[RMB1]

Dummy has two small hearts and is on lead to trick 12 in a NT contract. The defender next to play has ♥K and ♣A, the ♥A has not been played. The defender thinks he (or his side) will win the last two tricks, should he be allowed to claim? When should he be allowed to claim?

Clearly, a defender should not claim if normal plays by partner can affect the number of tricks. Should this be strengthened? Should a defender not claim if legal plays by partner (not just normal plays) can affect the number of tricks?

[sasioc]

I think that a defender should not claim if there is a legal line of play from their partner which affected the number or tricks taken. When defending I almost never claim unless my claim is "my hand is high". I guess I think that the law should be something like that but mostly my opinion is based on what I think it is most sensible to do at the table rather than what I think everyone else should be made to do.

Plenty of people make all sorts of ridiculous mis-defenses all the time - I once made a trick by force with Txx in the dummy facing xx in a suit that oppo bid and raised, when they led the K to the A, the J to the Q and then continued the suit, allowing me to discard a loser. I would hate to be denied the chance to defend as spectacularly as this by my forward-thinking partner.

While common sense suggests that the rules for when a defender claims and it turns out that their partner could mess it up should be the same as for when declarer doesn't state a full line when claiming, in reality there is surely some factor that a player can know that xyz is the sort of position that their partner gets wrong sometimes and save them the decision?

[campboy]

Do you mean actually make such a claim illegal or simply adjudicate it based on misère play from his partner? In either case what would we do in the situation where a defender claims and his partner objects?

It seems wrong to be able to impose a high club discard rather than a low club discard at trick 12, say, but I would like to be able to impose any play which could conceivably be right, even if the defender "knew" it wasn't. So I'd suggest the "goldfish rule": we allow partner to make the winning play only if it would be 100% even with no memory of previous tricks.

[pran]

This is a question of law change. Claims are legal, do we want to change that?

The usual argument for claims is that they save time. This may be true to some extent with experienced players who immediately see the important facts, although the amount of any time saved in such cases is highly questionable.

It is directly wrong once any of the players disputes the claim. In this case time is just wasted by having to call the director and have the claim adjudicated instead of just playing out the board.

I believe we can assume that players only claim when they feel pretty sure about the outcome of the board, but as we all know players sometimes err. There is little difference between declarer and defenders in this respect so either we should maintain the claim laws as they are or we should disallow claims all together. I don't think the latter is any alternative.

[pran]

campboy, on 2013-January-20, 11:48, said:

Do you mean actually make such a claim illegal or simply adjudicate it based on misère play from his partner? In either case what would we do in the situation where a defender claims and his partner objects?

It seems wrong to be able to impose a high club discard rather than a low club discard at trick 12, say, but I would like to be able to impose any play which could conceivably be right, even if the defender "knew" it wasn't. So I'd suggest the "goldfish rule": we allow partner to make the winning play only if it would be 100% even with no memory of previous tricks.

The partner to a defender who claims can not object to the claim, he can only object to a concession.

[RMB1]

pran, on 2013-January-20, 14:24, said:

The partner to a defender who claims can not object to the claim, he can only object to a concession.

He can object to the claim (Law 68D says so) but (if he does not object to the concession) play ceases.

[FrancesHinden]

I quite like the goldfish rule as a concept for defensive claims.

Your poll options suggest that the ace of heart is still out, and East doesn't know who's got it. If that's the case, he can't claim unless he knows that declarer's last card is a club: is it possible that the heart will go heart, king, ace and partner has to guess what to discard?

[RMB1]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-January-20, 15:23, said:

Your poll options suggest that the ace of heart is still out, and East doesn't know who's got it. If that's the case, he can't claim unless he knows that declarer's last card is a club: is it possible that the heart will go heart, king, ace and partner has to guess what to discard?

This is meant to be the position in another laws topic - the defender is definitely going to claim two tricks - either he thinks partner has ♥A or he has forgotten about ♥A.

[campboy]

pran, on 2013-January-20, 14:24, said:

The partner to a defender who claims can not object to the claim, he can only object to a concession.

