[bluejak]

There were a few rulings from the rest of the first weekend. I thought the seven from Friday evening were enough, but then I came across this one with an interesting principle.

Scoring: Swiss Pairs {MP}


Contract:
5♠ by South
E/W have 2 tricks
N/S have 3 tricks
South is on lead

---

South said "I have the rest of the tricks. I can draw the outstanding two trumps, two rounds if necessary, and then ruff a diamond - no, wait a minute, I seem to have gone out of my mind, that's not right. Perhaps we ought to get the TD."

While waiting for the TD to arrive, East and West put their cards face up on the table.

What should the TD do, say and rule?

[LH2650]

I would allow declarer to complete his claim statement, and score the board accordingly.

[Sven Pran]

I think the first question is if South's activity has brought him into Law 68A territory. He has certainly started on a claim, but can a player "cancel" a claim once initiated?

The way i read Law 68A the answer is no, but he is certainly entitled to complete his claim with a statement (including any alterations he might make to this on the fly) before opponents take any action.

Whatever we rule so far, East and West have prematurily exposed their cards; if for no other reason as a violation of Law 11A. Had they not done so I would as Director award them at least one of the remaining tricks, but now I feel that knowledge of opponents' cards is AI to South who may then be allowed to find the winning play: Ruff a Diamond, return to the Ace of clubs, ruff a Diamond, cash the King of Clubs and South has the rest.

An interesting but irrelevant question here is if South could even now base his claim on a "fact" that all opponents' remaing cards are penalty cards?

Morale: Be very careful about Law 11A!

regards Sven

[Cyberyeti]

I think South has claimed, so EW exposing cards is not a problem, play has ceased. The question is what should happen next, he has realised pretty fast that his claim is garbage, so I think he should be allowed to realise after playing A♠.

Now there are two possible lines:

Draw the last trump, club to the ace, club finesse or run the JC, club to the ace (and unless E has 4 clubs and 2 trumps where you succeed by ruffing a ♦ and pitching the other on the K♣) trump back to dummy and cash the clubs.

I see no particular reason to prefer one over the other so if I am allowed to, would award 50% of = and 50% of -3.

[sfi]

According to Law 68A, declarer has made a claim when they suggest that play be curtailed, so the fact that E/W have faced their cards is irrelevant. It is clear from declarer's aborted claim statement that they were going to draw one round of trumps before realising there is an issue. At this point they are not (barring second sight) going to make the contract.

I would rule down 1 since the club queen does not come down doubleton (SA, CA, diamond ruff, CK).

[sfi]

Cyberyeti, on Aug 17 2009, 06:48 PM, said:

if I am allowed to, would award 50% of = and 50% of -3.

I don't think you are allowed to do this - I think you have to pick one under the guidelines of Law 70. You're not assigning an adjusted score. Rather, you're evaluating the claim, and that looks to be a different thing under the laws.

[shyams]

South said "I have the rest of the tricks. I can draw the outstanding two trumps, two rounds if necessary..." . The TD assumes two rounds of trumps will follow at tricks 6 & 7.
The rest of South's claim is irrelevant (cannot ruff a D + dummy has the lead after trick 7). TD uses bridge judgement to decide how play would progress from here.

Here the TD could rule that the only lines of play for declarer (from trick 8 onwards) is
a. to cash two top clubs and concede the diamonds for -2 OR b. to return to hand with CA and finesse the CQ at trick 9 for -3
As both lines are reasonable but line b. leads to a worse result for the claimer, TD should assign a result of down 3.
If CQ was onside (Qxx), TD would have assumed line a. for the claimer (same result of down 3)

I wonder how TD would rule if West had CQx doubleton.

[McBruce]

Sven Pran, on Aug 16 2009, 11:18 PM, said:

I think the first question is if South's activity has brought him into Law 68A territory.

