Claim ruling

[ralph23]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=saqjt9ht54dk2cqt9&w=s876hq632daj95c52&e=s543h8dt8764cj643&s=sk2hakj97dq3cak87]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

North/South reached a contract of 5♥, played by South.

 

West led the Ace of ♦, and declarer played low from both hands.

 

Then West switched at trick 2 to his 5 of ♣. Dummy played low, and declarer captured East's Jack of ♣ with the ♣Ace.

 

At trick 3, declarer cashed the Ace of trump.

 

At trick 4, declarer led a small ♣ from his hand, and won in dummy with the ♣Queen.

 

At trick 5, declarer led a small trump from dummy. East showed out, discarding a low ♦. Declarer won in hand with the ♥King, and West played a low ♥.

 

At trick 6, declarer led the Jack of ♥ from his hand, and West hitched for a second, thinking about whether or not to take his ♥Queen on this trick.

 

Observing this, Declarer then faced his cards, saying "I have to lose a trump to the Queen, and am otherwise good. Making 5."

 

West called the director, stating that he could win the sixth trick with the ♥Queen, then lead a diamond, which declarer would perforce win in dummy with the King.

 

Then, if declarer next led a low ♣ from dummy toward his King, so that he could return to his hand so as to extract West's last small trump, West could ruff and set the contract.

 

How do you rule on the contested claim?

[jtfanclub]

Sigh.

[hv=n=saqjt9htdkct&w=s876hq6dj95c&e=s543hdt87c64&s=sk2hj97dqck8]399|300|[/hv]

 

Can I vote for 30 lashes for with a wet noodle for anybody who gives a full hand, plays 4+ cards, and then asks a question without giving the resulting hand?

(made an error- correct)

 

I would way West is correct. A club back is not 'irrational'.

[skjaeran]

Playing a club now would be careless, but not irrational. Declarer already proved twice that he's able to make careless plays, not that it matters. :(

1 down.

[blackshoe]

Easy one. Down 1.

[Codo]

I love declarer who claim as soon as possible and would give them much leeway even if they state the claim not optimal.

 

But as much as I would like to help South, this is too much. One down, sorry.

[ralph23]

http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks.html

 

I thought the case was interesting.... it is adapted from Case Sixteen in 2004 NABC in NYC. In that actual case, there were some other ... er, extenuating? .. circumstances (which should not have a legal bearing on the case, however).

 

Declarer was in a hopeless contract of seven hearts after an apparent screw-up in the auction. It was a B/C/D event and although it's not expressly stated, the evidence suggests that declarer had about 600 masterpoints (at least, that was the level of the "survey" taken -- two players -- in determining "irrationality").

 

The director, appeals committee and commentators were all agreed in allowing the claim as good, and an AWMW was issued to EW for even taking the appeal. Only one commentator showed any second thoughts about the AC's decision, apparently.

 

I think there was a lot of sympathy for declarer, who obviously felt bad when the opening lead of the Ace of ♦ hit the table against 7♥.

 

Also, the event was MPs and it was perhaps hard to see how EW could benefit from a score of +300 versus the score of +200 that they had already earned.

 

But those factors shouldn't bear on the interpretation of the words "normal" and "careless" and "irrational" in the Laws.

 

I think the case really points out how slippery those words are and how subjective the interpretation of them can be. Seems to me that it would be a careless, "silly" play for declarer to lead a club back to hand, in order to draw trumps, after West strands declarer on the board with the ♦King; but would it really be "irrational"?

[jtfanclub]

but would it really be "irrational"?

"At trick 4, declarer led a small ♣ from his hand, and won in dummy with the ♣Queen."

 

How about this play, was it "irrational"? Either hand could easily have a singleton club. A diamond is a hundred times safer.

 

Why was it "rational" to lead a club here, but not two tricks later?

[ralph23]

Why was it "rational" to lead a club here, but not two tricks later?

Dunno. EW didn't have very good lawyers, it seems.

 

I think a lot of the decision had to do with the apparent silliness, from a scoring point of view, of the EW appeal. That may have colored everyone's perception and may have led to the (unanimous!) conclusion that the only "normal" line of play after getting stuck on the board with the King of ♦ was a spade back to hand.

[jdonn]

One of my favorite things to do in those positions where you have the rest but a claim would be complicated or easily questioned, and an opponent is on lead but thinking even though you know his play doesn't matter, is I just inconspicuously show my hand to the opponent on lead. They usually concede 10 seconds later ;) and even if they don't they will play faster. That's what I would have done as south here while west was thinking, not that I would have been in that position.

