[billw55]

gnasher, on 2015-August-21, 05:52, said:

I hate that the rules force us to make such inequitable rulings.

I agree with this. As it is, when a contract is locked in for a fixed number of tricks, declarers can effectively ask for extra tricks by claiming them, with no fear of loss.

PhilKing, on 2015-August-21, 06:08, said:

Interesting. I see that two out of five declarers went down in 4♥ on the singleton spade lead (half of the players that did not make a bum claim).

So I think it's fair to say the ruling was questionable.

I don't even know what to say.

[Zelandakh]

billw55, on 2015-August-21, 06:18, said:

I don't even know what to say.

The thing to say is that directors give average club players far too much credit a lot of the time and that we should not be giving such players the benefit of the doubt in cases where the Laws explicitly say that they should not get it.

[billw55]

Zelandakh, on 2015-August-21, 06:41, said:

The thing to say is that directors give average club players far too much credit a lot of the time and that we should not be giving such players the benefit of the doubt in cases where the Laws explicitly say that they should not get it.

The evidence in this case is certainly on your side. I even thought I was being pretty conservative about applying the standard of "irrational". Apparently I was wrong.

[StevenG]

How is the director to decide whether a person is an average club player?

[billw55]

StevenG, on 2015-August-21, 07:53, said:

How is the director to decide whether a person is an average club player?

I think she should use the overall standard of the field. Assigning a ruling based on the skill of an individual contestant seems wrong. Thus, a ruling might be different in a Spingold than in a club game. But not between two contestants in the same event.

[Trinidad]

billw55, on 2015-August-21, 08:05, said:

I think she should use the overall standard of the field. Assigning a ruling based on the skill of an individual contestant seems wrong. Thus, a ruling might be different in a Spingold than in a club game. But not between two contestants in the same event.

So, you would like it to be so that if Meckstroth claims in the Spingold, the claim is awarded, while if he makes the exact same claim (potentially against the exact same opponents) at his local club, the claim would not be awarded?

That is not what the law book asks from the TD. The law refers to the standard of the player (the claimer), not to the standard of the field.

Rik

[billw55]

Trinidad, on 2015-August-21, 08:09, said:

So, you would like it to be so that if Meckstroth claims in the Spingold, the claim is awarded, while if he makes the exact same claim (potentially against the exact same opponents) at his local club, the claim would not be awarded?

I would not exactly like it. But I would definitely prefer it to the case where Meckstroth gets 12 tricks, but his opponent in the same event gets only 9, for making the same claim. That would be grossly inequitable.

[gnasher]

gnasher, on 2015-August-21, 05:52, said:

I agree with vixTD's ruling. As Lamford says, declarer has already shown us what carelessness he's capable of.

Sorry, I'd misread vixTD's post, or possibly I was subconsciously trying to avoid writing "I agree with Lamford". I think it should be ruled down one.


If I were king for the day, it would be 10% of -100 and 90% of +680.

[pran]

PhilKing, on 2015-August-21, 06:08, said:

Interesting. I see that two out of five declarers went down in 4♥ on the singleton spade lead (half of the players that did not make a bum claim).

So I think it's fair to say the ruling was questionable.

Of what kind of standard were those two players (low or medium)?

[barmar]

StevenG, on 2015-August-21, 07:53, said:

How is the director to decide whether a person is an average club player?

If he knows the player (which is very likely if it's a club game, and probably also for most players in sectional tournaments), he probably knows how good a player they are.

I would award 12 tricks to Meckwell, 9 tricks to myself.

[johnu]

I think miscounting trump when making the claim is more likely than not considering a 4-0 break in this situation. One of the first things I think about when the contract looks ironclad is what happens on bad breaks and are there any safety plays available. So I think a Meckwell would be more likely to have had a brain fart and miscounted trumps, but it would be safe to say that these players are not Meckwell.

[nige1]

IMO, this is a book ruling, only complicated by bizarre "Equity" consideratons.

A reasonable assumption is that this declarer (especially if he is an expert) has lost the place, presumably by miscounting trumps. Of course, when defenders dispute the claim, an expert declarer may well wake up to his mistake and try to correct his claim. In the normal course of events, however, a rational line of play results in one down.

The director might work out the correct line to make 12 tricks but as Gnasher hints, that allows a careless declarer to delegate his play problems, in the hope that the director is a competent player.

Also, Phil King points out that 2 declarers went down. If the director rules +2 (the best possible result for the offender, the worst possible result for his victims) then unsuccessful declarers will feel aggrieved - as will the defenders at this table!

