[jdonn]

ralph23, on Sep 14 2007, 11:41 AM, said:

Why you have chosen to be so insulting and personal, for no apparent reason, I cannot imagine.

ralph23, on Sep 13 2007, 06:03 PM, said:

There is no need to act like such an asshole.

[ralph23]

Ralph, have you ever seen a TD rule that declarer showing his cards to an opponent constituted a claim?

No. Do you have any reported case in which declarer did show his cards to an opponent, and it was held not to be a claim?

Have you ever seen a TD rule that the declarer's statement that he was not trying to claim, but rather to show an opponent that he should conced, was not sufficient evidence that he demonstrably did not intend to claim?

No. Do you have any reported case that holds that a declarer's statement that he was not trying to claim, but was rather trying to convince an opponent to concede, when he "showed" one opponent his hand, in and of itself and without further evidence, automatically satisfies the Law standard of "demonstrable"?

"Demonstrable" in dictionary.com is defined as:

1. capable of being demonstrated or proved.
2. clearly evident; obvious: a demonstrable lack of concern for the general welfare.

I don't believe that anyone can assert that definition 1 is satisfied by a mere statement of someone's intent. "Demonstrated" and "proved" imply public, verifiable knowledge ... not simply a statement of someone's intent.

Do you think it is "demonstrable" within the meaning of definition 1? Do you have a better definition of "demonstrable"?

As for definition 2, I would observe that in assessing the claim made in this posting, you noted that the decision was a "easy one" and that the result iyo was that the claim was bad. In Case Sixteen 2004 NYC Casebook, the director, three people on the appeals panel, and three commentators all thought that the claim was good, and an AWMW was issued to EW for even being bold enough to think that the claim was bad.

So what's "clearly evident" or "obvious" to A, may not, it seems, be so to B.

If so, perhaps you have a point. If not, please don't put up straw men.

I am simply reciting the Laws. Why is that "putting up straw men"? Oh .... never mind. I forgot, you're always right.

[jtfanclub]

ralph23, on Sep 14 2007, 12:58 PM, said:

Ralph, have you ever seen a TD rule that declarer showing his cards to an opponent constituted a claim?

No. Do you have any reported case in which declarer did show his cards to an opponent, and it was held not to be a claim?

Sure, lots of times. Declarer shows his cards, defender calls the director and claims that HE (the defender) gets to choose the line, which usually includes dropping kings under aces...director tells the defender to quit it, and keep playing.

Law 48B

B. Declarer Faces Cards
1. After Opening Lead out of Turn
When declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn, Law 54 applies.
2. At Any Other Time
When declarer faces his cards at any time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks, and Law 68 then applies.

This is a "May". Every director I have known has deemed that if showing the cards is accompanied with either a line of play or a number of tricks, then it is a claim. If it is not, then it is not.

I don't have an opinion on whether this follows the rules or not, it's merely my experience.

[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Sep 14 2007, 02:12 PM, said:

ralph23, on Sep 14 2007, 12:58 PM, said:

Ralph, have you ever seen a TD rule that declarer showing his cards to an opponent constituted a claim?

No. Do you have any reported case in which declarer did show his cards to an opponent, and it was held not to be a claim?

Sure, lots of times. Declarer shows his cards, defender calls the director and claims that HE (the defender) gets to choose the line, which usually includes dropping kings under aces...director tells the defender to quit it, and keep playing.

I meant a reported case.

In the case you describe, wasn't declarer intending to claim?

I'm looking for a case in which declarer says (later) "I wasn't intending to claim" ---i.e. when he showed his cards, he wasn't intending to claim (so he later says anyway).

I think in the case you describe, he was intending to claim.... wasn't he?

Why did declarer show his cards in your example, if it wasn't for the purpose of claiming? Maybe you can unpack it a bit, but it was a bit cursory.

[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Sep 14 2007, 02:12 PM, said:

Law 48B

B. Declarer Faces Cards
1. After Opening Lead out of Turn
......
2. At Any Other Time
When declarer faces his cards at any time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks, and Law 68 then applies.

This is a "May". Every director I have known has deemed that if showing the cards is accompanied with either a line of play or a number of tricks, then it is a claim. If it is not, then it is not.

I don't have an opinion on whether this follows the rules or not, it's merely my experience.

Well there are still a couple of questions to answer here, aren't there?

