Not the best claim ever

[bluejak]

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=shaqjtdkqt43cakqj&w=saj92hk8732dj2c85&e=skt65h94da987c643&s=sq8743h65d65ct972]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

The auction could be best described as dreadful. Eventually, North cue-bid his void, bidding 3♠, and South passed.

 

After seeing the dummy, declarer [North] threw his hand on the table, saying have as many tricks as you want.

 

How would you rule?

 

This happened at our team-mates' table. After hearing the ruling, I borrowed a Law book, had a read, considered, and then asked the TDs to please reconsider. They did, and changed their ruling. But what is the correct ruling?

[vigfus]

Is this some trap ?

Well declarer has at least 6 tricks. so I suggest -3

[jeremy69]

Law 71 seems to apply. Six tricks seems about right and perhaps a double PP for the poor behaviour and the randomising.

[blackshoe]

Let's start at the beginning. The last sentence of Law 68B1 says "A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand." That's what declarer has done here. Now Law 71 says

A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established under Law 79c the director shall cancel a concession:

1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or

2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards. the board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

 

Subparagraph 1 does not apply (what happened to starting with letters and then going to numbers? :) ) because the concession occurred before any tricks were completed. So 2 applies, but the question is not "how many tricks can declarer take?" but "how many can he not possibly lose by any normal play?" I don't know the answer to that, and I'm too tired to try to work it out.

 

What was the opening lead?

 

I would guess he's not down nine, but I suspect he's down more than three. :)

[Cascade]

I would guess he's not down nine, but I suspect he's down more than three. :)

I agree with all of the earlier stuff.

 

Declarer appears to have one heart (i think rejecting the heart finesse is careless and inferior but normal enough) and a diamond and two clubs. He will also get some trump tricks.

 

Probably down three but maybe down four.

[bluejak]

Law 71 seems to apply. Six tricks seems about right and perhaps a double PP for the poor behaviour and the randomising.

For poor behaviour you give a DP not a PP.

 

What do you mean by "a PP for the randomising"?

[mrdct]

I think there is a strong presumption that declarer will most definately play the hand in an inferior and careless manner, so unless he gets a ♥ lead I'm going to assume no ♥ finesse and probably an inferior line in ♦ also. It seems to me that he's going to have to come to 2♣, 1♦, 1♥ and 2♠ so 3 down and a hefty procedural penalty for being a dick. I'd also make sure the incident gets reported to the recorder and the national authority.

 

My alternative ruling is that the "claim statement" constitutes evidence of an intended line to take as few tricks as is possible even with irrational play. In that case declarer can probably be held to 3 tricks (2♣ and 1♥) if he underruffs the 3rd and 4th round of ♥ and leads low ♦ out of hand twice. We've all seen careless underuffs before so it's not completley beyond the realms of possibility.

[jeremy69]

For poor behaviour you give a DP not a PP.

 

What do you mean by "a PP for the randomising"?

 

Yes a DP (or perhaps more than one!)

 

I can recall this sort of thing happening in an English trial 30 years ago except that declarer carefully played it out to ensure he went 9 down and this was not easy.

In this current his display of petulance means he is throwing imps at the other side which will affect their next Swiss assignment and he is failing in his duty to play bridge or at least try to.

The opponents, of course, have paid their table money and have been deprived of playing a board. Given that this event was played under the auspices of "Best Behaviour at Bridge" I look forward to hearing about how large the DP was, always assuming the person concerned wasn't chucked out of the event (an event which has precedent at this particular congress).

[wank]

take as many tricks as you want? presumably the defense should be asked how many tricks they want. if they're playing to win they would obviously say 13. then it becoems a double dummy problem to see how declarer can restrict himself through legal plays to the minimum number of tricks.

[bluejak]

I think you are overdoing the bad behaviour bit. Compared to what he did and said there were a myriad of other incidents this time that were worse.

 

As for throwing imps at the opponents, you are trying to blow up something trivial. An enormous number of imps was thrown by his partner's pass: his claim is going to make very little difference.

