[jdonn]

I hadn't been involved in this, but if I were an opponent I would be completely ashamed to call the director here and wouldn't want anything to do with trying to get a ruling down to 12 tricks, even if I had 100% assurance I could do so successfully and that 12 tricks were the legally correct ruling. What exactly is the joy in gaining a trick that way? Does anyone really think the opponent would not have made 13 tricks if he had played the hand through to the end??

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Sep 13 2007, 02:11 PM, said:

I hadn't been involved in this, but if I were an opponent I would be completely ashamed to call the director here and wouldn't want anything to do with trying to get a ruling down to 12 tricks, even if I had 100% assurance I could do so successfully and that 12 tricks were the legally correct ruling. What exactly is the joy in gaining a trick that way? Does anyone really think the opponent would not have made 13 tricks if he had played the hand through to the end??

I don't disagree with this. But you have two issues here: what do you want to do as a player and what are you supposed to do as a TD.

I believe most of the discussion has surrounded the second question. Based on similar rulings I have seen in the past, I believe most TDs would rule 12 tricks here. However, I am obviously no authority on the matter and that has been the subject of some debate.

As far as being a player, I can understand your sentiment. But should we tell others that they shouldn't call the TD if they contest the claim? The declarer made a careless error in claiming. What if he had made a careless error in the playing of the hand? That is the whole idea behind the laws in the idea that we assume that the declarer might be careless (or inferior), but not irrational. That obviously leads to quite a gray area. At the table, I would probably just concede thirteen tricks, but I wouldn't think any less of someone for calling the TD.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Sep 13 2007, 02:11 PM, said:

I hadn't been involved in this, but if I were an opponent I would be completely ashamed to call the director here and wouldn't want anything to do with trying to get a ruling down to 12 tricks, even if I had 100% assurance I could do so successfully and that 12 tricks were the legally correct ruling. What exactly is the joy in gaining a trick that way? Does anyone really think the opponent would not have made 13 tricks if he had played the hand through to the end??

I was obviously the opponent here.

I probably wouldn't have made a big deal about this, but I wasn't totally happy with the way RHO handled it - he made it a little personal. I also think its pretty ridiculous the dummy interceded in the matter.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Sep 13 2007, 05:49 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 13 2007, 02:11 PM, said:

I hadn't been involved in this, but if I were an opponent I would be completely ashamed to call the director here and wouldn't want anything to do with trying to get a ruling down to 12 tricks, even if I had 100% assurance I could do so successfully and that 12 tricks were the legally correct ruling. What exactly is the joy in gaining a trick that way? Does anyone really think the opponent would not have made 13 tricks if he had played the hand through to the end??

I was obviously the opponent here.

I probably wouldn't have made a big deal about this, but I wasn't totally happy with the way RHO handled it - he made it a little personal. I also think its pretty ridiculous the dummy interceded in the matter.

As for the player I can understand, it might have made me also want to call if I otherwise wouldn't have, depending how he was acting and such. Some people just deserve what they have coming to them.

As for dummy interceding, I don't see how it matters and it changes nothing for me. Whether he is or isn't allowed to, I presume you were going to concede 13 tricks anyway? So what's the difference if he noticed first?

[jdonn]

BTW, seperate question for those who believe 12 tricks is the correct ruling (I'm not saying I disagree.) What if declarer had said nothing and just put his hand down, then what is the correct ruling, still 12 or 13 now?

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Sep 13 2007, 03:32 PM, said:

BTW, seperate question for those who believe 12 tricks is the correct ruling (I'm not saying I disagree.) What if declarer had said nothing and just put his hand down, then what is the correct ruling, still 12 or 13 now?

If he made absolutely no statement and I was called to the table, I would ask declarer what he is claiming.

For me, the most damning evidence is that declarer claimed 12 tricks.

[blackshoe]

drinbrasil, on Sep 13 2007, 04:27 PM, said:

some guys like autority arguments...from claim rules looks 12 tricks is clear.

Well, no. I made a fairly long post upthread that explains the process. Basically, the laws say it's a judgement call, and judgement calls should only be made after consultation. That said, in the end it's the TD's judgement that counts, not players', and not ours here - at least until an Appeals Committee meets and applies their judgement.

The Table TD might have ruled 12 tricks; he might have ruled 13. Either way, your judgement - or mine - may differ, but that doesn't make the TD's ruling wrong. Hell, even if the AC's judgement differs, that still doesn't make the TD's ruling wrong.

[drinbrasil]

blackshoe, on Sep 14 2007, 12:20 AM, said:

drinbrasil, on Sep 13 2007, 04:27 PM, said:

some guys like autority arguments...from claim rules looks 12 tricks is clear.

