Claiming the rest of the tricks

[blackshoe]

I think the key word, Barry, is "occasionally". A player who frequently botches his claims ought to be given an incentive to stop doing that - and an unfavorable score adjustment would not seem to do the job.

[barmar]

I think the key word, Barry, is "occasionally". A player who frequently botches his claims ought to be given an incentive to stop doing that - and an unfavorable score adjustment would not seem to do the job.

Yes, I considered that. Then I went back and read the earlier post, where he said "on at least one occasion" -- that doesn't suggest that the player in question has a habit of making bad claims, just that, like the rest of us, he isn't perfect.

 

If, indeed, the player is regularly trying to pull a fast one with poor claims, he does need some disincentive. And when I made my earlier suggestion about PPs it was with that interpretation in mind.

[Bbradley62]

The claim was good.

We don't know this for a fact. OP says declarer had trouble articulating his line of play. If declarer ever said "two diamonds" as part of his stumbling explanation, the claim was not good.

[barmar]

We don't know this for a fact. OP says declarer had trouble articulating his line of play. If declarer ever said "two diamonds" as part of his stumbling explanation, the claim was not good.

I interpreted that as being due to the surprise that being asked to clarify, or maybe he's just generally inarticulate. And I assume he never said "two diamonds" or there wouldn't even be a question. It seemed as if it was the opponent who brought up the potential problem in diamonds. But as the OP said, it was clear that he had 10 top tricks, not including the ♦Q.

[Bbradley62]

We wouldn't know if declarer ever said "two diamonds" because OP certainly wouldn't have told us so, since his priority appears to be to make the director look bad, not to actually provide all the facts.

[blackshoe]

Yes, I considered that. Then I went back and read the earlier post, where he said "on at least one occasion" -- that doesn't suggest that the player in question has a habit of making bad claims, just that, like the rest of us, he isn't perfect.

 

If, indeed, the player is regularly trying to pull a fast one with poor claims, he does need some disincentive. And when I made my earlier suggestion about PPs it was with that interpretation in mind.

Fair enough.

[blackshoe]

We wouldn't know if declarer ever said "two diamonds" because OP certainly wouldn't have told us so, since his priority appears to be to make the director look bad, not to actually provide all the facts.

We have two witnesses posting here. If you were right, would the second one not have said something about it?

 

Maybe not. Okay, I'll ask: can any witness to the event in question testify that the declarer said he had two diamond tricks?

[cmjohn]

I can definitely answer that question. There was no statement associated with the claim at all. Declarer simply exposed his hand and waited for someone to agree or disagree.

[UdcaDenny]

As cmjohn says my partner is to clever to say 2 diamonds. He just put his cards on the table to end the game

faster as the opponent who took Ace of club didnt know how to continue. My parter have played in the Icelandic

national team long time ago and still is sharp in his brain so taking a trick from him was an insult suggesting

he could play so bad.

[blackshoe]

The laws require a line of play statement to accompany a claim. The fact that your partner is an expert does not exempt him from this requirement. In the absence of a clear line of play statement, the TD must use his judgement, not your partner's, and not yours, to decide what the outcome should be. Even if his judgement is in your opinion flawed you should not attribute his ruling to malice, nor should you characterize it as an insult. This is true even if you come here and post and most of us agree that the ruling was flawed.

 

As a general rule, if you disagree with a TD's ruling, accept it graciously, and then appeal. If it's a club, and you think the TD has it in for you or your partner, take it up with club management. If the outcome of that does not satisfy you, find another club.

[pran]

The laws require a line of play statement to accompany a claim. The fact that your partner is an expert does not exempt him from this requirement. In the absence of a clear line of play statement, the TD must use his judgement, not your partner's, and not yours, to decide what the outcome should be. Even if his judgement is in your opinion flawed you should not attribute his ruling to malice, nor should you characterize it as an insult. This is true even if you come here and post and most of us agree that the ruling was flawed.

 

As a general rule, if you disagree with a TD's ruling, accept it graciously, and then appeal. If it's a club, and you think the TD has it in for you or your partner, take it up with club management. If the outcome of that does not satisfy you, find another club.

