[Xiaolongnu]

South claimed, "I overtake the club - no, I mean - " and before he could finish correcting his words, East called the Director and demanded that he plays according to the line of play he just mentioned.

Which law or laws apply here?

[pran]

Xiaolongnu, on 2015-January-23, 00:01, said:

South claimed, "I overtake the club - no, I mean - " and before he could finish correcting his words, East called the Director and demanded that he plays according to the line of play he just mentioned.

Which law or laws apply here?

Law 68 said:

For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress*.
[...]
* If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; [...]

If South referred to the trick currently in progress then no claim has so far been made.

If South referred to a future trick then he may be bound by his statement ("overtaking a Club") if this constitutes a legal play, but he must be allowed to complete his statement.

[VixTD]

I'm not sure I can cite a law or regulation to support this, but it came up in a discussion on handling claims at the EBU panel directors' training a few weeks ago. The consensus was that so long as the claimer realises the claim needs rethinking before they've finished articulating it, and that their realisation wasn't influenced by another player, they should be allowed time to compose themselves and have another go.

[blackshoe]

Agree with Vix. Further, I would say that opponent's rudeness is a violation of the proprieties and should draw a PP, especially where a zero tolerance or "best behaviour at bridge" regulation is in effect.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2015-January-23, 07:51, said:

Agree with Vix. Further, I would say that opponent's rudeness is a violation of the proprieties and should draw a PP, especially where a zero tolerance or "best behaviour at bridge" regulation is in effect.

The defender was right to call the director if he wanted to dispute the claim; although the director might well deny the defender's demand and allow declarer to change his mind.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2015-January-23, 07:57, said:

The defender was right to call the director if he wanted to dispute the claim; although the director might well deny the defender's demand and allow declarer to change his mind.

He was not right to interrupt the claim statement.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2015-January-23, 07:57, said:

The defender was right to call the director if he wanted to dispute the claim; although the director might well deny the defender's demand and allow declarer to change his mind.

Declarer hasn't yet finished the statement of the claim, there's nothing to dispute.

There might be an issue if declarer started changing his statement in response to an opponent interrupting him with something like "but what if...". But I don't think there's anything in the Laws that actually addresses this.

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on 2015-January-23, 07:51, said:

Agree with Vix. Further, I would say that opponent's rudeness is a violation of the proprieties and should draw a PP, especially where a zero tolerance or "best behaviour at bridge" regulation is in effect.

I think this brings the number of procedural penalties in the BBO Forums to 9,743, while in real life in all tournaments played worldwide, the number is probably about 26.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2015-January-23, 07:51, said:

Agree with Vix. Further, I would say that opponent's rudeness is a violation of the proprieties and should draw a PP, especially where a zero tolerance or "best behaviour at bridge" regulation is in effect.

DP not PP surely?

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2015-January-23, 14:27, said:

DP not PP surely?

Yes.

[nige1]

ArtK78, on 2015-January-23, 13:11, said:

I think this brings the number of procedural penalties in the BBO Forums to 9,743, while in real life in all tournaments played worldwide, the number is probably about 26.

RMB1, on 2015-January-23, 14:27, said:

DP not PP surely?

blackshoe, on 2015-January-23, 15:05, said:

Yes.

DPs are even rarer Two senior directors, whom I asked, replied that they had never issued a DP

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2015-January-23, 19:36, said:

DPs are even rarer Two senior directors, whom I asked, replied that they had never issued a DP

DPs should be rare — but neither should be as rare as they are, IMO.

[nige1]

pran, on 2015-January-23, 02:41, said:

If South referred to a future trick then he may be bound by his statement ("overtaking a Club") if this constitutes a legal play, but he must be allowed to complete his statement.

VixTD, on 2015-January-23, 07:44, said:

I'm not sure I can cite a law or regulation to support this, but it came up in a discussion on handling claims at the EBU panel directors' training a few weeks ago. The consensus was that so long as the claimer realises the claim needs rethinking before they've finished articulating it, and that their realisation wasn't influenced by another player, they should be allowed time to compose themselves and have another go.

blackshoe, on 2015-January-23, 07:51, said:

Agree with Vix. Further, I would say that opponent's rudeness is a violation of the proprieties and should draw a PP, especially where a zero tolerance or "best behaviour at bridge" regulation is in effect.

RMB1, on 2015-January-23, 14:27, said:

DP not PP surely?

If E thought that S broke the law by trying to correct his claim statement, then E was right to call the director.

IMO, to call the director should not be considered as rudeness to opponents.

About half all the times that a director is called, he rules that there has been no infraction or no damage. Should the director issue a DP for every such occurrence?

[blackshoe]

The rudeness was not in calling the director, it was in interrupting the claim statement.