Another Horror Story from Chiang Mai

[CamHenry]

I don't understand - sorry if this is some (forum or real) politics I do not understand.

 

The internet shows Chiang Mai as being in Thailand (not China) - is there some embargo on discussing bridge from Thailand?

 

The embargo is on naming names. If I were to post saying, for example, "bluejak gave this ruling and we appealed it because we thought it was ridiculous", that would be over the line. One is allowed to name oneself - as I have done in the past, when Matt and I were the OS. For what it's worth, we were happy with the director's ruling on that occasion :)

[pran]

As a friend of mine used to say, "you're entitled to your wrong opinion". B-)

Observe that what East essentially did was to alert his partner:

Be aware that I have the last trick if you let me keep the trick for my King, so please do not use your Ace!

 

Before that West could have a choice, now that choice has vanished. Do you really condone such tactics?

[UdcaDenny]

Chiang Mai is a city in north of Thailand and we play in an english pub with mostly american and english players.

Maybe its possible that TD referred to Law 57 and had the law on his side. Still I think it was kind of greedy since

his partner was declarer and they both profited from the judgement. In this case when it is obvious that declarer have

the Queen it must be stupid to overtake. This TD also says if the claiming part can play wrong it shall be judged that

they must do that. If thats so maybe this rule shud be altered ?

[Vampyr]

This TD also says if the claiming part can play wrong it shall be judged that

they must do that. If thats so maybe this rule shud be altered ?

 

The player who claims without a statement will be ruled to play in a manner that is careless or inferior, but not irrational. See Law 70E.

 

When it is a defensive claim the same conditions apply to the defender's partner's play (70D2). It would be necessary to determine West's knowledge of the remaining cards in order to decide whether overtaking would be irrational. East's premature claim is evidence that he, at least, did not think that West could be trusted to know what was going on. If a determination is made that West could not rationally go wrong, then a split score would be appropriate, with declarer winning none of the remaining tricks and the defenders getting one. This is a good practical ruling, since it doesn't require a PP to stop East gaining from his wrongdoing (that is not what PPs are for anyway -- not to say that he shouldn't perhaps get one regardless). Unfortunately this ruling has no basis in law.

[pran]

This is only correct if East intended the ♣A as a lead and not a claim. A claim was made according to my reading of the opening post so it seems wrong to invoke a law other than a claim law.

Is it a claim or a premature lead if East after playing his ♥K (but before West has followed to this trick) shows his ♣A and says "and the last trick is mine"?

 

We do not really know from OP exactly how it happened.

[pran]

The player who claims without a statement will be ruled to play in a manner that is careless or inferior, but not irrational. See Law 70E.

 

When it is a defensive claim the same conditions apply to the defender's partner's play (70D2). It would be necessary to determine West's knowledge of the remaining cards in order to decide whether overtaking would be irrational. East's premature claim is evidence that he, at least, did not think that West could be trusted to know what was going on. If a determination is made that West could not rationally go wrong, then a split score would be appropriate, with declarer winning none of the remaining tricks and the defenders getting one. This is a good practical ruling, since it doesn't require a PP to stop East gaining from his wrongdoing (that is not what PPs are for anyway -- not to say that he shouldn't perhaps get one regardless). Unfortunately this ruling has no basis in law.

Don't overlook the fact that West has received (important) UI: East has a winner as his last card.

[Vampyr]

Don't overlook the fact that West has received (important) UI: East has a winner as his last card.

 

Sure. But I don't see how applying L16 (UI), L57 (premature play), L73 (UI again), L70 (contested claims) or for that matter, L23 (awareness of potential damage), can justify awarding a split score.

[axman]

Chiang Mai is a city in north of Thailand and we play in an english pub with mostly american and english players.

Maybe its possible that TD referred to Law 57 and had the law on his side. Still I think it was kind of greedy since

his partner was declarer and they both profited from the judgement. In this case when it is obvious that declarer have

the Queen it must be stupid to overtake. This TD also says if the claiming part can play wrong it shall be judged that

they must do that. If thats so maybe this rule shud be altered ?