I went back to take a look at OP together with the latest developments.

 

[...]A contestant also claims [...] when he shows his cards[...]

so there is no doubt that the player claimed

 

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement [...]

but

 

[...]"should" do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractors rights but not often penalized)[...]

so failing to immediately state that the player had sufficient top tricks ("aces") to take all remaining tricks when this is obvious is no reason to award any trick to opponents.

 

I have had this situation many times, both as claimer, as opponent and as director.

 

In each and every case the fact that the number of "aces" matches the number of remaining tricks with no communication problem (or in case is insufficient!) is simply clarified, and everybody is happy about a result giving claimer the number of tricks matching the number of "aces" he has.

 

IMHO this case has blown way out of proportions.

[Vampyr]

IMHO this case has blown way out of proportions.

 

Well, the ruling was outrageous, and the "explanation" sickening. Why shouldn't people comment?

[Vampyr]

IMHO this case has blown way out of proportions.

 

Well, the ruling was outrageous, and the "explanation" sickening. Why shouldn't people comment?

[pran]

Well, the ruling was outrageous, and the "explanation" sickening. Why shouldn't people comment?

Through more than 60 posts?

[GreenMan]

Even if his judgement is in your opinion flawed you should not attribute his ruling to malice, nor should you characterize it as an insult.

 

A good player had the rest in top tricks, and the director essentially said "You are a bad enough player that it would be normal for you to duck a trick instead of cashing out." I'd consider that an insult.

[pran]

A good player had the rest in top tricks, and the director essentially said "You are a bad enough player that it would be normal for you to duck a trick instead of cashing out." I'd consider that an insult.

If I claim with high cards to cover all the remaining tricks and the director rules that I could play low instead of cashing one of my high cards I most certainly would consider that an insult.

[blackshoe]

I would consider the source. If the ruling were made by a competent TD, that'd be one thing. A ruling made by an incompetent TD is another thing altogether.

 

Would you demand an apology from your insulting TD?

[pran]

I would consider the source. If the ruling were made by a competent TD, that'd be one thing. A ruling made by an incompetent TD is another thing altogether.

 

Would you demand an apology from your insulting TD?

I might ask him: "Are you serious?" and point out my number of high cards.

 

But I wouldn't bother asking for an apology. If he is competent he would see his error and say "sorry", if not I wouldn't consider him worthy of being asked for an apology anyway.

[barmar]

A good player had the rest in top tricks, and the director essentially said "You are a bad enough player that it would be normal for you to duck a trick instead of cashing out." I'd consider that an insult.

There's a difference between ducking and finessing.

[Zelandakh]

Barry, if you held ♠A ♥x in hand opposite ♥AQ on table with the lead in hand and claimed the rest, you would not consider it an insult when the TD decided that the heart finesse is a normal line for a player of your ability?

[blackshoe]

It suggests to me that the TD doesn't have a clue what Barry's ability is. B-)

[barmar]

I was NOT suggesting that the finesse is normal in this particular case (or similar ones), just that there's a different meaning and different logic involved. When one "ducks" a trick, it means they're trying to lose the trick. So while one may try to take the rest on a finesse, it's nonsense to take the rest and also to duck.

 

But I agree that the ruling was ridiculous in this case. He clearly has 10 top tricks; he never made any mention of the diamond king because it was irrelevant.

 

It seems like the TD took advantage of the player's inarticulateness, which I suspect was partly due to being surprised at the objection, to conclude that he couldn't count top tricks.

 

If the goal was to get the player to make better claims, I suspect it will backfire. Instead, it might get him to make fewer claims.

[Zelandakh]

It suggests to me that the TD doesn't have a clue what Barry's ability is. B-)

Or perhaps that the TD wanted to make a "punitive" ruling?

[barmar]

After this weekend's thrashing in our district GNT tournament, they might have reason to suspect my ability to count. But no one has ever called my ethics into question like that.

[blackshoe]

Or perhaps that the TD wanted to make a "punitive" ruling?

That suggests to me that the TD is incompetent.