[Cascade]

pran, on 2013-January-18, 02:33, said:

If East showed (i.e. led) his ♣A before West had followed suit then Law 57A1 is certainly the one applicable. The case is slightly more difficult if East just claimed without showing any card.

This is only correct if East intended the ♣A as a lead and not a claim. A claim was made according to my reading of the opening post so it seems wrong to invoke a law other than a claim law.

[Vampyr]

Cascade, on 2013-January-18, 17:03, said:

This is only correct if East intended the ♣A as a lead and not a claim. A claim was made according to my reading of the opening post so it seems wrong to invoke a law other than a claim law.

I don't know exactly what happened, but it seems to me that it may be difficult to distinguish a trick 13 claim from a lead to trick 13. Calling it a lead solves the problem in one way. I like this way because I think that East's irregularity should work not only to his detriment but to declarer's advantage. Also, the "other way" of solving the problem, ie giving East the last two tricks and a PP may run into a practical problem -- many clubs are reluctant to issue PPs.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2013-January-18, 16:08, said:

Whichever way you look at it: Interrupting your partner's choice of which card to play when this choice can have an impact on the result is an irregularity.

As a friend of mine used to say, "you're entitled to your wrong opinion".

[axman]

del

[RMB1]

Phil, on 2013-January-18, 16:50, said:

I speak about ten Chinese words, but assuming "Chiang Mai" is a physical location and not a state of mind, this thread seems to be skirting the Rules of the Site.

I don't understand - sorry if this is some (forum or real) politics I do not understand.

The internet shows Chiang Mai as being in Thailand (not China) - is there some embargo on discussing bridge from Thailand?

[CamHenry]

RMB1, on 2013-January-19, 04:16, said:

I don't understand - sorry if this is some (forum or real) politics I do not understand.

The internet shows Chiang Mai as being in Thailand (not China) - is there some embargo on discussing bridge from Thailand?

The embargo is on naming names. If I were to post saying, for example, "bluejak gave this ruling and we appealed it because we thought it was ridiculous", that would be over the line. One is allowed to name oneself - as I have done in the past, when Matt and I were the OS. For what it's worth, we were happy with the director's ruling on that occasion

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-18, 19:49, said:

As a friend of mine used to say, "you're entitled to your wrong opinion".

Observe that what East essentially did was to alert his partner:
Be aware that I have the last trick if you let me keep the trick for my King, so please do not use your Ace!

Before that West could have a choice, now that choice has vanished. Do you really condone such tactics?

[UdcaDenny]

Chiang Mai is a city in north of Thailand and we play in an english pub with mostly american and english players.
Maybe its possible that TD referred to Law 57 and had the law on his side. Still I think it was kind of greedy since
his partner was declarer and they both profited from the judgement. In this case when it is obvious that declarer have
the Queen it must be stupid to overtake. This TD also says if the claiming part can play wrong it shall be judged that
they must do that. If thats so maybe this rule shud be altered ?

[Vampyr]

UdcaDenny, on 2013-January-19, 05:16, said:

This TD also says if the claiming part can play wrong it shall be judged that
they must do that. If thats so maybe this rule shud be altered ?

The player who claims without a statement will be ruled to play in a manner that is careless or inferior, but not irrational. See Law 70E.

When it is a defensive claim the same conditions apply to the defender's partner's play (70D2). It would be necessary to determine West's knowledge of the remaining cards in order to decide whether overtaking would be irrational. East's premature claim is evidence that he, at least, did not think that West could be trusted to know what was going on. If a determination is made that West could not rationally go wrong, then a split score would be appropriate, with declarer winning none of the remaining tricks and the defenders getting one. This is a good practical ruling, since it doesn't require a PP to stop East gaining from his wrongdoing (that is not what PPs are for anyway -- not to say that he shouldn't perhaps get one regardless). Unfortunately this ruling has no basis in law.

[pran]

Cascade, on 2013-January-18, 17:03, said:

This is only correct if East intended the ♣A as a lead and not a claim. A claim was made according to my reading of the opening post so it seems wrong to invoke a law other than a claim law.

Is it a claim or a premature lead if East after playing his ♥K (but before West has followed to this trick) shows his ♣A and says "and the last trick is mine"?

We do not really know from OP exactly how it happened.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-19, 05:58, said:

The player who claims without a statement will be ruled to play in a manner that is careless or inferior, but not irrational. See Law 70E.

When it is a defensive claim the same conditions apply to the defender's partner's play (70D2). It would be necessary to determine West's knowledge of the remaining cards in order to decide whether overtaking would be irrational. East's premature claim is evidence that he, at least, did not think that West could be trusted to know what was going on. If a determination is made that West could not rationally go wrong, then a split score would be appropriate, with declarer winning none of the remaining tricks and the defenders getting one. This is a good practical ruling, since it doesn't require a PP to stop East gaining from his wrongdoing (that is not what PPs are for anyway -- not to say that he shouldn't perhaps get one regardless). Unfortunately this ruling has no basis in law.

