[bixby]

I have already conceded that I cannot produce such a law; I am instead relying on the overall structure of bridge that is implicit in the laws. I know you think that is nonsense, but I would say that written rules don't necessarily cover everything. Sometimes competitors dream up violations that the rulesmakers never imagined, and they are not necessarily let off on that basis.

Indeed, since you contemplate the possibility of awarding an artificial adjusted score, are you not implicitly determining that claiming before the bidding is over can be an irregularity? Can a director award an artificial adjusted score in a case in which there is no irregularity or violation?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-11, 13:45, said:

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?

Laws 22 and 41 stipulate that the auction ends with three passes, after which play begins. Actually, there is an intervening "Clarification period" as well.

Do we really need a law to tell us that first we bid, then we play the cards? There seems to be no law that says that cards must be played clockwise either. Perhaps such irregularities are violations of Law1, which begins "Duplicate Bridge is played..."

Anyway I think that it would be suitable to rule under L24 "Card Exposed or Led Prior to Play Period". There is no exception in this law for an attempt to claim. Also L23 may well come into play.

[bluejak]

I really don't see the point in bringing up meaningless and impossible scenarios, and I suggest we do not discuss them. BLML will be happy to accept such discussions.

The point is that you might get one claim during the auction every ten years or so where you are involved, even if only peripherally. There is no point in worrying about ones that will never happen. But if one does occur, without all the stupidities, we will have to rule. And whatever we rule, ruling "it is illegal because it is during the auction" seems wrong.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2013-February-11, 18:51, said:

I really don't see the point in bringing up meaningless and impossible scenarios, and I suggest we do not discuss them. BLML will be happy to accept such discussions.

The point is that you might get one claim during the auction every ten years or so where you are involved, even if only peripherally. There is no point in worrying about ones that will never happen. But if one does occur, without all the stupidities, we will have to rule. And whatever we rule, ruling "it is illegal because it is during the auction" seems wrong.

OK. But I would be interested to learn how to adjudicate a claim when no contract has been reached.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-12, 18:59, said:

OK. But I would be interested to learn how to adjudicate a claim when no contract has been reached.

So would I, but David's right - until it actually happens there's not much point in discussing it.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-12, 19:05, said:

So would I, but David's right - until it actually happens there's not much point in discussing it.

I for one would like to be prepared!

[blackshoe]

I suppose I'd be more concerned about it if I thought I'd ever see it before I die.

[Zelandakh]

Presumably the TD would have to judge potential auctions, resolving doubtful points in favour of the non-claiming side. That might make for a fun time if 2 pairs playing complex artificial methods got together for this scenario.

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-13, 04:43, said:

Presumably the TD would have to judge potential auctions, resolving doubtful points in favour of the non-claiming side. That might make for a fun time if 2 pairs playing complex artificial methods got together for this scenario.

Precisely!

[nige1]

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.

Another old story: Bob and Jim Sharples crafted a typically beautiful unapposed auction to 7♥. The brothers replaced their hands in the board, "Not so fast!" protested John Collings. "You're disputing the claim?" asked the incredulous would-be declarer. Collings, who held four small spades, replied "No I I'm bidding 7♠." One of the Sharples held ♠AKQJ but, before he had a chance to double, the other Sharples contracted for 7N (also solid)

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-12, 19:05, said:

So would I, but David's right - until it actually happens there's not much point in discussing it.

Perhaps Rick Beye's original response was a polite way of saying the same thing.

[iviehoff]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-13, 04:43, said:

Presumably the TD would have to judge potential auctions, resolving doubtful points in favour of the non-claiming side. That might make for a fun time if 2 pairs playing complex artificial methods got together for this scenario.

The law gives the TD no power to consider alternative auctions in resolving a claim, only alternative plays of the cards.

It is only play which ceases when a claim is made, so I think the auction can proceed. I think that the TD has to let the auction proceed to completion, including possible reopenings for MI, and when it is complete decide whether the earlier words having the form of a claim can now be construed as a claim, or else have to be construed as extraneous comment. As I mentioned, not every form of words which sounds like a claim can be construed as a claim and adjudicated as such, for example an apparent claim by dummy is construed as extraneous comment.

[Zelandakh]

I do not see anything in 70(A) restricting the TD's adjudications to the playing of the cards. Nor is there any restriction for objections, so "I would have bid 7♠" is a perfectly reasonable objection.

[iviehoff]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-13, 09:43, said:

I do not see anything in 70(A) restricting the TD's adjudications to the playing of the cards. Nor is there any restriction for objections, so "I would have bid 7♠" is a perfectly reasonable objection.

70A is one of those vague sections, like 12B1, which give some high level objectives, but which are always subject to the definitive detail present elsewhere, even if it apparently contradicts the high level objective. 70A is even more explicit than 12B1, in that it instructs the director to proceed as in 70B to 70E. In the subsequent sections, it only mentions how the Director distinguishes between alternative possible lines of play. In the absence of any explicit power to distinguish between different completions of the auction, the director should be wary of treading off-piste.

But more important than that is the clear fact that the auction is not halted by a claim. 68D only halts the play. So unless the claim is agree, and since the auction has not been halted, I see no reason the auction should not proceed to completion.

[barmar]

Since it says "play ceases", doesn't that imply that play has started, which means that you can't have a claim before the play period?

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2013-February-13, 07:54, said:

Perhaps Rick Beye's original response was a polite way of saying the same thing.

Perhaps. But there have been claims during the bidding, usually obviously correct.

I think there is some use in discussing what we should do if a pair bids up to 7NT, then puts their hands away in the board, but the opponents challenge it. This has been known to happen.

I don't think there's any pointing discussing a player who, after his LHO has bid a forcing 3♠, says "I shall take four tricks.". This is merely an attempt to disrupt the game and should be treated accordingly: discussions on how to deal with it as a claim are not going to help us become better TDs.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2013-February-13, 07:30, said:

Another old story: Bob and Jim Sharples crafted a typically beautiful unapposed auction to 7♥. The brothers replaced their hands in the board, "Not so fast!" protested John Collings. "You're disputing the claim?" asked the incredulous would-be declarer. Collings, who held four small spades, replied "No I I'm bidding 7♠." One of the Sharples held ♠AKQJ but, before he had a chance to double, the other Sharples contracted for 7N (also solid)

axman, on 2013-February-13, 10:21, said:

My thinking is that the other side having claimed it can be enforced that they face their unplayed cards. And having faced their unplayed cards during the auction period L24C comes to bear. It being notable that both being offenders an enforced pass comes to bear against them. The movies script might be:
Well, let's see them.
Now we need some help…………
Director, our opponents have exposed their cards during the auction. Do I believe correctly that they both must pass for the remainder of the auction?
Yes.
7S. P P P
And by the way there are lead penalties….and PCs.
Did I forget to mention that the other side claimed all the tricks and I'm objecting.

Good stuff, axman!

Proceeding down that path,
Yarborough Fair,
one of Richard Pavlicek's fascinating Bridge Puzzles, features a deal like that on the left.

Against an opponent's 7♥.
if South sacrifices in 7N (rather than 7♠), and
if the director rules that all cards in defender's hands are penalty cards, then
South can make his contract!

---

Jonathan Mestel said:

Tell her to make me a notrump grand;
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme.
With barely a seven held in her hand,
She will ever be a true love of mine.