[pclayton]

This situation happened at the Open Pairs in Irvine on Friday.

Scoring: MP

---

South...West...North...East
1♣...2♦*...Double...4♥
4♠...pass...pass...5♥
5♠...All pass

*alerted as ♦ + ♥'s; = or longer ♦'s.

1. A♦, ruffed

Declarer noted "I think we missed a slam partner".

2 / 3 / 4. Trumps.

At this point declarer tables his hand and asks, "Are clubs breaking? If so I have 12 tricks".

E/W say, yes they break.

Dummy at this point says, "wait, you have all the tricks".

How would you rule?

[FrancesHinden]

12 tricks

If declarer isn't capable of working out he has 13 tricks without dummy's help, he doesn't get them.

[markleon]

My reading is that since the claim has concluded play, dummy may call attention to the improper claim. Then comes...

Law71.C. Implausible Concession

if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal *) play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal *) play of the remaining cards.

*) 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.

Of course, "normal" is a matter of opinion, but I'd rule that it would be irrational not to pitch a heart from dummy. So, making 7.

[Tola18]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 9 2007, 02:45 PM, said:

12 tricks

If declarer isn't capable of working out he has 13 tricks without dummy's help, he doesn't get them.

Quite. It could perhaps be a case if there WERE 13 tricks from the roof, only to take.

But as declarer must play for the thirteenh, he has not any longer any right for it.



I myself saw recently my partner, a decent player who usually comes amongst the prizemoney, misplay such a situation and going down completely unnecessary on such a sheer beginner mistake.
Even a decent player can have a blackout, and thus must suffer for it.

[ralph23]

Declarer apparently did not see that if ♣ broke, he could discard a ♥ from dummy and take all the tricks.

If he did see this before dummy's statement, then he was very careless in his articulation of his claim. It seems much more likely that he simply did not appreciate the situation, being a bit peeved by not having bid up a slam and letting this distract him from doing the best he could, for the contract he had bid.

Dummy basically helped "declarer play the hand" by making his observation. (Not really, because play ceases upon a claim.)

12 tricks claimed, 12 agreed to.

Yes, indeed, if declarer had played the hand out, he would have discovered (sooner or later) that he could take 13 tricks. But he didn't play it out. Making 6.

[han]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 9 2007, 02:45 PM, said:

12 tricks

If declarer isn't capable of working out he has 13 tricks without dummy's help, he doesn't get them.

Indeed.

If it was basically impossible for declarer to get less than 13 tricks then he should have received 13 though.

[TimG]

pclayton, on Sep 9 2007, 02:30 PM, said:

At this point declarer tables his hand and asks, "Are clubs breaking? If so I have 12 tricks".

He does have 12 tricks. He also has 13 tricks.

I would be more than a bit ashamed of myself if I was a defender on this hand and I made an issue regarding the extra over trick.

[pclayton]

markleon, on Sep 9 2007, 11:49 AM, said:

My reading is that since the claim has concluded play, dummy may call attention to the improper claim. Then comes...

Law71.C. Implausible Concession

if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal *) play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal *) play of the remaining cards.

*) 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.

Of course, "normal" is a matter of opinion, but I'd rule that it would be irrational not to pitch a heart from dummy. So, making 7.

It wouldn't be irrational to pitch a heart from dummy, but for the 13th trick, declarer needs to ruff the heart in dummy too.

[markleon]

pclayton, on Sep 9 2007, 04:20 PM, said:

markleon, on Sep 9 2007, 11:49 AM, said:

My reading is that since the claim has concluded play, dummy may call attention to the improper claim.  Then comes...

Law71.C. Implausible Concession

    if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal *) play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal *) play of the remaining cards.

*) 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.

Of course, "normal" is a matter of opinion, but I'd rule that it would be irrational not to pitch a heart from dummy.  So, making 7.

It wouldn't be irrational to pitch a heart from dummy, but for the 13th trick, declarer needs to ruff the heart in dummy too.

Agreed...didn't mention that because it was clear to me that would be the intent of pitching the heart. I had already taken that into account when I said I would rule 13 tricks for declarer.

I understand the sentiment of the other posters that it may not seem "fair", but it is how my reading of the laws say this should be resolved.

[pclayton]

TimG, on Sep 9 2007, 12:13 PM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 9 2007, 02:30 PM, said:

At this point declarer tables his hand and asks, "Are clubs breaking? If so I have 12 tricks".

He does have 12 tricks. He also has 13 tricks.

I would be more than a bit ashamed of myself if I was a defender on this hand and I made an issue regarding the extra over trick.

Considering the declarer has about 8,000 points and the dummy is a GLM, I'd be a little ashamed that I misclaimed in a regional event

[ralph23]

LAW 42 DUMMY'S RIGHTS......
B. Qualified Rights
Dummy may exercise other rights subject to the limitations provided in Law 43. [Emphasis added]

.......
3. Draw Attention to Irregularity
He may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded. [Emphasis added]

LAW 43 DUMMY'S LIMITATIONS
Except as specified in Law 42:

A. Limitations on Dummy
........

© Participate in or Comment on Play
Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

Dummy is permitted to call attention to an irregularity, but only after play is concluded. Here, there was no violation of the Laws or any irregularity, other than a poorly made claim, which is legal to make.

