claim without clarification and play continued!

[m234299]

At the weekend, we were playing in an inter-club county competition in Manchester, England when my partner made a claim for the rest of the tricks with 3 cards left but did not provide a clarification as there was only one line of play for the rest of the tricks and the room was full of experts. Unfortunately our opponents were not experts and wanted to play on to check the validity of the claim. I know that play should have ceased when partner claimed but we were trying to help opponents understand why the claim was obvious and director was busy attempting to rectify problems with 2 boards that had identical hands. The trick was played round to my partner who made a clear error in not ruffing to win the trick and instead throwing a winner - he stated "I knew exactly what I was planning to do, but, in the confusion caused by opponents, etc. I simply pulled out the wrong card.". Too late - we called director.

 

Director ruled that play ceased when partner made the claim and that partner did not provide a clarification statement. He also ruled that the law about played cards applied in the subsequent play and that this was evidence of an alternative line even though it was not an alternative natural line.

 

We lost 12 IMPS on the board and although it did not make any difference to the result of the competition, I would still like to know whether this ruling was correct or not and which law was actually applicable in this case.

 

Lesson learnt, my partner has promised not to be so careless in future and to always provide a clarification statement even when there is only one line.

[RMB1]

Hi, welcome.

 

The ruling sounds legal - based on Law 70D3.

In accordance with Law 68D play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The Director may accept it as evidence of the players’ probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim.

Whether the ruling is right depends on the actual cards and play.

[joostb1]

Hi, welcome.

 

The ruling sounds legal - based on Law 70D3.

 

Whether the ruling is right depends on the actual cards and play.

The explanation should be very, very convincing before I would decide otherwise, like "someone tried to strangle me and threw a cup of hot tea over me at the same time, so I was a wee bit distracted".

[m234299]

The actual cards were equivalent to declarer having ♥AK and a trump with no trumps left. He simply played the ♥K instead of the obvious ruff of the return in the subsequent play. As he said, he accidently took out the wrong card from hand and wished to correct his error but director said that he was deemed to have played the ♥K based on law 45.

[bluejak]

First, my apologies for not being there. I was asked to direct that competition but was playing in an event in Alkmaar [no rulings there at our table!].

 

These are judgement matters. If the TD is convinced that claimer was going to get it right he can legally give claimer all his tricks despite his mistake when playing on to clarify. But he would have to be very sure rather than rule the obvious way, namely if he can lose it playing it out he can lose it! :lol:

[m234299]

My partner had claimed for the rest of the tricks and play had continued, he inadvertently failed to ruff the first trick to win the trick - this was clearly an irrational play. It was obvious at the table that he thought that he had won it and was about to play the next trick when we called director as we all had seen what had happened - our opponents would have confirmed this. My partner wanted to correct his obvious error but we thought that law 45 still applied. I don't see how this could have been used as evidence of what would have happened if the claim had not been made as it was an inadvertent play, an accident, and the likelihood of an accident reoccurring in different circumstances is very unlikely. Director has now confirmed that he did not give his ruling based on law 45 as I thought that he had and he may not have had all the facts to have made a proper judgement.

[geofspa]

If I may enter my two penny worth

 

Whenever a claim is made the line of play MUST be explained immediately even if it is obvious to all, this then can be explained to the TD if there is a dispute.

 

All too often online I see claims made without any explanation - sheer lazyness.

[bluejak]

While it is true that claims should be accompanied by a statement it is a fact that claims are often not, and then we have to deal with them. There are lots of other rules that are often not followed - like putting a green card out for the final pass of an auction. Yes, no doubt people should, but as people administering the Laws [or showing interest in how to] we have to deal with the many people who do not.

 

Of course I always accompany my claims with a statement [except when I don't :( ] and put out the final pass [except when I don't :unsure:].

[paulg]

These are judgement matters. If the TD is convinced that claimer was going to get it right he can legally give claimer all his tricks despite his mistake when playing on to clarify. But he would have to be very sure rather than rule the obvious way, namely if he can lose it playing it out he can lose it! :lol:

It would help if OP's partner were named Gunnar.

