[blml] re claim

[David Burn]

[ER]

Fair enough. Do we have three views, then?

[DALB]

I confess that until I read Kojak's post earlier today, I had not understood
that there was any question of play continuing while somehow holding the
claimer to his statement of claim, if any. I can't make any picture in my
mind of how that would work, or what kind of claim would engender such a
situation. Maybe a position such as this:

West has the ace and queen of hearts and the two of spades. Dummy (North)
has the ace of spades and two small hearts. East has the singleton king of
hearts and a couple of club winners, and South leads a heart. West says "I
get two hearts and dummy gets a spade", and East objects.

But that's trivial - the defence was always going to get three tricks,
right? I mean, it would be irrational for West to play the ace of hearts,
wouldn't it?

Well, perhaps. Suppose that instead of the ace of spades and two small
hearts, dummy had the ace of spades and two small diamonds - specifically
the nine and seven. And suppose that instead of a couple of club winners,
East had the eight and six of diamonds together with his singleton king of
hearts. And suppose East not only knew the rules, but was the kind of guy
who does not steal candy from babies. Should he object to his partner's
claim? Should declarer, when he realises the true position, call for a
ruling? If so, what should that ruling be? 

In view of recent developments in another thread, you may submit two answers
to these questions, depending on whether the players realised the position
at the table or only after reviewing the hand records in the bar. If they
did not review the hand records in the bar, they were not real bridge
players anyway, so who cares what happens to them?

This, though, is all metaphysics. The real question is: if a defender says
to declarer "I get some tricks and you get the rest", and the defender's
partner at once pipes up with "No, he doesn't get the rest", what happens?
Does play continue, or does it not? 

The 2001 minute makes clear what the WBFLC thinks ought to happen. The 2007
Laws do not make it at all clear what happens. I don't know what Grattan
thinks ought to happen in the general case, or what Ton thinks ought to
happen in the general case, or what Kojak thinks ought to happen in the
general case - and this is odd, because normally I don't have any difficulty
understanding what any of those gentlemen says. Even when they don't agree
with one another, I know why they don't - but I confess that in this matter
I am completely befogged.

I know what I think ought to happen in the general case. Anyone who makes
any kind of claim should put his cards on the table and state in what order
they will be played so as to achieve the number of tricks he is claiming for
his side. Any cards not specified in this statement should be considered
played in the legal order least advantageous to the claimer, whether that
order is "rational" or not. Moreover, anyone who concedes the rest of the
tricks should lose them - and so should his partner, regardless of how many
winners he might have.

I think that everyone, from the highest to the lowest in the game of bridge,
would understand such a rule and would have no difficulty abiding by it. But
then, I am in a minority of one in believing that the Laws of bridge should
as far as possible be capable of implementation (and translation into other
languages) by robots. Or at least, I am in a minority of one among the very
small proportion of bridge players who make rules for and compete in the
world's most prestigious tournaments. I expect I could persuade quite a lot
of club players (and directors) to vote for me - at least in Iowa.

David Burn
London, England