If declarer (South) simply shows West (but not East) his hand, has declarer "faced" his cards within the meaning of this Law?

Of course, even if he hasn't "faced" his cards within this Law, Law 68 still applies, doesn't it? The laws on claims use the word "show" not "face."

I don't know that the Laws define "face," do they?

[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Sep 14 2007, 02:12 PM, said:

Every director I have known has deemed that if showing the cards is accompanied with either a line of play or a number of tricks, then it is a claim. If it is not, then it is not.

I don't have an opinion on whether this follows the rules or not, it's merely my experience.

Spades are trump. The last three cards between South (declarer) and dummy are:

North
♥765


South
♠AQ
♦5

Declarer is missing a couple of trumps, including the King. The lead is in South, and he leads his small ♦.

West plays the Ace of ♦, dummy plays a small ♥ and East follows with a small ♦.

South, without making any statement, and immediately after East's play, puts his last two cards upon the table.

1. Did he claim?
2. If so, is it a good claim?

[ralph23]

blackshoe, on Sep 13 2007, 08:28 PM, said:

Have you ever seen a TD rule that the declarer's statement that he was not trying to claim, but rather to show an opponent that he should conced, was not sufficient evidence that he demonstrably did not intend to claim?

If declarer's statement "I did not intend to claim" is ipso facto sufficient to establish that he wasn't in fact making a claim, when he shows his cards, then why wasn't the Law simply written to say:

A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he did not intend to claim).

That would have been simple: just omit the word "demonstrably". Now, the only question is whether there was an intent to claim and the best evidence on that is declarer's statement.

"Demonstrable" however implicates a higher standard.

[jtfanclub]

I don't know what a 'reported' case means. You mean a case where the TD ruled that it was not a claim and the opponents appealed? You may be waiting a while. No AC would ever overrule a TD on something like that, so why would anybody appeal it?

Quote

In the case you describe, wasn't declarer intending to claim?

No. In general, it's in the middle of the hand, one opponent is taking for freakin' EVER to decide what card to lead, and declarer can see that it doesn't make any difference- however, trying to claim in this situation (where you often would have to explain 4, 8, or even more lines of play) isn't reasonable.

Have you seriously never done this? Shown your cards to an opponent who's trying to figure out some .00001% chance of setting a contract, when in fact everything's lying normally?

I think that showing my cards to one or even both opponents without....
1) Putting the cards on the table,
2) Announcing the number of tricks I intend to take, or
3) stating a line of play

is demonstrably different from what I do when I'm actually claiming, which involves all three of those.

[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Sep 14 2007, 03:34 PM, said:

I don't know what a 'reported' case means. You mean a case where the TD ruled that it was not a claim and the opponents appealed? You may be waiting a while. No AC would ever overrule a TD on something like that, so why would anybody appeal it?

Sorry, that's a lawyer-ism... Reported case = A case that shows up in a printed or online report. A printed record as in e.g. those casebooks in the ACBL website. From the days back when there were "reporters" who sat in court and noted the Court's opinion.

Of course, in such a case, the TD could have ruled either (1) that the player made a claim, and the claim was bad (or good), or (2) that the player didn't make a claim. Either side could appeal.

And people appeal all sorts of things ..they often lose and even get sanctioned.... hence the AWMW, like the one that was issued to EW in Case Sixteen, Summer NABC NYC.

[skjaeran]

ralph23, on Sep 14 2007, 08:39 PM, said:

Spades are trump. The last three cards between South (declarer) and dummy are:

North
♥765


South
♠AQ
♦5

Declarer is missing a couple of trumps, including the King. The lead is in South, and he leads his small ♦.

West plays the Ace of ♦, dummy plays a small ♥ and East follows with a small ♦.

South, without making any statement, and immediately after East's play, puts his last two cards upon the table.

1. Did he claim?
2. If so, is it a good claim?

1. YES, declarer is claiming the last two tricks. Absoulutely no doubt.
2. YES, the claim is good, meaning he'll get the last two tricks. And no, the claim isn't according to the law, as a claim statement is missing. But any competent declarer will allow this claim. And no sane opponents would protest to this claim.

[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Sep 14 2007, 03:34 PM, said:

I think that showing my cards to one or even both opponents without....
1)  Putting the cards on the table,
2)  Announcing the number of tricks I intend to take, or
3)  stating a line of play

is demonstrably different from what I do when I'm actually claiming, which involves all three of those.

