[lamford]

---

SB did very well (subject to a ruling) to make Six Diamonds as dummy on the above hand at the North London Club's annual teams. He opened 2C as North and a RKCB sequence led to the good slam. It was a team event, and SB thought that even RR would manage the spade finesse if it proved necessary, and his partner might have had a doubleton spade.

West led the queen of trumps and RR won the first two rounds, and, disappointed they did not break, conceded a diamond. He then cashed the hearts, the ace of spades, and all the trumps, hoping that someone might unguard the queen of spades, and played three clubs ending in hand. At this point, East, MM, blurted out "I've got the queen of spades." "Are you allowed to say that?" asked RR, "I had not decided whether to finesse or not."

SB pounced. "You have drawn attention to an irregularity, RR, and I am now allowed to call the TD". "DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOR", he bellowed.

"How can I help?" asked OO, arriving at the table. "There was a breach of Law 49," quickly stated SB. He continued, in one breath, "That states, as you know: 'Except in the normal course of play or application of law (see for example Law 47E), when a defender’s card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but see Law 68 when a defender has made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress, and see Law 68B2 when partner objects to a defender’s concession.'"

The statement "I've got the queen of spades" was not about an uncompleted trick currently in progress, and Law 68B2 cannot apply as there was no "concession".

"Well," said OO, "I think that is just gamesmanship and contrary to the principles in the Laws", he continued. "I think that the statement "I've got the queen of spades" was equivalent to a claim of "one down".

"Nonsense", replied SB, "If South had the jack of hearts he would have had an option of the heart-spade squeeze, so East could not have known that he was making the queen of spades, so it could not be a defensive claim. I think the queen of spades has become an MPC".

How do you rule?

[barmar]

How did West lead the ♦Q, it's in South's hand?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2020-February-18, 10:25, said:

How did West lead the ♦Q, it's in South's hand?

No it isn't. I think while I was inserting the names, it moves the cards with them!

[barmar]

I think East's statement could be considered equivalent to a conditional claim: "Unless you can squeeze me in the majors", I get my ♠Q.

Since South doesn't have the ♥J, there's no squeeze.

[pran]

barmar, on 2020-February-18, 10:34, said:

I think East's statement could be considered equivalent to a conditional claim: "Unless you can squeeze me in the majors", I get my ♠Q.

Since South doesn't have the ♥J, there's no squeeze.

East is fully entitled to claim a trick for his ♠Q which to him may seem as an obvious winner.

The fact that his claim would have been no good if there had been a squeeze doesn't make the claim as such illegal.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2020-February-18, 10:34, said:

I think East's statement could be considered equivalent to a conditional claim: "Unless you can squeeze me in the majors", I get my ♠Q.

Since South doesn't have the ♥J, there's no squeeze.

Doesn't everyone only have 2 cards left once three clubs have been played? In that case, East must have discarded the ♥Q or his ♠Q would be stiff.

[lamford]

pran, on 2020-February-18, 11:03, said:

East is fully entitled to claim a trick for his ♠Q which to him may seem as an obvious winner.

The fact that his claim would have been no good if there had been a squeeze doesn't make the claim as such illegal.

Indeed, I would be very happy if the law were changed to read: "or when a defender names a card as being in his hand any such card becomes a penalty card (unless the TD designates otherwise)."

Alternatively, one could interpret any statement that you have a particular card as a claim, which might be a better approach.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2020-February-18, 11:20, said:

Doesn't everyone only have 2 cards left once three clubs have been played? In that case, East must have discarded the ♥Q or his ♠Q would be stiff.

She did do and had Qx left in spades. And how would you rule if South had ♥ 765 and West had ♥ 432.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2020-February-18, 11:25, said:

She did do and had Qx left in spades.

So I don't see how SB can argue that "East could not have known that he (sic) was making the queen of spades, so it could not be a defensive claim."
The potential squeeze looks like a red herring to me.

[KingCovert]

I realize that East can count the hearts in this situation, but, why doesn't South hold a small heart that they are uncertain is winning, and spade? I'm going to assume they'd know to play the 13th club.

In general, it's just bad practice to make defensive claims unless you have the REST of the tricks. The only exception I would make to this is when claiming guaranteed winners such as high trump, and conceding the rest. There's just too many ways defensive claims can go wrong when you're attempting to claim tricks that "should" win, and the UI that results is a disaster. If South had claimed the rest, and East was contesting this, of course this is a different situation... But, East should not be claiming here, they can't see declarer's hand and their trick still needs to be promoted.

