Claiming the rest of the tricks

[pran]

I think the important question from claimer to director should be:

Why am I supposed to take the diamond finessee for the fourteenth trick on the board when I didn't mention this finessee at all with my claim?

[pran]

Sorry, double posted because BBO hung when processing my comment (first time)

[WellSpyder]

Sorry if I didnt mention the layout of the hands but that is not so important. [.....]

I think it is simplest to assume that the layout of the hands is always relevant when discussing a claim. (I've seen appeals forms that say the bidding is not relevant for a claim, but that's rather different!)

[Vampyr]

This ruling is preposterous. Assuming it is too late for appeal, I would send a report of this ruling to the management of the club.

[helene_t]

Nah, the director just failed to count to 14. To err is human ....

[Vampyr]

Nah, the director just failed to count to 14. To err is human ....

 

Or did he manage to count to 14?

[blackshoe]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk2haqj4d6543cq82&w=sq543h8765djt7caj&n=saj6hk32daqckt543&e=st987ht9dk982c976&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1np3nppp&p=s3sjs7s2c3c6cqcjc2cac4c7]399|300[/hv]

It seems you have to include the bidding in order to be able to enter the play. And it won't record partial tricks.

 

The lead at this point (hit the 'next' button three times to see the tricks already played) was apparently the ♦7 from West. Now South claims the remaining ten tricks with no line of play statement. Opponents object and call the director. Declarer has ten top tricks at this point (two spades, four hearts, one diamond and three clubs). However, this line depends on not taking the diamond finesse. Is taking the finesse a "normal" (in the sense of the laws) play in this situation? The table director apparently thought so. If the claimer had said, when he claimed, "I have ten top tricks" or some such, I would disagree with the table ruling, but he apparently said nothing at all. Law 70A does say that the director shall rule as equitably as possible to both sides, but it also says that any doubtful point should be resolved in favor of the non-claiming side. For some players, there would be no doubt that claimer realizes he doesn't need the finesse; for most players though, there would be some doubt on that point. If there is doubt here, the table ruling was correct. If there's no doubt that declarer knows he has ten top tricks without finessing, then it wasn't.

 

Players need to learn to state a clear line of play, however "obvious" they think it is.

[lamford]

Is taking the finesse a "normal" (in the sense of the laws) play in this situation?

Not for someone who claims the remainder. Running the eight of clubs would also fail, as would playing the ace and king of spades on the same trick. These would be "worse than careless" plays along with the practice finesse in diamonds. Some percentage of (weak) players who did not claim would indeed take the diamond finesse, but not someone who claims.

[blackshoe]

Not for someone who claims the remainder. Running the eight of clubs would also fail, as would playing the ace and king of spades on the same trick. These would be "worse than careless" plays along with the practice finesse in diamonds. Some percentage of (weak) players who did not claim would indeed take the diamond finesse, but not someone who claims.

That was my feeling. Glad someone agrees with me. B-)

[UdcaDenny]

Just a comment about this D finess. Declarer had the Ace and the Q was on dummy. My point however is that TD never asked how my partner would play the hand but forced him to wrongly underplay the Ace. My partner is also one of the best players in the club and he never takes advantage of other players mistake.

[blackshoe]

Um, no. Once the claim was made, play ceased. What the TD might do is to rule that on the lead of the ♦7, it would be "normal" to duck instead of winning with the Ace, but if the lead is coming from declarer's left, and the Ace is in declarer's hand, and declarer has the rest of the tricks, that's ridiculous.

 

Of course, since you've just told us that what we thought was the layout wasn't actually the layout of the cards, it's hard to be sure what the ruling should be, so please tell us what the complete layout was.

[UdcaDenny]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8hkqj3dq963cq76&w=sq963h9852dj82caj&n=skj5ha76datckt982&e=st742ht4dk754c543]399|300|After a S lead to J and two rounds of C W was on lead and S claimed 10 high tricks[/hv]

[paua]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8hkqj3dq963cq76&w=sq963h9852dj82caj&n=skj5ha76datckt982&e=st742ht4dk754c543]399|300|After a S lead to J and two rounds of C W was on lead and S claimed 10 high tricks[/hv]

 

Good claim, making 12.

[UdcaDenny]

Law 70 also states that defending side shud continue the play in a normal way and not use the information they get from seeing all open hands. After Ace of Club W didnt know how to continue and it wasnt normal to play a low D from Jxx.

He could go on in S or play a H but now he knew his partner had D King and director allowed him to play D and also forced my partner to play low from the Ace.

[gordontd]

Law 70 also states that defending side shud continue the play in a normal way and not use the information they get from seeing all open hands.

Not in my law book. Can you quote what you have interpreted in this way? They aren't continuing to play at all, since play ceases when a claim has been made.

[UdcaDenny]

Not in my law book. Can you quote what you have interpreted in this way? They aren't continuing to play at all, since play ceases when a claim has been made.

