[RMB1]

In an RGB thread, declarer (on lead) claimed "dummy was good" and folded his hand.
Declarer's hand was not all winners and had no entry to dummy!

Clearly, you award some tricks to the defence.
Do you impose a procedural or disciplinary penalty on declarer? Under which law?

Robin

[axman]

RMB1, on Jan 21 2010, 02:28 PM, said:

In an RGB thread, declarer (on lead) claimed "dummy was good" and folded his hand.
Declarer's hand was not all winners and had no entry to dummy!

Clearly, you award some tricks to the defence.
Do you impose a procedural or disciplinary penalty on declarer? Under which law?

Robin

Without knowing the evidence [I don't see any valid evidence presented] I am circumspect about making an ethics allegation.

I had never considered before the case of ruling when it is doubtful what the spots were. Thanks.

Presumably, folding the cards means return them to the board? and the claim was disputed?

THere being a disputed claim the remaining cards are relevant [we weren't given the remaining three hands].

Considering that declarer has abandoned his hand before the score is agreed and without showing it there is doubt as to what his cards were.

L65D provides:
A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won. A player who fails to comply with the provisions of this Law jeopardises his right to claim ownership of doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke.

HAving abandoned his hand it is doubtful that he has an entry to dummy's claimed tricks. Therefore it is deemed that declarer leads a small card of a suit the defense holds and the defense can be ruled to win the next trick provided they hold a card that dummy can't beat. and such subsequent tricks as well.

As declarer kept his hand secret it is irrelevant what declarer's cards were.

Should declarer go about trying to prove what his cards were he has a stiff pp coming for improper delay of game, and another stiff PP for irritating the opponents.

[lamford]

RMB1, on Jan 21 2010, 02:28 PM, said:

Do you impose a procedural or disciplinary penalty on declarer? Under which law?

90B allows the TD to impose a PP for pretty much any offence <snip>"the offences are not limited to these", and indeed that clause does not include "substituting one's own pack of cards for one provided by the organisers" which was correctly treated seriously by the EBU/WBU.

But you might struggle to decide whether South was aware that he did not have an entry to dummy, assuming dummy was indeed high, or whether he was trying it on. Should it not be a case of innocent unless proven guilty, but a second infraction of a similar type would be stamped upon?

[RMB1]

axman, on Jan 21 2010, 09:36 PM, said:

I had never considered before the case of ruling when it is doubtful what the spots were.  Thanks.

If you need a hand, here's a hand:

Scoring: IMPs

---

South plays in spades and won the previous trick in hand (with a spade).

Robin

[lamford]

Thanks Robin; I was struggling to construct an n-card ending with dummy being high, but declarer having no entry to dummy. That helps a lot.

[jallerton]

lamford, on Jan 21 2010, 09:53 PM, said:

RMB1, on Jan 21 2010, 02:28 PM, said:

Do you impose a procedural or disciplinary penalty on declarer? Under which law?

90B allows the TD to impose a PP for pretty much any offence <snip>"the offences are not limited to these", and indeed that clause does not include "substituting one's own pack of cards for one provided by the organisers" which was correctly treated seriously by the EBU/WBU.

Robin is well aware of Law 90B. The purpose of that Law is to permit the TD to impose a penalty when there has been an offence. But in this case, what is the offence, i.e. which Law has been breached?

[RMB1]

jallerton, on Jan 21 2010, 11:17 PM, said:

But in this case, what is the offence, i.e. which Law has been breached?

The best I can do so far is Law 73D2:

Quote

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, ...

The claim statement was misleading, it suggested dummy's tricks were relevant, and therefore that there is an entry.

Robin

[lamford]

[79A] <snip> 2. A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose

is a possible avenue. If the player did it unknowingly, then he did not commit an infraction. You could argue however that there is no infraction unless he gets away with the above ....

[lamford]

jallerton, on Jan 21 2010, 06:17 PM, said:

Robin is well aware of Law 90B. The purpose of that Law is to permit the TD to impose a penalty when there has been an offence.  But in this case, what is the offence, i.e. which Law has been breached?

The purpose of 90B is to give examples of actions that are subject to procedural penalty. 90A is the clause which empowers the TD to assess procedural penalties.

Say that a law stated: Carrying any of the following in a public place is an offence (but the list is not limited to these): Machete, Bayonet, Athame, Kirpan, Kilaya, Kukri, Puukko.

Then the legal powers would decide whether carrying a Seax was an offence; it would not be necessary to find another piece of legislation to punish the "offender". And they would probably decide a teaspoon was not similar to the list.

[bluejak]

I give a PP under Law 90A. A claim of this sort "inconveniences other contestants".

