[MrAce]

http://bridgewinners...ion-on-a-claim/


How would you rule?

[weejonnie]

I would like to know the relative strengths of North and South. Technically South's statement should not be accepted (Law 70.D.2) (as it depends on North keeping two spades to the end), PROVIDED North keeping ♥KX can be regarded as a 'normal' play (includes careless or inferior for the class of player concerned).

(There is no definition in the laws as to what 'careless' and 'inferior' mean AFAIK. If there is I would appreciate a link to improve my bridge knowledge. Obviously keeping two hearts is 'inferior' - but is it 'normal') Or does 'normal' mean 'excluding revokes')

There is also the question of 'any doubtful points shall be rules against the claimer'. This has been held to be very wide-ranging with even world-class players being brought up as they might have unblocked.

The pertinent part is " South claimed and told "ok whoever has spades will take last trick or tricks from dummy"". Is this a claim?

"Any statement to the effect that a contestent will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." - South's statement did not say this.

Has he suggested that play be curtailed? Well maybe.

I haven't analysed the hand - it is perectly possible that South has the count and knows North has (at point of 'claim') 98 Spades and KX of hearts and is telling him to keep spades.

(I would even consider ruling this under law 23 since South's statement could be an irregularity and he could have been aware that this would damage the NOS. Certainly if this was in a North London Bridge Club I suspect SB as declarer would raise an objection)

[MrAce]

weejonnie, on 2016-October-30, 13:00, said:

I would like to know the relative strengths of North and South. Technically South's statement should not be accepted (Law 70.D.2) (as it depends on North keeping two spades to the end), PROVIDED North keeping ♥KX can be regarded as a 'normal' play (includes careless or inferior for the class of player concerned).

(There is no definition in the laws as to what 'careless' and 'inferior' mean AFAIK. If there is I would appreciate a link to improve my bridge knowledge. Obviously keeping two hearts is 'inferior' - but is it 'normal') Or does 'normal' mean 'excluding revokes')

There is also the question of 'any doubtful points shall be rules against the claimer'. This has been held to be very wide-ranging with even world-class players being brought up as they might have unblocked.

The pertinent part is " South claimed and told "ok whoever has spades will take last trick or tricks from dummy"". Is this a claim?

"Any statement to the effect that a contestent will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." - South's statement did not say this.

Has he suggested that play be curtailed? Well maybe.

I haven't analysed the hand - it is perectly possible that South has the count and knows North has (at point of 'claim') 98 Spades and KX of hearts and is telling him to keep spades.

(I would even consider ruling this under law 23 since South's statement could be an irregularity and he could have been aware that this would damage the NOS. Certainly if this was in a North London Bridge Club I suspect SB as declarer would raise an objection)

NS are good players. Not world class or maybe not even expert but good adv+ players.

Why North have not claimed himself is the question people ask. Chris Gibson replied this very well imo, and that was "Some players simply do not claim in defense"

When W played 3rd ♣ to dummy, I do not believe discarding spade is a normal careless or inferior play. To me it is illogical. I mean, it is dummy that north player sees. Not even close hand. Forcing him to discard something way too illogical that he sees with his own eyes, is way too harsh imo. But I may be wrong of course.

[weejonnie]

MrAce, on 2016-October-30, 13:27, said:

NS are good players. Not world class or maybe not even expert but good adv+ players.

Why North have not claimed himself is the question people ask. Chris Gibson replied this very well imo, and that was "Some players simply do not claim in defense"

When W played 3rd ♣ to dummy, I do not believe discarding spade is a normal careless or inferior play. To me it is illogical. I mean, it is dummy that north player sees. Not even close hand. Forcing him to discard something way too illogical that he sees with his own eyes, is way too harsh imo. But I may be wrong of course.

The problem was: he was never given the chance not to do something illogical.

Now I agree that it is almost certain that he wouldn't - and if such a play is much worse than 'inferior' then it can be omitted.

I think that on the balance of evidence that I would allow it given NS are 'good adv+ players' as the laws say that the class of player has to be taken into account. However if North was a weak player or playing with a pro then I would be far less inclined.
--------------

Claiming is fraught with dangers. No matter what the result at the table, I hope South is now more aware of the problems that can arise.