[dsLawsd]

I agree with Phil down 1. This might make a great situation to send
to Ruling the Game at the ACBL Bulletin. A tough lesson to learn.

[weejonnie]

I am inclined to allow the claim if trumps are 2-2 or Q opposite XXX, under the argument that "Drawing Trumps" does mean playing trumps from the top. Otherwise, if trumps are 3-1 or 4-0 I rule that declarer first cashes the top trump over the Queen.

[FelicityR]

 Phil, on 2018-June-11, 14:19, said:

By the way, this was a ruling I had 8 years ago. Trumps were 22.

I ruled -1.

And what happened after you made the ruling? The response may have been quite another matter, or did she take your decision with good grace?

[sfi]

 FelicityR, on 2018-June-12, 03:08, said:

And what happened after you made the ruling? The response may have been quite another matter, or did she take your decision with good grace?

My small sample of good players who aren't directors arrived at the unanimous conclusion that they would have been unhappy at themselves for the poor claim rather than at the ruling.

[Tramticket]

The EBU gives guidance (written by Gordon Rainsford), in the L&E Publications section of their website, on adjudicating claims: http://www.ebu.co.uk...ting-claims.pdf. Pages 2&3 seem to deal with this situation.

I would take this to mean that the EBUs guidance is that a claim will fail if a defender holds QX. I think that it would be normal to cash one honour first before finessing or playing for the drop, so a claim would succeed if a defender holds a singleton Q.

[Phil]

 FelicityR, on 2018-June-12, 03:08, said:

And what happened after you made the ruling? The response may have been quite another matter, or did she take your decision with good grace?

The declarer was a director and the club manager. She took it in stride.

[steve2005]

. The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. “from the top down”) in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law).

[pescetom]

 Tramticket, on 2018-June-12, 05:52, said:

The EBU gives guidance (written by Gordon Rainsford), in the L&E Publications section of their website, on adjudicating claims: http://www.ebu.co.uk...ting-claims.pdf. Pages 2&3 seem to deal with this situation.

I would take this to mean that the EBUs guidance is that a claim will fail if a defender holds QX.

That EBU guidance says "There are two normal lines here – to play the other top spade or to finesse. Only if
both of them work, ie the Qx is onside, do we allow declarer a thirteenth trick."
I take that to mean that if a defender holds Qx then the claim will succeed if he is onside and fail if he is not.

[pran]

 pescetom, on 2018-June-12, 06:48, said:

That EBU guidance says "There are two normal lines here – to play the other top spade or to finesse. Only if
both of them work, ie the Qx is onside, do we allow declarer a thirteenth trick."
I take that to mean that if a defender holds Qx then the claim will succeed if he is onside and fail if he is not.

And if the finesse can be taken both ways then he is (obviously) deemed to try it the unfortunate way.

[barmar]

 pescetom, on 2018-June-12, 06:48, said:

That EBU guidance says "There are two normal lines here – to play the other top spade or to finesse. Only if
both of them work, ie the Qx is onside, do we allow declarer a thirteenth trick."
I take that to mean that if a defender holds Qx then the claim will succeed if he is onside and fail if he is not.

The example in the EBU guidance isn't quite the same as this one.

In their example you hold AKJ opposite xxx, so there's only one possible finesse, but you're not allowed to take a winning finesse if you didn't mention it in the claim statement. But you're not forced to lead the J, as that would not be normal.

In our case you have a choice between 3 plays: finesse one way, finesse the other way, or play for the drop. Since you didn't say which, you're deemed to take whichever line will be unsuccessful. But I don't think you should be deemed to take an unsuccesful first-round finesse into a singleton Q -- that seems to be a bit extreme.

[blackshoe]

 FelicityR, on 2018-June-12, 03:08, said:

And what happened after you made the ruling? The response may have been quite another matter, or did she take your decision with good grace?

She should have. The Introduction to the Laws says so.

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2018-June-12, 08:52, said:

The example in the EBU guidance isn't quite the same as this one.

In their example you hold AKJ opposite xxx, so there's only one possible finesse, but you're not allowed to take a winning finesse if you didn't mention it in the claim statement. But you're not forced to lead the J, as that would not be normal.

