[Bbradley62]

There is no director in the Express games, so there is no possibility for adjusting a score after what may or may not be an irregularity. Would it be desirable to have GIBs finish out hands when there has been a rejected claim, to prevent players from using that information to possibly change their line of play?

---

Declarer claimed after cashing ♣QJ on Tricks 3-4, and defenders rejected the claim. At this (not very high) level of competition, this probably indicates that diamonds aren't 3-3. Declarer then rode ♦10 after which East conceded all remaining tricks.

How would this be handled in a f2f tournament? How would it be handled in a sanctioned online tournament?

[blackshoe]

f2f, play would have ceased at the time of the claim. Claimer is required to state a line of play. Whether he does so or not, the TD would determine, in accordance with the laws, whether the claim is valid. At a quick glance, and assuming declarer hasn't come up with a line that hasn't occurred to me, it looks like I would rule down one, declarer getting 2 clubs, 3 diamonds, 2 hearts, and a spade.

[1eyedjack]

I would have rejected the claim sitting East or West if West held ♦Jx(x), and still claimed down one if he played for the drop. Assuming, of course, that the claim did not accompany a stated line. So at least some of the time, however GIB plays it it will give rise to an unjust result

[melind0908]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-17, 17:35, said:

f2f, play would have ceased at the time of the claim. Claimer is required to state a line of play. Whether he does so or not, the TD would determine, in accordance with the laws, whether the claim is valid. At a quick glance, and assuming declarer hasn't come up with a line that hasn't occurred to me, it looks like I would rule down one, declarer getting 2 clubs, 3 diamonds, 2 hearts, and a spade.

And these last items. Declarer is not allowed to state a claim involving a finesse that is not proven nor can declarer state a line of play involving fewer tricks than those remaining. Should declarer, in a line of play discussion, state that diamonds would be finessed, that would be disallowed. And likewise should declarer state that the hearts would be finessed that would not be allowed all because the stated claim was for all of the remaining tricks. It seems clear here that declarer was counting on 6 diamond tricks from the top down.

[mgoetze]

melind0908, on 2011-January-06, 09:08, said:

Declarer is not allowed to state a claim involving a finesse that is not proven nor can declarer state a line of play involving fewer tricks than those remaining.

Sorry, what game are you talking about?