"Partner's keeping clubs"

[peachy]

If the round has been called, and East has the time to say: "Come on we've got to hurry up, partner's going to keep clubs"., South is playing his cards to slow.

Quite possibly. Or maybe East is just impatient.

The tactic of doing this, hoping opponents will missdiscard under time-pressure, has been seen used.

That's not evidence that this South is using it in this case.

(I've had a hard-disk crash, so I wont bother to look up which law that says you cannot play slow for no reason.)

That's good, because there isn't one.

That's not evidence that this South is using it in this case.

 

It is not evidence of the opposite either, it is just not evidence of anything. But the TD has the right to judge whether the balance of probabilities speak in favor of this declarer using that tactic. I don't know, I don't know this player's habits, and I have no access to what his/her thoughts are, and not knowing, I would not assign that motive to the slowness.

 

South has, nevertheless, contributed to the problem with undue slowness and no effort to catch up when round is already called.

[mrdct]

And that line of play depends on his partner taking a particular action. 70D2 applies.

Which is precisely why I said in my earlier post:

 

Because this claim by East depends on West finding a particular play when there are less successful alternatives (including careless and inferior plays) I believe we have to rule that West will pitch a ♣.

[blackshoe]

South has, nevertheless, contributed to the problem with undue slowness and no effort to catch up when round is already called.

Has he? Frankly, I want to hear it from him, and we haven't.

[shyams]

A. Can we ask the OP for an assessment of the standard of all players?

1. Clearly East can count and knows what is going on.

2. Normally such players play with people of equal caliber (esp. if this is a regular partnership). If yes, I would give E/W one trick regardless of what happened.

 

B. Did the TD ask the table why they were delayed for the round?

3. IMHO, as part of the investigation, the TD should check if South (or N/S) were responsible for the time over-run in this round. If they have been almost fully responsible, I would hope the TD does not even give a PP to East for trying to speed up the play.

4. If there is no clear side responsible for the delay, the TD should warn or give a PP to East -- TD's judgement

 

C. Is there any "history" between these two pairs?

5. The idea of invoking the slow play penalty would be relevant only if the TD finds that South was trying to annoy E/W in any way or there is a history between these pairs.

[barmar]

I doubt there's any reason for a slow play penalty. This sounds like a situation where declarer is running his suit hoping that a squeeze will materialize; you need to keep track of the opponents' discards and think about your discards from dummy as you're doing this.

 

If West had shown his hand to declarer and told him that he wasn't discarding the club guard, there wouldn't be a problem. The only issue is whether East can claim on the assumption his partner will do the right thing. Although he may be confident that his partner knows what he's doing, I don't think so.

 

Often I'm tempted to make claims like this, because I assume that if declarer had the key card he would have claimed already. But sometimes declarers lose track as well, and play out when they don't really need to (especially novices). Even if I'm 99% sure of the end position, I don't think it's right to make a defensive claim like this. I know I've sometimes lost attention as a defender and pitched the setting card.

 

So unless declarer was playing extremely slowly to try to lull West to sleep (a Sominex coup), I disallow the claim.

[jdonn]

South has, nevertheless, contributed to the problem with undue slowness and no effort to catch up when round is already called.

Has he? Frankly, I want to hear it from him, and we haven't.

South, did you unduly delay the game?

 

Of course not!

 

Well he says he didn't, good enough for me. :)

[gwnn]

next time I'm playing with jdonn I'll stall for three minutes then accuse him of slow play :)

[OleBerg]

This sounds like a situation where declarer is running his suit hoping that a squeeze will materialize; you need to keep track of the opponents' discards and think about your discards from dummy as you're doing this.

But it isn't.

 

South' discards from dummy are immaterial, and so is the discards from the opponents. There is nothing to the play, but drawing thrumphs, and then the ♣A and the last club.