In our case you have a choice between 3 plays: finesse one way, finesse the other way, or play for the drop. Since you didn't say which, you're deemed to take whichever line will be unsuccessful. But I don't think you should be deemed to take an unsuccesful first-round finesse into a singleton Q -- that seems to be a bit extreme.

As I read the EBU guidance, your claim is accepted if there is no normal play that fails. Normal play seems limited to the drop, finesse one way if feasible, finesse the other way if feasible. But it is specified that “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, so I guess some rather extreme finesses must be considered.

[Tramticket]

 pescetom, on 2018-June-12, 09:39, said:

As I read the EBU guidance, your claim is accepted if there is no normal play that fails. Normal play seems limited to the drop, finesse one way if feasible, finesse the other way if feasible. But it is specified that “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, so I guess some rather extreme finesses must be considered.

I suggest you re-read. It tells us that when there are two (or more) normal plays, you get the score from adopting the wrong one. This is the exact opposite of what you are saying!

[PhilG007]

I was actually in a situation like this in a real life tournament. Declarer was in a suit grand slam and after the opening lead was made,
claimed 13 tricks by "drawing trumps" and faced his hand
My partner conceded but one defenders concession is not binding upon the other. I held Qxx in trumps I immediately
called the TD and gave my reason for disputing the claim. The TD then requested declarer to play on stating that he could draw trumps as he stated
but was barred taking a finesse against me since I was the challenger. None too pleased declarer bashed out the ace and king but was
forced to concede a trick to my queen which was now the master trump. One down
The lesson to be learned here is never make a claim until you are SURE you will take the remaining tricks and draw any outstanding
trumps BEFORE claiming.

[pran]

 PhilG007, on 2018-June-12, 14:30, said:

I was actually in a situation like this in a real life tournament. Declarer was in a suit grand slam and after the opening lead was made,
claimed 13 tricks by "drawing trumps" and faced his hand
My partner conceded but one defenders concession is not binding upon the other. I held Qxx in trumps I immediately
called the TD and gave my reason for disputing the claim. The TD then requested declarer to play on stating that he could draw trumps as he stated
but was barred taking a finesse against me since I was the challenger. None too pleased declarer bashed out the ace and king but was
forced to concede a trick to my queen which was now the master trump. One down
The lesson to be learned here is never make a claim until you are SURE you will take the remaining tricks and draw any outstanding
trumps BEFORE claiming.

Did TD refer to Law 68D2b1 with his ruling? The ruling was incorrect unless he did so and obtained agreement from all four players that play could continue.
(Assuming of course that the incident occurred under the 2017 laws)

[blackshoe]

If it occurred before the 2017 laws, I don't think there was any provision for playing on. I suppose if it was prior to 1987, I might be wrong.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2018-June-12, 16:59, said:

If it occurred before the 2017 laws, I don't think there was any provision for playing on. I suppose if it was prior to 1987, I might be wrong.

Before 2017 it was explicitly forbidden to play on after a claim.

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2018-June-12, 16:41, said:

Did TD refer to Law 68D2b1 with his ruling? The ruling was incorrect unless he did so and obtained agreement from all four players that play could continue.
(Assuming of course that the incident occurred under the 2017 laws)

Law 68D2b1 does not give the TD the option to allow the players to continue. It tells him to apply Law 70 if he is summoned.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2018-June-12, 23:49, said:

Law 68D2b1 does not give the TD the option to allow the players to continue. It tells him to apply Law 70 if he is summoned.

This appears (literally) to be correct, however it makes no sense to understand Law 68D that way:

Any player may summon the Director at any time for whatever (reasonable) reason, e.g. to get clarified available options in a particular situation.

One of the options available to the players after a claim or a concession is that they may continue the play if all four players agree.
It cannot possibly be the intention of the laws that this option shall be forfeited just by asking the Director for advice?

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2018-June-13, 01:28, said:

This appears (literally) to be correct, however it makes no sense to understand Law 68D that way:

Any player may summon the Director at any time for whatever (reasonable) reason, e.g. to get clarified available options in a particular situation.

One of the options available to the players after a claim or a concession is that they may continue the play if all four players agree.
It cannot possibly be the intention of the laws that this option shall be forfeited just by asking the Director for advice?

My understanding is that this option is there simply to tell the TD how to proceed if the players have continued to play on, not to give them an option to do so. I believe my understanding to be consistent with views expressed on the EBL TD forum.