BBO Discussion Forums: They are all mine - drawing trump - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

They are all mine - drawing trump

#21 User is offline   dsLawsd 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 299
  • Joined: 2017-September-15

Posted 2018-June-11, 23:27

I agree with Phil down 1. This might make a great situation to send
to Ruling the Game at the ACBL Bulletin. A tough lesson to learn.
0

#22 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2018-June-12, 01:27

I am inclined to allow the claim if trumps are 2-2 or Q opposite XXX, under the argument that "Drawing Trumps" does mean playing trumps from the top. Otherwise, if trumps are 3-1 or 4-0 I rule that declarer first cashes the top trump over the Queen.
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
0

#23 User is offline   FelicityR 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 980
  • Joined: 2012-October-26
  • Gender:Female

Posted 2018-June-12, 03:08

View PostPhil, on 2018-June-11, 14:19, said:

By the way, this was a ruling I had 8 years ago. Trumps were 22.

I ruled -1.


And what happened after you made the ruling? The response may have been quite another matter, or did she take your decision with good grace?
0

#24 User is offline   sfi 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,576
  • Joined: 2009-May-18
  • Location:Oz

Posted 2018-June-12, 04:20

View PostFelicityR, on 2018-June-12, 03:08, said:

And what happened after you made the ruling? The response may have been quite another matter, or did she take your decision with good grace?


My small sample of good players who aren't directors arrived at the unanimous conclusion that they would have been unhappy at themselves for the poor claim rather than at the ruling.
0

#25 User is offline   Tramticket 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,070
  • Joined: 2009-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kent (Near London)

Posted 2018-June-12, 05:52

The EBU gives guidance (written by Gordon Rainsford), in the L&E Publications section of their website, on adjudicating claims: http://www.ebu.co.uk...ting-claims.pdf. Pages 2&3 seem to deal with this situation.

I would take this to mean that the EBUs guidance is that a claim will fail if a defender holds QX. I think that it would be normal to cash one honour first before finessing or playing for the drop, so a claim would succeed if a defender holds a singleton Q.
0

#26 User is offline   Phil 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,092
  • Joined: 2008-December-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Texas, USA
  • Interests:Mountain Biking

Posted 2018-June-12, 06:12

View PostFelicityR, on 2018-June-12, 03:08, said:

And what happened after you made the ruling? The response may have been quite another matter, or did she take your decision with good grace?


The declarer was a director and the club manager. She took it in stride.
Hi y'all!

Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
0

#27 User is online   steve2005 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,148
  • Joined: 2010-April-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hamilton, Canada
  • Interests:Bridge duh!

Posted 2018-June-12, 06:18

. The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. “from the top down”) in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law).
Sarcasm is a state of mind
0

#28 User is online   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,203
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2018-June-12, 06:48

View PostTramticket, on 2018-June-12, 05:52, said:

The EBU gives guidance (written by Gordon Rainsford), in the L&E Publications section of their website, on adjudicating claims: http://www.ebu.co.uk...ting-claims.pdf. Pages 2&3 seem to deal with this situation.

I would take this to mean that the EBUs guidance is that a claim will fail if a defender holds QX.


That EBU guidance says "There are two normal lines here – to play the other top spade or to finesse. Only if
both of them work, ie the Qx is onside, do we allow declarer a thirteenth trick."
I take that to mean that if a defender holds Qx then the claim will succeed if he is onside and fail if he is not.
0

#29 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2018-June-12, 07:43

View Postpescetom, on 2018-June-12, 06:48, said:

That EBU guidance says "There are two normal lines here – to play the other top spade or to finesse. Only if
both of them work, ie the Qx is onside, do we allow declarer a thirteenth trick."
I take that to mean that if a defender holds Qx then the claim will succeed if he is onside and fail if he is not.

And if the finesse can be taken both ways then he is (obviously) deemed to try it the unfortunate way.
0

#30 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-June-12, 08:52

View Postpescetom, on 2018-June-12, 06:48, said:

That EBU guidance says "There are two normal lines here – to play the other top spade or to finesse. Only if
both of them work, ie the Qx is onside, do we allow declarer a thirteenth trick."
I take that to mean that if a defender holds Qx then the claim will succeed if he is onside and fail if he is not.

The example in the EBU guidance isn't quite the same as this one.

In their example you hold AKJ opposite xxx, so there's only one possible finesse, but you're not allowed to take a winning finesse if you didn't mention it in the claim statement. But you're not forced to lead the J, as that would not be normal.

In our case you have a choice between 3 plays: finesse one way, finesse the other way, or play for the drop. Since you didn't say which, you're deemed to take whichever line will be unsuccessful. But I don't think you should be deemed to take an unsuccesful first-round finesse into a singleton Q -- that seems to be a bit extreme.

#31 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2018-June-12, 09:17

View PostFelicityR, on 2018-June-12, 03:08, said:

And what happened after you made the ruling? The response may have been quite another matter, or did she take your decision with good grace?

She should have. The Introduction to the Laws says so.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#32 User is online   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,203
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2018-June-12, 09:39

View Postbarmar, on 2018-June-12, 08:52, said:

The example in the EBU guidance isn't quite the same as this one.

In their example you hold AKJ opposite xxx, so there's only one possible finesse, but you're not allowed to take a winning finesse if you didn't mention it in the claim statement. But you're not forced to lead the J, as that would not be normal.

