Claim in a grand slam

[Trinidad]

What started this was my assertion that in one particular case where a player did not do what he "should" do, he should might get a PP. That is a judgment call. You may disagree with that judgment, but don't try to tell me the TD can't give a PP for it, or that it is not an infraction of law.

That was indeed your assertion, but I corrected it with what I consider correct practice.

 

Rik

You are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. You are not entitled to change my words to fit your opinion.

 

I would think that I made it pretty clear what your statement was and what my opinion was. I have full confidence in the reading capabilities of the forum members. They will be able to see that you wrote that if a player did not do what he should do, he should get a PP. Meanwhile I state that if a player doesn't do what he should, he might get a PP.

 

I apologise if that offended you.

 

To be sure that everyone really understands what you wrote and what I meant, I summarised it as follows:

 

Failing to do what must be done: Should lead to PP (Rik)

Failing to do what should be done: Should lead to PP (Blackshoe)

Failing to do what should be done: Might lead to PP (Rik)

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

No. Failing to do what should be done, in this particular case, should lead to a PP.

[Bridge Cop]

IMO Law 70A should frame this discussion.

 

In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides…

 

In this case, declarer believes (falsely) that his thirteenth trick will come from hearts, and not (as has been insinuated in this forum) that he is cheating (a troublesome accusation). The question is: How would declarer likely have played this hand?

 

A Director, far better than I, has been quoted as saying:

 

Some cards are inherently high due to their rank. Lesser cards may gain status by virtue of being the last remaining in the suit. The important point to recognize is: There is a difference between a card being good because of its rank, and one being good by virtue of being the last remaining.

 

Most Declarers (even bad ones) recognize this difference, and treat these cards, and the situations involving them, differently. Declarers seek to establish long suits, not to cash random honors before those suits have been established. To do otherwise, goes beyond that which is careless or inferior. It would be irrational for declarer to adopt a line of play which requires him to cash two aces before attempting to establish hearts.

 

L70E

The Director shall not accept any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

 

Since, on this deal, Declarer can only go astray by first cashing both aces and then the K and A of Hearts, there are no doubtful points to be resolved in favor of the non-claiming side. The Director should assign the result of 7NT just in (just barely in).

 

I suppose that one might attempt to abuse this, allowing the Directors judgment to rule on the tougher deals. Ill set aside the foolishness of such a ploy, and say that if a Director suspects such an action, it is a case not for a procedural penalty, but for a Conduct Committee.

[Bridge Cop]

I find the subject of issuing procedural penalties for honest mistakes, really quite troubling. Procedural penalties should be reserved for serious and wanton disregard of law or regulation, or willful disregard of the Director’s instructions.

 

Scope of the Laws

The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage.

 

I have difficulty reconciling the above quote with many of the opinions voiced in this forum regarding procedural penalties. In particular, I object to the concept that one should penalize a contestant for perceived damage. This claim is such a case. The opponents were neither inconvenienced nor damaged. The claimer did not willfully deviate from correct procedure. He thought he counted 13 tricks, and claimed. He made an error that any one of us could have made, an irregularity which the Laws of Duplicate Bridge address.

 

Of even greater concern to me, is the misinterpretation of Law 46. Law 46A does require a contestant to state both suit and rank, and then attempts to define common vernacular which may be used to do so (46B). It is not an irregularity if a contestant calls “low” or words of like meaning. All laws, not merely those which govern Bridge, are modified by the common usage of the communities they are intended to govern. Every Bridge Player on the planet understands the meaning of “low” or “high”. Use of these terms is not subject to penalty because it is not a deviation from correct procedure.

 

Finally, before issuing a procedural penalty, I strongly urge Directors to take into account that these penalties are subject to appeal. There seems little point to issuing a penalty which has little or no chance of being upheld by a committee. Issuing frivolous penalties diminishes a Director’s credibility with participants, committee members, and colleagues alike.

[blackshoe]

People frequently deviate from correct procedure when claiming, in that they fail to comply with Law 68C:

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

Do they deviate in this way "willfully"? Well, the word means "intentionally" or "deliberately". I submit that while perhaps the first few times they don't do it "willfully", once they've got away with it those times, it is deliberate to continue doing it. And I wouldn't call issuing a PP for it "frivolous" — unless you're of the school of thought of some of the directors around here, one of whom has said on more than one occasion that she would never issue a PP, for any reason. Frankly, I think she's blowing smoke, and if somebody pissed her off enough, she'd issue a PP, whether a committee might overturn it or not, whether others might consider it frivolous or not, and damn the consequences. And notwithstanding that being pissed off is the wrong reason for issuing a PP.