 

I am not saying he should have done what he did, but that is no reason to make it sound considerably worse than it is.

 

Anyway, how many tricks are you going to give him?

[gwnn]

I think 5 tricks is fair, 1 heart 2 clubs 1 diamond and a long trump somehow. I don't think it's fair to say that the heart finesse is unambiguously normal, maybe some declarer just wants to get some tricks "before the mice get to them" which is sometimes the way to go when you have very few trumps on the line.

[bluejak]

Ok, so far, we seem to have

 

6 tricks [2 votes]

5 or 6 tricks [1 vote]

5 tricks [1 vote]

3 or 6 tricks [1 vote]

Fewer than 6 but more than 0 tricks [1 vote]

 

The TDs decided he had abandoned the hand and conceded all the tricks. So they ruled 9 off.

 

I did not feel that was correct, and asked them to re-consider. I asked them to consider 4 tricks, 5 off, and they agreed with that.

[Cascade]

Which four tricks were you giving him?

 

I too am not in favour of a penalty. I would want considerably more history before I considered seriously giving a penalty.

[bluejak]

♥A, ♦K, ♣AK.

 

In practice I think he would make more without trying, but I was trying to be fair to the opponents.

[jeremy69]

I too am not in favour of a penalty. I would want considerably more history before I considered seriously giving a penalty.

 

So he has to do it several times before being penalised? This is unacceptable behaviour at the bridge table and a signal ought to be sent.

[jeremy69]

there were a myriad of other incidents this time that were worse.

 

 

Sounds a pleasant event!

[jdonn]

How could someone not be in favor of a penalty? North intentionally ruined the hand for his opponents (and to a smaller extent for the field or his teammates depending on the form of scoring) because he has the emotional discipline of approximately a 2 year old. I would be closer to barring him from the club/event for a short period of time than I would be to not giving some sort of penalty.

 

I do agree with the 4 tricks, though if it is legal I would score down 5 for EW and down 9 for NS. If it's not legal then of course I wouldn't.

[PhantomSac]

How could someone not be in favor of a penalty? North intentionally ruined the hand for his opponents (and to a smaller extent for the field or his teammates depending on the form of scoring) because he has the emotional discipline of approximately a 2 year old. I would be closer to barring him from the club/event for a short period of time than I would be to not giving some sort of penalty.

 

I do agree with the 4 tricks, though if it is legal I would score down 5 for EW and down 9 for NS. If it's not legal then of course I wouldn't.

He didn't ruin the hand for his opponents, they are defending 3S in a 4-0 fit, the play matters very little. You really think they'd derive great enjoyment from defending this contract that they are now deprived of from the claim? Declarer got frustrated and acted pretty poorly, bridge is an emotional game.

 

Personally someone not playing hard when passed in a cuebid does not ruin the game for me nearly as much as people who yell at their partners all the time or say stupid things or people who play slow or even won't put down dummy before writing their score down.

 

What declarer did was wrong, but it was done under a lot of frustration and should not be a big deal imo. I think he's doing a favor to everyone to just say here is my hand, how many tricks do you want. I'm sure technically he should be penalized, and I guess as a director maybe you have to, but this is far less bad than calling their partner an idiot or whatever and playing it out carelessly and angrily which usually goes unpenalized.

 

If this happened against me I'd just say down 3 and move on. If I really thought this was wrong I'd say "Sorry this happened but please just play it out so the director doesn't have to get involved." Having a little empathy for this person as a human being who is probably not just a bad person seems much better than calling the director to decide if this is down 3 or 5 or 7 and then trying to get him thrown out of the event. It really feels like the human element of this game is lost sometimes.

 

FWIW not condoning what this guy did.

 

Basically I agree with bluejak that people are basically making a big deal about nothing. I also agree it is an interesting decision how many tricks the defense gets once the director is called.

[jdonn]

I thought it was obvious but when I said north intentionally ruined the hand I meant by his behavior, not because of his bid or the contract.

