[Rossoneri]

This happened in the Pesta Sukan Open Pairs last weekend.

East was declarer in 3NT. The diamonds were AKJ8xx in dummy opposite a singleton in declarer's hand. North had Qx in diamonds. The director was called to the table after trick 10. This was the position he saw at the table, with declarer having already taken 10 tricks and the lead in dummy:

Scoring: IMP

---

Note that North had not yet discarded to trick 10. The director was summoned by NS and told that East had faced his hand without any explanation. East later stated that he was claiming the rest of the tricks. Upon realising that one defender held QJx in ♥, he tried to change it to 12 tricks.

The director considered this and decided eventually to adjust the table result to 3NT+1, as declarer had made no mention of the losing diamond in dummy hence it was possible for declarer to take the careless and inferior line of playing the diamond from dummy first, whereby South would make the rest of the tricks. North South also pointed out that dummy had earlier pointed to North's Q♦ when it fell. Dummy was given a warning for making a gesture which might be suggesting a line of play to declarer.

East decided to appeal. The appeals committee heard from East that when he faced his hand, his partner (dummy) had tried to claim all the tricks for him and he had not been given a chance to state his claim. The committee also considered the play of the diamonds and were sufficiently convinced that declarer knew that the diamond in dummy was not good, hence the result was adjusted to 3NT+3.

Any thoughts and comments regarding the director's and AC's ruling?

[jeremy69]

I think the TD's decision should have been upheld. I see nothing wrong with it. If dummy interfered with the claim I would issue that side with a penalty in addition. East's later statement revealed he didn't have a great grasp of the hand thus, perhaps, increasing the chance he did not know whether the D8 was good or not.

[bluejak]

Whatever the decision on the claim, dummy has done two things he is not allowed to on the hand. While we tend to issue warnings for infractions of this sort, two in one hand is one too many, and a non-trivial penalty should result. In England I would give him double standard, ie 20% of a top.

[barmar]

I agree with the PP for dummy's misbehavior, but I'm OK with the committee's ruling regarding the claim. I'm willing to believe that he knew the ♦ was not good, and treat his claim as essentially "I'll take the rest of the tricks if ♥ split, otherwise you get the last trick."

[Rossoneri]

I did not give a PP to dummy as he was a relatively new player. For the second infraction, this was up to the AC and they did not really consider this matter....

[jeremy69]

Quote

I'm willing to believe that he knew the ♦ was not good, and treat his claim as essentially "I'll take the rest of the tricks if ♥ split, otherwise you get the last trick."

I don't agree with this. you have a declarer who has been careless but you decide to assume that he knows about the diamond suit and even if he does it is possibly because of some prompting by dummy. Declarer could
a. cash the diamond first because he believed it to be good
b. cash the Heart Ace and then the diamond because he knew the hearts were not good
c. Cash hearts and concede the last trick

I think a and b would be careless but not irrational and I would resolve the doubtful point against the claimer giving the opponents 3 tricks.

Quote

I did not give a PP to dummy as he was a relatively new player.

I agree that you don't want to put newcomers off by being heavy handed but this is a serious infraction. I would award a penalty but take him away later to explain why I had done so.


From the non-offenders point of view they have, correctly, called the director and seen a careless claim in respect of both diamonds and hearts allowed on appeal and further seen both director and committee ignore (or fail to punish) some fairly serious infractions. They won't have much faith in justice for the future!

[Rossoneri]

Just to clarify: I was only told at the table that dummy had pointed to the Q when it fell. I was not told at the table that dummy had actually tried to claim for declarer.

As an aside, the next morning I had another inexperienced pair where the dummy actually ran over to look at declarer's hand during the play. This pair received a warning as well.

[bluejak]

In support of Jeremy's comment, I know the principle of not upsetting players by giving them procedural penalties. If my opponents do something seriously wrong and do not get penalised you have upset me. This is not like a shop where the customer is always right [or should be]: since there are two sides, not penalising someone who clearly shoudl be penalised means you are upsetting two players.

I suppose it depends in part on how new a new player is. If it is someone in their first two years of play, fair enough, just tell them that if they had been more experienced they would be penalised. But I hear this "inexperienced" tag for players who have reached National Master, ie 18 ranks below the bottom, and have been playing for 15 years. It's a nonsense. Sure, we do not penalise for lots of infractions that do not cause trouble. But where an opponent [or another table] has been seriously discommoded, and he knows who by and how, I think the game is best served and the upset is least by issuing a penalty.

[mjj29]

jeremy69, on Aug 13 2009, 03:28 AM, said:

I don't agree with this. you have a declarer who has been careless but you decide to assume that he knows about the diamond suit and even if he does it is possibly because of some prompting by dummy

Actually, I was leaning to giving him 12 tricks because of:

Quote

Note that North had not yet discarded to trick 10. The director was summoned by NS and told that East had faced his hand without any explanation. East later stated that he was claiming the rest of the tricks. Upon realising that one defender held QJx in ♥, he tried to change it to 12 tricks.

Depending exactly what happenned at this point the fact that it was the QJx that made him change his claim to twelve shows he was expecting a trick from the third heart, not the diamond. If he had been thinking the diamond was good then he wouldn't have to change the claim to twelve, since he has three winners.

I am, of course, assuming that events were such that it was clear this was why he changed it, but that's what the OP said, rather than "Upon realising that one defender held a high diamond, he tried to change it to 12 tricks".

I'd feel aggrieved if in that situation it was claimed I believed the 8D was high, since it's not consistent with what was reported, but on the other hand I would have claimed saying "I've got three good hearts" or similar, and we wouldn't have this problem.

I would have to be convinced that what I've suggested above happenned, so as an AC I wouldn't want to change the director's ruling about that, certainly not from 11 (or 10) to 12.

[barmar]

mjj29, on Aug 13 2009, 09:08 AM, said:

Depending exactly what happenned at this point the fact that it was the QJx that made him change his claim to twelve shows he was expecting a trick from the third heart, not the diamond. If he had been thinking the diamond was good then he wouldn't have to change the claim to twelve, since he has three winners.

That was my reasoning as well.