[Tramticket]

---

After six tricks (three for each side) the position is as follows with the lead in dummy (East):

---

Declarer claims the remainder, with no stated line of play. Do you allow the claim?

Edit: After the claim was made and the director was called, East attempted to play the Queen of Spades from dummy.

[sanst]

No. There’s a line of play which works, but not mentioning anything about the outstanding trumps is killing for the claim.

[Cyberyeti]

Not with no stated line, I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to take account of him saying ♠Q next, I suspect not, but that makes me even more sure not to allow it.

[sfi]

I was all set to allow it. Declarer knocked out the trump ace, won the trick and immediately claimed when drawing trumps and cashing top tricks is sufficient.

But then they go and lead the SQ. So now I question their intentions when they claimed. So no - I would rule declarer loses one more trick.

[Cyberyeti]

sfi, on 2020-May-19, 03:13, said:

I was all set to allow it. Declarer knocked out the trump ace, won the trick and immediately claimed when drawing trumps and cashing top tricks is sufficient.

But then they go and lead the SQ. So now I question their intentions when they claimed. So no - I would rule declarer loses one more trick.

There is a line that is certain even if trumps are 2-0, if he'd said ♥7 I'd have been inclined to say he knew what he was doing, maybe even small spade, but ♠Q no way

[blackshoe]

The OP says that East attempted to play the ♠Q after the director was called. East is dummy. So was it East or West who did this? Either way, it violates at least one law:

Quote

Law 9 PROCEDURE FOLLOWING AN IRREGULARITY
B. After Attention Is Drawn to an Irregularity
…
2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

Of "shall", the law says "a violation will incur a penalty more often than not". Is there a good reason to refrain from giving a penalty for this? The only possible justification I can see is the old "we don't give procedural penalties", which I think is an abdication of the director's responsibility and a disservice to the game. However, if that is the situation (it wouldn't be in a game I regularly direct) I would definitely issue what Larry Harris has called a PP(W), a warning, to be followed up with a PP in MPs or IMPs if he does it again.

As for the claim, West failed to state a line of play. There is at least one line that fails. Therefore, I rule West is down 1. Law 70.

If it was dummy who tried to play the ♠Q, EW might just get two procedural penalties.

[pescetom]

I don't fully understand the auction.
I read that 3♦ enquires about hearts suit, but does it also have to do with the void?
What would 2NT or 3♣ be here?
Does a raise to game by W after double show a scrappy 5-card suit?

[steve2005]

Why do people make claims with trump out?
Here there is 2 out. 2-0 split is going to be tricky

[sfi]

steve2005, on 2020-May-19, 14:42, said:

Why do people make claims with trump out?
Here there is 2 out. 2-0 split is going to be tricky

Declarer has 7 top tricks: two trumps ending in dummy, two spades, ruff to hand and two diamonds.

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2020-May-19, 15:14, said:

Declarer has 7 top tricks: two trumps ending in dummy, two spades, ruff to hand and two diamonds.

Listing those 7 tricks took you 13 words: Declarer did not say them.

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2020-May-19, 15:24, said:

Listing those 7 tricks took you 13 words: Declarer did not say them.

I was simply pointing out the play isn't tricky. Many claims are agreed without a complete statement, but that was not the point of my post.

[steve2005]

sfi, on 2020-May-19, 15:14, said:

Declarer has 7 top tricks: two trumps ending in dummy, two spades, ruff to hand and two diamonds.

Declarer takes 2 spades, one will get ruffed
So much for not being tricky

[sfi]

steve2005, on 2020-May-19, 19:47, said:

Declarer takes 2 spades, one will get ruffed

Not after declarer plays the top two trumps first, which was the line I gave.

[sanst]

In this case it’s totally uninteresting whether there’s a line of play allowing EW to take all remaining tricks. The director should decide whether there’s one that’s not completely idiotic that loses one or more tricks to NS. There is one and the declarer has even shown that his plan is to follow that line. The second spade will be trumped by N. So NS will win one more trick and the score will be 4♥-1.

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2020-May-19, 14:40, said:

I don't fully understand the auction.
I read that 3♦ enquires about hearts suit, but does it also have to do with the void?
What would 2NT or 3♣ be here?
Does a raise to game by W after double show a scrappy 5-card suit?

Sorry, this has nothing to do with the claim.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2020-May-20, 01:34, said:

In this case it’s totally uninteresting whether there’s a line of play allowing EW to take all remaining tricks. The director should decide whether there’s one that’s not completely idiotic that loses one or more tricks to NS. There is one and the declarer has even shown that his plan is to follow that line. The second spade will be trumped by N. So NS will win one more trick and the score will be 4♥-1.

I agree.

sanst, on 2020-May-20, 01:37, said:

Sorry, this has nothing to do with the claim.

Oviously so. Just normal bridge curiosity, if that is tolerated in a laws forum.

[blackshoe]

Well, I will tolerate it.

[Tramticket]

blackshoe, on 2020-May-19, 10:02, said:

The OP says that East attempted to play the ♠Q after the director was called. East is dummy. So was it East or West who did this? Either way, it violates at least one law:

I was perhaps a little unclear. It was online (like most bridge these days) and declarer attempted to play the ♠Q from the east hand. In an online setting, players are used to carrying on play when a claim is rejected, so maybe the attempt to carry on play after the director call is not a serious issue? I added it more as an indication of declarer's line of play (but an indication after the rejection).

pescetom, on 2020-May-20, 13:42, said:

Oviously so. Just normal bridge curiosity, if that is tolerated in a laws forum.

Nothing to do with the claim, but I am also curious. It was online and this was the full written explanation. I am guessing that there might have been a failure to alert a two-suited opener - but this was not the subject of the director call.

[sanst]

Tramticket, on 2020-May-21, 04:54, said:

In an online setting, players are used to currying on play when a claim is rejected, so maybe the attempt to carry on play after the director call is not a serious issue?

I consider it a quite serious issue. One of the reasons why you can’t play on after a claim, is that the declarer might find out that there’s still a trump out or how to finesse, especially against less experienced players.
If this is common practice in online bridge, it’s an argument more to stay clear of it if you want to play a serious game of bridge.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2020-May-21, 14:41, said:

I consider it a quite serious issue. One of the reasons why you can’t play on after a claim, is that the declarer might find out that there’s still a trump out or how to finesse, especially against less experienced players.
If this is common practice in online bridge, it’s an argument more to stay clear of it if you want to play a serious game of bridge.

This is the common (and at least partially legitimate) criticism that the rubber bridge protocol implemented by BBO allows a 'fishing expedition'.
Current face to face contract bridge law is not much better (it too now allows players to play on at their peril without calling the director) and considerably more difficult to actuate (even with a skilled human director available).
I think this is more an argument for implementing effective online bridge laws (rather than leaving things up to BBO or whoever) than for staying clear of online bridge, particularly as face to face bridge is hardly exemplary in this area.