Another Horror Story from Chiang Mai

[RMB1]

Personally, I hate any claim by a defender that relies on correct play by the other defender. ...

 

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.

 

See my topic in Changing Laws & Regulations.

[WellSpyder]

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.

I was about to reply pointing out that that was a silly example since of course we all know bluejak would never give a ridiculous ruling. Then I remembered that one of only two rulings that I have appealed in the past ten years or so was indeed given by bluejak! (And the other one was given by RMB....)

[mycroft]

I play what I think is the winning heart and show declarer my last trick winner, I think it's obvious, and I get some of the reactions to my *ethics* of some of the comments in this thread? Srsly?

 

Okay, I didn't realize that partner still has a problem (maybe I thought he had the winning diamond or something. Maybe I "knew" the King was high, because partner clearly has the Ace, but then forgot the last part and just thought the King was high (who hasn't done that?))

 

I probably would have (had I been not thinking) dropped both cards, no pause, and had the same problem. And said something like "oh, yeah, right. Partner has an option; didn't think about that. Oh well, what do you think, Director?" But she'd still be ruling on my claim, even if it was non-simultaneous showing of the cards; if she attempted to call it a lead out of turn, I'd have a problem.

 

Absolutely, if East was telling partner not to overtake, we have an issue, and that has to be dealt with - let's investigate (at the table, of course). But this looks like a boring old contested defensive claim here.

 

As far as the footnote is concerned, I couldn't imagine anyone reading the conditional at the head of that footnote (claim...must refer to tricks other than the one in progress*. *If the statement pertains only to...[the] trick in progress...) to not refer to the entire footnote. Clearly I was wrong. I still think it's an incorrect reading.

[blackshoe]

I was about to reply pointing out that that was a silly example since of course we all know bluejak would never give a ridiculous ruling. Then I remembered that one of only two rulings that I have appealed in the past ten years or so was indeed given by bluejak! (And the other one was given by RMB....)

The fact that you appealed a ruling does not mean that the ruling was ridiculous — even if the AC changed it. :P

[Vampyr]

Absolutely, if East was telling partner not to overtake, we have an issue, and that has to be dealt with - let's investigate (at the table, of course). But this looks like a boring old contested defensive claim here.

 

Even if East wasn't deliberately "telling" his partner not to overtake, partner will figure it out when he sees East's last card.

[WellSpyder]

The fact that you appealed a ruling does not mean that the ruling was ridiculous — even if the AC changed it. :P

Yes, I did realise I was over-simplifying a bit! As it happens I did think the ruling was ridiculous, but that's another story. The AC agreed with my argument that Pass was not a LA, but given where they thought the auction might end up after one of the LAs, they could not be bothered to change the ruling from 3♣+1 to 4♣=...

[mycroft]

Even if East wasn't deliberately "telling" his partner not to overtake, partner will figure it out when he sees East's last card.

Yes, but that's the Law 70D2 issue (boring old contested defensive claim, ruled on "normal*" lines), not a Proprieties issue ("claiming in such a way as to avoid partner making a mistake must at the very least violate correct procedure", "interrupting your partner's choice [when it will matter] is an irregularity", "shenanigans").

 

If East was trying to influence partner's decision, then absolutely we have a Propriety issue, and some investigation should be done to determine if that was the case. That might lead to education or a PP. But it's clearly a claim, not a premature play to T13; and so whether there's an ethical issue or not, it's ruled Law 70D2. And since Law 70D2 uses the dreaded "normal*" construction, trying to influence partner to do the right thing by obviating his guess is more likely to force the overtake by Law than letting partner work it out on his own, so it's its own reward.

[PhilKing]

When I went to Chiang Mai, we had to build a boat out of bamboo and the use it to wild water raft our way down a leech-infested river to rendezvous with a herd of elephants - even now it sounds vastly preferable to claiming a contract at the local bridge club.

[Zelandakh]

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.

This is the argument which I just do not get. East did not attempt to influence West because West's action was immaterial, that is because East does not realise that the ♥A is still out. And yet the claim depends on West knowing that the ♥Q is still out. It seems like ruling in favour of the defence here involves giving it to them both ways. Worse than this, the ruling is an open invitation to cheats. I think the correct ruling ought to be a trick each; if it is not under the current rules then the relevant Law should be adjusted.

[Fluffy]

Whichever way you look at it: Interrupting your partner's choice of which card to play when this choice can have an impact on the result is an irregularity.