If so, it's a quickly-answered question. Law 68A says a player has claimed when he:

--shows his cards
--suggests that play be curtailed
--makes a statement that he will win some number of tricks

This declarer did all three. There is no question that this is a claim.

The TDs job here is to apply his judgment in deciding what declarer intended to do when he made the claim. Ask questions! Was declarer clear in his mind on a line of play, or was he making it up as he began to speak? Was "...and then ruff a diamond..." exactly what was said? If so, it seems to indicate declarer was pulling trumps first: how does declarer explain this away? In the time between the abandoned claim and the arrival of the TD, what level of interest did declarer show in the opponent's cards?

I suspect the principle David refers to here is "a bad claim fails, a badly-worded claim may not fail if the actual intent is clear (and successful)." It's possible I might believe declarer depending on the answers to my questions, but initially, on the data given, I think the odds are against him!

Regardless of the ruling, declarer should be told that he would do better to complete a claim rather than hope that a TD will judge in his favour, despite Law 70A ("...any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer.")

I have no problem with the defenders facing their cards. They gave the declarer ample time to complete his statement before doing so. I think they did this to make it easy for the TD to see what was happening when he arrived. (I more often have a problem with defenders clutching their cards to the bitter end, even after I arrive and ask them to be faced!) As for 11A, I fail to see how the defenders can possibly have gained from facing their cards.

[LH2650]

McBruce, on Aug 17 2009, 07:22 AM, said:

I have no problem with the defenders facing their cards. 

I do. Law 68D. I have no sympathy for players who take actions after the need to summon the Director has been expressed. The claimant clearly wants to reconsider his statement, and because he has expressed a need for the Director, he gets it. I will accept his revised statement as a valid claim.

[blackshoe]

There is nothing in the laws to suggest that it's okay for defenders to face their cards after a claim unless and until the TD asks them to do so.

[richlp]

blackshoe, on Aug 17 2009, 08:56 AM, said:

There is nothing in the laws to suggest that it's okay for defenders to face their cards after a claim unless and until the TD asks them to do so.

This just doesn't sound right to me. While there may be nothing to "permit" this action, I'd be interested to find where it is prohibited.

When a claim is made play ceases and I see no reason not to be able to face my cards when play has ceased. I may need to verify that a revoke has/has not taken place. I may want to validate the claim. If time permits, I may want to analyze my mis-defense a little.


Are you saying that I need to call the director every time I suspect an invalid claim or potential revoke?

[jnichols]

richlp, on Aug 17 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

Are you saying that I need to call the director every time I suspect an invalid claim or potential revoke?

Until the hand is completed -- Yes.

[McBruce]

LH2650, on Aug 17 2009, 05:31 AM, said:

McBruce, on Aug 17 2009, 07:22 AM, said:

I have no problem with the defenders facing their cards. 

I do. Law 68D. I have no sympathy for players who take actions after the need to summon the Director has been expressed. The claimant clearly wants to reconsider his statement, and because he has expressed a need for the Director, he gets it. I will accept his revised statement as a valid claim.

How do you accept a revised statement AND avoid going out of bounds with respect to Law 70D1, which says NOT to accept any successful line of play not embraced in the original statement if another normal line works?

The part of 68D that seems to set off the alarms for you ("I have no sympathy") is "No action may be taken pending the Director's arrival." There is no penalty set anywhere for taking an action, nor is there anything to define what 'an action' is. (Surely you would have some sympathy for a defender who put his cards on the table face DOWN if it took the TD a few minutes to get to the table.) In fact, Law 70D3 discusses what happens if play proceeds (surely this is a relevant action) and says that the illegal plays may in fact provide evidence!

I'm uncomfortable with seizing on the fact that the defenders faced their cards to make a ruling. The issue here is what was declarer's intent at the time HE faced his cards, well before the defenders faced theirs. Ruling on the basis of irregularities after the fact, instead of what the intent of declarer was when he made the statement, is like saying "no soup for you!"