Before I get into things I'll mention that I started the 'puzzle' thread on rgb using a disguised version of this hand. Primarily out of curiosity's sake mind you. Well, it appears to have petered out so I thought I'd bring it to your attention.

 

 

 

When making a ruling the TD should

 

a. ascertain why he was summoned

b. ascertain what happened

c. recount what facts are agreed; what facts are disputed; and of the disputed facts what his finding of facts is and why

d. state the law that applies and the effects of application

 

In this case the story skips everything; in other words udca stated a conclusion while not providing the facts upon which such conclusion was made

 

 

As such, if it is the judgment and thus the ruling that a claim occurred [not that I've seen satisfactory evidence supplied thereof] it would be germane to review L68

 

 

 

L68 LAW 68 - CLAIM OR CONCESSION OF TRICKS

 

For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress (If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play.). If it does refer to subsequent tricks:

 

 

After reading this I can see no other approach than giving S his L57A option to select a penalty against west's T12 card. Now clearly, as the TD did something** other than what he ought to have done, that is a whole other can of worms.

 

**that something being essentially going off on a tangent that arrives at the same outcome that would be expected if south had been given the opportunity to exercise his L57A option.

[pran]

Sure. But I don't see how applying L16 (UI), L57 (premature play), L73 (UI again), L70 (contested claims) or for that matter, L23 (awareness of potential damage), can justify awarding a split score.

Neither do I.

Had I been DIC South would have certainly received the last trick, effective for both sides.

[Vampyr]

Neither do I.

Had I been DIC South would have certainly received the last trick, effective for both sides.

 

Well, I agree with you on an emotional level, but if there is sufficient evidence that West knew what was going on, then there seems no option besides letting East get away with his shenanigans.

[pran]

Well, I agree with you on an emotional level, but if there is sufficient evidence that West knew what was going on, then there seems no option besides letting East get away with his shenanigans.

Have you bothered to look up the Law 68 footnote to which Axman so wisely called attention?

 

I can only regret that I myself didn't call attention to this footnote earlier. It makes it perfectly clear that no matter how or why East exposed his ♣A the fact that he did expose it before West completed his play to trick 12 makes Law 57A applicable on West's play to this trick.

[lalldonn]

I can only regret that I myself didn't call attention to this footnote earlier. It makes it perfectly clear that no matter how or why East exposed his ♣A the fact that he did expose it before West completed his play to trick 12 makes Law 57A applicable on West's play to this trick.

Neither "claimed" (original post) nor "exposed" (your word) is a synonym with "led" (law 57A) no matter how much you pretend they are. And it's common sense anyway.

 

To each his own, and this type of statement never goes well in a laws forum, but if south is experienced I would form a very negative opinion of him for trying to get a trick here.

[lalldonn]

Is it a claim or a premature lead if East after playing his ♥K (but before West has followed to this trick) shows his ♣A and says "and the last trick is mine"?

Facing of your remaining cards (even just one) with a claim statement is a claim, obviously. And I didn't even have to look at law 68A to know that, although it confirms it. It's ok to just give up when you are wrong, you know.

[paua]

Neither "claimed" (original post) nor "exposed" (your word) is a synonym with "led" (law 57A) no matter how much you pretend they are. And it's common sense anyway.

 

To each his own, and this type of statement never goes well in a laws forum, but if south is experienced I would form a very negative opinion of him for trying to get a trick here.

 

I agree. Law 68 footnote doesn't apply.

 

To me it's obvious to all four players that the top hearts are still outstanding, and therefore W overtaking is not a normal play under Law 70D2.

It would be interesting if the outstanding highest hearts were 8-7-96 and East played the 8, but I still see no reason for W to overtake.