 

If South is considering which discards from dummy are more likely to fool the opponents, he should have done so before running excess thrumphs. I will consider doing that now a violation of Law 73.D.1. You might even argue, that he should have done it at trick 1, but that would be much to harsh in my opinion. (Which, by the way, is never humble.)

 

If South admits (who would), that he paused to make the opponents belive a squeeze could be in progress, I would consider it a blatant violation of Law 73.D.2.

 

And yes, I know the the best deceptive discard from dummy may depend on what the opponents discard. But this is still the wrong place for such contemplations.

 

 

Edit: I've regretted what I wrote above. South must plan his deceptive discards before leading his last red card from the hand. After that, any cashing of winners should be in tempo.

[blackshoe]

Based on the little evidence I've seen in this thread, my guess is that South doesn't have a clue what's going on in this hand. He's just playing out his cards in the hopes that something good will happen. Or maybe he's not really thinking at all, just playing out his cards.

 

East is impatient, and has made an inappropriate comment (because he's suggesting to his partner how to play his cards).

 

So sure, let's put all the blame on South, hammer him with a slow play penalty, and a violation of the proprieties, and a general penalty for not being the best player in the room. And maybe we can think of some more reasons to penalize him. After all, it's all his fault, isn't it? :) :( :)

[OleBerg]

Based on the little evidence I've seen in this thread, my guess is that South doesn't have a clue what's going on in this hand. He's just playing out his cards in the hopes that something good will happen. Or maybe he's not really thinking at all, just playing out his cards.

No matter how incompetent South is, then not playing the cards in tempo, at that point, is a violation.

 

East is impatient, and has made an inappropriate comment (because h's suggesting to his partner how to play his cards).

Or maybe he is trying to save everybody from a slow-play penalty, because he knows what will inevitably happen.

 

So sure, let's put all the blame on South, hammer him with a slow play penalty, and a violation of the proprieties, and a general penalty for not being the best player in the room. And maybe we can think of some more reasons to penalize him. After all, it's all his fault, isn't it? :)  :(  :)

I only suggested a stern look. If South is truly incompetent, a lighthearted, easy to understand explanation will be used instead.

 

But like others have suggested, you really have to know the players involved, and be at the table asking the right questions, to be able to make a fair ruling.

[peachy]

South has, nevertheless, contributed to the problem with undue slowness and no effort to catch up when round is already called.

Has he? Frankly, I want to hear it from him, and we haven't.

And what will he say? hehe...

There is no way of knowing, whatever he will say. If he is honest, he was not trying that ploy in the first place. If he is not honest, he won't be admitting it.

I am not in any way fond of or approving of East's comment. It deserves whatever the TD decides. But maybe being at the table and knowing South's capabilities could help determine what happened. He could easily be clueless and flustered and not aware that round was called. We just don't know.

[blackshoe]

We just don't know.

No, we don't. Everybody is making assumptions, and there's a good chance those assumptions - whether or not in favor of South - are wrong. Which means the suggested rulings based on those assumptions are also probably wrong.

[bluejak]

A defender can't claim for his partner.

What Law says that?

[peachy]

We just don't know.

No, we don't. Everybody is making assumptions, and there's a good chance those assumptions - whether or not in favor of South - are wrong. Which means the suggested rulings based on those assumptions are also probably wrong.

The TD has the authority to rule even when there is no hard evidence or the facts are unclear or in dispute. The TD can assign something the status of "fact" by using his judgment and basing such judgment on the "preponderance of evidence" or, "more likely than not", and rule _as if_ it was a fact. So a ruling based on TD's reasoned judgment [which you may call "assumption" but I would not] is not wrong.

[blackshoe]

Not quite. Law 85 tells the TD that when the facts are not agreed upon by the players, he shall base a determination of fact on the preponderance of the evidence, but that if he is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he is to make a ruling "that will allow play to continue". There is also Law 83, which suggests that in a law 85 case, the TD should be particularly careful to remind players of their right to appeal.