 

And what is this 'bridge is an emotional game'? It is? And that's an excuse anyway?

 

Yeah the bridge adjustment is a bit difficult. I said down 5 before but now I'm thinking south should also be entitled to at least one trump so I would want to change to down 4.

[PhantomSac]

I thought it was obvious but when I said north intentionally ruined the hand I meant by his behavior, not because of his bid or the contract.

Yes, I disagree that this ruins the game. Honestly I'd rather a declarer do this than play it out in 3S lol, defending 3S is not what I signed up for when I bought my entry. Maybe this is a minority view, but it's not a big deal.

 

I do not think that north insulted his partner or even created a very tense environment, that's better than what happens most of the time in these situations. You would probably not bar someone even if they just started berating their partner while playing this hand, even though to me that is far worse (and very common). Most of the time they wouldn't even get penalized, even if they crossed some lines.

 

If this experience really ruins the game for you, it seems like you should pick a different game.

 

And what is this 'bridge is an emotional game'? It is? And that's an excuse anyway?

 

It is an excuse for getting emotional yes. Obviously if north always said typ and tried his best to squeeze out some tricks and nothing was ever said that would be optimal, but we make allowances for people losing their temper sometimes, or getting emotional and frustrated. We are understanding that this sometimes happens.

 

Just seems like much ado about nothing (the penalty part).

[bluejak]

It is mild compared to most things that DPs are given for, and if that is the level that a DP should be given for then there were at least five or six occasions at my table alone. In practice a fair amount of tolerance is given to players who have a momentary lapse because of anger, and it really is an unnecessarily harsh approach if every sign of anger was penalised.

 

According to our team-mate, before this occurred, his opponents had had three loud and unfriendly disagreements with each other. But despite everything a certain amount of tolerance is normal.

[bluejak]

there were a myriad of other incidents this time that were worse.

 

 

Sounds a pleasant event!

Oh, come off it, Jeremy, how many congresses have you played with no signs of anger at any time from the opponents?

[jeremy69]

Oh, come off it, Jeremy, how many congresses have you played with no signs of anger at any time from the opponents?

 

Not uncommon to hear a cross word from opponents or even our side but it is all a matter of degree. Of course you don't give everyone a DP for this and if one opponent called the other an ox I would not dream of summoning the director but if, on the other hand, he throws his cards on the table with all the restraint of a child in the middle of a terrible twos tantrum or declines after several invitations to get on with the next hand then I don't think his behaviour should be condoned. As a director I would expect you to be prepared to uphold Law 74.

At a club I play at one player harangued his partner to such an extent that the director was called (and this is not usually done). The director asked him to be quiet but was then called back about 3 boards later when another rant was heard. He again asked the player to stop but the player declined saying he" had not finished explaining to his partner why he was wrong"! He was, unsurprisingly in my view, asked to leave.

In the situation described if you allow players to throw their cards around and not bother to play then you are sending the wrong message if you don't discipline the player. You ought to give him a DP not so much for the severity of the offence but to discourage this sort of behaviour. When, in England, if you do not then, as a director, (and I appreciate that you were not on this occasion) you are sending the message that you do not approve ofor support the EBU policy on such matters which is not your entitlement whilst you act as a TD.

[barmar]

Who among us has not had partner pass us in a cue bid or splinter? It's no excuse for acting like a child. Tossing your hand in like this is the bridge equivalent of throwing a tantrum.

 

Sometimes it may be a waste of time to play out the hand, so you might just want to concede early, but should do it in a calm manner. But several times I've found myself in silly contracts, and I still found it challenging to see how well I could minimize the damage. And I presume the defenders may be seeing how well they can maximize it. It's not as much fun as playing a hand where you actually have a more realistic goal, like making your contract, but it's still bridge, not 52-Pickup.

[bluejak]

Oh, sure, and I personally find it quite fun to try a different challenge. But most people don't. The problem is that, with the best will in the world, we cannot get rid of cross words between partners, even if they should not happen, and playing contracts in cue-bids leads to cross words. :D