The rules may well be properly interpreted to provide a different ruling, but, if you told me that the penalty card was granted and NS made their contract, I'd say East will have learnt a valuable lesson.

[lamford]

KingCovert, on 2020-February-18, 13:16, said:

The rules may well be properly interpreted to provide a different ruling, but, if you told me that the penalty card was granted and NS made their contract, I'd say East will have learnt a valuable lesson.

Indeed, nothing that I can find in the laws exempts a card named from becoming an MPC (unless as part of a contested concession) . I don't really think that the statement "I have the queen of spades" is a claim, but I am still unhappy about ruling in favour of SB here. One could interpret SB's remark as in 68A: "Any statement by declarer or a defender to the effect that a side will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks", and then apply the claim laws, but East clearly has not made any statement that he will win the queen of spades, merely told declarer (and his partner, illegally) that he has it. A literal application of the law clearly makes it an MPC, but this is the sort of situation that occurs day in day out in bridge clubs throughout the land, and I think the TD should have discretion to rule that it is not an MPC. But the laws do not seem to give him that discretion at present.

[jhenrikj]

lamford, on 2020-February-18, 20:25, said:

Indeed, nothing that I can find in the laws exempts a card named from becoming an MPC (unless as part of a contested concession) . I don't really think that the statement "I have the queen of spades" is a claim, but I am still unhappy about ruling in favour of SB here. One could interpret SB's remark as in 68A: "Any statement by declarer or a defender to the effect that a side will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks", and then apply the claim laws, but East clearly has not made any statement that he will win the queen of spades, merely told declarer (and his partner, illegally) that he has it. A literal application of the law clearly makes it an MPC, but this is the sort of situation that occurs day in day out in bridge clubs throughout the land, and I think the TD should have discretion to rule that it is not an MPC. But the laws do not seem to give him that discretion at present.

Of course it's a claim. A player claims when he suggests the play is curtailed and that is what he did by telling the declarer he has the queen of spades.

[lamford]

jhenrikj, on 2020-February-19, 02:40, said:

Of course it's a claim. A player claims when he suggests the play is curtailed and that is what he did by telling the declarer he has the queen of spades.

So, if East, stupidly, said at trick one that "he had that 'ornate' ace of spades again", would that be a claim? If East had said, "I get the queen of spades", I would agree with you that this would be a claim. I don't think "I have the queen of spades" is a claim. There is a specific law for naming a card in your hand during the play. What would you have done if East had put the queen of spades on the table, while it was not his turn to play, and what would you do if he had dropped at any point?

[pran]

lamford, on 2020-February-19, 08:44, said:

So, if East, stupidly, said at trick one that "he had that 'ornate' ace of spades again", would that be a claim? If East has said, "I get the queen of spades", I would agree with you that this would be a claim. I don't think "I have the queen of spades" is a claim. There is a specific law for naming a card in your hand during the play. What would you have done if East had put the queen of spades on the table, while it was not his turn to play, and what would you do if he had dropped it?

I don't know how many times I have seen a defender (including myself) with a full count towards the end of a play just showing his (key) cards to the Declarer in order to avoid some waste of time, and Declarer then just folding his cards and proceed to the next board.

The situation we have here is of course slightly different, but the effect is the same, and the result will (with a qualified Director) always be scored as 6♦ -1.

(But West should of course not have said anything at all).

[jhenrikj]

lamford, on 2020-February-19, 08:44, said:

So, if East, stupidly, said at trick one that "he had that 'ornate' ace of spades again", would that be a claim? If East had said, "I get the queen of spades", I would agree with you that this would be a claim. I don't think "I have the queen of spades" is a claim. There is a specific law for naming a card in your hand during the play. What would you have done if East had put the queen of spades on the table, while it was not his turn to play, and what would you do if he had dropped at any point?

Its all about the players intent. If his intention was to tell the declarer the defence gets a trick for the queen of spades then it's a claim. It does not matter if he says I have or I get, the reason why he says it is the same.

We've had another discussion about a player deliberately played the Ace and king of spades together on the opening lead vs 6NTX. That is also a claim and not simultaneous played cards because his intention was to show he had two tricks at once.

Lets assume there are KJ in dummy, the declarer plays a small and the defender sitting behind KJ shows AQ before anyone has played anything. Are you going to argue they are both penalty cards now so that the declarer can force the queen to be played under the king or are you going to accept this as a claim?

[KingCovert]

jhenrikj, on 2020-February-19, 10:26, said:

Its all about the players intent.