Don't overlook the fact that West has received (important) UI: East has a winner as his last card.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-January-19, 06:41, said:

Don't overlook the fact that West has received (important) UI: East has a winner as his last card.

Sure. But I don't see how applying L16 (UI), L57 (premature play), L73 (UI again), L70 (contested claims) or for that matter, L23 (awareness of potential damage), can justify awarding a split score.

[axman]

UdcaDenny, on 2013-January-19, 05:16, said:

Chiang Mai is a city in north of Thailand and we play in an english pub with mostly american and english players.
Maybe its possible that TD referred to Law 57 and had the law on his side. Still I think it was kind of greedy since
his partner was declarer and they both profited from the judgement. In this case when it is obvious that declarer have
the Queen it must be stupid to overtake. This TD also says if the claiming part can play wrong it shall be judged that
they must do that. If thats so maybe this rule shud be altered ?

Before I get into things I'll mention that I started the 'puzzle' thread on rgb using a disguised version of this hand. Primarily out of curiosity's sake mind you. Well, it appears to have petered out so I thought I'd bring it to your attention.



When making a ruling the TD should

a. ascertain why he was summoned
b. ascertain what happened
c. recount what facts are agreed; what facts are disputed; and of the disputed facts what his finding of facts is and why
d. state the law that applies and the effects of application

In this case the story skips everything; in other words udca stated a conclusion while not providing the facts upon which such conclusion was made


As such, if it is the judgment and thus the ruling that a claim occurred [not that I've seen satisfactory evidence supplied thereof] it would be germane to review L68



L68 LAW 68 - CLAIM OR CONCESSION OF TRICKS

For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress (If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play.). If it does refer to subsequent tricks:


After reading this I can see no other approach than giving S his L57A option to select a penalty against west's T12 card. Now clearly, as the TD did something** other than what he ought to have done, that is a whole other can of worms.

**that something being essentially going off on a tangent that arrives at the same outcome that would be expected if south had been given the opportunity to exercise his L57A option.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-19, 07:14, said:

Sure. But I don't see how applying L16 (UI), L57 (premature play), L73 (UI again), L70 (contested claims) or for that matter, L23 (awareness of potential damage), can justify awarding a split score.

Neither do I.
Had I been DIC South would have certainly received the last trick, effective for both sides.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-January-19, 10:11, said:

Neither do I.
Had I been DIC South would have certainly received the last trick, effective for both sides.

Well, I agree with you on an emotional level, but if there is sufficient evidence that West knew what was going on, then there seems no option besides letting East get away with his shenanigans.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-19, 12:33, said:

Well, I agree with you on an emotional level, but if there is sufficient evidence that West knew what was going on, then there seems no option besides letting East get away with his shenanigans.

Have you bothered to look up the Law 68 footnote to which Axman so wisely called attention?

I can only regret that I myself didn't call attention to this footnote earlier. It makes it perfectly clear that no matter how or why East exposed his ♣A the fact that he did expose it before West completed his play to trick 12 makes Law 57A applicable on West's play to this trick.

[lalldonn]

pran, on 2013-January-19, 13:15, said:

I can only regret that I myself didn't call attention to this footnote earlier. It makes it perfectly clear that no matter how or why East exposed his ♣A the fact that he did expose it before West completed his play to trick 12 makes Law 57A applicable on West's play to this trick.

Neither "claimed" (original post) nor "exposed" (your word) is a synonym with "led" (law 57A) no matter how much you pretend they are. And it's common sense anyway.

To each his own, and this type of statement never goes well in a laws forum, but if south is experienced I would form a very negative opinion of him for trying to get a trick here.

[lalldonn]

pran, on 2013-January-19, 06:38, said:

Is it a claim or a premature lead if East after playing his ♥K (but before West has followed to this trick) shows his ♣A and says "and the last trick is mine"?

Facing of your remaining cards (even just one) with a claim statement is a claim, obviously. And I didn't even have to look at law 68A to know that, although it confirms it. It's ok to just give up when you are wrong, you know.

[paua]

lalldonn, on 2013-January-19, 13:35, said:

Neither "claimed" (original post) nor "exposed" (your word) is a synonym with "led" (law 57A) no matter how much you pretend they are. And it's common sense anyway.

To each his own, and this type of statement never goes well in a laws forum, but if south is experienced I would form a very negative opinion of him for trying to get a trick here.

I agree. Law 68 footnote doesn't apply.

To me it's obvious to all four players that the top hearts are still outstanding, and therefore W overtaking is not a normal play under Law 70D2.
It would be interesting if the outstanding highest hearts were 8-7-96 and East played the 8, but I still see no reason for W to overtake.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-January-19, 13:15, said:

Have you bothered to look up the Law 68 footnote to which Axman so wisely called attention?

Yes, but I decided that it didn't apply, because it referred to the claim of only the trick in progress. East claimed a further trick as well.