[lamford]

First, my apologies for not being there. I was asked to direct that competition but was playing in an event in Alkmaar [no rulings there at our table!].

 

These are judgement matters. If the TD is convinced that claimer was going to get it right he can legally give claimer all his tricks despite his mistake when playing on to clarify. But he would have to be very sure rather than rule the obvious way, namely if he can lose it playing it out he can lose it! :lol:

The law states "if any play has occurred after the claim this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim" (my emphasis). I see nothing in this which stops the TD from assessing "normal play" and "adjudicating the result as equitably as possible". After any claim, the declarer may pull the wrong card, or may do something ridiculous. But if this is worse than careless, he is assumed not to do it, even if he did. In the example where declarer had, presumably, AK of a side suit and a trump, with no other trumps out, and he claims, the line of discarding the side suit would be worse than careless, all other things being equal. It would be wrong of the TD, but maybe legal, to rule other than the remainder. So your "obvious" way is not the way I believe the TD should rule; and he does not need to form a view of whether the claimer was going to get it right - he only has to establish normal play for this class of player.

[campboy]

It would help if OP's partner were named Gunnar.

That one was before law 70D3 existed, though, so maybe it wouldn't any more.

[RMB1]

That one was before law 70D3 existed, though, so maybe it wouldn't any more.

We strongly suspect that Gunnar Hallberg's "He claimed it on a double squeeze" is the main motivation for Law 70D3.

[iviehoff]

We strongly suspect that Gunnar Hallberg's "He claimed it on a double squeeze" is the main motivation for Law 70D3.

Here is some more detailed info on the appeal on Hallberg's claim on a double squeeze.

http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/Appeals/2000WBOMaastrict.pdf (Appeal number 16) and some commentry

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.games.bridge/2007-05/msg00823.html.

 

Rather similar to the present case in that declarer, invited to play it out, played on and messed it up. But on appeal the play after the claim was cancelled and his claim was adjudicated as good. As Robin says, 70D3 didn't exist then, and probably that appeal would fail under the new law. (There are other reasons referred to in the discussion in the link above that suggest why that appeal perhaps should have failed, but they are not relevant to the present case.) Extraordinary that both pairs in a top-level international match said that they were unaware that all play had to cease after a claim.

 

I can't imagine many players would think it necessary to give a line of play when claiming holding the last trump and two high cards, though probably, when playing against weaker players, it would be wise to spell it out. I can't imagine many players who would contest such a claim. I can't imagine many directors who would entertain any result other than 3 tricks if that claim was adjudicated. Why upon earth the player, upon being queried, didn't just say "look I've got the last trump and two high cards".

 

Since I would certainly have given the claimant his 3 tricks if he hadn't played on, I would be very tempted to give the claimant his 3 tricks anyway, but I suppose by 70D3 I can't. When you claim, you are given the privilege of it being assumed that you won't make irrational plays, when in playing it out there is always the risk that you might. In fact, it is a privilege to a claimant who states in complete detail what the line of play is, that he would actually succeed in doing that if he played it out, because there is always a risk that your hand picks out the wrong card even when you know what you want to play. But to obtain these privileges, I suppose you have to stick to the law.

[blackshoe]

70D3 does not say the TD can't rule the claim is good, it says he may (i.e., is permitted to, but not required to) consider any play after the claim in adjudicating the claim. Give this declarer his three tricks.

[barmar]

Basically, this comes down to whether the player can convince the TD that this was purely a mechanical error, not a brain fart that may have been brought on by the confusion from the opponents disputing the claim. I believe that when the law says that normal play may include "careless or inferior", it's referring to slips of the mind, not slips of the fingers.

 

On the other hand, if we didn't have claims in the first place, and all hands had to be played out, there's no law that allows a card to be retracted just because it was played due to a mechanical error (there may be other reasons to retract it, such as it being a LOOT or revoke -- but these generally carry other rectifications).

[bluejak]

While that is true, a card that is designated may be retracted if it is a mechanical error. So your comparison might be considered flawed by comparing with the wrong thing. Basically plays made cannot be changed, plays designated can. Now a claim is a designated play.