Forked Tongue

[lamford]

was intended as bad humor

There is no need to make a special effort

[aguahombre]

There is no need to make a special effort

true..Apparently the ruling was equal to my humor

[axman]

Claimer could have done a better job in his claim statement, or could have delayed his claim until the picture was clearer. However, that he didn't do those things is not in itself reason to rule against him. Once we allow him to correct his (rather obvious it seems to me) original misstatement regarding the minor suits, we have to look at how the play would have gone according to the stated line. I don't think it's reasonable to rule he would not recognize, when the ♣J falls, that his ten is good. So the clubs "break" in the sense that he gets four club tricks, and if he gets four club tricks, his line indicates he will get all the tricks. That's how the TD should rule, and if the Secretary Bird doesn't like it, tough.

 

It is extremely important that rulings be made in accordance with law. This is distinct from making them for or against some player. As to the former, by doing so the conditions of contest might be fulfilled; as to the latter, there is the suggestion that the conditions of contest are not fulfilled such as by ruling by principles that are in conflict with law or by ignoring facts or changing the facts.

 

As to matters that are irrelevant I will point out one or two things. For instance there has been some issue made [irrelevant] as to things claimer would surely have done had he played it out. And I draw attention to one of those things in particular. When declarer made his spurious second claim he claimed ‘if the clubs don’t break…’ -what he claimed was that he would not notice the CJ, only whether the defenders would follow to clubs. To wit, he could have said ‘if the CJ falls’ or ‘if the CJ does not fall in three rounds’ but he said something with quite a different meaning.

 

In other words, the second claim can hardly be 'a correction' as it indeed suffered from its own fatal error. Which is to say that the claim requires the D hook once clubs don’t break.

[blackshoe]

Where in the laws does it say we are to assume that a player who makes a flawed claim is blind, dumb, and stupid?

[phil_20686]

Unsportsmanlike? How so?

 

Its unsportsmanlike like because it is an attempt to exploit the rules for personal gain. Similar to the way diving in football takes advantage of the fact that referees are fallible. It is 100% clear how he intended to play the hand, it is not a difficult hand, nor is there any choices even remotely close to the normal line. Since poor players virtually never claim, that alone is evidence enough that he will play this hand correctly.

 

In every sport, the laws are designed to catch deliberate cheats, and there are many ways the claim process could be abused, which is why the laws are the way they are. Thus there are many cases in every sport where there are actions which are technically legal, but against the spirit of the game. There was a good example in cricket recently, with ian bell's controversial run out.

 

Similarly, the level of behaviour which is acceptable at the Bermuda bowl, is not the same as that which is expected in a club game or minor tournament. At the highest level it is acceptable to expect total knowledge and total compliance with rules that are often obtuse. When the old granny revokes against you in the club, you should let her pick it up and play the card she meant to. I would think less of anyone who exploits a revoke in those scenarios to gain extra points. When it is your (expert) friend down the pub on the other hand it is perfectly acceptable to use it to bring home your no play slam. In a top level game, I am ambivalent. My own preference even then would be to tell them to pick it up, as its not the way you ever want to win, and frankly it just makes the bridge world a slightly nicer place. OTOH, I would fault teammates for applying the rules in a the BB.

 

A similar point could be made about the colour coup:

In the club vs grannies with failing eyesiht: Unethical.

In the pub with your mates: Comic.

In a high level tournament: Acceptable technique.

 

If, in a local club game, my partner had attempted to dispute a claim like this, I would certainly have had a few choice words for him. All of which would have violated BB@B.

[lamford]

There was a good example in cricket recently, with ian bell's controversial run out.

Quite a number of experts thought that India did absolutely nothing wrong nor did they act against the spirit of the game here, and it was a blunder by Bell. The despicable behaviour was the English captaincy going into the Indian dressing room to persuade them to withdraw the appeal.

 

And I think your view of the way bridge should be played is wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion. In general, the same rules should be enforced for all and this makes the game better for everyone. Patronising weak players by "letting them off a revoke" is counterproductive.

[lamford]

Since poor players virtually never claim, that alone is evidence enough that he will play this hand correctly.

I am sure Doctor Watson will be impressed if you explain that remarkable conclusion.

[lamford]

A similar point could be made about the colour coup:

In the club vs grannies with failing eyesiht: Unethical.

Presumably this should be moved to Changing Laws and Regulations, as you seem to be advocating that 44D be extended:

 

D. Inability to Follow Suit

If unable to follow suit, a player may play any card (unless he is subject to

restriction after an irregularity committed by his side). However, if the opponent is a grandmother, you are obliged to play a card of the opposite colour to the suit led.

