line" is so much more lenient for the defenders than "might have done", that I am more likely to rule that LHO will not do what he says he will (after declarer's claim, of course) than that he will have been influenced by his partner.

[bluejak]

I do not believe that TDs are any more immune to overlooking things than players. That is one of the main reasons why judgement rulings even when they are obvious are never given without consultation. So a TD who is not prepared to listen to possibilities is arrogant and incompetent.

[mgoetze]

Ethel, on 2010-October-21, 19:26, said:

I understand that some directors in the ACBL at the tournament level are okaying the fact that RHO can "direct that partner lead suit X".

It's funny how I keep finding new reasons to be glad that I don't play in the jurisdiction of the ACBL.

[RMB1]

I have no problem with a defender directing partner's lead: in the context of stating the defender's objection to the claim, for example "declarer won't the rest were partner to lead his ♦AKQ...".

Law 70B

Quote

1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim.
2. Next, the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections).

Not only does the TD have to consider defenders' objections but he/she can consider other (normal) lines to defeat the claim.