[pescetom]

A real world claim at a lower level, simple but with some wrinkles.

---

West (intermediate) is Declarer in 4♠X.
North (almost intermediate) leads ♦J to the K of South, who continues diamonds ruffed by North.
North then plays ♣K which holds and he (mistakenly) continues with the Q, ruffed by West.
West pulls trumps from the top (discovering the unlucky split), leaving North in Hand.

North contemplates the dummy now down to ♥AT9 ♦AT, uncertain whether to lead a heart or a club.
West lays down his hand containing ♠63 ♥J7 ♦Q and says "it's all mine: the trumps, the hearts Ace and the diamonds are all winners".
North frowns and says "No, play on" and without waiting for reply tables a heart. West refuses to play on and calls you, the Director.

How do you proceed and what if any are your concerns?

This post has been edited by Gerardo: 2025-February-26, 12:30
Reason for edit: Added the final pass so play can be followed

[Gerardo]

♥A, 2 ♦ winners, 2 good trumps.
This is consistent with the claim statement.
Declarer said "♥A" so won't duck this trick
Declarer said "all diamondS" so won't block them.
Down 1.

[smerriman]

According to the laws, the first step is asking North why he rejected the claim.

The second step is seeing any such reason is silly and ruling 1 down.

My concern is that someone thinks there is a concern The odd thing is that it wasn't even North that called the director; West could have just played on as stated (well, unless S/E disagreed) and taken down 1 without adjudication even if their original claim did happen to be insufficient..

If anything is wrong here, it was North playing a card before West had declined to play on, but that's insignificant.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2025-February-26, 14:45, said:

According to the laws, the first step is asking North why he rejected the claim.

The second step is seeing any such reason is silly and ruling 1 down.

My concern is that someone thinks there is a concern The odd thing is that it wasn't even North that called the director; West could have just played on as stated (well, unless S/E disagreed) and taken down 1 without adjudication even if their original claim did happen to be insufficient..

If anything is wrong here, it was North playing a card before West had declined to play on, but that's insignificant.

I've always thought you would make an excellent Director
The first step IMO is making sure what the claim actually was, but I agree about your two subsequent steps.
Also that the infractions of "ordering" West to play on and playing a card before he accepted to do so are insignificant.
I would be curious to know why North rejected the claim, but he is still learning and a little presumptuous and might have imagined that West could have forgotten the first trick.

I don't think it is odd that West refused to play on (or that it speaks badly of him). IMO that is consistent with a player who feels he made a sufficient claim and has no intention of making a(nother) stupid error under stress when forced to play on after a challenge.

I do think as a Taliban that there is a legitimate (albeit minimal) concern about how the claim was phrased: saying that the AT-Q diamonds are "all" winners does not totally erase the doubt that he is only sure about A and Q, remembering the K but having forgotten or being uncertain about the J.
I would try to eliminate this doubt by asking point blank about the missing honours in hearts and then in diamonds: if he can say something like "they still have the ♥K, nothing in diamonds" then the tricks are his. Not sure what other Directors think about this.

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2025-February-26, 16:38, said:

I don't think it is odd that West refused to play on (or that it speaks badly of him).

Oh, I didn't mean West's decision was odd or bad; always calling the director is usually wise regardless.

More odd from North's perspective, because if North did have a valid argument, wanting to play on would more likely than not have thrown that out the window (the chance West was actually going to play wrongly - even initially, but now with AI knowledge of the claim being doubted - is surely far lower than the chance West's claim statement was sufficiently ambiguous).

I suspect that North just wanted to 'see what happens' with less understanding of the claim procedure, and had no real argument against the claim itself when pressed further, which is perfectly understandable for a newer player.

I would be a *hopeless* director; I'd want to rule based on common sense which is contrary to the literal laws far too often At least, where lamford's from..

[mycroft]

I can't imagine playing to the ♦Q and guaranteeing conceding a trick. I'd happily give them a trick if it turns out North has ♥KQx and the ♦Jx in hand and led the small heart.

West *can* just play on. West does not *have to*, nor (IMHO) should she, when the director can be called to adjudicate the claim (see smerriman's "another mistake" comment). Even if West wanted to, *East* could say "I don't want to play on, let's get the director here". That law was added in 2017 not because it's a good idea, but because "they do it anyway" and we'd rather not punish them (more) for following the opponents' request.

Whether or not West remembers that the ♦T is a winner, the claim (again, IMHO) forces her to try it, because on the heart lead, there is no other way to make the rest of the tricks as claimed (♥A, Diamonds good, trumps).

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 68C: A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement of the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed, including the order in which the cards will be played. The player making the claim or concession faces his hand.

The emphasis in the body of this law is mine. Declarer has said all his cards are winners. Therefore, if a "normal" line of play can be found where that is not true, he doesn't get all the remaining tricks. See Law 70.

[mycroft]

Fine. Give me one on a heart lead. Note that no hearts have been played until "claim".

Careless or inferior to forget the ♦J was led trick 1? Okay, sure. Forget that no hearts were played, so the KQ are out? I think that's beyond careless.

I am absolutely willing to entertain a disputed claim; and I have repeatedly been wrong before; but I see no line that meets normal* here that does not take all the tricks.

[Gerardo]

I'd say "♥A, 2 ♦" is declarer's intended order.
Maybe after a trump if a ruff is needed.
But with ♦Jx out, it would be down 2, even with a legit line for down 1.

[barmar]

If declarer doesn't realize that he can overtake the ♦Q, he'd have communication problems on a ♥ lead. Maybe North forgot about the earlier ♦ plays so he thought this was a killing defense.