I never really understand why people think intent is relevant. It's absolutely irrelevant. Laws should never be written to take into account intent. Taking intent into account just introduces the opportunity for either deception or bias. If someone had the best intentions, but violated the rules, they should receive the appropriate measures and a valuable lesson on the proper way to play the game. It is only a game, I don't think they'll die if they get a bad result on a hand, once. This is a very hot topic in sports as well, and any particular rules that take intent into account are inevitably misinterpreted and misapplied.

Returning to the topic at hand, I think this sort of situation really does simplify down to something like:

If declarer was holding 3 cards, and had two (or more) discernible lines of play, and not just the arbitrary 'Which irrelevant spade should I play towards my KJ on the board?' this statement of "I have the queen" would be a clear and obvious violation of the rules. Does having only two tricks remaining really change anything? I don't really see why anyone would want to encourage this type of behaviour at the table. Declarer can have the 13th club in this situation and perhaps just doesn't know for certain that they are holding a winning club, players do forget things.

Claims aren't really valid unless they stand up to all possible lines of play, and to claim a trick that hasn't yet been promoted while not knowing the contents of someone's hand is not really a legal claim. Imagine when this claim is wrong, it's a nightmare. The laws exist for a good reason.

One last thing that bothers me is that I read someone say that "these sorts of situations are common at the bridge club", the problem is, poor rulings on these situations created that common behaviour, to then turn around and use that as a justification for continued poor rulings is concerning.

[pran]

KingCovert, on 2020-February-19, 11:01, said:

jhenrikj, on 2020-February-19, 10:26, said:

Its all about the players intent.

I never really understand why people think intent is relevant. It's absolutely irrelevant. Laws should never be written to take into account intent. Taking intent into account just introduces the opportunity for either deception or bias. If someone had the best intentions, but violated the rules, they should receive the appropriate measures and a valuable lesson on the proper way to play the game. It is only a game, I don't think they'll die if they get a bad result on a hand, once. This is a very hot topic in sports as well, and any particular rules that take intent into account are inevitably misinterpreted and misapplied.

Returning to the topic at hand, I think this sort of situation really does simplify down to something like:

If declarer was holding 3 cards, and had two (or more) discernible lines of play, and not just the arbitrary 'Which irrelevant spade should I play towards my KJ on the board?' this statement of "I have the queen" would be a clear and obvious violation of the rules. Does having only two tricks remaining really change anything? I don't really see why anyone would want to encourage this type of behaviour at the table. Declarer can have the 13th club in this situation and perhaps just doesn't know for certain that they are holding a winning club, players do forget things.

Claims aren't really valid unless they stand up to all possible lines of play, and to claim a trick that hasn't yet been promoted while not knowing the contents of someone's hand is not really a legal claim. Imagine when this claim is wrong, it's a nightmare. The laws exist for a good reason.

One last thing that bothers me is that I read someone say that "these sorts of situations are common at the bridge club", the problem is, poor rulings on these situations created that common behaviour, to then turn around and use that as a justification for continued poor rulings is concerning.

I think it is high time to revisit:

INTRODUCTION TO THE 2017 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE said:

.........
The purpose of the Laws remains unchanged. They are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy for when something goes wrong. They are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept graciously any rectification, penalty, or ruling.
.........

Any post stating how laws should be has nothing to do in this forum which concerns how we apply the laws.

(We have a separate forum: "Changing Laws & Regulations" for such suggestions.)

[lamford]

jhenrikj, on 2020-February-19, 10:26, said:

Its all about the players intent.

Lets assume there are KJ in dummy, the declarer plays the jack and the defender sitting behind KJ shows AQ. plays the ace then shows the queen. Are you going to argue his intent (which it was) was to play the queen and show the ace as a claim?

[pran]

lamford, on 2020-February-19, 12:09, said:

Lets assume there are KJ in dummy, the declarer plays the jack and the defender sitting behind KJ shows AQ. plays the ace then shows the queen. Are you going to argue his intent (which it was) was to play the queen and show the ace as a claim?

Law 47, and more specifically Law 47F2 applies. The defender's intent is irrelevant.

If the defender had shown his AQ to Declarer and played his Q over the J from Dummy then he would have won both tricks. He would also have won both tricks if Declarer on seeing the AQ conceded both tricks.

I cannot see any problem here?

[jhenrikj]

lamford, on 2020-February-19, 12:09, said:

Lets assume there are KJ in dummy, the declarer plays the jack and the defender sitting behind KJ shows AQ. plays the ace then shows the queen. Are you going to argue his intent (which it was) was to play the queen and show the ace as a claim?

If he has played a card he has played a card. Its not even remotly the same situation. I've actually have had exactly that ruling.