 

It is the habit of TDs, at least here in the ACBL, to give rulings without stating what laws are germane. It seems to be the habit here, too. I think it's a bad habit, particularly here where we are supposed to be discussing the mechanics of ruling as much as what the ruling ought to be in a particular case.

[jdonn]

A defender can't claim for his partner.

What Law says that?

If you are taking me for what I obviously meant and using the slightest modicum of common sense, 70D2.

 

If you are taking me completely literally at the expense of having an actual conversation that doesn't diverge into absurdity, none.

[mrdct]

So sure, let's put all the blame on South, hammer him with a slow play penalty, and a violation of the proprieties, and a general penalty for not being the best player in the room. And maybe we can think of some more reasons to penalize him. After all, it's all his fault, isn't it? :angry:  :(  :ph34r:

I think that's really harsh, particularly the general penalty for not being the best player in the room which doesn't really have any foundation in Law.

 

I'm not sure why everyone is suggesting procedural penalties at all for either south or east. East appears to be making an honest attempt to expedite matters given that the move has already been called and south is simply exercising his basic rights to contest a potentially dodgey claim. 99% of the time it's a simple matter of having a quite word to east telling him to pull his head in a bit and similarly have a word to south asking him to be a bit more mindful of time and (if appropriate to the skill level of the parties concerned) to be a bit more accepting of obvious defensive claims.

 

In the meantime you need to make a ruling about whether or not you are going to give EW another trick which can really only be done by the director on the floor who is in a position to determine whether or not east's statement was a claim and whether or not it was at all feasible having regard to all the circumstances for west to pitch a ♣.

[mrdct]

A defender can't claim for his partner.

What Law says that?

If you are taking me for what I obviously meant and using the slightest modicum of common sense, 70D2.

 

If you are taking me completely literally at the expense of having an actual conversation that doesn't diverge into absurdity, none.

The Laws allow you to claim for your partner, but you do so at great peril as Law 70D2 will operate to force your partner to do something sub-optimal if such a play can be selected from alternative "normal" plays.

 

The moral of the story is that it is highly non-advisable, but not illegal, to make a claim for your partner unless you are absolutely sure that nothing can possibly go wrong. In defence, the only time I ever claim is when partner's remaining actions can have no bearing on the outcome.

[OleBerg]

So sure, let's put all the blame on South, hammer him with a slow play penalty, and a violation of the proprieties, and a general penalty for not being the best player in the room. And maybe we can think of some more reasons to penalize him. After all, it's all his fault, isn't it? :angry:  :(  :rolleyes:

I think that's really harsh, particularly the general penalty for not being the best player in the room which doesn't really have any foundation in Law.

 

I'm not sure why everyone is suggesting procedural penalties at all for either south or east. East appears to be making an honest attempt to expedite matters given that the move has already been called and south is simply exercising his basic rights to contest a potentially dodgey claim. 99% of the time it's a simple matter of having a quite word to east telling him to pull his head in a bit and similarly have a word to south asking him to be a bit more mindful of time and (if appropriate to the skill level of the parties concerned) to be a bit more accepting of obvious defensive claims.

 

In the meantime you need to make a ruling about whether or not you are going to give EW another trick which can really only be done by the director on the floor who is in a position to determine whether or not east's statement was a claim and whether or not it was at all feasible having regard to all the circumstances for west to pitch a ♣.

+1

[dan_ehh]

Completely agree with mrdct's first post. Especially the part about robbing declarer of the chance to squeeze west's memory.

If we give EW this trick it is incentive for strong players to claim prematurely in order to avoid the chance of misdefense by their not-so-strong partners.

[VixTD]

I've edited the original post to correct a minor error in the description of the play, which explains where South's other club went. It doesn't change the general principle of the ruling.

 

East is a very good player, the best player at the table. West is also good, regularly plays for the county first team. EW, particularly East, have a tendency to protracted thinking, and had already lost a board on an earlier round to slow play. South, despite his play to trick one, is also a good and experienced tournament player.