2. T he Director shall not accept any part of a defender’s

claim that depends on his partner’s selecting

a particular play from among alternative

normal* plays.

[Fluffy]

It is declarer who is making a claim, defenders do not get a share fom it. That law applies when defender is the one who claims (you have another thread with a good example). Only one player can make a claim.

[cmjohn]

I was a witness to this event and am a director at this club. I would say that, there was a punitive element to this ruling. The claimer has been advised in the past that he may not claim without stating a line of play. He has at least on one occasion, made this sort of claim when he did not have the tricks he claimed. Other players have complained about this behavior. The director ruled deliberately against the claimer, while believing he was within the letter of the laws, i.e. that "normal" play can include inferior or mistaken play. Had the player not repeatedly refused to follow the rules about claiming, the director might have ruled more generously towards the player, in my opinion. I believe it is acceptable for a director to make rulings with an eye towards the welfare of the club. So, my question is: Is it correct for a director to take a harder line rather than a softer one against a player in recognition of a continuing problem.?

[barmar]

The appropriate way to punish a player for not following proper procedures is by issuing a procedural penalty, not applying different standards in making rulings.

 

First of all, a PP will punish the offending player without giving the opponents a gift that they didn't deserve. Second, the TD can explain WHY he's giving him the penalty, and hopefully this will cause him to improve his behavior.

[blackshoe]

I agree 100% with Barry.

[Vampyr]

I agree 100% with Barry.

 

Absolutely; wish we could upvote him.

 

I might discuss with the club management the unprofessionalism of the directors.

[cmjohn]

Thank you for your opinions. If I were to have made a judgement with an eye towards a club problem, I would have been wrong. But I didn't make that decision. However, there is now another question in my mind. The laws ask the director to make a rather subjective ruling, when applying the rule about "normal" play, it is quite probable that the director would have made the same ruling against any player who made such a claim. In the case under discussion, there were 10 tricks for the taking, without much difficulty in the play, but errors were possible, though not very probable. Is there some criteria for this "normal" play? In the case above, a declarer could due to overconfidence take the practice finesse or botch the communications. This would be unlikely for the player in question. Is "unlikely" enough of a criteria? Say, 90% unlikely? 95% unlikely, 99% unlikely? Is it possible to draw a line here somewhere?

Thanks for your consideration.

[gordontd]

Thank you for your opinions. If I were to have made a judgement with an eye towards a club problem, I would have been wrong. But I didn't make that decision. However, there is now another question in my mind. The laws ask the director to make a rather subjective ruling, when applying the rule about "normal" play, it is quite probable that the director would have made the same ruling against any player who made such a claim. In the case under discussion, there were 10 tricks for the taking, without much difficulty in the play, but errors were possible, though not very probable. Is there some criteria for this "normal" play? In the case above, a declarer could due to overconfidence take the practice finesse or botch the communications. This would be unlikely for the player in question. Is "unlikely" enough of a criteria? Say, 90% unlikely? 95% unlikely, 99% unlikely? Is it possible to draw a line here somewhere?

Thanks for your consideration.

The law itself says:

For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or

inferior for the class of player involved.

In the case in the original post, playing a low diamond seems to me to be a lot worse than merely careless or inferior.

[Zelandakh]

Welcome to the forums cmjohn. Please recognise that your club was in the wrong here and consider taking steps to make sure that your games are run according to the Laws in future. There is no cause for "punitive" rulings in a case like this. The claim was good. Claims are constantly made without a statement when it is clear that there are the requisite number of top tricks and no trumps outstanding. This is normal, if not best, practise regardless of what the members may say. On the other hand, if the player concerns makes a claim without statement and there genuinely is a problem with the claim then feel free to rule against them.

 

As barmar points out, you can also use PPs in cases where proper procedure is not being used, although I personally think this would generally be inappropriate for a claim of 10 tricks with 10 tops (68C is only a "should" after all). What you cannot do is make a ruling that is against the Laws of the game. Your TD should already understand what "normal" means here; if they do not then make the investment of sending them to a TD training course. The end result will be a better game for your membership all around.

[barmar]

I was a witness to this event and am a director at this club. I would say that, there was a punitive element to this ruling. The claimer has been advised in the past that he may not claim without stating a line of play. He has at least on one occasion, made this sort of claim when he did not have the tricks he claimed.

While it's true that the law says that the claimer must state a line of play, this rule is breached so often (except by my regular partner, who is obsessive about stating a line for even the simplest claims) that it's practically impossible to enforce it strictly. 90% of claims are incredibly obvious -- you can often just show your hand and everyone understands and accepts. This is why I don't think you'll ever see a PP given for claiming without stating a line. The particular claim in this situation is like that.

 

Almost everyone who claims regularly occasionally makes bad ones -- you forget about an outstanding trump, you think a card is high when it's not, you don't notice that there are communication problems, etc. Just because a player has occasionally made an incorrect claim is not a reason to force him to be fastidious in the future. Each claim should be judged on its own merits.