aguahombre Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 You can always ask East, "Are you sure that he did not mention pulling the last trump?"That might work, if you ask it after stating you must decide on the table result and also on whether there has been the violation of giving a ruling at the table without the director. Still extortion, but subtle enough to slide on :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axman Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 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. In NA the law is utilized by a large number as a battle ax to wage war against one's enemies- merely an observation, mind you. I am inclined to believe that such is not aligned with the proper function; also, that it suggests evidence that the law was, itself, misconceived. One more comment, it would appear that you hold that E has committed some atrocity and must be banned, yet you have not explained what the atrocity was...at least then maybe E could be in the position of giving a valid defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted March 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 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.Right. But in the example you quote no trick is awarded as far as the trump is concerned. In our example, the only error by declarer was the failure to mention the missing trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 One more comment, it would appear that you hold that E has committed some atrocity and must be banned, yet you have not explained what the atrocity was...at least then maybe E could be in the position of giving a valid defense. Declarer's language and line suggests that he knows how to count to 13 and has not made a math error here. He has made an articulation error. I am not stealing a board because my opponent was not precise. That would embarrass me. I will, however, retract my comment that East is a jerk. I was struggling for the right word at the time. I cannot come up with the right word to describe someone who I find to be an embarrassment to themselves (in my eyes) in this situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighLow21 Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Declarer's language and line suggests that he knows how to count to 13 and has not made a math error here. He has made an articulation error. I am not stealing a board because my opponent was not precise. That would embarrass me. I will, however, retract my comment that East is a jerk. I was struggling for the right word at the time. I cannot come up with the right word to describe someone who I find to be an embarrassment to themselves (in my eyes) in this situation.I think one such word is 'jerk.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Regarding the question in the heading, "Would you contest this?", it would depend on what declarer said when I asked him the obvious question, which is "Did you know that there was another trump to draw?" If he said he did, I'd accept the claim; if he didn't I'd contest it. Whilst this procedure is probably illegal, it does have the merit of both maintaining equity and saving a lot of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Declarer's language and line suggests that he knows how to count to 13 and has not made a math error here. I see nothing in the original post to support this assertion. His language and line are entirely consistent with someone who thinks they started with 11 trumps. How hard is it to say "drawing the last trump" or simply to do it before claiming? I think you would have a much better case if he hadn't drawn any trumps at all. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 I wonder why 70C is needed at all -- aren't 70C1 and 70C3 included in 70D1? 70C2 is kind of special, though -- it allows the TD to decide that declarer would draw (or somehow deal with) the outstanding trumps, even if not mentioned in his claim statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexJonson Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 In reply to the OP title I would not challenge the claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Never. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 I am pretty sure I would contest easts claim if I were sitting west. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.