Well, no. I made a fairly long post upthread that explains the process. Basically, the laws say it's a judgement call, and judgement calls should only be made after consultation. That said, in the end it's the TD's judgement that counts, not players', and not ours here - at least until an Appeals Committee meets and applies their judgement.

The Table TD might have ruled 12 tricks; he might have ruled 13. Either way, your judgement - or mine - may differ, but that doesn't make the TD's ruling wrong. Hell, even if the AC's judgement differs, that still doesn't make the TD's ruling wrong.

Soon in future we will put computers to play after claims, because they will not make irrational plays,and then, if they win, directors will give 13 tricks for guy who claimed 12 because only could see 12. How many times we so irrational playes? How many games tricks missed easy? how many times we played inferior lines when compared to our levels? When one guy claim this hand 12 tricks, i expect him to play very bad bridge, no matters who is he. Then i accept he CAN do only 12 tricks. he can play A of hearts and hearts at any moment and his claim is perfect.

What if contract is grand slam and the guy claim 12, saying "well, no way to make 13 tricks"? Then dummy "no, you will win all in this line you pointed"

if this is a simple squeeze changes from simple scoring his tricks in this hand in thread? Then we judge the hability of player and not his claim? If player cant figure the end of hand and claim now, why in the hell we should offer him the hability of his partner who can see the end to win the tricks?

If they guy is novice we judge one way and if is WGM we judge other way...well, if any person like this and support this kind of analises, i am deep sorry about.

Rules should not have eyes, should be for all persons, no matter level.

But i saw already that bridge TDs look for who is playing and use laws according...is just...S*it. And i fell nothing to do about.

The poorest case i saw was that player claimed winning with squeeze, opponents asked him to play, he go down, and then AC gave him all tricks because he was forced to play and misplayed one card...really fantastic decision...

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Sep 13 2007, 03:32 PM, said:

BTW, seperate question for those who believe 12 tricks is the correct ruling (I'm not saying I disagree.) What if declarer had said nothing and just put his hand down, then what is the correct ruling, still 12 or 13 now?

I had discussed this with my pard after the round. I said I would have given him 13 if he spread his hand, since its fairly evident that he has 13.

The fact he said "12" and claimed 12, made it evident to me that he had a monetary lapse of reason. When we said, "OK, 12", dummy got involved. It really didn't turn that ugly, but declarer said some things that I didn't appreciate.

I won't go into any more detail than that.

If a good declarer plays a hand, and makes a brain fart (I mean a TOTAL error, not something subtle) and pitches a trick, no one around here would say, "oh sorry dude, you were entitled to an extra trick, making 7, not 6".

Why should a misclaim be any different than a misplay?

[LH2650]

pclayton, on Sep 13 2007, 08:58 PM, said:

Why should a misclaim be any different than a misplay?

Because the laws are different. If I refer to Duplicate Decisions, I find that

"The Director's goal in adjudicating the result of a board on which a claim has been contested is to restore equity - to determine the result which would most probably have been obtained had there been no claim."

Here, I believe that declarer would almost certainly have taken 13 tricks had he played the hand out, so I would award that result.

[Cascade]

pclayton, on Sep 14 2007, 01:58 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 13 2007, 03:32 PM, said:

BTW, seperate question for those who believe 12 tricks is the correct ruling (I'm not saying I disagree.) What if declarer had said nothing and just put his hand down, then what is the correct ruling, still 12 or 13 now?

I had discussed this with my pard after the round. I said I would have given him 13 if he spread his hand, since its fairly evident that he has 13.

The fact he said "12" and claimed 12, made it evident to me that he had a monetary lapse of reason. When we said, "OK, 12", dummy got involved. It really didn't turn that ugly, but declarer said some things that I didn't appreciate.

I won't go into any more detail than that.

If a good declarer plays a hand, and makes a brain fart (I mean a TOTAL error, not something subtle) and pitches a trick, no one around here would say, "oh sorry dude, you were entitled to an extra trick, making 7, not 6".

Why should a misclaim be any different than a misplay?

For quite a compelling reason I believe.

There is a law that covers withdrawing a concession that allows for a trick not claimed to be awarded to the claiming side. The standard is 'that could not be lost by any normal play'. There is no such law for a misplay.

This seems perfectly reasonable to me as a claim is not the same as a play. Something could happen in the subsequent play that is unforeseen but which any 'normal' play would cope with. It seems unreasonable to me that the early claimer is not entitled to take advantage of this. In the case at hand I can imagine someone overlooking the heart pitch at the moment of the claim but that the same player would be very unlikely to overlook that if the hand was played out.

As I stated earlier the director resolves this by making a judgement as to whether not pitching a heart or drawing all the trumps is careless or irrational. I am inclined to thinking that it is more than careless so would rule irrational and give the 13th trick.