 

The guidance the laws give for issuance of PPs boils down to {1} when the law says "must do", this is "a serious matter indeed" and ought, IMO, to incur a PP almost for almost every infraction, when the law says "shall do" a PP should be issued "more often than not", and when it says "should" do, PPs should not be issued often, but there is no guidance that says "never", {2} a PP may be issued for any violation of correct procedure, {3} whether to issue a PP is completely a matter for the TD's discretion.

 

I note that "primarily designed" does not preclude "punishment".

 

Now if the general rule is to be "screw what the law says, if 'everybody' does it, we're not going to say anything", then why do we have a law book at all?

[AlexJonson]

People frequently deviate from correct procedure when claiming, in that they fail to comply with Law 68C:

Do they deviate in this way "willfully"? Well, the word means "intentionally" or "deliberately". I submit that while perhaps the first few times they don't do it "willfully", once they've got away with it those times, it is deliberate to continue doing it. And I wouldn't call issuing a PP for it "frivolous" — unless you're of the school of thought of some of the directors around here, one of whom has said on more than one occasion that she would never issue a PP, for any reason. Frankly, I think she's blowing smoke, and if somebody pissed her off enough, she'd issue a PP, whether a committee might overturn it or not, whether others might consider it frivolous or not, and damn the consequences. And notwithstanding that being pissed off is the wrong reason for issuing a PP.

 

The guidance the laws give for issuance of PPs boils down to {1} when the law says "must do", this is "a serious matter indeed" and ought, IMO, to incur a PP almost for almost every infraction, when the law says "shall do" a PP should be issued "more often than not", and when it says "should" do, PPs should not be issued often, but there is no guidance that says "never", {2} a PP may be issued for any violation of correct procedure, {3} whether to issue a PP is completely a matter for the TD's discretion.

 

I note that "primarily designed" does not preclude "punishment".

 

Now if the general rule is to be "screw what the law says, if 'everybody' does it, we're not going to say anything", then why do we have a law book at all?

 

I sort of agree with you, and even sort of agree with dburn and by implication others.

 

I wonder why the equitable clause is there.

 

I have never understood why we bother to allow claims by law, when poor players never make them, middle players get them wrong, and top players ignore the law.

[Trinidad]

No. Failing to do what should be done, in this particular case, should lead to a PP.

All right, it wasn't clear to me where you were talking in general and about this particular case.

 

If I understand you correctly, in general, a TD will not give a PP when a player doesn't do what he should do. But in this particular case, declarer deserves a PP because he didn't give a claim statement. Then we agree about that.

 

I don't see why you would give declarer a PP in this particular case.

 

There is little time on the clock. Declarer has 13 obvious top tricks. He claims 13 tricks. He does exactly what he is supposed to do according to the Laws (74B4) except that he technically should have indicated in which order he is going to cash these 13 tricks. (I have never seen anybody do that with 13 top tricks.)

 

Then comes the big OOPS!: There are only 12 top tricks.

 

If you think that declarer was trying to bamboozle the opponents, you are entirely right in giving a PP. (I actually think that a PP hardly does justice to players who knowingly try to steal tricks that they are not entitled to, but ok.) But what makes you think that declarer was trying to do some bamboozling rather than just count wrong in the heat of the moment?

 

I don't think Gerben implied that declarer was bamboozling opponents. I think he posted the deal here, because it is still an interesting question whether you award declarer 13 tricks, despite the fact that he miscounted. My answer to that: Down 1, but it is close and I can understand people who want to award 13 tricks.

 

But I can't understand a TD who assumes a player is trying to steal a trick that he is not entitled to, rather than a simple error. Someone on the forums used to have something about that in his signature: "Do not attribute to malforethought what can be attributed to stupidity." I think that applies here. Actually, given the time pressure, it isn't even that stupid.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

If I remember correctly, what I originally said was that I would rule one down, with no PP. Then people started arguing that claimer should be given his claim, and I said that I was not convinced (I'm still not) but if I became convinced to give him his claim, I would issue a PP.

 

Look at it this way: the wording of the discussion of "should" in the introduction to the laws suggests that there are circumstances in which giving a PP for not doing what one "should" do is appropriate (albeit, I grant you, rare). So there must be some circumstance in which giving a PP for failure to provide a clear line of play is appropriate. Where's the line?

