[neilkaz]

 PhilG007, on 2016-May-13, 12:12, said:

Explain please? I just quoted the relevant Law(s) Can't you read (?)

Laws...Schmaws! With all due respect, PhilG, as you earned some by playing a few challenges, I fear you are drifting back into Troll Mode again! Have you ever watched the team trials here in the USA or in the UK from behind the screens? I kibb'ed live a couple times here as the US trials are often near Chicago as I have friends playing who let me watch. Players on both sides of the table of Hurd's ability make OBVIOUS claims like this all time and they aren't disputed. Everyone at that level knows that trump will be drawn in one or two rounds and the ♦ will be pitched on the K♠ and then there remain enough trumps in both hands to ruff any losers. They can see this as quickly as one can tie his shoes.

If I make a claim like this in the sectional here tomorrow it might be disputed. If declaring I'd bang down a top trump first and if both follow I'd claim stating that I am pitching a ♦ and don't need the hook, and that I can then cross ruff. If trump split 2-0 I bang down another top ♣ and make the same claim. But lets say, I simply spread my hand and claimed and some opp disputed as is their right, and they call the director. She'll ask me to explain my line of play and agree that I have 13 tricks once she looks at it a bit.

As for laws, yes, of course they matter. But they don't matter in a practical sense at the W/C level because no one is going to dispute this claim and if some one does, the claim will certainly be allowed.

As for the OP he stated in his initial post that he was a beginner. Obviously, he missed the fact that a ♦ can be pitched. A couple respondents told the OP this and this is where this thread should've come to a quick end. I hope my post will have brought this thread to its ending.

A shame to watch so many threads here lately deteriorate into nonsense and often drawn out by trollish behavior into dozens of unnecessary additional posts. ... neilkaz ...

[ArtK78]

Its not even a question of pitching a diamond. It is just a question of cashing 13 tricks.

6 clubs in hand (West), 3 heart ruffs in dummy (East), and the AK's in each of the pointed suits. Obviously, trump has to be pulled first. There is plenty of communication to accomplish this.

The OP says that West was the declarer, so that is how I presented it.

[neilkaz]

 ArtK78, on 2016-May-13, 13:47, said:

Its not even a question of pitching a diamond. It is just a question of cashing 13 tricks.

6 clubs in dummy, 3 heart ruffs in hand, and the AK's in each of the pointed suits. Obviously, trump has to be pulled first.

Yes true. I'm just replying to mention that often when I've had claims disputed I've claimed all winners. There's 8 cards remaining and I have 8 tops and I still am asked where my losers are going. I try not to make overly fancy claims and prefer not to claim on the basis of a marked finesse and heaven's no, I won't claim on a squeeze. The claim is supposed to speed up play.

[Zelandakh]

 PhilG007, on 2016-May-13, 12:12, said:

Explain please? I just quoted the relevant Law(s) Can't you read (?)

Yes I can read:

 PhilG007, on 2016-May-12, 00:45, said:

If you are a believer in the old adage of "the queen lying over the jack" then the two way
finesse has become one way and you shouldn't have any further problems.

Obviously so can masse24 as he posted the same quote in the post that started this sub-thread (#34).

[1eyedjack]

 PhilG007, on 2016-May-13, 07:08, said:

Again,this dialogue is also hypothetical.

Agreed. Deliberately so, as stated.

 PhilG007, on 2016-May-13, 07:08, said:

I have seen plenty of objections in my time as a player and they just don't follow the format
you've given in your post.

Precisely my point, which is:

That conversation would be the logical consequence of a claim contested on the grounds which *you* stated. The absurdity of the prospect of that conversation illustrates the flaw in the underlying premise, which is to say the suggested grounds for contesting it. Certainly the conversation would never take place, and the reason that it would never take place is that no-one asked to provide the basis of a challenge would propose "Law 70/71. End of."

The simple fact of the matter is that those laws contain within them a number of provisions, some of which, if they are judged to apply, would support the claim, and some would support the contest to the claim. The director would be required to form a judgement as to which sub-provisions take priority in light of the facts of the individual case, as he determines them.

Everyone on this thread apart from you is of the opinion that it would be absurd to the point of irrational for an experienced player to fail to take 13 tricks. Furthermore, declarer would absolutely not be required to lose a trump trick simply due to failure to state that he would draw trumps. On another hand, maybe.