In our case you have a choice between 3 plays: finesse one way, finesse the other way, or play for the drop. Since you didn't say which, you're deemed to take whichever line will be unsuccessful. But I don't think you should be deemed to take an unsuccesful first-round finesse into a singleton Q -- that seems to be a bit extreme.


As I read the EBU guidance, your claim is accepted if there is no normal play that fails. Normal play seems limited to the drop, finesse one way if feasible, finesse the other way if feasible. But it is specified that “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, so I guess some rather extreme finesses must be considered.
0

#33 User is offline   Tramticket 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,070
  • Joined: 2009-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kent (Near London)

Posted 2018-June-12, 11:18

View Postpescetom, on 2018-June-12, 09:39, said:

As I read the EBU guidance, your claim is accepted if there is no normal play that fails. Normal play seems limited to the drop, finesse one way if feasible, finesse the other way if feasible. But it is specified that “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, so I guess some rather extreme finesses must be considered.


I suggest you re-read. It tells us that when there are two (or more) normal plays, you get the score from adopting the wrong one. This is the exact opposite of what you are saying!
0

#34 User is offline   PhilG007 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 973
  • Joined: 2013-February-24
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dundee Scotland United Kingdom
  • Interests:Occasional chess player. Dominoes

Posted 2018-June-12, 14:30

I was actually in a situation like this in a real life tournament. Declarer was in a suit grand slam and after the opening lead was made,
claimed 13 tricks by "drawing trumps" and faced his hand
My partner conceded but one defenders concession is not binding upon the other. I held Qxx in trumps I immediately
called the TD and gave my reason for disputing the claim. The TD then requested declarer to play on stating that he could draw trumps as he stated
but was barred taking a finesse against me since I was the challenger. None too pleased declarer bashed out the ace and king but was
forced to concede a trick to my queen which was now the master trump. One down
The lesson to be learned here is never make a claim until you are SURE you will take the remaining tricks and draw any outstanding
trumps BEFORE claiming.
"It is not enough to be a good player, you must also play well"
- Dr Tarrasch(1862-1934)German Chess Grandmaster

Bridge is a game where you have two opponents...and often three(!)


"Any palooka can take tricks with Aces and Kings; the true expert shows his prowess
by how he handles the two's and three's" - Mollo's Hideous Hog
1

#35 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2018-June-12, 16:41

View PostPhilG007, on 2018-June-12, 14:30, said:

I was actually in a situation like this in a real life tournament. Declarer was in a suit grand slam and after the opening lead was made,
claimed 13 tricks by "drawing trumps" and faced his hand
My partner conceded but one defenders concession is not binding upon the other. I held Qxx in trumps I immediately
called the TD and gave my reason for disputing the claim. The TD then requested declarer to play on stating that he could draw trumps as he stated
but was barred taking a finesse against me since I was the challenger. None too pleased declarer bashed out the ace and king but was
forced to concede a trick to my queen which was now the master trump. One down
The lesson to be learned here is never make a claim until you are SURE you will take the remaining tricks and draw any outstanding
trumps BEFORE claiming.

Did TD refer to Law 68D2b1 with his ruling? The ruling was incorrect unless he did so and obtained agreement from all four players that play could continue.
(Assuming of course that the incident occurred under the 2017 laws)
0

#36 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2018-June-12, 16:59

If it occurred before the 2017 laws, I don't think there was any provision for playing on. I suppose if it was prior to 1987, I might be wrong. B-)
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#37 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2018-June-12, 23:37

View Postblackshoe, on 2018-June-12, 16:59, said:

If it occurred before the 2017 laws, I don't think there was any provision for playing on. I suppose if it was prior to 1987, I might be wrong. B-)

Before 2017 it was explicitly forbidden to play on after a claim.
0

#38 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2018-June-12, 23:49

View Postpran, on 2018-June-12, 16:41, said:

Did TD refer to Law 68D2b1 with his ruling? The ruling was incorrect unless he did so and obtained agreement from all four players that play could continue.
(Assuming of course that the incident occurred under the 2017 laws)

Law 68D2b1 does not give the TD the option to allow the players to continue. It tells him to apply Law 70 if he is summoned.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
1

#39 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2018-June-13, 01:28

View Postgordontd, on 2018-June-12, 23:49, said:

Law 68D2b1 does not give the TD the option to allow the players to continue. It tells him to apply Law 70 if he is summoned.

This appears (literally) to be correct, however it makes no sense to understand Law 68D that way:

Any player may summon the Director at any time for whatever (reasonable) reason, e.g. to get clarified available options in a particular situation.

One of the options available to the players after a claim or a concession is that they may continue the play if all four players agree.
It cannot possibly be the intention of the laws that this option shall be forfeited just by asking the Director for advice?
0

#40 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2018-June-13, 02:11

View Postpran, on 2018-June-13, 01:28, said:

This appears (literally) to be correct, however it makes no sense to understand Law 68D that way:

Any player may summon the Director at any time for whatever (reasonable) reason, e.g. to get clarified available options in a particular situation.

One of the options available to the players after a claim or a concession is that they may continue the play if all four players agree.
It cannot possibly be the intention of the laws that this option shall be forfeited just by asking the Director for advice?


My understanding is that this option is there simply to tell the TD how to proceed if the players have continued to play on, not to give them an option to do so. I believe my understanding to be consistent with views expressed on the EBL TD forum.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
1

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users