[Trinidad]

If I remember correctly, what I originally said was that I would rule one down, with no PP. Then people started arguing that claimer should be given his claim, and I said that I was not convinced (I'm still not) but if I became convinced to give him his claim, I would issue a PP.

 

Look at it this way: the wording of the discussion of "should" in the introduction to the laws suggests that there are circumstances in which giving a PP for not doing what one "should" do is appropriate (albeit, I grant you, rare). So there must be some circumstance in which giving a PP for failure to provide a clear line of play is appropriate. Where's the line?

There is no line, so yes, that is an infraction. But it is pretty clear (to me at least) that declarer didn't state a line because it was blatantly obvious that it hardly mattered in which order he would take his 13 top tricks. As long as he kept communications and didn't throw winners he had 13 tricks. Anyone can see that... except that there were only 12 tricks.

 

Since this is an infraction of the "should" category, the TD will normally not give a PP. But, of course, there may be particular reasons why a TD would give a PP for not stating a line when claiming. One reason that comes to mind is that the offender frequently claims without stating a line, leading to a delay of the game and all that and that he was warned the last time that he should state a line.

 

But in this case I cannot see any such reason.

 

What I really don't understand is your either/or reasoning: Either I won't give him his claim (and ignore the fact that he didn't state a line) or I will give him his claim, but then he will get a PP.

 

How can your ruling on the PP (for not giving a claim statement) depend on your ruling on the claim (are there 13 tricks or not)? In both cases there were identical infractions: There was no stated line of play. These identical infractions should be treated identically: Either a PP or no PP, but the number of tricks that you give to declarer in the claim ruling shouldnt can't logically have any influence on the PP for the missing claim statement.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Okay, you're right, Rik. I fell into the trap I mentioned earlier - I let the situation annoy me. OTOH, while this player may have, just this once, forgot to state a line, I'll bet money he rarely states one, and if he does, it's probably flawed. But okay, no PP in MPs or IMPs. But he's getting a serious warning, whether I adjust or not. And if, after the warning, he does it again, he gets a PP, "should" or no "should". I don't tell people "next time you'll get a PP" and then not give it.

[dburn]

I suppose I ought not to be troubled by the line of reasoning that awards a PP only when the alleged offender is not getting an adverse ruling, but it troubles me nonetheless.

 

Either an act is an offence against correct procedure so heinous as to be worthy of a penalty, or it isn't. If the former, then the PP should be applied regardless of the adjustment; if not, there is no PP to apply.

 

And yet, I would say that 99% of Directors and ACs have at some point given a ruling like this: "no adjustment, but North-South to be fined 3 IMPs for not alerting / not having properly completed CCs / giving MI / not accompanying a claim with a well-formed statement / wearing brown shoes with black trousers [delete whichever does not apply]." If on the other hand the ruling had been "score adjusted from NS +2210 to NS -100", then there is never any thought of deducting an additional 3 IMPs from their score for whichever of the above list does apply.

 

This is illogical, inequitable, arbitrary and wrong. Perhaps that is why it seems to be so firmly entrenched in the administration of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

[Trinidad]

Why is it that David can write what I mean so much better than I can?

 

Rik

[Gerben42]

I didn't imply anything with this post, I thought it was an interesting case. Additionally, the AC ruled appeal without merit, which seems odd given that we're on page 5 of the discussion.

 

I don't get a ruling of +2210, but 3 IMPs penalty. Either the claim is acceptable then +2210, or not then -100.

[Bbradley62]

I don't get a ruling of +2210, but 3 IMPs penalty. Either the claim is acceptable then +2210, or not then -100.

This ruling would say: Yes, if we examine the hands long enough, and take the time to mentally play out the various options, we come to the conclusion that 7N would make. However, declarer is required to make a line-of-play statement when he claims that is clear enough to make it unnecessary for others to invest this time and effort. The PP is for failing to meet that requirement. The point of a claim is to save time, not to make others spend extra time determining whether or not the claim was valid.

[blackshoe]

Hm. I would say the point is to save the players time. Granted it takes some of the players' time to call the TD and explain the situation, the TD's considerations need not take any time away from the players. I don't think we should worry if the TD has to spend some time thinking (or consulting) about a ruling.

[RMB1]

I didn't imply anything with this post, I thought it was an interesting case. Additionally, the AC ruled appeal without merit, which seems odd given that we're on page 5 of the discussion.