Ideally West should have mentioned this in his claim statement, but I think he can be forgiven for thinking it's obvious, since he remembered that the KJ were gone. I would therefore give declarer the benefit of the doubt and allow the claim.

You can also ask for a clarification: "What was your plan on a ♥ lead?" And he'll likely say "Obviously I overtake the Queen and pitch on the Ten."

[smerriman]

barmar, on 2025-February-27, 17:40, said:

And he'll likely say "Obviously I overtake the Queen and pitch on the Ten."

There's no overtaking involved, since you're in dummy when winning the ♥. You're simply cashing the ♦A, rather than underleading it.

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2025-February-27, 17:40, said:

If declarer doesn't realize that he can overtake the ♦Q, he'd have communication problems on a ♥ lead. Maybe North forgot about the earlier ♦ plays so he thought this was a killing defense.

Ideally West should have mentioned this in his claim statement, but I think he can be forgiven for thinking it's obvious, since he remembered that the KJ were gone. I would therefore give declarer the benefit of the doubt and allow the claim.

You can also ask for a clarification: "What was your plan on a ♥ lead?" And he'll likely say "Obviously I overtake the Queen and pitch on the Ten."

It may be idiosyncratic, but as a clarification, I prefer "which hearts honours do the opponents hold?" and then the same question about diamonds.
The question you suggest is tantamount to asking him to play on to the putative hearts lead by West: and has the same prime defect, that it would likely wake him up to the problem and the solution even if he might have got it wrong at the table.

There is also a second and opposite defect, which brings us to the main wrinkle here. I deliberately omitted to describe what did happen at table, so as not to side track the discussion or impede people explaining how they would proceed. But what actually happened is that the Director asked what had happened and said "Play on".

South was upset: he took the hearts trick with the Ace and played diamonds to the Queen, then groaned and said bitterly "that's exactly the kind of thing I called you to avoid".

His fault of course, but I feel he does deserve some sympathy. It's not a mistake he would ever have made in play had he simply not claimed and he would probably have excluded it with a different line of enquiry.

[mycroft]

Well, that's my issue, and why I won't 68D2b. Because 68D2b2.

Yes, I've been laughed at here for admitting that I will make mistakes after (to me) the hand's over, but I know I will.

If the director ordered me to play on, after I ask for the Law to be read, I will do it. If it turns out that I blow it up, then I'll eat it.

But after the Law is read, I assume "play on" will be rescinded. If it isn't, I might also eat playing at that club in future (but probably not, it's a club game, it's not the Nationals qualifier).

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2025-February-28, 03:38, said:

His fault of course

And of course the director has no culpability here at all. NOT.

Director: Play on.
Me: Why? Doesn't the law say "don't play on"?

Alternative: Play on, and when I screw it up, appeal on the basis of director error.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-February-28, 07:51, said:

Well, that's my issue, and why I won't 68D2b. Because 68D2b2.

Yes, I've been laughed at here for admitting that I will make mistakes after (to me) the hand's over, but I know I will.

If the director ordered me to play on, after I ask for the Law to be read, I will do it. If it turns out that I blow it up, then I'll eat it.

But after the Law is read, I assume "play on" will be rescinded. If it isn't, I might also eat playing at that club in future (but probably not, it's a club game, it's not the Nationals qualifier).

I agree that after the hand is over and in a situation of stress it is possible and comprehensible to make mistakes one would not make playing (and/or that were implictly excluded by the claim).
I'm not (or at least wasn't) so certain that Law 70 precludes the Director asking Declarer to play it out: 70A does at least say encouragingly "The Director proceeds as follows", but one arrives at 70E without any specific guidance on what procedure the Director should follow when the general criteria of 70C 70D1 70D2 70E1 are not sufficient to adjudicate the claim.
I'm comforted nevertheless that people think it should not be an option.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2025-February-28, 13:37, said:

I'm comforted nevertheless that people think it should not be an option.

The general rule is that at the table players must do what the director says. The TD needs the ability to handle gaps in the laws. If you think the laws are clear and the TD's action was counter to them, and you were damaged as a result, you can appeal later.

In this case, the Law clearly says that you only play on if all the players agree, otherwise the TD is supposed to adjudicate the claim.

Now, we can question whether the TD's action actually caused the damage. The player who claimed clearly could have gotten the planned result when playing on. The TD telling him to do so didn't cause him to misplay, it just gave him the opportunity. Should we rule in his favor because he was ruffled by the TD's action?

[blackshoe]

Should we rule against him?

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2025-February-28, 16:53, said:

The general rule is that at the table players must do what the director says. The TD needs the ability to handle gaps in the laws. If you think the laws are clear and the TD's action was counter to them, and you were damaged as a result, you can appeal later.

In this case, the Law clearly says that you only play on if all the players agree, otherwise the TD is supposed to adjudicate the claim.

Yes, but you elude my question of whether the TD is free (handling gaps, as you appropriately put it) to use playing on as part or all of his chosen method to adjudicate the claim, given that Law 70 makes so little effort to define actual procedure here.

[Gerardo]

IMO, if the Laws give players the option not to play on, and they exercise it, it is not an option for the Director.

Besides, was it ever an option for the Director? Play used to be curtailed, period, before players had the option to play on.

[pescetom]

Gerardo, on 2025-March-01, 09:32, said:

IMO, if the Laws give players the option not to play on, and they exercise it, it is not an option for the Director.

Besides, was it ever an option for the Director? Play used to be curtailed, period, before players had the option to play on.

Sure, but could he use play in any way (for example, allowing the Defenders to play their exposed cards while he plays Declarer, or forcing Declarer to play while he plays the Defender's cards, or even all three playing) to explore one or more of the remaining tricks?
I don't see it excluded in the Laws, although perhaps by Case Law.