[EricK]

 nullve, on 2015-November-04, 08:29, said:

Sorry for stating the obvious, but it seems like the laws force the players to play a form of Prisoner's Dilemma with 'call the director'/'accept the claim' instead of 'defect'/'cooperate'. In an ideal world maybe no player would call the director over something like this, but there's no question what the optimal strategy is if the overarching objective is to win bridge tournaments and not e.g. to repair a damaged reputation.

In an ideal world, players make a statement when making a claim.

[jgillispie]

Nothing wrong in calling the director. So long as the board is available for inspection, I can't fathom any reason that the call would be disregarded. Some authority regulations might need to be considered (I believe ACBL's window is about half an hour after play is concluded. Not precisely sure).

What might taint the call is if N-S are aware of E-W (theoretical) lack of skill, calling with a psychological intent. How a director determines this, to me, is unclear. Surely there's a forum on this somewhere.

In a club setting (I'm in SE U.S), I suspect most folks wouldn't think twice about the board. It's too laid back of a setting for most players to care too much, should they have the capacity to see the blockage. In a tournament, however, where everybody is there to compete, I'd expect a majority of players to call. Most of the field is competent and blood thirsty for any IMPs/MPs at stake.

As a point of interest, any good E-W can overcome the !C blockage w/ the !D9 entry, right?

[sfi]

 jgillispie, on 2015-November-04, 19:43, said:

As a point of interest, any good E-W can overcome the !C blockage w/ the !D9 entry, right?

Yes, but you have to play on clubs first. That's really all there is to the hand.

[gnasher]

 jgillispie, on 2015-November-04, 19:43, said:

Most of the field is competent and blood thirsty for any IMPs/MPs at stake.

I think that's a undeserved slur on "most of the field". Most people call the director in order to protect their equity. That is, they call the director to protect the IMPs/VPs that they're entitled to, not to gain IMPs/VPs that they're not entitled to.

In this case, if you contest the claim, that's because you believe that declare hadn't noticed the blockage and would have gone down some of the time. Very few people would contest this claim if they were sure that declarer had noticed the blockage.

[helene_t]

 jgillispie, on 2015-November-04, 19:43, said:

As a point of interest, any good E-W can overcome the !C blockage w/ the !D9 entry, right?

Yes, that's the point. If we accept the claim it is because we believe declarer saw that.

[gnasher]

 helene_t, on 2015-November-04, 07:10, said:

But if you call the TD, declarer has some time to think it through while you are waiting for the director. So maybe the spontaneous response you get if you ask him how he will play it is more illuminating.

Well, most people are honest. And if you demand a spontaneous response, you may in fact get a flustered response which says something different from what was in the player's mind at the time of claim. Gaining because you inadvertently bullied declarer into saying the wrong thing would be far worse than losing because you followed the rules.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2015-November-04, 06:59, said:

There's nothing "douchey" about calling the director. What's wrong is getting the director to rule one down if you personally think that declarer had noticed the blockage and was going to play it correctly.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this procedure:
- Call the director and explain the problem
- Listen to what declarer says to the director
- If you think declarer knew about the blockage, tell the director you accept the claim.
- If you think declarer didn't know about the blockage, tell the director you wish to contest the claim.

Note to Ed: Law 70 begins "In ruling on a contested claim or concession". If the claim isn't contested, he has no power to rule on the claim.

What you're suggesting amounts to contesting a claim and then withdrawing your objection. There doesn't seem to be a provision in law that would allow this. So I'm not so sure your "there is absolutely nothing wrong with this procedure" is correct.

[barmar]

If you call the director because you contest a claim, is there really anything wrong with then telling the director that you now realize you made a mistake?

Of course, it's still up to the director to make the ruling, but this statement should be helpful to him.

[mycroft]

"I see it now, sorry".

As a TD, *most* of my contested claims rulings (the ones that aren't "he didn't mention the trump" ones, anyway) are "I don't understand what declarer said", and usually, having the TD understand it and reword it, or move a couple of cards around, clarifies the situation. In fact, I strongly encourage this behaviour (especially from the weaker players) rather than griping about "why can't we play on" or "I hate it when they claim" or "they're just trying to show how much smarter they are than me" - or saying this at the table before the TD gets called (with 4 pissed off players, now, instead of one). As in a lot of cases, it's just easier to say "I contest the claim"/"I can't see it"/"I don't agree", call the TD, and let the TD handle it.

Oh, and when declarer asks "what's your problem with the claim" - don't give him any information to help him "get it right" without the TD present. "I don't think the diamonds run" == "oh, of course I would play them this way and pick up your 5-0 break because..." Having said that, accept the TD ruling in their favour with good grace (such as when declarer had a two-way guess for the queen, and I could have not had it for my 12-14 NT rather than the 14-count I had; "but he didn't tell me what his problem was so I could explain" - of course I didn't. However, the TD's ruling was disappointing, but reasonable (an expert would know that my partner wouldn't have played the way she did with the queen) and I thanked him for the ruling and went on.)

[WellSpyder]

 mycroft, on 2015-November-09, 12:24, said:

when declarer asks "what's your problem with the claim"

"you haven't stated how you are going to play it."

[mycroft]

well, okay, that; but even that could be a wakeup call unless you always do it.

But I was discussing the claims where there *is* a claim statement, but it's either incomplete, or doomed to bad breaks, or "didn't mention the trump" - where any request for clarification will flag the problem to declarer so he can get it right.

[barmar]

Law 70 says "any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer". It then goes on to provide detailed guidance to the director regarding not mentioning the trump and other considerations.

[mycroft]

Absolutely. But tell declarer what the problem is, and by the time the TD arrives, there won't be a doubtful point - or at least the explanation as to why will be as solid as declarer can make it. Good luck making the argument that that wasn't actually mentioned until after declarer knew there was a problem. A great TD will be able to work out the timing and will rule according to the initial claim statement according to Law 70. A merely superior one will try, and potentially fail.

Call the TD, and tell *her* what your issue is. Don't tell declarer, unless it's clearly a "no, I'm getting one regardless" situation. Definitely don't be intimidated by "stronger players" into accepting claims you a) don't understand, or b) you think may go down on a bad play.