 

In this case the ruling is clear. Who the heck knows what this south would have played next. Going to dummy with a club was already careless, and not just sticking in the jack of hearts on the second round of the suit and claiming right then is likewise.

[ralph23]

One of my favorite things to do in those positions where you have the rest but a claim would be complicated or easily questioned, and an opponent is on lead but thinking even though you know his play doesn't matter, is I just inconspicuously show my hand to the opponent on lead. They usually concede 10 seconds later ;) and even if they don't they will play faster. That's what I would have done as south here while west was thinking, not that I would have been in that position.

I've done that, but even that procedure may be considered making a claim. The Laws state (68A, second sentence):

 

A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim).

 

The word "demonstrably" imposes a burden on the claimant, and that could be difficult to meet as there's basically no evidence either way, except your own statement and that doesn't satisfy "demonstrably."

 

"Shows" doesn't specify whether it means "shows to everyone" or "shows to anyone" and it's hard to argue that you have not "shown" your cards in this scenario within the ambit of Law 68A.

 

And you may be "suggesting" that play should be curtailed by this procedure.

 

So you could still be making a claim when doing this. Of course, you're certainly no worse off than you would be by just laying your hand down and saying "They're all mine."

 

BTW, when people do this to me I simply say "Are you making a claim?"

[1eyedjack]

The Laws state (68A, second sentence):

 

A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim).

 

The word "demonstrably" imposes a burden on the claimant, and that could be difficult to meet as there's basically no evidence either way, except your own statement and that doesn't satisfy "demonstrably."

 

"Shows" doesn't specify whether it means "shows to everyone" or "shows to anyone" and it's hard to argue that you have not "shown" your cards in this scenario within the ambit of Law 68A.

 

And you may be "suggesting" that play should be curtailed by this procedure.

 

So you could still be making a claim when doing this. Of course, you're certainly no worse off than you would be by just laying your hand down and saying "They're all mine."

 

BTW, when people do this to me I simply say "Are you making a claim?"

Thanks for pointing that out. I had not realised it.

 

From now on, I will face my cards and be careful to say "I am not claiming. I am merely allowing you to defend double dummy. Should you wish to concede at any time I shall accept."

 

Gotta get these things right.

[jdonn]

One of my favorite things to do in those positions where you have the rest but a claim would be complicated or easily questioned, and an opponent is on lead but thinking even though you know his play doesn't matter, is I just inconspicuously show my hand to the opponent on lead. They usually concede 10 seconds later ;) and even if they don't they will play faster. That's what I would have done as south here while west was thinking, not that I would have been in that position.

I've done that, but even that procedure may be considered making a claim. The Laws state (68A, second sentence):...

God, I am NOT going to get into this discussion with you. When your cards are still in your hand and only being shown to one player that is NOT a claim, and any *&*# idiot can see that. Why can people not see this is done as a courtesy to all players, especially the opponents, and be thankful that someone is doing it instead of trying to create a mountain out of a molehill?

 

"Hmm my opponent is doing me a favor saving me time and brain cells when he knows my play doesn't matter. WAIT if I call the director and argue about the meanings of the words "demonstrably", "show", "the", and "corndog" I might get a director to give me free tricks that I would never have gotten! Director please!"

[cherdano]

To quote a well-known RGB poster: If this is not a clear-cut ruling, then there is something seriously wrong with the rules of this game.

[matmat]

"Hmm my opponent is doing me a favor saving me time and brain cells when he knows my play doesn't matter. WAIT if I call the director and argue about the meanings of the words "demonstrably", "show", "the", and "corndog" I might get a director to give me free tricks that I would never have gotten! Director please!"

does that work?

[jdonn]

"Hmm my opponent is doing me a favor saving me time and brain cells when he knows my play doesn't matter. WAIT if I call the director and argue about the meanings of the words "demonstrably", "show", "the", and "corndog" I might get a director to give me free tricks that I would never have gotten! Director please!"

does that work?

Don't know, but I know some people around the bridge world who could tell you ;)

[ralph23]

One of my favorite things to do in those positions where you have the rest but a claim would be complicated or easily questioned, and an opponent is on lead but thinking even though you know his play doesn't matter, is I just inconspicuously show my hand to the opponent on lead. They usually concede 10 seconds later ;) and even if they don't they will play faster. That's what I would have done as south here while west was thinking, not that I would have been in that position.