[Vampyr]

Have you bothered to look up the Law 68 footnote to which Axman so wisely called attention?

 

Yes, but I decided that it didn't apply, because it referred to the claim of only the trick in progress. East claimed a further trick as well.

[pran]

Yes, but I decided that it didn't apply, because it referred to the claim of only the trick in progress. East claimed a further trick as well.

Are you aware of what you are saying?

 

Please state a situation where you with your understanding of the laws will consider the reference from Law 68 to Law 57A at all relevant.

 

The EBL commentary to Law 57 as of 1987 (Law 57 is essentially unchanged in later versions of the laws) states:

The Law is necessary in order not to leave scope for the one player to influence his partner's choice of action improperly.

 

It should be obvious that this applies also to East here who definitely attempts to influence his partner's choice of action in trick twelve. Whether East's attempt is accidental or deliberate is then immaterial.

[Trinidad]

Whether East's attempt is accidental or deliberate is then immaterial.

There is no such thing as an "accidental attempt". An attempt is not even merely "deliberate". It is intentional with a specific goal.

 

Rik

[pran]

There is no such thing as an "accidental attempt". An attempt is not even merely "deliberate". It is intentional with a specific goal.

 

Rik

OK OK, go ahead and split hairs.

 

I consider East's action accidental if he was inattentive and unaware that West still had to play a card. I consider it deliberate if he wanted to prevent West from overtaking his ♥K.

 

In either case, deliberate or not, East attempted to influence West's choice of action inn trick 12.

[axman]

Yes, but I decided that it didn't apply, because it referred to the claim of only the trick in progress. East claimed a further trick as well.

 

 

The footnote refers [is attached to] to a trick currently in progress and says four things about a trick currently in progress:

1. If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly;

2. cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards,

3. but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply,

4. and see Law 57A

 

#1. merely is a subset of a trick currently in progress defined by the condition 'If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress'

[blackshoe]

Observe that what East essentially did was to alert his partner:

Be aware that I have the last trick if you let me keep the trick for my King, so please do not use your Ace!

 

Before that West could have a choice, now that choice has vanished. Do you really condone such tactics?

Of course not. But a claim is a claim, and Law 70 is quite adequate to deal with this.

[blackshoe]

Chiang Mai is a city in north of Thailand and we play in an english pub with mostly american and english players.

Maybe its possible that TD referred to Law 57 and had the law on his side. Still I think it was kind of greedy since

his partner was declarer and they both profited from the judgement. In this case when it is obvious that declarer have

the Queen it must be stupid to overtake. This TD also says if the claiming part can play wrong it shall be judged that

they must do that. If thats so maybe this rule shud be altered ?

Generally speaking, one should rarely assume malice in another's actions. Not to mention that the laws tell players to accept the TD's ruling "gracefully". Doesn't mean you can't appeal, of course, but maligning the TD is generally a bad idea.

 

I think your TD has misunderstood the laws, not that he is "greedy". I think, speaking with my moderator hat on, that identifying this problem as having occurred in a particular town or club is fine, so long as you present the facts and keep your opinions about the TD's (or an opponent's for that matter) motives to yourself.

 

We have another forum for discussing changes to the laws; this is not the place. That said, I don't think the law in this case needs changing; I think your TD needs training.

[RMB1]

 

 

The EBL commentary to Law 57 as of 1987 (Law 57 is essentially unchanged in later versions of the laws) states:

The Law is necessary in order not to leave scope for the one player to influence his partner's choice of action improperly.

 

 

It should be obvious that East is claiming, play ceases, so there is no "choice of action" for West. If any further decision is to be made, it is by the director in deciding any objections to the claim.

 

It appears that many people do not think East should be allowed to claim, or the outcome of the hand should be judged by different standards when he does. I suggest this is a topic for another forum.

[Trinidad]

OK OK, go ahead and split hairs.

 

I consider East's action accidental if he was inattentive and unaware that West still had to play a card. I consider it deliberate if he wanted to prevent West from overtaking his ♥K.

