[jillybean]

Declarer is in a 2♥ contract, has won 6 tricks, looses trick9 to LHO, faces hand and claims with high Diamond and 3 top trump. No line is stated.

RHO says "No, play a diamond partner"

LHO has diamond remaining, RHO is void in diamonds and holds a small trump.

Eventually the director is called, what should happen now? Is "play a diamond partner" UI,AI?

[blackshoe]

It's UI, but that's irrelevant. Play ceases when a claim is made. Now the TD has to decide whether a trick could be lost to RHO's trump by "any normal play" (Law 70C3). That depends on the cards LHO currently holds, and how the play has gone to the point of the claim. It seems likely that a diamond lead now would be classed as "normal", so I would probably award a trick to the defense.

[jillybean]

Thanks, next time I will be a little wiser.

[wank]

play ceases and you talk to partner about the play and it's UI? i call it the post-mortem.

[blackshoe]

Let me rephrase then. It would be UI if play were to continue.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-28, 12:44, said:

Let me rephrase then. It would be UI if play were to continue.

This is exactly what they wanted to do, often when a claim is rejected someone will say 'just play on'. After the statement 'lead a diamond partner' and once the director arrives
I assume a claim that they would lead a diamond would be disallowed had it not been a normal lead?

[TimG]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-28, 01:00, said:

It's UI, but that's irrelevant. Play ceases when a claim is made. Now the TD has to decide whether a trick could be lost to RHO's trump by "any normal play" (Law 70C3). That depends on the cards LHO currently holds, and how the play has gone to the point of the claim. It seems likely that a diamond lead now would be classed as "normal", so I would probably award a trick to the defense.

I can't imagine any card from a defender being classified as "not normal" when it comes to settling a disputed claim. I don't think a director has to consider how likely a defender is to find a play. If RHO in the case in hand were to simply say to the director "declarer claimed the remaining tricks, but if my partner leads a diamond, then the defense gets one trick" the director would need to only confirm that LHO has a diamond remaining to lead (and that it results in the defense winning one of the remaining tricks) to award a trick to the defense.

[pran]

Law 70B2 said:

Next, the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections)

A statement from RHO to the effect: "If partner (who has the lead) plays a diamond I shall win a trick with my trump" is both a legal objection to the claim and definitely relevant in the situation.

(This statement will of course be void if LHO has no diamond to play!)

[blackshoe]

Jilly is right, but so are Tim and Sven. It would be very rare for the TD to rule such a lead "not normal".

I would explain to these defenders that once declarer has made a claim, they cannot play on, and in general they should not make comments that look like they're trying to pass information to partner. They should just call the TD and let him deal with it. Part of the TD's "dealing with it" will be asking the defenders for their objection to the claim, and that's the time to say "if partner leads a diamond, I get a ruff".

[barmar]

Sounds like the defender who said "lead a diamond" is used to rubber bridge rules, where telling partner how to find the killing defense is allowed.

But since declarer faced his cards when he claimed, not only is a diamond lead normal, it's likely to be obvious if LHO has been keeping count.

[blackshoe]

With the declarer's hand in view, the only possibilities for another defensive trick are a diamond ruffed by declarer's RHO, or a high trump in that player's hand. So a diamond lead is obvious even if LHO hasn't been keeping count.

[phil_20686]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-29, 05:57, said:

With the declarer's hand in view, the only possibilities for another defensive trick are a diamond ruffed by declarer's RHO, or a high trump in that player's hand. So a diamond lead is obvious even if LHO hasn't been keeping count.

As I understand it, after declarer claims, play has ceased, and therefore the defenders are entitled to see their partners remaining cards before they assent to a claim.

Of course, this is really just a courtesy, as soon as declarers cards are faced each defender can work out what their partner holds.

Since they are entitled to see their partners cards they can instantly see if there is a defence to beat the contract. Of course, that is the ideal, I did once claim in a partscore at trick one, and DD said it couldnt be made despite apparently having 8 tricks. After some ten to twenty minutes we realised that if the defenders ducked their winners an appropriate number of times they could effect a squeeze on dummy and remove an entry. Fortunately by this time the correction period had long since passed, and it was implausible that they would find this defence anyway.

[pran]

phil_20686, on 2012-January-29, 06:10, said:

[...]
After some ten to twenty minutes we realised that if the defenders ducked their winners an appropriate number of times they could effect a squeeze on dummy and remove an entry. Fortunately by this time the correction period had long since passed, and it was implausible that they would find this defence anyway.

If a claim is contested within the correction period the fact that the question is not resolved until after the expiration of the correction period is immaterial.

[phil_20686]

pran, on 2012-January-29, 06:16, said:

If a claim is contested within the correction period the fact that the question is not resolved until after the expiration of the correction period is immaterial.

The didnt contest obviously, they thoguht it was cold too. Only later in the pub, and with the help of the DD solver, did we spot that it was not in fact cold.

[barmar]

barmar, on 2012-January-28, 22:29, said:

But since declarer faced his cards when he claimed, not only is a diamond lead normal, it's likely to be obvious if LHO has been keeping count.

I'd like to counter my original comment.

When the TD is deciding what's "normal", I assume he's supposed to imagine potential actions had play continued. And in that case, LHO would not have seen declarer's cards. So even though the defense may be obvious after the claim is made, it could conceivably be difficult to find single dummy.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-January-28, 22:29, said:

Sounds like the defender who said "lead a diamond" is used to rubber bridge rules, where telling partner how to find the killing defense is allowed.

What are you talking about?

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-29, 16:08, said:

What are you talking about?

It seems clear to me.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2012-January-29, 17:14, said:

It seems clear to me.

If this was about discussing the defense while the hand is being played, such a player would be banned from any reputable club. And if the game is held privately, I think that his opponents on the hand are justified in refusing to pay.

[blackshoe]

It's about how the play will go after a claim.

Quote

Rubber Law 69, in part: When his claim or concession is not allowed, declarer must play on, leaving his hand face up on the table. At any time, either defender may face his hand for inspection by his partner, and declarer may not impose a penalty for any irregularity committed by a defender whose hand is so faced.

Yes, the defender in question should have faced his hand. Had he done so, the diamond lead would be obvious.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-29, 18:01, said:

If this was about discussing the defense while the hand is being played, such a player would be banned from any reputable club. And if the game is held privately, I think that his opponents on the hand are justified in refusing to pay.

You seem to have missed that a claim has been made, and the way the rubber bridge laws are usually interpreted would have made this acceptable practice.