[phil_20686]

Presumably this should be moved to Changing Laws and Regulations, as you are advocating that 44D be extended:

 

D. Inability to Follow Suit

If unable to follow suit, a player may play any card (unless he is subject to

restriction after an irregularity committed by his side). However, if the opponent is a grandmother, you are obliged to play a card of the opposite colour to the suit led.

 

(1) I am not sure you really know what a colour coup is.

(2) Perhaps I am suggesting that their is a wide gulf between legal behaviour and acceptable behaviour.

 

 

FYI: A colour coup is when you cash a long suit rapidly, and when you get near the end you "cash" a card of the same colour, with the intention of generating a revoke. It works best if you have a series of pips. If your heart suit is AKQ98652 and your diamond suit is 53, then if you cash 6 hearts quickly and then play the 5 of diamonds, the defence might easily assume you were cashing out your hearts, especially since the 5 is the "correct" pip. It works best against those players just good enough to plan their discards.

[phil_20686]

Quite a number of experts thought that India did absolutely nothing wrong nor did they act against the spirit of the game here, and it was a blunder by Bell. The despicable behaviour was the English captaincy going into the Indian dressing room to persuade them to withdraw the appeal.

 

And I think your view of the way bridge should be played is wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion. In general, the same rules should be enforced for all and this makes the game better for everyone. Patronising weak players by "letting them off a revoke" is counterproductive.

 

In cricket the opposition captain is entitled to ask his opposite number to withdraw any appeal, so if you think India were acting within the rules, you must admit that so did the English. Since you seem to think that the spirit of the game is synonymous with the rules of the game.

 

Revokes were a carefully chosen example, as they happen to strong players (almost) as much as weak players. My example was careful to point out that it is more about the context of revoke (the competition), not the strength of the player in question.

 

Claiming that one should enforce the same rules on everyone is missing the point: I am enforcing the same rules, Its the response to a transgression that should be context dependent. A fairly normal principle in legal circuits - that is why we have judges who can give out different punishments for the same crime.

[phil_20686]

I am sure Doctor Watson will be impressed if you explain that remarkable conclusion.

 

Its not a conclusion, its an observation. Players poor enough to get this hand wrong are the ones who slowly cash their winners, even when they have nothing but winners in their own hand.

[barmar]

Since poor players virtually never claim, that alone is evidence enough that he will play this hand correctly.

More to the point, if poor players claim, they don't do so until they're down to all top tricks. They never make conditional claims, or claims like "knocking out the spade ace, then I have the rest". Only more advanced players make claims like "Making 5 or 4 depending on whether the spade finesse wins."

 

But can we really use this inference to resolve poorly stated claim issues? It's kind of weird, because it suggests that anyone who makes a claim that needs to be adjudicated is good enough that they can be presumed to have meant the more correct thing to say. But if they're that good, why didn't they just state it correctly in the first place? Why presume they're more careful in play than in statements?

[Vampyr]

Why presume they're more careful in play than in statements?

 

 

No reason, but in this case playing on diamonds and hoping for them to "break" is bizarre, if not impossible.

[barmar]

No reason, but in this case playing on diamonds and hoping for them to "break" is bizarre, if not impossible.

I wasn't suggesting that we hold them to the obvious slip of the tongue, but whether we interpret "break" liberally.

[mrdct]

All suits break in my experience. Some break poorly, some break well, some break evenly, some break unevenly and some break miraculously.

 

The claimer just said "break", he didn't say "break evenly". Absent the qualifier "evenly", I think it's reasonable to interpret "break" as meaning "break favourably" and the ♣J coming down doubleton is most certainly a favourable break on this hand.

 

The TD in this case needs to follow the steps in Law 70, including adjudicating as equitably as he can, and assuming he determines that the claimer was just having a bout of dyslexia and misspoke ♣ and ♦ the claim statement can quite reasonably be interpreted as "if clubs don't come home for four tricks, I'll fall back on the diamond finesse". The TD is obliged to hear the opponents' objection to the claim, but is allowed to consider other factors. In this case I think the opponents' objections strengthen the claimer's position as the opponents through suggesting a result of one down have conceded the dyslexia point as if ♦ get test first and then a ♣ finesse is taken the result will be two down. Accordingly, the only line consistent with the clarified claim statement is cash ♣ from the top and once the ♣J appears 13 tricks are unavoidable.

[Vampyr]

All suits break in my experience. Some break poorly, some break well, some break evenly, some break unevenly and some break miraculously.

 

A favourable break in a suit in which a side holds five cards would indeed be a miracle.

[phil_20686]

A favourable break in a suit in which a side holds five cards would indeed be a miracle.

 

Really? AKQJx - V might need a favourable break? :P

[blackshoe]

Its unsportsmanlike like because it is an attempt to exploit the rules for personal gain.

 

Sorry, I misread your original post. You said "East's claim", and I read it as "the claim of the player who claimed".

