contested claims
Contested Claims
There is an issue on this law about which I would love to know what the general opinions are.
Prior to the 2017 revision, when there was a contested claim, play ceased and the director ruled. There was no option to "play it out please". With the 2017 book a new option of playing it out without the director was introduced (68D) as long as all 4 players agreed. I believe, and I know I am not the only one, that this was a bad move.
Example: Declarer in a spade contact, claims the last 3 tricks holding the 10 and 3 of trumps and the 13th club. No clarification statement is made – just "the rest are mine". The LHO has the 7 of trumps and 2 diamonds. Prior to 2017 this would be a certain trick awarded to the non claiming side on the grounds that claimer may have played the club first, which the non claimer would trump. Now, however, once the claim is contested and if all agree to play it out, claimer will quickly realise that most contested claims are because there is an outstanding trump, and play the trumps first, depriving the contester of the trick they would have got pre 2017. This disadvantages less experienced players and I have always maintained that "play it out please" are the 4 craziest words in Bridge as it will often deprive the contester of a trick. I believe that the option of playing it out should be removed in next years revision.
Other thoughts please
Bruce Owen
Te Awamutu
Latest Posts on this Thread
- NICK WHITTEN01 Jun 2026 at 08:38PM
To quote Patrick Carter (and probably many others)
"If a hand is played out (following a contested claim) there is at least one idiot at the table"Why anyone would contest a claim and then allow the hand to be played out beggars belief
Note if dummy is the only one to disagree to playing the hand out then it can't be and the director must adjudicate
- Bruce Owen01 Jun 2026 at 09:34PM
I think all experienced players would agree that "play it out please beggars belief" and are the "four craziest words in bridge' However I am looking at it through the eyes of the vast majority of our junior club members who in their eyes think that playing it out is the logical thing to do. That is the reality, no matter how much we try to spread the word not to do this. If anything beggars belief to me it is that the WBF Laws committee thought that adding the option of playing it out was a good idea in the first place. To this extent I will be hoping to make a submission on this when they are called for in preparation for next years revision (assuming that will be happening)
- JACK JAMES02 Jun 2026 at 12:27AM
Hi all,
I think the intention of "play it out please" is that sometimes you can understand a 4 or 5 trick claim, but it can be hard to see the final position from say 8 tricks away. This then provides a pathway for declarer to get to a point where the opponents understand and accept the claim.
The reason why it must be included is that if there is a disputed claim and no-one calls the director (poor form), then the players can just play it out anyway and accept what ever result comes. This is similar to how you could (definitely should not, in no circumstances, ever) agree to a ruling at the time without calling the director and that ruling would stand.
I have had a policy (as a player) on this for some number of years now. If there is a claim at the table I will never allow play to continue after. I do not care who I am playing with or against, either your claim is good in which case only you can lose by playing it out, or your claim is bad and you ethically shouldn't benefit by having the opps tell you the location of cards by who objects. I have had the other three people want to play on, even had opponents tell me that I'm dummy, I can't speak, but if I'm not agreeing to play on then the hand is over. I am dummy no more. I am free to call the director here and force the claim to be resolved.
Whilst this can be time consuming, it forces us to get better at claiming in the long term. Which will speed up the game.
Cheers,
Jack James
- HELENE LABRECHE27 Jun 2026 at 09:00PM
Agree: Here is another situation of contested claim. I would love to have expert opinion on this too.
Declarer was playing a 4♠ contract. We were down to the last three tricks. Declarer's remaining cards were the ♠10, ♠8, and ♠6.
Declarer then placed her remaining cards face up on the table and said, "I have only trumps left." Nothing further was said.
My partner was still holding the ♠9.
It was clear that declarer had no idea there was an outstanding trump. Despite this, the Director awarded the contract, reasoning that if declarer had continued to play the hand, she would have led the ♠10 first, causing my partner's ♠9 to fall.
I appealed this ruling.
My position was that declarer had demonstrated no awareness that the ♠9 remained outstanding. By tabling her cards and making a blanket claim, she assumed there were no trumps left to be played against her. Since the claim did not specify a line of play that accounted for the outstanding ♠9, my partner should have been entitled to take a trick with the ♠9 still in his hand.
In my view, the claim should not have been accepted on the basis of a line of play that declarer herself had neither stated nor appeared to have considered.
To me, this is a case of 70 C , 1 and 2. The appeal was lost on the basis of C.3 ( 20).
I think that as the Declarer did not try to play, just dropped cards on table face up, my partner could have won any 2 of those 3 cards remaining.
Your opinion please: I need to know this well for all our directors
Helene Labreche
East Coast Bays Bridge CLub.
- Bruce Owen28 Jun 2026 at 12:22PM
I agree with the director's ruling. The footnote to the law clarifies that a trick shall be awarded to the opposition if it could be lost by any "normal" play. I do not consider that playing the remaing trumps in any way other from the top would be normal. It would be more than "careless or inferior" for the class of player which would qualify. This would be irrational. Now here is the interesting thing. Up till the 2007 revision of the laws (the 1997 revision) the footnote also included the words "but not irrational" after the words " careless or inferior for the class of player involved" I have never understood why those words were removed in 2007. It would seem to give the director a little more scope to award a trick to the opposition, but not, in my view, enough to give it in this case. The ruling is good.
- HELENE LABRECHE02 Jul 2026 at 10:47AM
Thank you
Helene
- GILES HANCOCK02 Aug 2026 at 10:27PM
Bruce, submissions on the 2027 Laws have closed long ago, sorry.
https://www.worldbridge.org/2022/06/the-laws-of-duplicate-bridge-2027/
You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.
Click here to log in.
