[BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Harald Berre Skjæran harald.skjaran at gmail.com
Wed Mar 14 10:06:49 CET 2012

Den 01:47 14. mars 2012 skrev  <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> følgende:
> Robert Frick asserted:
>>>>It is widely agreed that defenders may look at
>>>>each others hand and then protest the claim.
>>>>Oddly enough, the laws do not allow this
>>>>unless the director is present.
> Harald Skjæran quibbled:
>>>Where is this widely agreed? I've never seen
>>>it happen.
> Robert Frick asked:
>>Very strange! Is this a huge regional difference?
> Richard Hills answers:
> Yes and No. It is not merely ACBL-land which
> contains grey-ethics declarers who claim without
> showing their cards, thus gaining an unearned
> trick or trick. ABF-land also contains such expert
> declarers who steal tricks from bunny victims.

There was no mention of declarer not showing his/her cards.
Robert was talking about defenders looking at each other hands after a claim.

I'm accustomed to claimers not showing their hand when they play
against people they know will know what's going on.
I've seen claims on a simple or double squeeze or a throw-in been done
without saying a word or showing a hand.
And defenders conceding without saying anything at all in the same

Geir Helgemo as a defender conceded the rest of the tricks when
declarer went into the tank on one occasion.
Declarer protested, since he hadn't seen the ending yet, but Geir
insisted that he'd get the rest of the tricks, which he eventually
would have.
> But the overwhelming number of declarers in
> ABF-land who claim reveal their cards in so
> doing, therefore it is unnecessary for any
> defender to look at her partner's cards.
> Robert Frick example:
>>Just to make sure we understand each other.
>>Declarer claims, the defenders don't object,
>>then they see each other's hands and realize
>>that if they lead a diamond, they get one more
>>trick. They call you, the director. The players
>>have not yet put their hands back in the board.
>>You rule...
>>1. Law 69, they have agreed to the claim so
>>they only get a trick if it was likely that they lead
>>a diamond. (L69B2)
> Richard Hills ruling:
> Law 82C Director Frick error. Law 69A defines
> when agreement with a claim is established.
> Since the players have not yet put their hands
> back in the board, Law 69A defines that
> agreement with the claim is NOT established.
> Robert Frick example:
>>2. UI, they have to treat each other's hands as
>>UI and can only lead a diamond if no other
>>lead is a logical alternative.
> Richard Hills ruling:
> Law 82C Director Frick error. Law 68D states
> that "play ceases", hence Law 16B1(a) no
> longer applies.
> Robert Frick example:
>>Here in the US, I am pretty sure it would be
>>an easy ruling to give them the trick. They
>>would be perceived as being allowed to
>>construct a double-dummy defense
>>knowing each other's hands.
> Richard Hills ruling:
> Law 82C Director Frick error. If the defenders
> are incapable of finding a one-card guard
> stepping stone squeeze, then Law 70A
> demands -- "as equitably as possible to both
> sides" -- that the defenders are not given that
> unearned double-dummy trick by a Director
> whose hobby is double-dummy problems.
> ACBL 2008 Duplicate Decisions, page 67:
> There can be no pat solution to rulings on
> claims. A degree of bridge judgment is
> required since the intent of the Laws is to
> resolve each individual case as equitably
> as possible to both sides.
> [snip]
> The director’s most difficult task, in dealing
> with claims, is to distinguish between a poor
> claim and a poorly stated claim. In the first
> instance the player has erred, the claim is
> likely to be faulty. In the second instance the
> player has solved the bridge problem,
> though stating it poorly; the director should
> allow the claim.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
> the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
> including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
> privileged
> and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
> or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
> intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has
> obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
> policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
> http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Kind regards,
Harald Berre Skjæran

More information about the Blml mailing list