[gnasher]

This is necessarily hypothetical, as I've never had the need to ask for a ruling about it.

- Declarer claims without showing his hand, in that annoying way that some declarers do.
- The defenders acquiesce, in that foolish way that some defenders do.
- Some time later, but within the correction period, they discover that the claim was faulty.
- The claim is one that would have been disallowed under Law 70 (Contested Claim), but it doesn't meet the standard for withdrawal under 69B2 ("a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued").

What would normally happen is that the players' decision to make up their own rules is followed by the players' making up their own ruling, and the defenders get their trick back.

Suppose, however, that the director gets involved. Can or should he do anything to restore equity?

[RMB1]

The TD might decide that he can not establish the facts and make a ruling that allows play to continue, informing the players of the right to appeal. It would be practical for that ruling to be one the players had agreed to themselves.

Old school TD have been heard to intone something along the following line - "You didn't need when you didn't call earlier - you didn't need me when you made your own ruling subsequently - I don't think you need me now"

[gnasher]

Sorry, I didn't ask the question I intended to ask.

Suppose that the claiming side argues that the claim was accepted. What now?

[bluejak]

I am not entirely clear here as to what is asked. Law 69B, especially 69B2, applies. If you asking about a case where Law 69 does not help, then nothing happens.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-November-12, 09:42, said:

I am not entirely clear here as to what is asked. Law 69B, especially 69B2, applies. If you asking about a case where Law 69 does not help, then nothing happens.

I was wondering whether we could apply Law 23 to declarer's improper method of claiming.

[barmar]

Law 23 requires that there be an irregularity. The law on claims doesn't require declarer to expose his hand, so that's not an irregularity. Did declarer also fail to make a "clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed", as required by Law 68C?

[iviehoff]

gnasher, on 2012-November-12, 09:31, said:

Suppose that the claiming side argues that the claim was accepted. What now?

I presume the other side say they never accepted the claim, but proceeded to the next hand while suspending their decision to accept it or not.

Law 69A says

"Agreement is established when a contestant assents to an opponent’s claim or concession, and raises no objection to it before his side makes a call on a subsequent board or before the round ends, whichever occurs first. The board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play. "

One may think from this, especially that "and" after the first comma, that assent must be given explicitly, and that a player can suspend judgment as to whether he is agreeing with the claim, but rather carry on with the next hand and disagree later. However to do that would be to commit an irregularity.

This is because Law 68D tells us

"After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director’s arrival."

So any doubt, which must surely include indecision as to whether to accept or not, requires the director to be called immediately, and nothing else must be done until he attends.

So I would rule that a player cannot both withhold his agreement and proceed to play the next hand. Once he has proceeded to the next hand, he can no longer argue he never agreed, he can only withdraw his agreement, and get a L69B ruling. He can only get a L70 ruling if registered his lack of agreement to the director to the timetable in L68D. But it would be better if the wording of L69A were improved to reflect this situation.

If you don't like this, alternatively you could use Law 23 against the irregularity of failing to register your lack of assent in time, which would have the same effect.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2012-November-12, 10:55, said:

Law 23 requires that there be an irregularity. The law on claims doesn't require declarer to expose his hand, so that's not an irregularity. Did declarer also fail to make a "clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed", as required by Law 68C?

Yes. I'm talking about a situation where declarer says "making five" or "down one" or whatever, then puts his cards away expecting the defenders to trust him.

[barmar]

Just played in a regional this weekend, and the only times anything like that happened were when it was already obvious to everyone at the table that declarer did indeed have that many tricks. Usually he's just down to all the remaining trumps, and everyone has the count. And even then, declarer usually showed his hand while saying it.

I think defenders who casually acquiesce to such claims deserve what they get. This is why 69B2 has a higher standard for withdrawing a claim than 70 has for disallowing a contested claim.

[blackshoe]

An expert might do this playing against other experts. I've rarely seen one do it against non-experts. A lesser player might do it because he's seen experts do it, so he thinks it's "cool". Either way, unless I have no doubt at all that the claim is valid, I will call the TD — and so should anyone else in this situation.

If the claiming side argues that the claim was accepted, the TD should investigate this argument. If he agrees, then as David says Law 69B applies. Wtp?

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2012-November-12, 10:38, said:

I was wondering whether we could apply Law 23 to declarer's improper method of claiming.

If that's the question, then yes, of course. But Law 23 can apply to almost any infraction or irregularity you like to mention, and I don't think that it is worthwhile to ask whether it can apply to any particular generality.

If you come up with a specific situation, sure, we can see whether Law 23 applies.

Let me give you an example: a lot of players [****** ********] make the final pass by methods that do not involve taking a green card out of the box and putting it on the table. Could Law 23 apply to this? Yes, certainly, though it is very unlikely.