What happened here was one of two "not equally" likely things:

1. Declarer realized, while giving a claim statement, that his line of play would not work and decided to abandon the claim and let the TD sort it out, OR
2. Declarer realized, while giving a claim statement, that the line of play he had in his mind was not the one he had recited.

I think #1 is far more likely than #2, but I want to find out more before deciding.

[bluejak]

It is extremely normal for defender to put their hands down face up as declarer claims: it is only a 1 in 10,000+ chance that it will matter. So any idea of blaming them for doing so I consider ludicrous.

[axman]

bluejak, on Aug 16 2009, 07:09 PM, said:

There were a few rulings from the rest of the first weekend. I thought the seven from Friday evening were enough, but then I came across this one with an interesting principle.

Scoring: Swiss Pairs {MP}


Contract:
5♠ by South
E/W have 2 tricks
N/S have 3 tricks
South is on lead

---

South said "I have the rest of the tricks. I can draw the outstanding two trumps, two rounds if necessary, and then ruff a diamond - no, wait a minute, I seem to have gone out of my mind, that's not right. Perhaps we ought to get the TD."

While waiting for the TD to arrive, East and West put their cards face up on the table.

What should the TD do, say and rule?

Once a claim has been made the play is over and there is no prohibition of exposing one's cards. The prudence of doing so is rather dubious prior to claim statement. L66D

However, once the TD has been summoned the players are admonished to to nothing without the TD instruction, upon the pain of jeopardizing one's rights. However, the law is not clear on this matter as there has been no irregularity as yet to draw attention. Notably the defenders did act without the TD.

There is much good to be said for requiring that all of claimer's statement count. HOwever, my current thinking is that claimer ought to be able to give a corrected/ substituted clarification provided he [a] makes it clear just what he is doing and [b] does not unduly delay the progress of the game.

In this instance, claimer has stopped clarifying and summoned the TD. We might imagine why the TD was called but the table was not TOLD why. What the table was told was that claimer believed his claim was invalid.

And I believe it is that statement upon which the ruling must rest, because indeed that claim was invalid.

I would add that I believe if instead claimer had [a] retracted and immediately substituted a clarification or [b] stated that he wanted to substitute a different clarification after checking with the TD, then it would be appropriate for any ruling upon a contested claim to be based upon the substituted clarification.

[Codo]

I know this is the law and ruling thread.

But I have some ethical questions to this case:

1. Do we encourage players to claim?

2. If we do, why don't we allow south to change his claim and choose a resonable line before we allow E/W to show their cards?

3. This was no normal claim, so why is it relevant that after a normal claim the defenders show their cards?

4. I understood that the main goal of the rules is to restore equity, not to punish someone. To give a ruling like -3 is a punishment and not restoring equity. If the player had played a trump instead of claiming he had realiszed at that trick that he cannot ruff both diamonds anymore (as he did while claiming). There are some legal way to play the hand then, but not many ways to -3.

TIA for your advice

[bluejak]

Quote

I would add that I believe if instead claimer had {a} retracted and immediately substituted a clarification or {b} stated that he wanted to substitute a different clarification after checking with the TD, then it would be appropriate for any ruling upon a contested claim to be based upon the substituted clarification.

Players do not know what they should do, and I believe that it is not reasonable to treat the above any different from what he did do, which was to stop his claim after saying it was wrong and consult the TD. To give a different ruling if he added the words that he wanted to susbstitute a correct statement, which he apparently did want, seems wrong.

Quote

Do we encourage players to claim?

Of course. About one claim in five hundred is challenged, and many of those are ok anyway. The game would be considerably slowed down otherwise.

Quote

If we do, why don't we allow south to change his claim and choose a resonable line before we allow E/W to show their cards?

Because 99.9% of the time a claimer wants to change his line it is because his opponents have done or said something that makes him realise it is wrong.

Quote

This was no normal claim, so why is it relevant that after a normal claim the defenders show their cards?