[lamford]

 PhilG007, on 2016-May-11, 13:53, said:

---

I think there is something in the Laws about when declarer makes a claim without
a statement of play. I think the defenders should challenge and call the TD

I would certainly call the TD. The opening 6C bid shows possible unauthorised information from another source, such as the hand records, and the failure to raise to 7 on the East hand looks suspicious too.

[FrancesHinden]

 PhilG007, on 2016-May-13, 02:13, said:

Indeed,had the TD instructed play to continue,declarer would not be permitted to draw trumps as he did not
mention this in his original claim. Sorry to sound so pedantic,but,as everyone here knows(or should know)in a tournament,the Laws are strictly
enforced.

The laws are enforced, that is absolutely true.
However, your first sentence quoted is not true. There is nothing saying that decalrer is 'not permitted' to draw trumps.

[mikestar13]

 lamford, on 2016-May-14, 06:15, said:

I would certainly call the TD. The opening 6C bid shows possible unauthorised information from another source, such as the hand records, and the failure to raise to 7 on the East hand looks suspicious too.

Original poster (Frager) did not give the bidding, just the final contract. When 1eyedjack constructed a readable diagram for him, he gave the final contact as the opening bid rather than guess the bidding sequence, which was irrelevant to the claim in any case. I assume a more normal sequence would have happened at the table.

[Vampyr]

 mikestar13, on 2016-May-14, 18:06, said:

Original poster (Frager) did not give the bidding, just the final contract. When 1eyedjack constructed a readable diagram for him, he gave the final contact as the opening bid rather than guess the bidding sequence, which was irrelevant to the claim in any case. I assume a more normal sequence would have happened at the table.

LOL lighten up!

[661_Pete]

 Vampyr, on 2016-May-14, 18:47, said:

LOL lighten up!

Joking aside (and I can see the joke!) .....

I got marginally involved in a hand here on BBO where some highly suspicious bidding involving a monster jump, DID occur. This was a little while ago.

Holding:

---

East opened 1♥ and West jumped immediately to 7NT - which made. This really happened - it was there in the records...

How did I find out about this? Well, I'd played the same hand myself at another table - and after making what I thought was a 'good' 6NT (via a more conventional route), and felt a bit disappointed at the IMPs score, I thought I'd just take a look at the traveller.

If that had happened in a tournament, would anyone have called the TD? Surely! I sent an E-mail to abuse@bridgebase.com over this hand, but didn't hear any more about it.

[Fluffy]

abuse will never tell you about their resolutions, they state it clearly on the automated response.

[PhilG007]

 661_Pete, on 2016-May-16, 11:05, said:

Joking aside (and I can see the joke!) .....

I got marginally involved in a hand here on BBO where some highly suspicious bidding involving a monster jump, DID occur. This was a little while ago.

Holding:

---

East opened 1♥ and West jumped immediately to 7NT - which made. This really happened - it was there in the records...

How did I find out about this? Well, I'd played the same hand myself at another table - and after making what I thought was a 'good' 6NT (via a more conventional route), and felt a bit disappointed at the IMPs score, I thought I'd just take a look at the traveller.

If that had happened in a tournament, would anyone have called the TD? Surely! I sent an E-mail to abuse@bridgebase.com over this hand, but didn't hear any more about it.

I would have put it down to bad luck. In bridge,as in life you have the gamblers,the die-hards the do or dies.the precipice walkers In the long run,these individuals lose more than they win..it's called 'karma'
C'est la vie as they say in Paree

[Vampyr]

 PhilG007, on 2016-May-19, 01:49, said:

I would have put it down to bad luck. In bridge,as in life you have the gamblers,the die-hards the do or dies.the precipice walkers In the long run,these individuals lose more than they win..it's called 'karma'
C'est la vie as they say in Paree

Yes, it is unlucky to play against people who have seen the hand.

[661_Pete]

 Fluffy, on 2016-May-19, 00:33, said:

abuse will never tell you about their resolutions, they state it clearly on the automated response.

Yes I am aware of that. I suppose the only thing to do, is if anyone spots any other suspicious goings-on, to keep on sending the E-mails and hope the culprits get nailed. Anything to help keep BBO the 'clean' site we all want!

But I suppose the cheats will always find a way ...