[pran]

 Vampyr, on 2013-January-21, 16:30, said:

No. See above for workable suggestions.

The only suggestion I can imagine as workable is not on the list:

A player (declarer or defender, but not dummy) may only claim or concede at his own turn to play.

[Vampyr]

 pran, on 2013-January-21, 16:34, said:

A player (declarer or defender, but not dummy) may only claim or concede at his own turn to play.

Not so helpful for the case under discussion and, I imagine, others like it. East may have known the layout of the hand and faced both of his cards at the same time.

[RMB1]

It may not be possible to formulate a law that defenders can not claim in certain circumstance, but there could be a warning that if defender claims and defender's partner's plays may affect the number of tricks then the claim may be successfully contested by declarer.

Then Law 70 would say that if a defender claims and the declaring side objects then the defender's partner's plays will be assumed to any legal play (or any goldfish-normal play, or whatever).

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2013-January-21, 13:35, said:

some restrictions are placed on the defenders' right to claim.

This is, I think, a misunderstanding of the law. The restriction in 70D2 is not on a defender's right to claim, it's on his right to impose a line of play on his partner that requires the partner to make the correct choice when he has a choice. A defender has the right to claim, but if he proposes such a line of play, the TD will reject it, ruling on that point in favor of the declaring side.

[iviehoff]

 RMB1, on 2013-January-21, 16:40, said:

It may not be possible to formulate a law that defenders can not claim in certain circumstance, but there could be a warning that if defender claims and defender's partner's plays may affect the number of tricks then the claim may be successfully contested by declarer.

That seems to be just what L70D2 currently says.

"The Director does not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner’s selecting a particular play from among alternative normal plays."

I don't think banning claims at particular moments is an answer to anything, because claims will nevertheless be made at such a moment, and we need to deal with them. You can make a clear cut claim at any moment; you can make a dodgy claim at any moment. We need laws on the adjudication of claims to deal with the dodgy ones, whenever they are made, because they will, from time to time, be made.

Adjudicating claims has always produced a number of difficult cases, and defensive claims where choices by the defender's partner matter are no exception.

[VixTD]

Defenders (and declarer) should be allowed to claim at any point in the hand, but I would like to see the restrictions on claimer's partner's supposed play tightened up to give all benefit of the doubt against the claimer. Defenders should not be allowed to get away with avoiding a play that "couldn't possibly gain", or in the given example, to assume that partner cannot possibly have the queen of hearts because they played the king.

A defender who is sure partner is going to play sensibly should not be allowed to make sure of this by claiming.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2013-January-21, 18:35, said:

This is, I think, a misunderstanding of the law. The restriction in 70D2 is not on a defender's right to claim, it's on his right to impose a line of play on his partner that requires the partner to make the correct choice when he has a choice. A defender has the right to claim, but if he proposes such a line of play, the TD will reject it, ruling on that point in favor of the declaring side.

Sorry, I just used a shortcut to convey the idea that certain claims (ie when partner's hand is not irrelebant) are not likely to be successful.

[barmar]

I think the way to express it is that the law has more restrictions on a defender's ability to make a valid claim.

Declarer knows all his side's assets, so he can claim "I'm going to take these tricks in my hand, these other tricks in dummy", and describe how he's going to get from one hand to the other. Defenders can't usually make claims that depend on such coordination between their hands.

[mink]

 barmar, on 2013-January-22, 11:49, said:

I think the way to express it is that the law has more restrictions on a defender's ability to make a valid claim.

I agree. IMO the suitable place for such restrictions is Law 70D2. Here, the director is currently advised to select the least favorable among the normal plays of the claiming defender's partner. The proposed change is to replace "normal play" by "non-irrational play". This should be defined to be any play that is normal for a player who cannot remember the tricks already played. So the director still cannot force him to ruff a trick already won by his partner or to duck when he is able to win a trick. But in such a case as this thread where it is reasonable for West to win his partners K with the A if the Q has already been played, the non-offending-side would benefit from this change, and the outcome would be the same as applying Law 57 if there was no claim an defender plays his last card prematurely.