 

In either case, deliberate or not, East attempted to influence West's choice of action inn trick 12.

No! And this is not splitting hairs. This is the crux of the matter.

 

If East deliberately attempted to influence West's actions then he should be thrown out of the club (or something similar). What to do with trick 13 is the least of our worries.

 

If East made an erroneous claim then that is an honest mistake. The only thing East attempted was to speed up the play, he didn't attempt to influence West, because he thought (mistakenly) that West's action was immaterial. Fortunately, we have the lawbook to deal with honest mistakes.

 

Now, of course, it is possible that in this case East attempted to influence West's choice. But it is extremely unlikely. After all, EW brought this case to our attention. How likely is it that they would do that if East indeed attempted -deliberate and with purpose- to influence West's choice? Most (if not all) people would try to keep such an attempt as secret as possible. Therefore, we can reasonably assume that East made an honest mistake.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

The footnote refers [is attached to] to a trick ‘currently in progress’ and says four things about a trick ‘currently in progress’:

1. If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly;

2. cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards,

3. but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply,

4. and see Law 57A

 

#1. merely is a subset of a trick ‘currently in progress’ defined by the condition 'If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress'

I think you are reading wrong here. Law 68 says:

For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress*.

* If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play.

This means:

 

If

     the claim refers to tricks other than one currently in progress

 

then

     follow the list in law 68.

 

else (i.e. "If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress")

     - play proceeds regularly;

     - cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply,

     - and see Law 57A, Premature Play

End if

 

 

In this case:

     the if condition is met. (The claim referred to the trick in progress and the next trick.)

     the else condition is not met.

     the list in law 68 applies.

     the footnote does not apply.

 

Rik

[bixby]

Long ago I posted two similar Law 57/68 incidents that happened to me in the same tournament (after years of never encountering this problem at all): in both cases I, declarer, led a card to trick 12. In one case, my RHO immediately faced a winning card (out of turn) and then shortly thereafter faced his other card; in the other case, my LHO faced a winning card and then shortly thereafter (before RHO had a chance to play) faced his other card. Neither defender said anything in either case. In both cases, the defender who faced his cards prevented the possibility that his partner would make the wrong discard at trick 12 (wrongly overtaking wasn't in the picture). I called the Director in both cases. One Director applied Law 57, which allowed me to force a defender to make a discard that was favorable to me; the other Director applied Law 68 and ruled that the other defender would have made the discard that was good for him.

 

At the time I felt robbed by the second ruling, but with the perspective of time I think the answer is that when this kind of thing happens at trick 12, the Director must make a judgment call as to whether the defender has made a premature play or a claim. I don't think there can be any hard-and-fast rule about it. The factual circumstances of each case will be determinative.

 

If the Director rules that the defender was claiming, the laws on contested claims apply, including Law 70D2's statement that "The 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."

 

Personally, I hate any claim by a defender that relies on correct play by the other defender. It particularly drives me crazy when a defender (as happened in both of the cases above) indignantly insists that his partner's correct play would have been "obvious" and that he just claimed "to save time." The more obvious the partner's correct play is, the less time is saved by claiming. So I wouldn't allow such claims at all, but the Lawsmakers have taken a different path.

 

Returning finally to the OP, as much as I dislike these kinds of claims and as hard as I would be on them, I think the equitable ruling is that the defenders get both tricks, unless there is some reason to think that West doesn't know that the ♥Q is still out. Overtaking on defense is unnatural and is unlikely to be done carelessly; before overtaking a player would probably stop to think, and it doesn't take much thought for West to realize that either declarer has the ♥Q, in which case overtaking is a bad play, or East has it, in which case overtaking is unnecessary.

 

I don't like ruling for the defenders in this situation, but the Laws require the ruling that is as equitable as possible to both sides and in this case I think the probability that West would get it wrong is quite low.