[Gazumper]

---

It was a goulash tourney and at the second trick when the Q♥ is played East claims 12 tricks without stating a line of play. I am sitting South and refuse the claim after about a second.

Now the fun part. East (an Expert) tanks for a few seconds and ruffs high thus promoting my Q♠ into the setting trick. He starts drawing trumps, sees the situation, stalls, calls me a 'liar' and tells me I was not correct to refuse the claim. A few moments later he quits the table.

He is the one who made the claim it is not my fault if he inferred the wrong information from my refusal, he dug a hole for himself. Had he not claimed he would have probably ruffed low and made the contract. Am I supposed to accept the claim?? Was the tempo in which I refused the claim ethical? Is bridge evolving this way? I even fear there maybe bad TD's out there who would rule in his favour!

[1eyedjack]

Intrigued to know how he knew that it was you and not your partner who rejected the claim

[Gazumper]

He made some remark 'you are a liar' and I answered it so the banter went from there. He didn't know.

[nige1]

Gazumper writes "IMPs, again. This time the contract is doubled. It was a goulash tourney and at the second trick when the Q♥ is played East claims 12 tricks without stating a line of play. I am sitting South and refuse the claim after about a second. Now the fun part. East (an Expert) tanks for a few seconds and ruffs high thus promoting my Q♠ into the setting trick. He starts drawing trumps, sees the situation, stalls, calls me a 'liar' and tells me I was not correct to refuse the claim. A few moments later he quits the table. He is the one who made the claim it is not my fault if he inferred the wrong information from my refusal, he dug a hole for himself. Had he not claimed he would have probably ruffed low and made the contract. Am I supposed to accept the claim?? Was the tempo in which I refused the claim ethical? Is bridge evolving this way? I even fear there maybe bad TD's out there who would rule in his favour!"

Who doubled? Anyway, IMO, the behaviour of Gazumper and partner is legal and ethical -- especially playing on-line. Perhaps, declarer should be reported both because of his bad manners and because his claim may have been a fishing expedition, (assuming he is not a novice "expert").

---

[JLOGIC]

Haha awesome

[Lord Molyb]

And how do we know he wouldn't have ruffed with the king anyway? I reject because there is a perfectly normal way to go down.

[iviehoff]

There is something wrong with a form of bridge where you are allowed to use information from your opponents' reaction to your claim. Further, having apparently set out deliberately to take advantage of that illicit information, then to bawl out the opps for calling your bluff is plain hypocritical.

As correctly said, in Over The Table bridge this claim will be adjudicated going off.

[gnasher]

Everyone else has covered the main points, but:

Gazumper, on 2013-May-12, 15:04, said:

Was the tempo in which I refused the claim ethical?

Yes, of course. You should take as long as you need, within reason.

[wank]

you must remember that most bbo experts are in reality not good enough to come above average in a monday morning duplicate at the local bridge club and are equally clueless about the laws of the game.

[billw55]

I must have said it a million times: always draw trump before claiming. Those who do not, get what they deserve.

[manudude03]

I wouldn't go as far as that. Just don't claim if there are trumps out and you're not on lead (of course, make sure you say you're drawing trumps).

[gnasher]

A better rule is "Don't claim unless you know what you're going to do, and can explain it in a way which will be understood by the opponents." In the hand in the original post it would be perfectly OK to claim, saying "I'll win whatever you play, ruffing with the jack if its a heart. Then I'll draw trumps".

[billw55]

Yes, it will work if you know what you are doing, and do it correctly. Unfortunately even then, it sometimes doesn't save time because opponents are more apt to object to claims when (non-high) trumps are still out. I think just drawing trump first is a good practical rule for nonexperts.

[rmnka447]

The claim was premature because declarer has to make a play to your partner's lead to the 2nd trick. He has no reason to know exactly how the suit breaks, so has to make a decision as to which ♠ to trump with.

If he makes the wrong decision, the slam can go down.

So I see no problem whatsoever with rejecting the claim.

Your lead of the ♥ 9 could be from a singleton or possibly a doubleton. Since the 9 denies a higher card, declarer can deduce that there are 4 other cards besides the cards known to be in your partner's hand and his two hands that are unaccounted for. There's only 1 lay of the cards when you've led a singleton, but 4 possible cases where you've led from a doubleton. So lacking any other information on the distribution of the hand, it would seem your 4 times as likely to hold a doubleton than a singleton.

So it would seem without any other information, the best play is to ruff the second trick low. It only loses when you hold the singleton or doubleton ♠ Q and a stiff heart.

If declarer wants to draw inferences from your rejecting his claim, that's his problem.