Well .... the definition of a "claim" in Law 68A contains after all two sentences.

A. The first deals with what we might call an "express" claim:

Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. [Emphasis added]

The claimant "expressed" himself via a statement.

B. But these aren't the only kinds of claims. There are claims that are encompassed within the second sentence of Law 68A, and that are not encompassed within the Law's first sentence.

We might call such claims "implied" claims, although I admit that's not a great term -- but I can't think of a better one offhand:

A contestant also claims
(1) when he suggests that play be curtailed, or
(2) when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim). [Emphasis, numbering and formatting added]

"Also" emphasizes that these claims are in addition to the "type 1" express claims identified in the first sentence. I.e. to show that there are, indeed, "non-express" claims.... that can be made without words, for instance.

Branch (1) applies when the purported claimant "suggests" that play be curtailed. Presumably, a "suggestion" must be verbal. But it need not be as strong as a "statement" (compare to type-1 claims).

Branch (2) applies when the claim is truly implied: When the claimant "shows his cards."

So, you don't have to say anything in order to make an "implied" claim. Just doing something may suffice.

Doesn't this language (second sentence) mean the same as:

"If a contestant shows his cards, he is thereby claiming, unless he (or someone else) can demonstrate that he did not intend to claim by that showing."

The structure of the second sentence (re: Implied Claims) is revealing: It states a rule, and then an "unless." Lawyers would say that this creates a presumption in favor of finding a claim upon a "card showing," one that is rebuttable through the "unless." But the burden is on the person claiming the "unless" -- to "demonstrate" that a claim wasn't intended.

It's just interesting how the Law seems to be different than people's perceptions. Claims are easier to make than people expect, it seems.

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-September-14, 14:30

[ralph23]

skaeran, on Sep 14 2007, 04:04 PM, said:

ralph23, on Sep 14 2007, 08:39 PM, said:

Spades are trump. The last three cards between South (declarer) and dummy are:

North
♥765


South
♠AQ
♦5

Declarer is missing a couple of trumps, including the King. The lead is in South, and he leads his small ♦.

West plays the Ace of ♦, dummy plays a small ♥ and East follows with a small ♦.

South, without making any statement, and immediately after East's play, puts his last two cards upon the table.

1.  Did he claim?
2.  If so, is it a good claim?

1. YES, declarer is claiming the last two tricks. Absoulutely no doubt.
2. YES, the claim is good, meaning he'll get the last two tricks. And no, the claim isn't according to the law, as a claim statement is missing. But any competent declarer will allow this claim. And no sane opponents would protest to this claim.

Yes, of course. It is a "claim" and it is good.

And while it's perhaps not the most elegant claim ever made, it is an "implied claim" that conforms entirely to the second sentence (branch 2 thereof) of Law 68A. So it meets the conditions of a claim under Law 68. Declarer has "showed his cards."

Under that branch, no more than "showing" is necessary for an action to constitute a "claim" --- and any play that did not result in declarer's winning the final two tricks would truly be "irrational".

nb - Law 68C does state that

C. Clarification Required for Claim
A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. [Emphasis added]

"Should" designates good and correct/proper form and procedure, so without doubt a good claimer will make an express claim: use a statement. Indeed, the preface to the Laws states that "should" implies that a failure to conform to a "Should" injunction is indeed a violation of the Laws. (However, not one that will be penalized very often.)

However, Law 68A makes it pretty clear (as does the use of "should" here in 68C) that this is a recommendation of good procedure, and not a legal prerequisite of a "claim" -- compare the rules on declarer's calling for a card from dummy, Law 46 ... declarer "should" designate the exact card e.g. "six of ♠" but we have all sorts of default rules about when declarer just calls "low" or "small" or "spade" or what-have-you.

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-September-14, 14:48

[blackshoe]

ralph23, on Sep 14 2007, 12:58 PM, said:

Oh .... never mind. I forgot, you're always right.

Damn straight.

What the heck are we arguing about, anyway?

The WBFLC has said that, in effect, "irrational" is not to be taken literally. It's more "implausible for the class of player involved". So whether a given play is "irrational" in the sense of the laws of bridge depends on who is making - or presumed to be making - it.

The standard of "demonstrable", according to the guidance (to TDs and ACs) that I've seen, is "is it obvious", not "can he prove it".

Not sure where you want to go from here.