Another Claim

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sat643hk73daqcaj5&w=s75hjt94dk742cq73&n=skqj82haq6d85ckt6&e=s9h852djt963c9842&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2n(FG%20raise)p4n(RKCB)p5s(2+Q)p6sppp]399|300[/hv] Conract 6♠ by South; Lead J♥

 

As I have not reported a suspect claim for a while, I have been on the look out for them. After a simple Jacoby and Blackwood sequence, South reached the excellent slam. He won the heart lead with the ace, drew a round of trumps and then said "I am wasting your time here. I will eliminate the hearts and play the ace and queen of diamonds. Whoever wins will have to lead a club or concede a ruff and discard."

 

"A nice line", remarked, East, the club's SB, "but it would have been even nicer if you had mentioned the missing trump. Now I agree that under Law 70C1, a trick cannot be lost to partner's spade by normal play, but it is still careless, but normal, to forget to draw the missing trump, especially as you have played exactly one round. My partner will exit with his second trump, and you will be deemed to misguess the queen of clubs." "One down, or do you want the TD to rubber-stamp it?".

 

How do you rule?

[blackshoe]

Simple. South is one down. PP to East, who has violated Law 68D and probably Law 74A2. I'd say twice the "normal" PP is about right.

[ahydra]

1 down and surely we're banning East from the club by this stage due to the number of PP/DPs he's racked up ;p

 

ahydra

[mr1303]

I can't think of any reason why not to agree with the SB here. I might have a word with the SB and tell him that if he objects to a claim he has to call me rather than give rulings at the table.

[aguahombre]

On the subtitle, no I wouldn't contest it as an opponent.

To the question, I would accept an adverse ruling as declarer as serving me right for not mentioning playing one more trump, or actually playing one more trump before the claim statement.

 

Maybe before calling the director, they should come to a negotiated settlement: making six, no PP ;)

[HighLow21]

1 down and surely we're banning East from the club by this stage due to the number of PP/DPs he's racked up ;p

 

ahydra

What do PP, DP, and SB mean here?

[aguahombre]

What do PP, DP, and SB mean here?

Procedural penalty

Disciplinary penalty

Secretary Bird (from Victor Mollo, Bridge in the Menagerie)

[diana_eva]

What do PP, DP, and SB mean here?

 

Pls try and read all pinned threads :) You'd be surprised...

[HighLow21]

Pls try and read all pinned threads :) You'd be surprised...

I read the entirety of the abbrevations thread and did not find any of these.

[aguahombre]

I read the entirety of the abbrevations thread and did not find any of these.

How about in post #7?

[blackshoe]

Post #7 in this thread was the reply to HighLow's question. PP and DP are defined in post #5 of the pinned "abbreviations" thread. There is no #7 in that thread.

 

If you have not read Bridge in the Menagerie and its sequels, you should, they're great books.

[Vampyr]

posted in error on the wrong account.

[lamford]

I think it is a judgement by the TD as to whether "it was at all likely that the claimer was unaware of the missing trump". In my opinion, the declarer spotted the 100% line after playing one round of trumps, and it was just his statement that was lacking. I do not think it "at all likely" that someone capable of playing as he did would be unaware of the missing trump. But even so, this is not the criterion:

 

With an outstanding trump, the director can only award a trick to the opponent if 70C 1, 2 or 3 is satisfied. Not here, so the correct ruling is that the contract makes. Given that the situation with an outstanding trump is expressly covered, there is no need to consider other clauses. There should be a 70C 4 "If drawing or not drawing the trump could lead to the loss of a trick to a card other than that trump." As the Laws stand, the contract makes.

[aguahombre]

I think it is a judgement by the TD as to whether "it was at all likely that the claimer was unaware of the missing trump". In my opinion, the declarer spotted the 100% line after playing one round of trumps, and it was just his statement that was lacking. I do not think it "at all likely" that someone capable of playing as he did would be unaware of the missing trump. But even so, this is not the criterion:

 

With an outstanding trump, the director can only award a trick to the opponent if 70C 1, 2 or 3 is satisfied. Not here, so the correct ruling is that the contract makes. Given that the situation with an outstanding trump is expressly covered, there is no need to consider other clauses. There should be a 70C 4 "If drawing or not drawing the trump could lead to the loss of a trick to a card other than that trump." As the Laws stand, the contract makes.

I think you are forgetting that the trump is an exit card on the stated line of play. thus no endplay.

[HighLow21]

Post #7 in this thread was the reply to HighLow's question. PP and DP are defined in post #5 of the pinned "abbreviations" thread. There is no #7 in that thread.

 

If you have not read Bridge in the Menagerie and its sequels, you should, they're great books.

Thanks for clarifying. I love Mollo's books, all of them! :-)

[campboy]

With an outstanding trump, the director can only award a trick to the opponent if 70C 1, 2 or 3 is satisfied. Not here, so the correct ruling is that the contract makes. Given that the situation with an outstanding trump is expressly covered, there is no need to consider other clauses. There should be a 70C 4 "If drawing or not drawing the trump could lead to the loss of a trick to a card other than that trump." As the Laws stand, the contract makes.