A claim, unless it is a claim of all remaining tricks, is also a concession. Consequently partner may object.

[pran]

RMB1, on 2013-January-20, 14:34, said:

pran, on 2013-January-20, 14:24, said:

The partner to a defender who claims can not object to the claim, he can only object to a concession.

He can object to the claim (Law 68D says so) but (if he does not object to the concession) play ceases.

Law 68D says that any player can doubt a claim and Law 70 specifies the routine when a claim is contested.

The verb object (on claims or concessions) is only found in Law 68B2 which states: [...] if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred [...]

So although we agree on the matter I think I have my wording correct.

[pran]

campboy, on 2013-January-20, 17:02, said:

A claim, unless it is a claim of all remaining tricks, is also a concession. Consequently partner may object.

To the concession - certainly.

I believe there was a WBF Minute to the effect that both the claim part and the concession part is cancelled when partner to a defender who claims some but not all the remaining tricks objects to the concession, but I am not sure (and I have no intention of searching for it).

[barmar]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-January-20, 15:23, said:

I quite like the goldfish rule as a concept for defensive claims.

Your poll options suggest that the ace of heart is still out, and East doesn't know who's got it. If that's the case, he can't claim unless he knows that declarer's last card is a club: is it possible that the heart will go heart, king, ace and partner has to guess what to discard?

In the original thread that prompted this, the claim occurred after declarer followed to the trick, and didn't overtake the king with the ace.

[barmar]

pran, on 2013-January-20, 14:22, said:

The usual argument for claims is that they save time. This may be true to some extent with experienced players who immediately see the important facts, although the amount of any time saved in such cases is highly questionable.

Inexperienced players tend not to claim very much when declaring. They practically never make defensive claims. So I think it's reasonably safe to assume that the laws regarding defensive claims will only need to be applied to decent players.

[campboy]

pran, on 2013-January-20, 17:16, said:

To the concession - certainly.

I believe there was a WBF Minute to the effect that both the claim part and the concession part is cancelled when partner to a defender who claims some but not all the remaining tricks objects to the concession, but I am not sure (and I have no intention of searching for it).

I don't know why you are fixated on what the player is objecting to. Law 68B2, and my post, just say "objects", not "objects to" anything.

[pran]

campboy, on 2013-January-21, 02:56, said:

I don't know why you are fixated on what the player is objecting to. Law 68B2, and my post, just say "objects", not "objects to" anything.

But that law deals only with concessions, it says nothing about any (coexisting) claim.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-January-20, 14:22, said:

There is little difference between declarer and defenders in this respect so either we should maintain the claim laws as they are or we should disallow claims all together. I don't think the latter is any alternative.

There is a lot of difference. And even in the current law (70D2) this fact is acknowledged and some restrictions are placed on the defenders' right to claim. This discussion is about tightening up these restrictions. What connection do you see between this and declarer's claims?

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-21, 13:35, said:

There is a lot of difference. And even in the current law (70D2) this fact is acknowledged and some restrictions are placed on the defenders' right to claim. This discussion is about tightening up these restrictions. What connection do you see between this and declarer's claims?

Law 70 places absolutely no restriction on a defender's right to claim.

What Law 70D2 does is to emphasize the obvious fact that a claiming defender may not depend on his partner selecting a particular line of play among alternative "normal" lines of play when the claim is to be adjudicated.

Any legal restriction on a player's right to claim (whether declarer or defender) must be based on established facts (not judgements) in the particular case, and there must be some rational reason behind the restriction. I cannot see any reason that may justify such restrictions against defenders only.

A reasonable restriction could for instance be that no player may claim or concede before the opening lead has been made.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-January-21, 16:23, said:

I cannot see any reason that may justify such restrictions against defenders only.

I can -- dummy's plays are not going to be influenced by the sight of declarer's hand.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-21, 16:25, said:

I can -- dummy's plays are not going to be influenced by the sight of declarer's hand.

And so what?

Do you want a general restriction that a defender may never claim or concede?

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-January-21, 16:29, said:

Do you want a general restriction that a defender may never claim or concede?

No. See above for workable suggestions.