 

I was the playing director, and overheard raised voices from this table, including South calling East or East's actions "most unethical" and East saying in frustration "OK, you can have the trick then", before I was called.

 

I calmed them down and did my best to establish what had happened, without looking at the hand, which I had yet to play. I said I would look at the hand afterwards and give a ruling.

 

I think East was genuinely trying to speed up play when he made his comment, and was not trying to influence his partner. I think he is used to playing in more expert circles where his claim would be readily accepted. I thought it very likely that West would keep his clubs, but still, it doesn't seem right to allow East to make sure he gets the defence right.

 

As mrdct says, East's comments obviously constitute a claim, and law 70D2 says that his claim that West will keep clubs cannot be accepted if there are alternative normal (including careless and irrational) plays.

 

West said that he knew which cards to keep. He knows South has ♣A from the play at trick one, and knows his partner has ♥K as that would give South too much for his pre-emptive opening. He also has a count on the heart suit from partner's spot card.

 

I thought it was a close decision, but in the end I decided that for West to discard a club was "careless or inferior" rather than abnormal, and I awarded declarer the remaining tricks. I could not argue with a director who gave EW a further trick. Even good players make bad mistakes sometimes, and where West's actions are based on partner's signals and assumptions about what declarer would do there seems to be some room for doubt.

 

[bluejak]QUOTE (jdonn @ Jul 30 2010, 06:25 PM)

A defender can't claim for his partner.

 

What Law says that?

Isn't this the wrong question? I thought the principle was that anything not sanctioned by the laws is not permitted. The fact that there's a law which tells you what to do if a defender claims for partner does not mean that it is allowed, any more than the existence of law 27 gives players permission to make insufficient bids.

[RMB1]

On the topic of whether a defender "can claim for his partner".

 

Nothing in the laws suggests any claim is an offence: unlike law 27, where there are earlier laws requiring bids be sufficient.

 

If play had continued for two more tricks so that South and West had two clubs each, then for East to claim "West will make a club" is accurate and proper.

[VixTD]

What Robin says is true, of course, and I was not suggesting that claiming for partner in all cases constitutes an offence. Where West is left with ♣107 sitting over declarer's A9 it would clearly be abnormal (irrational, worse than just careless or inferior) for West to throw the ten under the ace, and I wouldn't expect anyone to argue with the claim.

 

In the actual case West has a decision to make, albeit one that he should get right. While I accept in this instance that East was acting with good intentions, he is in a situation where claiming could prevent partner from making an error.

 

The more I think about it, the happier I am with my ruling.

[bluejak]

[bluejak]QUOTE (jdonn @ Jul 30 2010, 06:25 PM)

A defender can't claim for his partner.

 

What Law says that?

Isn't this the wrong question? I thought the principle was that anything not sanctioned by the laws is not permitted. The fact that there's a law which tells you what to do if a defender claims for partner does not mean that it is allowed, any more than the existence of law 27 gives players permission to make insufficient bids.

No Law says you may claim. To say you may not claim for partner because no Law says you may means you may never make a claim of any sort.

 

Furthermore, I do not agree with the principle you mention. Nothing in the Laws allows you to hold your cards in your left hand. That does not mean you are not allowed to.

 

I asked the question because it seems so obvious to me that a player can claim for his partner and I had no idea why jdonn said otherwise, and his reply did not help, producing no argument of any sort.

 

mrdct's post on Aug 2 2010, 08:00 AM, covered anything else needed to say on the subject so I was not going to post again until the above post. But I think we must be clear: the Laws do not tell you that you may claim or when you may claim: we allow anyone to claim except dummy [Law 43A1C] at any time.

[MBV53]

looking at Heart Q in dummy[still king is out,mostly with east] keeping H Jx is not of Right choice. so discarding hearts is Right assumption, East gets is Club Trick ,same time 3 imp PP is mandatory for EW.

MBVSubrahmanyam. India.