The Law 42 right of dummy to "call attention" is limited to "irregularities."

Furthermore, Law 43A(1)© forbids dummy from helping declarer with the play. Since dummy was not pointing to an irregularity, he had no right to point out declarer's faux pas.

Dummy's Law violation was the only reason declarer realized he should be able to take 13 tricks. Declarer's side should not profit from the consequences of such a violation. Making 6.

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-September-09, 15:16

[jtfanclub]

I dunno. It should become obvious when you play out the hand. However, since Declarer *could* sluff three diamonds on the clubs, it's not 100%....

I'd rule 13 tricks.

[TimG]

pclayton, on Sep 9 2007, 03:47 PM, said:

TimG, on Sep 9 2007, 12:13 PM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 9 2007, 02:30 PM, said:

At this point declarer tables his hand and asks, "Are clubs breaking? If so I have 12 tricks".

He does have 12 tricks. He also has 13 tricks.

I would be more than a bit ashamed of myself if I was a defender on this hand and I made an issue regarding the extra over trick.

Considering the declarer has about 8,000 points and the dummy is a GLM, I'd be a little ashamed that I misclaimed in a regional event

I understand. I'd still let them have the 13th trick without calling the director.

[markleon]

ralph23, on Sep 9 2007, 05:14 PM, said:

LAW 42 DUMMY'S RIGHTS......
B. Qualified Rights
Dummy may exercise other rights subject to the limitations provided in Law 43. [Emphasis added]

.......
3. Draw Attention to Irregularity
He may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded. [Emphasis added]

LAW 43 DUMMY'S LIMITATIONS
Except as specified in Law 42:

A. Limitations on Dummy
........

© Participate in or Comment on Play
Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

Dummy is permitted to call attention to an irregularity, but only after play is concluded. Here, there was no violation of the Laws or any irregularity, other than a poorly made claim, which is legal to make.

The Law 42 right of dummy to "call attention" is limited to "irregularities."

Furthermore, Law 43A(1)© forbids dummy from helping declarer with the play. Since dummy was not pointing to an irregularity, he had no right to point out declarer's faux pas.

Dummy's Law violation was the only reason declarer realized he should be able to take 13 tricks. Declarer's side should not profit from the consequences of such a violation. Making 6.

I disagree with your interpretation of dummy's rights.

Law 68.D. Play Ceases

After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included [emphasis mine]), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director's arrival.

It seems clear from this that dummy was within his or her rights in contesting the claim. The Law has no opinion on the nature of the dispute of the claim. At that point, the director applies Law 71 as mentioned earlier.

[ralph23]

markleon, on Sep 9 2007, 06:41 PM, said:

ralph23, on Sep 9 2007, 05:14 PM, said:

LAW 42 DUMMY'S RIGHTS......
B. Qualified Rights
Dummy may exercise other rights subject to the limitations provided in Law 43. [Emphasis added]

.......
3. Draw Attention to Irregularity
He may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded. [Emphasis added]

LAW 43 DUMMY'S LIMITATIONS
Except as specified in Law 42:

A. Limitations on Dummy
........

© Participate in or Comment on Play
Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

Dummy is permitted to call attention to an irregularity, but only after play is concluded. Here, there was no violation of the Laws or any irregularity, other than a poorly made claim, which is legal to make.

The Law 42 right of dummy to "call attention" is limited to "irregularities."

Furthermore, Law 43A(1)© forbids dummy from helping declarer with the play. Since dummy was not pointing to an irregularity, he had no right to point out declarer's faux pas.

Dummy's Law violation was the only reason declarer realized he should be able to take 13 tricks. Declarer's side should not profit from the consequences of such a violation. Making 6.

I disagree with your interpretation of dummy's rights.

Law 68.D. Play Ceases

After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included [emphasis mine]), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director's arrival.

It seems clear from this that dummy was within his or her rights in contesting the claim. The Law has no opinion on the nature of the dispute of the claim. At that point, the director applies Law 71 as mentioned earlier.

Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

[Elianna]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 9 2007, 11:45 AM, said:

12 tricks

If declarer isn't capable of working out he has 13 tricks without dummy's help, he doesn't get them.

Completely agree. Only way I'd rule 13 tricks is if the subsequent conversation went something like:

Declarer: But I lost the first trick.

Someone else: No you didn't.

In other words, if there was a concession of a trick already won. Otherwise, declarer has to live with his careless claim.

I'm sure that since this was posted, the ruling went the other way (and also by my guess of which side plays that 2D bid). This doesn't surprise me, Adam already had a run-in of a different sort with that directing staff (I'll let him describe it if he wishes).

[bid_em_up]

ralph23, on Sep 9 2007, 05:59 PM, said:

Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.