[blackshoe]

Not just the final pass. 1NT-(P)-3NT-everybody pick up the bidding cards is very common around here.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2012-November-12, 12:50, said:

But Law 23 can apply to almost any infraction or irregularity you like to mention...

Law 23 can only apply when there is damage for which the law does not provide a specific rectification. But in essence it does not matter what is the irregularity.

But Law 23 cannot be applied to the practice of claiming without showing your hand, because it isn't an irregularity. You might at a pinch say it was an infringement of proper attitude (L74A).

L68 anticipates that a player may show their cards in making a claim, but does not require it. Indeed, in the case of a defender making a claim, it is considered poor practice to face your cards. At 70B3, the director has the power to make the players put their cards face up for the purpose of evaluating the claim. L68 does require the claimer to give a clarification statement indicating the order of cards to be played, or line of play. But a player may feel that an empty statement gives sufficient detail, and opponents and directors have often agreed.

So, in sum, if you have any disquiet at all about a claim, including simply not being sure, you should immediately call the director, because any delay into the next hand or next round will prejudice your rights.

[bluejak]

If a player claims twelve tricks without showing his hand and he is later found to have only eleven and to have known he has eleven, are you really trying to tell me there is no irregularity?

Of course Law 23 requires damage: I am sorry you thought it needed to be said. As for a case where there is a claim without showing a hand, in certain circumstances, an irregularity or infraction has occurred.

You say "Law 23 can only apply when there is damage for which the law does not provide a specific rectification." That line does not appear in my Law book, and I think you are confusing Law 23 with Law 12A1.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2012-November-13, 06:25, said:

If a player claims twelve tricks without showing his hand and he is later found to have only eleven and to have known he has eleven, are you really trying to tell me there is no irregularity?

You've added a new feature which wasn't in the original problem, that of deliberately making a claim for tricks you know you won't win, at least not with any certainty. That is clearly cheating, but I'd be interested to hear precisely what irregularity you think has been committed.

bluejak, on 2012-November-13, 06:25, said:

Of course Law 23 requires damage: I am sorry you thought it needed to be said. As for a case where there is a claim without showing a hand, in certain circumstances, an irregularity or infraction has occurred. You say "Law 23 can only apply when there is damage for which the law does not provide a specific rectification." That line does not appear in my Law book, and I think you are confusing Law 23 with Law 12A1.

I now realise I was wrong, but I think not in the way you suggest. What I was trying to say was that Law 23 requires damage that is not rectified by other specific laws. What I had in mind was L12B2, says that you can't adjust the score just because the prescribed rectification is unduly lenient. So, that would appear to suggest that if the law prescribes a rectification for the damage occasioned by a specific irregularity, you should rectify as prescribed and should not additionally, or instead, apply Law 23. But in fact it would be justified to apply Law 23 if you could argue that the offender could well have known that he was going to be in profit following the prescribed rectification.

[blackshoe]

The irregularity is failure to provide a clear line of play statement, a violation of Law 68C.

[bluejak]

All I have said, and tried to give an example which was [completely obviously] not in the OP, was that Law 23 may apply when a claim is made without showing the cards. And it may.

As fro "clearly cheating" that is exactly what Law 23 is for: controlling cases where a player might or might not be cheating, and the TD does not need to decide whether it was intentional.

[iviehoff]

OK, I'll buy that. Claimants frequently commit the irregularity of failing to give a line of play, but it usually doesn't damage the opposition, more often it damages the claimant if it damages anyone. But when we add up failing to give a line of play, making a wrong claim, keeping the cards hidden, and expecting to be trusted, then we can rectify damage under Law 23 for the irregularity. We could probably even adjust if the other side gave earlier explicit assent to the claim in such a situation, though we would probably be more reluctant to do so - it might depend how intimidating the claiming side were.

[barmar]

I assume we're not talking about a situation where declarer deliberately makes a false claim, but is simply mistaken in his expectation of the number of tricks. For Law 23 to be applicable, I think he'd have to be aware that there's a possibility he's wrong -- then making an inferior claim could work to his advantage if the defenders don't call him on it. On the other hand, it could also fail -- if they call the director, he may adjust to a result worse than if he'd just played on (if there's a two-way finesse, he could have guessed right, but the TD will most likely give that trick to the defenders).

Do these two possibilities cancel each other out, or does Law 23 apply as long as the first case exists?

[Cyberyeti]

The only time I've seen this was in a bizarre situation. Declarer's claim was "Dummy's good" and it was, it was just a card smaller than the other 3 hands (2 cards had inadvertently been played to a previous trick), and the extra card was a loser.

That has the extra complication that it could be argued how many tricks the opponents had conceded, but is a sort of situation where it could happen.