 

It appears that by your lights, every director call is "an attempt to exploit the rules for personal gain". Even a Secretary Bird is entitled to ask the TD for a ruling. While I don't agree with the TD's ruling in this case, that's based on what was reported here — I wasn't at the table, so I don't know what the TD knew (or thought he knew). It's a judgement call, and perhaps my judgement would have been different had I been there.

 

As for letting club players slide on infractions, that too is a judgement call. Don't forget though that it's not just your score that's affected — it's your partner's score, and that of every pair in the game. One such instance may not matter much, but there are probably a dozen such instances in many club games (such as the ones where I play). Not a good thing.

[blackshoe]

(1) I am not sure you really know what a colour coup is.

(2) Perhaps I am suggesting that their is a wide gulf between legal behaviour and acceptable behaviour.

 

(1) I didn't. The ploy you describe is distasteful to me, but it is not unethical according to the laws of the game.

(2) The ethics of bridge are defined by its laws. There is no such gulf (within the laws). You are holding bridge players to an ethical standard defined outside the game.

[blackshoe]

If, in a local club game, my partner had attempted to dispute a claim like this, I would certainly have had a few choice words for him. All of which would have violated BB@B.

 

And probably also violated the laws of bridge.

[RMB1]

Where in the laws does it say we are to assume that a player who makes a flawed claim is blind, dumb, and stupid?

 

The laws do say that any play that the flawed claimer will benefit from will be lumped in with plays that are careless and inferior. How far is "stupid" from "careless and inferior"?

[phil_20686]

(2) The ethics of bridge are defined by its laws. There is no such gulf (within the laws). You are holding bridge players to an ethical standard defined outside the game.

 

I really do not believe this. This is like saying it is "ethical" to be rude to everyone that you meet, just because free speech protects ones right to do so. (Edit, you are basically advocating legalism, which is to say that obeying the laws is synonymous with virtue, but there are plenty of obvious examples where that is not so.)

 

In any legal system there are are unethical actions which do not have a proscribed punishment, sometimes because the law would be unenforceable (e.g., reverse UI), sometimes because such a law would only make a bad situation worse etc. An obvious situation in RL is adultery - making it illegal generally does not lead to better outcomes for anyone, nevertheless, cheating on ones partner remains unethical.

 

There is always difficulties in human society because the rules can never be sufficient for dealing with all the situations that might arise. That is why legal systems should always leave room for judgement in the application of the law. In the west if comes in three times. Once when the Police decide whether or not to press charges, twice when the jury decide whether or not one is guilty, and thrice when the judge decides the appropriate sentence. Law applied without regard for context is basically mandatory sentencing, and is unjust for all of the same reasons.

[phil_20686]

It appears that by your lights, every director call is "an attempt to exploit the rules for personal gain". Even a Secretary Bird is entitled to ask the TD for a ruling. While I don't agree with the TD's ruling in this case, that's based on what was reported here — I wasn't at the table, so I don't know what the TD knew (or thought he knew). It's a judgement call, and perhaps my judgement would have been different had I been there.

 

As for letting club players slide on infractions, that too is a judgement call. Don't forget though that it's not just your score that's affected — it's your partner's score, and that of every pair in the game. One such instance may not matter much, but there are probably a dozen such instances in many club games (such as the ones where I play). Not a good thing.

 

No,a director's call should be a request for restitution, which is not gain, but the restoration of equity.

 

That others scores are affected is a double edged sword. In a flat 3NT do I really deserve a top/give everyone else below average, because my opposition revoked? Such a score randomly takes points from half the pairs and gives it to the other half purely because of the direction they happened to be sitting.

[BunnyGo]

No,a director's call should be a request for restitution, which is not gain, but the restoration of equity.

 

That others scores are affected is a double edged sword. In a flat 3NT do I really deserve a top/give everyone else below average, because my opposition played badly? Such a score randomly takes points from half the pairs and gives it to the other half purely because of the direction they happened to be sitting.

 

FYP.

 

Yes, if a pair plays particularly badly, the rest of the field loses some protection, and I gain. If they play badly and get really lucky, I get hosed. Such is matchpoints and bridge in general. Revoking is no different.

[phil_20686]

FYP.

 

Yes, if a pair plays particularly badly, the rest of the field loses some protection, and I gain. If they play badly and get really lucky, I get hosed. Such is matchpoints and bridge in general. Revoking is no different.

 

I suspect you do not really believe this: Suppose said revoker had parkinson's, or had lost a hand? Are you really saying that one should not give an allowance for the fact that they revoke more often than normal, and should instead tell them that "dexterity is part of the game"? That it would be unfair if I allowed you to play the card that you meant to, since I should have the chance to benefit from your disability?