Ralph,

You are claiming that dummy cannot say "Wait, you have all 13 tricks" because it is in violation of the laws. Play has ceased (concluded) at the point the claim is made, so dummy cannot be participating in the play (nobody is). He also did not participate in or direct declarer in any such manner. He simply stated, you have all 13 tricks. Granted, declarer may not have seen it at this point, but dummy is fully within their rights at this point to say "Wait, you have all 13 tricks" and call the director.

When a claim is made,

68.D Play Ceases
"After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director's arrival."

This specifically gives dummy the right to not accept a claim or concession by either side. There is no arguing that. It is right there in black and white.

He should not tell declarer how they are available though. He didn't. All dummy said was "Wait, you have all the tricks." He should not say "If you cash all the clubs, pitching hearts from dummy, and then ruff the last heart you make 13 tricks". (He can tell that to the director who is about to arrive though ).

Call the director and let them sort it out.

The question converts to: Would a player of this caliber actually have only made 12 tricks if the hand had been played out? I don't think so.

My gut instinct is that since it would be irrational for declarer to do anything other than pitch hearts from dummy and take all the tricks, you practically must award them all 13, along with a warning to be a little more careful with their claims. Phil hasn't said this was actually the ruling, but I have to believe this is what happened based on the way the laws are written.

Since declarer obviously initially didn't see that they had all 12 tricks and might not have without dummies warning (declarer stated he had 12, opponents agreed), the "right thing" is the result stands as claimed.

Sometimes, the "right" thing to do, and the laws simply just don't agree. In this case, it would be practically impossible for declarer at some point in the play to realize that they simply needed to pitch a heart from dummy and then ruff one, thereby making all 13 tricks.

The score should be adjusted accordingly.

[blackshoe]

Well, there's a disputed claim. The TD must adjudicate it. Let's follow the laws:

1. Declarer has claimed twelve tricks and conceded one (Law 68B).
2. Declarer's stated line of play, if we can call it that ) was "are the clubs breaking? If so, I have twelve tricks" (Law 68C).
3. Play ceases. Any player (including the player who was dummy, see below) can dispute the claim (Law 68B). "Dummy" did so.
4. It has been asserted that dummy has acted illegally in disputing the claim. This is not the case. First, once play ceases, dummy is no longer "dummy" in the sense of Laws 42 and 43. Secondly, Law 42B3 specifically allows dummy to call attention to an irregularity after play ceases - and play has ceased IAW Law 68D. Thirdly, dummy is not "commenting on the play" because (a) play has ceased (Law 68D) and ( dummy is therefore no longer dummy. Fourthly... ah, Hell. I forget what "fourthly" was. There was a "fifthly" too, I think, but never mind. This ought to be enough.
5. The director must now adjudicate the dispute IAW Law 71 (dummy is not disputing the claim, he's disputing the concession of a trick). There are three subsections to this Law, of which 71C is the only one that applies here. It says

Quote

the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal  play of the remaining cards.

There's a time limit specified, but we are within that limit. So... is there a normal play of the remaining cards that would lose a trick? Well, I don't think playing two rounds of hearts before (or in the middle of) playing clubs would be "normal", particularly at the level at which I infer this occurred. Besides, in adjudicating the claim part of declarer's claim and concession, we have to follow his line of play, if we can. That line, such as it is, says he's gonna play on clubs. Eventually, he'll come down to

Scoring: MP

---

. Would it be "normal" i.e., "careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational" for declarer to fail to dump a heart on a good club, given he can ruff a diamond in hand? I think it would, but I would consult peers of the declarer in question before making a ruling. If consultation indicates it would be "normal" (in the legal sense) not to pitch a heart, I would rule twelve tricks to declarer. If consultation indicates it would not be normal, thirteen tricks.

[Elianna]

blackshoe, on Sep 9 2007, 07:34 PM, said:

I think it would, but I would consult peers of the declarer in question before making a ruling. If consultation indicates it would be "normal" (in the legal sense) not to pitch a heart, I would rule twelve tricks to declarer. If consultation indicates it would not be normal, thirteen tricks.

As you mentioned, the question is not, "is it normal?", but rather "is it careless or inferior?" as opposed to "is it irrational?"

So you'd have to consult people as to whether it would be careless to say, throw diamonds, as opposed to irrational to throw diamonds, not whether it's "normal" to throw hearts.

And you can't just see what they'd throw, most people do not make careless/inferior plays when asked how to play something by a director.

[blackshoe]

Elianna, on Sep 9 2007, 10:41 PM, said:

As you mentioned, the question is not, "is it normal?", but rather "is it careless or inferior?" as opposed to "is it irrational?" 

So you'd have to consult people as to whether it would be careless to say, throw diamonds, as opposed to irrational to throw diamonds, not whether it's "normal" to throw hearts.

And you can't just see what they'd throw, most people do not make careless/inferior plays when asked how to play something by a director.

"I am only an egg." - Valentine Michael Smith, the "Man from Mars", in Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.