Law 68 Claim or Concession of Tricks 

8.68.1 Play ceases after a claim or concession

A player must not ask their opponent to play on, nor must they accept their opponent’s invitation to do so. A contested claim is solely a matter for the TD – but see §8.68.2. However, if players do play on after a claim, while such play is voided, the TD may use that play in determining the players’ probable plays after the claim.

8.68.2 Law 68B: Objection to concession [WBFLC]

When a concession is made by a defender of a number of tricks, thereby claiming the complement of the remaining tricks, if the defender’s partner immediately objects to the concession, under Law 68B no concession has occurred and by the same token neither has any claim been made. After the Director has been summoned play continues and Law 16 may apply.

[WBFLC minutes 2001-10-28#10]

Law 16 may apply if a defender was found to have chosen from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorised information arising from the attempted concession and the objection thereto.

Cards exposed by the player attempting to concede are not penalty cards but they are unauthorised to partner. To avoid creating unauthorised information unnecessarily it is recommended that a defender who wishes to concede should only allow declarer and not partner to see their cards until everyone has accepted their concession/claim.

Law 69 Agreed Claim or Concession

8.69.1 The difference between a concession and an agreement

When a player announces they will lose some tricks they have conceded. When a player’s opponent says they will win some tricks they have claimed. If the player’s opponent claims and

the player accepts this, they have agreed. Both agreement (to an opponent’s claim) and concession are acceptance that opponents will win tricks, and both may be withdrawn; but different laws apply to withdrawn agreement and a withdrawn concession.

If one side claims and the other side later disagrees with the number of tricks claimed, Law 69B applies. But if one side makes a claim or concession and that side later disagrees with the number of tricks conceded, Law 71 applies.

8.69.2 Law 69B: Agreement withdrawn [WBFLC]

In no circumstances can the application of Law 69B2 lead to a weighted score. The law requires that ‘such trick’ shall be transferred or not transferred as determined by the Director’s ascertainment of facts.

[WBFLC minutes 2009-09-04#9]

Note  If the TD considers that ‘a player has agreed to lose a trick his side would likely have won’ then they transfer such a trick. Such a decision may not be weighted.

Law 70 Contested claim or concession

8.70.1 Interpretation of Law 70A

The TD is required to simply use their bridge judgement after consultation to decide the outcome of the deal, any doubt going against the claimer, with no opportunity for split or weighted scores. A suitable definition of ‘doubtful’ is ‘within the margins of reasonable doubt’.

8.70.2 ‘Blatantly obvious’

An Appeals Committee thought the winning line was ‘blatantly obvious’ yet ruled against the claimer. The L&EC believed that if a line was blatantly obvious then all other lines would presumably not be ‘normal’, as defined by the footnote to Law 70C3. If so the Appeals Committee should have held that, in effect, the line should be permitted.

8.70.3 Revoke

If the side that has not claimed has revoked then the TD should assess the claim by using their bridge judgement, but any doubt should go against the revoking side.

Note that the claim does not automatically establish the revoke as it would if it was a revoke by the claiming side. If the revoke was during the last trick, and the other side does not agree, then the revoke is not established. The TD should assess the claim without the established revoke.

8.70.4 Missing trump

A declarer who is unaware of a missing trump is ‘careless’ in failing to draw the missing trump. Thus if a trick could be lost by playing other winners first then the TD should award that trick to the non-claimers.

Examples (a) Declarer claims all the tricks with a good trump (9), two spade winners and a heart winner. The defence can ruff the heart with their outstanding small trump.

Despite declarer swearing on a stack of bibles that they knew there was a trump out, if they are too careless to mention it, then they may easily have forgotten it and the defence gets a trick. (b) Declarer is in 7 with thirteen tricks so long as spades (trumps) are not 5-0. Declarer cashes one round and says “All mine” when both players follow. They clearly have not forgotten the outstanding three trumps and the claim is good.

8.70.5 Top down?

A declarer who states that they are cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the top, especially if there is some solidity. However, each individual case should be considered.

Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone. It would be normal to give them three tricks since it might be considered not ‘normal’ to play the 5 first. However, with 754 opposite void it may be considered ‘careless’ to lose a trick to a singleton six.

8.70.6 Different suits

If a declarer appears unaware of an outstanding winner, and a trick could be lost by playing or discarding one suit rather than another then the TD should award that trick to the non-claimers.

Example Declarer has three winners in dummy and must make three discards. They appear to have forgotten their J is not a winner. It is ‘careless’ that they should discard some other winner to retain the J.

8.70.7 Law 70: Contested claim [WBFLC]

Suppose a player claims, and part of his claim is to discard a club on dummy’s diamond. Unfortunately the player will have to follow suit at that time: how does the TD rule? (Or if there is any other irregularity embodied in a claim?)

When there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (as for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid.

[WBFLC minutes 2001-11-01#3]

8.70.8 Law 70E: Unstated line of play in claim [WBFLC]

It is assumed declarer would see cards as they would be played and to take account of what he would see.

[WBFLC minutes 2001-10-30#3]

Sometimes the deal would become clear if it were played out.

Example  Declarer (South) claims but has forgotten about an outstanding trump. If East has the trump and when East could ruff South would be able to over-ruff, then it can assumed that South would not lose a trick to the outstanding trump.