[BLML] a new sort of claim

Herman De Wael Hermandw at skynet.be
Thu May 20 15:46:55 CEST 2010


It is not difficult, but imagine the hands were reversed, and it is 
declarer who claims for -1. Now, even if West has no intention of 
playing the S8 (obviously not realising it is high) we do give him that 
trick - even if it is east who remarks that it is high.
Why should we not give East-West the same benefit here?
Herman.

ton wrote:
> ton:
> If you don't know how to rule, may be. But my approach towards dummy in this
> case doesn't make it probable that he will do it twice.
> And your reading still is somewhat poor, did I say that I was going to rule
> in favor of the declaring side?
> The application of our laws asks for a strict approach.
> Dummy cannot make a claim, so he commits an infraction. 45F demands the TD
> being called. If a defender instead of calling takes other action he commits
> an infraction too. 68A tells that showing your cards normally is considered
> to be a claim. But the TD could decide otherwise if the player demonstrably
> did not intend to claim. I do not see an escape from that conclusion in this
> case.
> Now my ruling: I will ask West to explain what number of tricks he wants to
> make. If he says 1 (spade 8) I will say OK. If declarer then objects I will
> make a decision myself, being 1 trick for the defending side. But declarer
> will not. If he says zero, his partner might object and play continues. But
> then I would not allow the play of the spade 8 (or more formally: I would
> adjust the score if West plays the spade of 8). Then I will give the
> defending side a PP (more than 10% of a top in a pairs event).
>
> It is not that difficult is it?
>
> ton
>
>
> Sorry Ton, but if you"re going to rule from there, and give declaring
> side the benefit of the doubt, you are going to have to deal with
> dummy's claim a lot of times from then on ...
> Herman.
>
> ton wrote:
>> ton:
>> I am somewhat surprised by the answers given. Imo the declaring side has
> not
>> claimed. Dummy might have expressed an opinion but he can't claim. If the
> TD
>> had been called immediately he should have decided to continue play in
>> accordance with 45F. So formally spoken West by facing his hand made a
>> claim. But we do not know how many tricks he claimed for? Take it from
>> there.
>>
>> ton
>>
>>
>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Peter
>> Eidt
>> Verzonden: woensdag 19 mei 2010 15:48
>> Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List
>> Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] a new sort of claim
>>
>> From: "Petrus Schuster OSB"<petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at>
>>> In a regional tournament, the defenders (EW - both very experienced
>>> players) have already taken two tricks against 6 NT by North. West is
>>> on lead and dummy says "one down". Dummy's cards (H KQJ and C A) are
>>> good.
>>> Now West faces his hand which contains the good S8 (North holds the
>>> 7).
>>> East says "When you lead your spade, it is two down." Then North also
>>> shows her cards.
>>> South calls the TD and insists on one down. After some acrimony West
>>> agrees.
>>>
>>> PPs aside, how do you rule?
>>
>> 2 down, Law 70 A
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml at rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> Blml at rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2882 - Release Date: 05/18/10
> 20:26:00
>>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2884 - Release Date: 05/19/10 20:26:00
>

-- 
Herman De Wael
Wilrijk Antwerpen Belgium


More information about the Blml mailing list