As a defender in similar situations I not quibbled with giving my opponents a trick that they have not claimed.

[Cascade]

Echognome, on Sep 14 2007, 11:41 AM, said:

For me, the most damning evidence is that declarer claimed 12 tricks.

For me that statement is almost irrelevant.

The test is 'normal' play and whether he counts 11 or 12 or 13 tricks does not affect what is a 'normal' play.

[drinbrasil]

One ask: Declarer claimed 12, looking for him very NORMAL to score 12 tricks, even not tried play for 13. For DUMMY is normal 13. For who DT have to see if is normal score 12 or 13 tricks? can DT rule 12,5 tricks?

[skjaeran]

jdonn, on Sep 14 2007, 01:32 AM, said:

BTW, seperate question for those who believe 12 tricks is the correct ruling (I'm not saying I disagree.) What if declarer had said nothing and just put his hand down, then what is the correct ruling, still 12 or 13 now?

If I was an opponent I'd have accepten 13 tricks without any comment at all.

[jdonn]

So it seems to me that for most of you, it is declarer's statement that is the reason to rule against him. So let me ask myself the possible reasons he said 12 instead of 13.

- He thought he had lost a trick already.
- He simply misspoke, but "knew" it was 13.
- He didn't see the possibility of throwing the heart and ruffing it in dummy.

Now lets suppose the hand was played out instead of claiming. In the first two cases he would have made all 13 tricks. In the third he would have made 12. But IMO the first two are both far more likely situations than the third. So, not bothering to check on exactly what laws say and certainly being no rules expert, that makes me want to rule 13 tricks, since it fits with my idea of what was by far most likely to happen if the hand had been played out.

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Sep 14 2007, 10:23 AM, said:

So it seems to me that for most of you, it is declarer's statement that is the reason to rule against him. So let me ask myself the possible reasons he said 12 instead of 13.

- He thought he had lost a trick already.
- He simply misspoke, but "knew" it was 13.
- He didn't see the possibility of throwing the heart and ruffing it in dummy.

Now lets suppose the hand was played out instead of claiming. In the first two cases he would have made all 13 tricks. In the third he would have made 12. But IMO the first two are both far more likely situations than the third. So, not bothering to check on exactly what laws say and certainly being no rules expert, that makes me want to rule 13 tricks, since it fits with my idea of what was by far most likely to happen if the hand had been played out.

The only caveat here is if it were played out, would declarer likely make a careless error?

It is purely judgment as to what is careless or inferior and what is irrational. I kind of view it like this: if declarer had say AQ and righty played the K, it would be irrational to play the Q. In other words, the goal is not to play double dummy to minimize the tricks for declarer. I also want to note that the laws say on *any* normal play of the cards. So the question is, does there exist a normal play of the cards where declarer makes 12 tricks with the further proviso that normal can include inferior or careless play, but not irrational. It is just how we interpret that.

The reason I find the claim of 12 tricks damning is that it implies that declarer did not see the line for 13 tricks at the time of the claim. To me, that says it should certainly be rational for him to find a line to take only 12 tricks.

Ultimately, it is down to judgment on (1) how you interpret the words "careless", "inferior", "normal", and "irrational", (2) how much you should involve the class of the player involved (which is in the laws so we should not ignore it), and (3) what bearing does declarer's claim statement have. I personally think if declarer had claimed all the tricks without stating a line, almost everyone would simply award him the tricks.

I just wonder if some of the argument is not how the laws are, but rather what people believe the laws should be (in terms of justice).

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Sep 14 2007, 01:23 PM, said:

In the third he would have made 12.

If (and only if) he failed to notice - or noticed too late - in the course of play that he could make 13 by pitching a heart.

[drinbrasil]

Echognome, on Sep 14 2007, 07:51 PM, said:

(2) how much you should involve the class of the player involved [/B](which is in the laws so we should not ignore it)

i am new to laws, where is this part?

[Echognome]

drinbrasil, on Sep 14 2007, 04:12 PM, said:

Echognome, on Sep 14 2007, 07:51 PM, said:

(2) how much you should involve the class of the player involved [/B](which is in the laws so we should not ignore it)

i am new to laws, where is this part?

It's in Footnote 20 of the laws. On my copy of the laws, it's on the bottom of the page under Law 70

Footnote 20 said:

For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational.

[Cascade]

Echognome, on Sep 15 2007, 07:51 AM, said:

The reason I find the claim of 12 tricks damning is that it implies that declarer did not see the line for 13 tricks at the time of the claim. To me, that says it should certainly be rational for him to find a line to take only 12 tricks.

What if declarer had claimed 11 tricks.

Would you then award him only 11 tricks on the basis that he could not count to 12?