A regular false-claimer might be frustrated and disappointed that defenders were sufficiently sceptical and vigilant to quibble about his original 13-trick claim although he deserves no sympathy

If directors routinely give the benefit of the doubt to law-breakers, in cases like this, IMO, that transmits a disturbing message.

[nige1]

Correcton: only 2 of 5 declarers went down (also corrected above).

This example illustrates the importance of examining results at other tables.

[lamford]

eagles123, on 2015-August-19, 09:37, said:

I believe this is under appeal

Was an appeal heard, who was it by, and what was the decision of the AC or referee?

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2015-August-24, 05:23, said:

Was an appeal heard, who was it by, and what was the decision of the AC or referee?

There was no appeal because it was out of time.

[VixTD]

This was not an average club game, it was the Brighton Summer Meeting Under 25 cross-IMP pairs. The standard varied from weak (some of the players had not been on the earth long enough to gain much experience) to junior international standard. I don't know our declarer very well, but I've met him a few times and my impression is that he's quite a good card player (even if his bidding raises a few eyebrows sometimes).

I don't know the declarers who made only nine tricks on a spade lead, except that one of them was in the least experienced partnership, whose ages combined would have been under the threshold of 25 years.

I don't understand the talk of "finding the right line". If you realise the trump split is such that you cannot draw them all ending in dummy, there is no other rational line for a player of this standard than to leave a high trump in dummy and run the spades, allowing a defender to ruff and then win the return, draw the remaining trumps and finish the spades. Even I would have made twelve tricks.

I understand the objection that declarer could have thought there are only three trumps outstanding from the outset. I considered this, but rejected it as unlikely. Perhaps I was wrong.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2015-August-24, 07:15, said:

I understand the objection that declarer could have thought there are only three trumps outstanding from the outset. I considered this, but rejected it as unlikely. Perhaps I was wrong.

Even if it was regarded as unlikely, I think one has to resolve the doubtful point in favour of the non-claimer, under Law 70A. The law says "if it was at all likely that the claimant was unaware that a trump remained in his opponent's hand"; such is the case with South's fourth trump on this hand, and more so because declarer has to be aware before drawing the third trump that a trump will remain. If South had three trumps and dummy AK doubleton with the extra trump transferred to declarer would you award 12 tricks?

As declarer I would wait until the first round of spades stood up, and if I claimed, stating "drawing trumps ending in dummy", I would expect to be ruled one down, as it could only be because I had miscounted the trumps, or rather that I had not even counted them at all.

The old Laws (and Pran can help here) had something about declarer being required to draw or not draw any outstanding trumps. That should be the benchmark applied.

[pran]

lamford, on 2015-August-24, 07:37, said:

Even if it was regarded as unlikely, I think one has to resolve the doubtful point in favour of the non-claimer, under Law 70A. The law says "if it was at all likely that the claimant was unaware that a trump remained in his opponent's hand"; such is the case with South's fourth trump on this hand, and more so because declarer has to be aware before drawing the third trump that a trump will remain. If South had three trumps and dummy AK doubleton with the extra trump transferred to declarer would you award 12 tricks?

As declarer I would wait until the first round of spades stood up, and if I claimed, stating "drawing trumps ending in dummy", I would expect to be ruled one down, as it could only be because I had miscounted the trumps, or rather that I had not even counted them at all.

The old Laws (and Pran can help here) had something about declarer being required to draw or not draw any outstanding trumps. That should be the benchmark applied.

I haven't bothered to go further back than 1987 from which Law 70C ("There is an outstanding trump") is unchanged, and I cannot see how this law is applicable in the current situation.

Maybe you had in mind the current

Law 70E1 said:

The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

which is also essentially unchanged ???

[barmar]

I don't think the clause about an outstanding trump is relevant in this case. When declarer claims at trick 1, there's no doubt that he knows that there are outstanding trumps. I wouldn't refer to that clause unless declarer had done some trump-drawing and then embarked on a line, or made a claim, that suggested that he thought he'd drawn them all. In this case, that's not what happened, the issue is whether he can draw all the trumps and still take all the tricks he claimed; here we just apply the "normal line (uncluding careless, but not irrational)" criterion.

[KurtGodel]

VixTD, on 2015-August-24, 07:15, said:

(even if his bidding raises a few eyebrows sometimes).

This is an underbid! I think in practice he would have in fact made it after seeing that trumps were 4-0. But really, what does it take to draw one round of trumps before you claim? I just about managed that.