I've done that, but even that procedure may be considered making a claim. The Laws state (68A, second sentence):...

God, I am NOT going to get into this discussion with you. When your cards are still in your hand and only being shown to one player that is NOT a claim, and any *&*# idiot can see that. Why can people not see this is done as a courtesy to all players, especially the opponents, and be thankful that someone is doing it instead of trying to create a mountain out of a molehill?

 

"Hmm my opponent is doing me a favor saving me time and brain cells when he knows my play doesn't matter. WAIT if I call the director and argue about the meanings of the words "demonstrably", "show", "the", and "corndog" I might get a director to give me free tricks that I would never have gotten! Director please!"

There is no need to act like such an asshole. I am just pointing out the Laws to you.

 

If you don't like the Laws, then don't read these Law postings and keep your blood pressure down.

[blackshoe]

Ralph, have you ever seen a TD rule that declarer showing his cards to an opponent constituted a claim? Have you ever seen a TD rule that the declarer's statement that he was not trying to claim, but rather to show an opponent that he should conced, was not sufficient evidence that he demonstrably did not intend to claim?

 

If so, perhaps you have a point. If not, please don't put up straw men.

[jdonn]

Ralph, have you ever seen a TD rule that declarer showing his cards to an opponent constituted a claim? Have you ever seen a TD rule that the declarer's statement that he was not trying to claim, but rather to show an opponent that he should conced, was not sufficient evidence that he demonstrably did not intend to claim?

 

If so, perhaps you have a point. If not, please don't put up straw men.

The problem in fact is more likely to occur the other way. Sometimes you put your hand down for a totally obvious claim without stating a line (like declarer leads toward KJ at trick 12 and you put down your AQ over him) and people like him call the director and try to say that since you exposed your cards they can pick which one you play. Even though you were claiming! No good deed goes unpunished.

[ralph23]

Ralph, have you ever seen a TD rule that declarer showing his cards to an opponent constituted a claim? Have you ever seen a TD rule that the declarer's statement that he was not trying to claim, but rather to show an opponent that he should conced, was not sufficient evidence that he demonstrably did not intend to claim?

 

If so, perhaps you have a point. If not, please don't put up straw men.

The problem in fact is more likely to occur the other way. Sometimes you put your hand down for a totally obvious claim without stating a line (like declarer leads toward KJ at trick 12 and you put down your AQ over him) and people like him call the director and try to say that since you exposed your cards they can pick which one you play. Even though you were claiming! No good deed goes unpunished.

Why you have chosen to be so insulting and personal, for no apparent reason, I cannot imagine. Implying that someone you don't even know regularly acts unethically or improperly, because you apparently have some sort of personal animus.....

 

As noted before, all I did was to quote the Laws and make some observations about them. Nowhere did I say what I would hold if I were directing. You may want to reread the posts.

 

If you disagree with those statements of the Laws, you should at least do so in a civil manner.

[ralph23]

The Laws state (68A, second sentence):

 

A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim).

 

The word "demonstrably" imposes a burden on the claimant, and that could be difficult to meet as there's basically no evidence either way, except your own statement and that doesn't satisfy "demonstrably."

 

"Shows" doesn't specify whether it means "shows to everyone" or "shows to anyone" and it's hard to argue that you have not "shown" your cards in this scenario within the ambit of Law 68A.

 

And you may be "suggesting" that play should be curtailed by this procedure.

 

So you could still be making a claim when doing this. Of course, you're certainly no worse off than you would be by just laying your hand down and saying "They're all mine."

 

BTW, when people do this to me I simply say "Are you making a claim?"

Thanks for pointing that out. I had not realised it.

 

From now on, I will face my cards and be careful to say "I am not claiming. I am merely allowing you to defend double dummy. Should you wish to concede at any time I shall accept."

 

Gotta get these things right.

Actually, this happened to me at a tourney not long ago. I was on lead at about trick 7 and declarer showed me his hand (not to everyone).

 

I immediately asked "Are you claiming?" and he said "I'm sorry?"

 

I asked again if he were claiming and he said "Yes, Yes." He had a perfectly good claim.

 

He was a fairly good player who was new to duplicate and just didn't know how to claim properly, it appeared.