Because the oppnents may not have realised it was abnormal, or they showed their cards before they knew it was abnormal, or because they did not know they should not with an abnormal claim. It is not their claim: why should we blame them for a mistake?

Quote

I understood that the main goal of the rules is to restore equity, not to punish someone. To give a ruling like -3 is a punishment and not restoring equity. If the player had played a trump instead of claiming he had realiszed at that trick that he cannot ruff both diamonds anymore (as he did while claiming). There are some legal way to play the hand then, but not many ways to -3.

The Scope of the Laws is a statement as to why the law-makers wrote the Laws that they did, but does not affect how you rule, which is by the Laws. Claims always get people who think they are unfair both ways being too kind or too harsh. Being allowed to weight the result might make them more palatable to many people, but that is a matter for the law-makers not us. If you want to discuss why they do not or whether they should, please start a thread in The New Laws.

[FrancesHinden]

It might be vaguely helpful to know the whole hand. It is likely that West pre-empted in hearts and East raised. I believe the diagram given must be wrong, West should have a diamond fewer and a heart more (otherwise I can't construct a possible legal line of play to get to the end position David gives). Not that that is strictly relevant, of course, to a theoretcial ruling problem.

[NB: I was not involved in this ruling at all, but I declared the hand in 4S and know how the play went at a number of tables]

The original layout for NS was

AQJ10
Ax
x
KJ10xxx

987xx
xx
AQxx
Ax

West started with
x
Q109xxx
K9xx
xx

I know of at least one table where the defence started:
Heart lead taken
Diamond to the ace
Spade finesse, losing
Top heart cashed
If East played another heart at this point, South discarding a diamond from hand and ruffing in dummy, we'd be in the original diagram position, except that West should have one diamond fewer and one heart more.

Why is all of this relevant? To my mind, it is necessary to understand declarer's frame of mind at the point when he claims.

Certainly at one table (not the one where I was declaring!) the play started this way, and declarer then drew trumps and played ace of clubs, club finesse to go two off in 4S, or at this table three off in 5S.

[Blue Uriah]

I think this is the board (not rotated for convenience).

[axman]

Quote

I would add that I believe if instead claimer had {a} retracted and immediately substituted a clarification or {b} stated that he wanted to substitute a different clarification after checking with the TD, then it would be appropriate for any ruling upon a contested claim to be based upon the substituted clarification.

Players do not know what they should do, and I believe that it is not reasonable to treat the above any different from what he did do, which was to stop his claim after saying it was wrong and consult the TD. To give a different ruling if he added the words that he wanted to susbstitute a correct statement, which he apparently did want, seems wrong.



I think it is wise to rule in accordance with the facts of the situation. In this instance the situations are very different which can be cause to treat them differently.

I am inclined to believe that that there is a threshold for when a clarification is over. For the facts given, declarer on his own volition stopped making a clarification once he stated [without outside prompting] he had goofed. It is material that he did not correct his statement and this should be basis enough for ruling upon a disputed claim.

It is my opinion that a claim is constituted by its whole as distinct from its pieces [if any]. Which means that in effect that the clarification is not over until it is over; and, once it's over, it is finis. Thus, it is incumbant upon claimer to make it clear he is not done in order to have any possible expectation to correct his clarification after he interrupts it. To do otherwise gives the opponents cause to believe that he is complete.

Quote

Do we encourage players to claim?

Of course. About one claim in five hundred is challenged, and many of those are ok anyway. The game would be considerably slowed down otherwise.

I believe that TDs encouraging players to claim does them a disservice. Far too many bad claims are made by players that believe they know what theyy are doing. It is better that a player do his own instigating. The TD role ought to be to facilitate the education of interested players as to the ramifications of claims. And for players that claim, they ought to be well versed in the law, and not as you put it "Players do not know what they should do,". When a player claims he short circuits the law's provision to play out the 13 tricks and it is important that he ought to know what he does.