[JanM]

Law 68© specifies that a claim should be accompanied by a statement of the order in which cards will be played. Here declarer didn't make any such specification, so that is an "offense" which can be penalized by a PP under 90B.

[iviehoff]

JanM, on Jan 22 2010, 06:43 AM, said:

Law 68© specifies that a claim should be accompanied by a statement of the order in which cards will be played. Here declarer didn't make any such specification, so that is an "offense" which can be penalized by a PP under 90B.

"Dummy is high" is a very common claim statement, and when it is true people don't have any problem with it. I really don't think making it can be construed, of itself, as an offence.

Indeed claims without an "empty claim statement" are common enough to. The player thinks it is self-explanatory, and when that is true the other side normally politely accedes.

So we see that a sufficient claim statement need not state exactly when all of the cards are played, and even an empty statement can be satisfactory. Problems arise when the claim is faulty, or when a player thinks something is obvious enough that he doesn't need to say it, and others have a different opinion.

There has never been any suggestion that a player should be punished merely for making a faulty claim. Faulty claims are adjudicated under rules that give the benefit of the doubt to the other side, which is normally incentive enough to get it right.

Only in the case where one supposes that a player might have deliberately made a false claim statement, or having observed he had made a faulty claim statement tried to conceal its faultiness, or behaved vexatiously, should there be an issue of punishment on top of adjudication.

In the present case, the circumstances do give rise to a suspicion of coffee-housing, but I doubt there is sufficient proof of it. Fortunately the adjudication looks to be indisputable.

[bluejak]

You do not need "proof" to issue a PP, it is a judgement ruling.

[mycroft]

This is evil and must be stamped out when it occurs, even if it is completely innocent. I know the famous Meckstroth 7NT "claim before the lead" story, but it's a fantastic story for a reason, not something to emulate.

If it was an accident, declarer can chew on his PP as education to show his cards - at least the one that gets him to the board - next time.
If it wasn't an accident, declarer will get the hint.
If he convinces me (and it would take a lot of convincing, probably starting with "dummy's high". "you're in your hand". "Oh, oops, Director") that he forgot what hand he was in and was just claiming dummy high, it will be a perfunctory PP, maybe even a REALLY STRONG warning.
Otherwise, it will be a big one, and if there's any complaint, mention that "if I had any inkling of a thought that you were trying this one on purpose, it would be immediate DQ, 30 day ban from my club, and a disciplinary report to the unit. Be happy I'm being lenient, and next time, show your cards."

After all, if he had shown his hand, the comment would have been "so, how are you getting there?" or, for the smartarses around here (on RMB's line of the cards), "so, one trick on the endplay?"

[lamford]

mycroft, on Jan 22 2010, 12:08 PM, said:

After all, if he had shown his hand, the comment would have been "so, how are you getting there?" or, for the smartarses around here (on RMB's line of the cards), "so, one trick on the endplay?"

Your sentiments are admirable, and if you were sure that he attempted to cheat, then I would have no problem with the sanctions you propose. But you have a duty under 85A1: In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.

And the real smartarses would award a weighted score with declarer misguessing which card to discard when West cashes a second heart. That would depend on the earlier play and whether West was known to have a diamond or a club as his last card. But for a declarer who thought he had an entry to dummy, I would award a very low percentage of a correct guess here!

[lamford]

mycroft, on Jan 22 2010, 12:08 PM, said:

declarer can chew on his PP as education to show his cards - at least the one that gets him to the board - next time.

I think we established in another thread that, ludicrously, the laws do not require declarer to show his hand when making a claim, nor do they confer the right on the opponents to see them. This power is only available to the TD in the event of a contested claim, and even then he is not obliged to require it - but practice is that he does do so. If South did have an entry to dummy, he would not be committing an infraction, other than the potential one that bluejak suggests.

[bluejak]

The real smartarses would point out that since it is a claim ruling, you cannot weight the score.

[bluejak]

lamford, on Jan 22 2010, 09:45 PM, said:

mycroft, on Jan 22 2010, 12:08 PM, said:

declarer can chew on his PP as education to show his cards - at least the one that gets him to the board - next time.

I think we established in another thread that, ludicrously, the laws do not require declarer to show his hand when making a claim, nor do they confer the right on the opponents to see them. This power is only available to the TD in the event of a contested claim, and even then he is not obliged to require it - but practice is that he does do so. If South did have an entry to dummy, he would not be committing an infraction, other than the potential one that bluejak suggests.

Do we care?

[richlp]

deleting repeat post. sorry

[lamford]

bluejak, on Jan 22 2010, 04:09 PM, said:

The real smartarses would point out that since it is a claim ruling, you cannot weight the score.

True. Then, in Robin's example, we would award three tricks to the defenders if there is deemed to be any possibility of a misguess.