[jdonn]

Why you have chosen to be so insulting and personal, for no apparent reason, I cannot imagine.

 

There is no need to act like such an asshole.

[ralph23]

Ralph, have you ever seen a TD rule that declarer showing his cards to an opponent constituted a claim?

 

No. Do you have any reported case in which declarer did show his cards to an opponent, and it was held not to be a claim?

 

Have you ever seen a TD rule that the declarer's statement that he was not trying to claim, but rather to show an opponent that he should conced, was not sufficient evidence that he demonstrably did not intend to claim?

 

No. Do you have any reported case that holds that a declarer's statement that he was not trying to claim, but was rather trying to convince an opponent to concede, when he "showed" one opponent his hand, in and of itself and without further evidence, automatically satisfies the Law standard of "demonstrable"?

 

"Demonstrable" in dictionary.com is defined as:

 

1. capable of being demonstrated or proved.

2. clearly evident; obvious: a demonstrable lack of concern for the general welfare.

 

I don't believe that anyone can assert that definition 1 is satisfied by a mere statement of someone's intent. "Demonstrated" and "proved" imply public, verifiable knowledge ... not simply a statement of someone's intent.

 

Do you think it is "demonstrable" within the meaning of definition 1? Do you have a better definition of "demonstrable"?

 

As for definition 2, I would observe that in assessing the claim made in this posting, you noted that the decision was a "easy one" and that the result iyo was that the claim was bad. In Case Sixteen 2004 NYC Casebook, the director, three people on the appeals panel, and three commentators all thought that the claim was good, and an AWMW was issued to EW for even being bold enough to think that the claim was bad.

 

So what's "clearly evident" or "obvious" to A, may not, it seems, be so to B.

 

If so, perhaps you have a point. If not, please don't put up straw men.

 

I am simply reciting the Laws. Why is that "putting up straw men"? Oh .... never mind. I forgot, you're always right. :angry:

[jtfanclub]

Ralph, have you ever seen a TD rule that declarer showing his cards to an opponent constituted a claim?

 

No. Do you have any reported case in which declarer did show his cards to an opponent, and it was held not to be a claim?

Sure, lots of times. Declarer shows his cards, defender calls the director and claims that HE (the defender) gets to choose the line, which usually includes dropping kings under aces...director tells the defender to quit it, and keep playing.

 

Law 48B

 

B. Declarer Faces Cards

1. After Opening Lead out of Turn

When declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn, Law 54 applies.

2. At Any Other Time

When declarer faces his cards at any time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks, and Law 68 then applies.

 

This is a "May". Every director I have known has deemed that if showing the cards is accompanied with either a line of play or a number of tricks, then it is a claim. If it is not, then it is not.

 

I don't have an opinion on whether this follows the rules or not, it's merely my experience.

[ralph23]

Ralph, have you ever seen a TD rule that declarer showing his cards to an opponent constituted a claim?

 

No. Do you have any reported case in which declarer did show his cards to an opponent, and it was held not to be a claim?

Sure, lots of times. Declarer shows his cards, defender calls the director and claims that HE (the defender) gets to choose the line, which usually includes dropping kings under aces...director tells the defender to quit it, and keep playing.

I meant a reported case.

 

In the case you describe, wasn't declarer intending to claim?

 

I'm looking for a case in which declarer says (later) "I wasn't intending to claim" ---i.e. when he showed his cards, he wasn't intending to claim (so he later says anyway).

 

I think in the case you describe, he was intending to claim.... wasn't he?

 

Why did declarer show his cards in your example, if it wasn't for the purpose of claiming? Maybe you can unpack it a bit, but it was a bit cursory.

[ralph23]

Law 48B

 

B. Declarer Faces Cards

1. After Opening Lead out of Turn

......

2. At Any Other Time

When declarer faces his cards at any time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks, and Law 68 then applies.

 

This is a "May". Every director I have known has deemed that if showing the cards is accompanied with either a line of play or a number of tricks, then it is a claim. If it is not, then it is not.

 

I don't have an opinion on whether this follows the rules or not, it's merely my experience.

Well there are still a couple of questions to answer here, aren't there?

 

If declarer (South) simply shows West (but not East) his hand, has declarer "faced" his cards within the meaning of this Law?

 

Of course, even if he hasn't "faced" his cards within this Law, Law 68 still applies, doesn't it? The laws on claims use the word "show" not "face."

 

I don't know that the Laws define "face," do they?