Karl

[Vampyr]

 mink, on 2013-January-22, 18:01, said:

The proposed change is to replace "normal play" by "non-irrational play".

Some people prefer "legal play". I lean towards this option.

[pran]

 Vampyr, on 2013-January-22, 19:15, said:

Some people prefer "legal play". I lean towards this option.

Are you sure?
"Legal" play will include any (legal) play however irrational it might be.

[Vampyr]

 pran, on 2013-January-23, 03:49, said:

Are you sure?
"Legal" play will include any (legal) play however irrational it might be.

I know what "legal" means.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2013-January-23, 03:49, said:

Are you sure?
"Legal" play will include any (legal) play however irrational it might be.

I think that's his point.

Basically, he wants to allow defensive claims only if there's no way it can possibly go wrong, e.g. if the defender has all top tricks in his hand, or he and declarer are down to all trumps and he can say something like "I get one and you get one". But if any lapse of memory or judgement by your partner can screw it up, your claim can be denied.

I don't think the current law really causes much problem, but I could live with this proposed change.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2013-January-23, 10:20, said:

I think that's his point.

Basically, he wants to allow defensive claims only if there's no way it can possibly go wrong, e.g. if the defender has all top tricks in his hand, or he and declarer are down to all trumps and he can say something like "I get one and you get one". But if any lapse of memory or judgement by your partner can screw it up, your claim can be denied.

I don't think the current law really causes much problem, but I could live with this proposed change.

In his case the claim for all remaining tricks will go down if it for instance includes four tricks from A K 4 2 versus Q J 5 3 because a legal play will be all the small cards in the first two tricks and saving the honours for the last two tricks in that suit.

[RMB1]

 pran, on 2013-January-24, 03:03, said:

In his case the claim for all remaining tricks will go down if it for instance includes four tricks from A K 4 2 versus Q J 5 3 because a legal play will be all the small cards in the first two tricks and saving the honours for the last two tricks in that suit.

How does one defender know the other has HHxx ?

[pran]

 RMB1, on 2013-January-24, 03:24, said:

How does one defender know the other has HHxx ?

If that question is material then take a slightly different example:
Claimer has A K Q J T 9 2 in a suit (the 8 is not with his partner) and his claim includes all 7 tricks in that suit.

A legal play will be to lead the 2 first time.

[Zelandakh]

 pran, on 2013-January-24, 03:39, said:

If that question is material then take a slightly different example:
Claimer has A K Q J T 9 2 in a suit (the 8 is not with his partner) and his claim includes all 7 tricks in that suit.

A legal play will be to lead the 2 first time.

That is hardly a play by Claimer's partner though is it? The proposed change does not stop Claimer from making a claim statement about their own line of play.

[RMB1]

 pran, on 2013-January-24, 03:39, said:

If that question is material then take a slightly different example:
Claimer has A K Q J T 9 2 in a suit (the 8 is not with his partner) and his claim includes all 7 tricks in that suit.

A legal play will be to lead the 2 first time.

The any legal plays applies to the partner of the defender who claims, not the claimer, he is allowed to state a line of play.

[jnichols]

 pran, on 2013-January-21, 16:23, said:

A reasonable restriction could for instance be that no player may claim or concede before the opening lead has been made.

Whyever not. I have had two hands that I can remember where I was in 7NT and based on my partners Blackwood responses I was able to claim before the opening lead. (I doubt there were more than two - I would certainly remember!)

Obviously, my partner could have fouled up her responses, but that would be my problem.

[Zelandakh]

 jnichols, on 2013-January-24, 08:38, said:

Whyever not.
etc

It happens quite a lot when playing a relay system. Nonetheless, I would never claim before the opening lead was faced. If nothing else it is rude (and smug).