I disagree. 70C says "if" but not "only if". It does not preclude awarding a trick or tricks if other laws, here 70D1 and 70E1, say that he should.

 

How would you rule if declarer claimed all the rest in the same position except with the ♦K and ♦Q swapped? By your argument it would appear that the outstanding trump means the TD must rule that he guesses the clubs right. This is not so, of course.

[iviehoff]

I do not think it "at all likely" that someone capable of playing as he did would be unaware of the missing trump.

I disagree. I have done precisely that kind of thing, ie, work out a nice 100% squeeze/endplay line and make some extremely silly mistake of that kind of level in the execution. There was also that well-known case of "'I claim on a double squeeze.' 'Just play it out, then.'" where he tried to play it out and messed it up.

[Trinidad]

I think you are forgetting that the trump is an exit card on the stated line of play. thus no endplay.

I think you forgot to read law 70C3 that Lamford was referring to.

 

Lamford is well aware that the trump may be used as an exit card. He just found an excellent way to deal with a Secretary Bird.

 

There is no doubt in my mind (or in Lamford's) that the Law is worded wrong. But as it is written it is 100% clear that you have to rule 6♠ making. Under normal circumstances, I would overlook the exact wording of Law70C3 and interpret it in the way it must have been intended. But if I have to deal with a Secretary Bird I will use the actual wording of Law 70C3.

 

Rik

[ahydra]

Haha... I guess 10 Lamford points to Trinidad for spotting the badly worded Law that lamford is getting at with this thread.

 

And reading the rest of the claim laws, it almost seems as if the whole set of 69/70/71 need an overhaul. Why not just "claim is invalid if there's a unstated normal* line of play for declarer and defence where the claimant's side does not make the number of tricks specified in the claim - TD should award the number of tricks made by the claimant's side on the normal* line that is least favourable to that side", and do away with concessions (treating them as claims for zero tricks)?

 

Then here, there's a normal* line for the defence to exit with the trump, and declarer to misguess clubs, and so he is down one. (For clarity the bit about lines involving unstated lines requiring one opponent to have a particular card should be kept.)

 

*where normal includes careless/inferior, etc, as in the current Laws.

 

ahydra

[c_corgi]

I disagree. 70C says "if" but not "only if". It does not preclude awarding a trick or tricks...

 

 

Quite so, particularly given that the wording of 70A suggests that the following sections are not meant to cover all eventualities.

[lamford]

I think you forgot to read law 70C3 that Lamford was referring to.

 

Lamford is well aware that the trump may be used as an exit card. He just found an excellent way to deal with a Secretary Bird.

 

There is no doubt in my mind (or in Lamford's) that the Law is worded wrong. But as it is written it is 100% clear that you have to rule 6♠ making. Under normal circumstances, I would overlook the exact wording of Law70C3 and interpret it in the way it must have been intended. But if I have to deal with a Secretary Bird I will use the actual wording of Law 70C3.

 

Rik

This time I agree with you exactly, and I am all for using a miswording of the Law to catch SB. And the argument that it says "if" but not "only if" is nonsense. The subheading "there is an outstanding trump" indicates that this is how the TD acts in such case.

[Zelandakh]

This time I agree with you exactly, and I am all for using a miswording of the Law to catch SB. And the argument that it says "if" but not "only if" is nonsense. The subheading "there is an outstanding trump" indicates that this is how the TD acts in such case.

This is ridiculous. If I make a claim and the side AKs are out as well as a trump but the trump cannot take a trick on any normal line it does not mean I get the remaining tricks when the AKs are unavoidable losers. What the Law is saying is that in addition to the other aspects of a contested claim an outstanding trump will also count as a winner should the given conditions be met. This is obvious and simply common sense and I am surprised to see this line of reasoning from you.

[kenrexford]

If I was directing, here is what I would do. I would give East an option.

 

Option #1:

 

Adjust the score to 6♠ down one. However, if that option is elected, then I would promise to publicize this deal and this ruling with East's name included (not anyone else) in as many ways as possible. I would post this online in every format possible, and I would try to get this in print as an example of how East was very clever in his observations.

 

Option #2:

 

The result stands, and East is allowed to escape the shame of everyone knowing that he is a jerk.

[aguahombre]

Somehow, I think East already knows he is a jerk and also knows that everyone else is aware of it, too.

 

Unfortunately, your proposed action cannot include extortion: the threat of the PP. That could only be used by the declarer before you get to the table as director ---since, once your are there, you have to put on the appearance of following the rules and making rulings.

[kenrexford]

Somehow, I think East already knows he is a jerk and also knows that everyone else is aware of it, too.

 

Unfortunately, your proposed action cannot include extortion: the threat of the PP. That could only be used by the declarer before you get to the table as director ---since, once your are there, you have to put on the appearance of following the rules and making rulings.

 

You can always ask East, "Are you sure that he did not mention pulling the last trump?"