 

I guess in those 5 pages, I missed the actually ruling at the table.

[blackshoe]

No you didn't, Robin. Gerben's last post was the first mention that there was a table ruling, and the first that there was an appeal. I make no comment on either, since we aren't told anything about either.

[blackshoe]

Rik, when I asked "where's the line?" earlier, I meant "where do we draw the line between giving or not giving a PP in cases where a player has not done something he 'should' do?" I gather the answer is "when, after a first offense for which the player received a warning, he commits the same offense again". :unsure:

[Jeremy69A]

I don't get a ruling of +2210, but 3 IMPs penalty. Either the claim is acceptable then +2210, or not then -100.

 

Couldn't agree more. Too often appeal committee's use it as a "We had to rule in your favour but just to show we don't think mnuch of it we are going to hit you with a fine"

[blackshoe]

Fair enough, but "This is the fourth time in the last six months we've had a committee in reference to a claim by you in which you failed to state a line of play. You were told the last three times that a line of play is required. Since you saw fit to ignore that, we're issuing a PP for failure to comply with Law 68C" would surely be legitimate.

[Bbradley62]

I didn't imply anything with this post, I thought it was an interesting case. Additionally, the AC ruled appeal without merit, which seems odd given that we're on page 5 of the discussion.

 

I don't get a ruling of +2210, but 3 IMPs penalty. Either the claim is acceptable then +2210, or not then -100.

So, what was the Director's ruling? But, I agree that any case that we argue about this much should not be an awm.

[bluejak]

In this case, declarer believes (falsely) that his thirteenth trick will come from hearts, and not (as has been insinuated in this forum) that he is cheating (a troublesome accusation).

I am not aware of posts in this thread that suggested this.

 

Since, on this deal, Declarer can only go astray by first cashing both aces and then the K and A of Hearts, there are no doubtful points to be resolved in favor of the non-claiming side. The Director should assign the result of “7NT just in” (just barely in).

That is a perfectly normal line for someone who thinks he has 13 top tricks, so I rule one off.

 

I find the subject of issuing procedural penalties for honest mistakes, really quite troubling. Procedural penalties should be reserved for serious and wanton disregard of law or regulation, or willful disregard of the Director’s instructions.

Why? The Law says one should penalise for inconveniencing other contestants. Players that do so repeatedly by being casual, even with no intent whatever, should be penalised.

 

Of even greater concern to me, is the misinterpretation of Law 46. Law 46A does require a contestant to state both suit and rank, and then attempts to define common vernacular which may be used to do so (46B). It is not an irregularity if a contestant calls “low” or words of like meaning. All laws, not merely those which govern Bridge, are modified by the common usage of the communities they are intended to govern. Every Bridge Player on the planet understands the meaning of “low” or “high”. Use of these terms is not subject to penalty because it is not a deviation from correct procedure.

It certainly is a deviation from correct procedure, since the correct procedure is unambiguously given as naming a suit and a rank. Of course, since it does not inconvenience other players, it would be remarkably rare for it to be penalised, and there would no doubt be some special factors. But while it should not normally be penalised that does not mean it is not an infraction.

 

Finally, before issuing a procedural penalty, I strongly urge Directors to take into account that these penalties are subject to appeal. There seems little point to issuing a penalty which has little or no chance of being upheld by a committee. Issuing frivolous penalties diminishes a Director’s credibility with participants, committee members, and colleagues alike.

While I do not suggest frivolous penalties should be issued, TDs should not worry about ACs. They should do as they think fit. In principle, it is very rare to think of a situation where an AC should over-rule a TD on the issuing of a PP unless they believe the TD's bridge judgement was wrong.

[bluejak]

While it may be theoretically indefensible to give PPs only when there is no adjustment I believe it to be reasonable and practical. What is the purpose of PPs? It is to try to stop infractions occurring. When a player gets an adjustment against him he realises there is a disadvantage in not filling his SC in correctly/alerting correctly/giving a line with a claim/showing his hand while claiming/wearing brown trousers or whatever. But he does not realise there is a disadvantage in so doing when there is no adjustment unless there is a PP.

[Gerben42]

Sorry, the director's ruling was +2210. Then the NOS appealed and was awarded an AWM. Needless to say, some VP were at stake here.

[lamford]

Sorry, the director's ruling was +2210. Then the NOS appealed and was awarded an AWM. Needless to say, some VP were at stake here.

If the facts are as presented, I find that hard to believe; it would certainly be one of the worst decisions I have ever seen.