Please state under wich law

[Trinidad]

This is the argument which I just do not get. East did not attempt to influence West because West's action was immaterial, that is because East does not realise that the ♥A is still out. And yet the claim depends on West knowing that the ♥Q is still out. It seems like ruling in favour of the defence here involves giving it to them both ways. Worse than this, the ruling is an open invitation to cheats. I think the correct ruling ought to be a trick each; if it is not under the current rules then the relevant Law should be adjusted.

I didn't say anywhere that the defense was going to get 2 tricks (nor that they would get 1 trick).

 

I stated that if East would knowingly and deliberately try to tell his partner what card to play, we don't need the law book. We need a rod to cane him. (Please don't take this literally.)

 

If East made a silly incorrect claim, we rule using the Laws that deal with incorrect claims. In this case that means that we need to judge how 'normal' it would be for West to overtake.

 

The lawbook is written to deal with irregularities, not with crimes against humanity. The idea is to fix the situation, not to penalize. In many cases, one could see this as "an open invitation to cheats". It has been argued many times that in bridge crime does pay: If you get away with the crime, hurray!! and if you don't, you fall back where you would have been if you were a law abiding citizen. Some people, therefore, advocate mandatory PPs for (some) irregularities. I don't.

 

The vast majority of bridge players play as a hobby because they want to solve intellectual puzzles or something similar. This gives them satisfaction. For this they pay membership fees and/or table money. They aren't interested in cheating because cheating doesn't give that satisfaction. So why would they waste their money on something that doesn't bring them anything?

 

The pro players can't afford to cheat. They are under a magnifying glass and their reputation will be ruined if they cheat.

 

So what remains is a very small group of players that do cheat. The lawbook doesn't deal with them because it is designed to fix the issues for the honest players, but boards of bridge clubs / NBOs / abuse@BBO do. People do get suspended (ok, not caned). When word gets out why John Smith doesn't show up at the club any more (and it always does) that does have consequences for the cheats.

 

Rik

[pran]

Whichever way you look at it: Interrupting your partner's choice of which card to play when this choice can have an impact on the result is an irregularity.

Please state under wich law

73 for one

[blackshoe]

73 for one

Which part of 73, and exactly how it is an irregularity?

[pran]

Which part of 73, and exactly how it is an irregularity?

A superfluous question once you realize that the action is an example of communication between partners.

[Zelandakh]

Is a defensive claim always a case of communication between partners or only in the case where the other defender's play makes a difference? If the Claimer did not realise that partner's play is relevant, is it still such communication? Why do we have Law 70D2 at all if Law 73 supercedes it?

[pran]

Is a defensive claim always a case of communication between partners or only in the case where the other defender's play makes a difference? If the Claimer did not realise that partner's play is relevant, is it still such communication? Why do we have Law 70D2 at all if Law 73 supercedes it?

Law 70D2 is a specific law not concerned at all with communication between defenders.

Law 73 is a general law concerned with all aspects of such communication.

 

In a situation where both laws appears applicable in a (mutually) conflicting manner the specific laws takes precedence over the general law where they overlap but it doesn't suspend the general law as such.

[Zelandakh]

Pran, you are saying that a defensive claim is communication between partners. I am asking for your justification in this and the circumstances whereby it applies. I do not believe a normal defensive claim would qualify as communication between partners, sorry I just do not. It seems to me that to rule in this way you need to demonstrate that Claimer has deliberately claimed knowing that partner still had a decision to make in order to remove that burden from them. That seems to go some way beyond the general case. If I am misunderstanding your logic then please explain.

[pran]

Pran, you are saying that a defensive claim is communication between partners. I am asking for your justification in this and the circumstances whereby it applies. I do not believe a normal defensive claim would qualify as communication between partners, sorry I just do not. It seems to me that to rule in this way you need to demonstrate that Claimer has deliberately claimed knowing that partner still had a decision to make in order to remove that burden from them. That seems to go some way beyond the general case. If I am misunderstanding your logic then please explain.

East's behaviour was effectively a means for telling his partner that if he (East) was allowed to keep the trick in progress he would also have the last. This happened at a time when West might possibly have a choice on whether or not to overtake East's King.

 

This behaviour was therefore communicating some information to West in a manner which made that information UI. We do not have to demonstrate that East did this deliberately, the laws use the term "could have known" for such situations. And to make life easier for the Director we have Law 57 which specifically handles situations like this. Law 57 allows no judgements on what is "normal" or "irrational" play.

 

East could have claimed properly before leading to trick 12 (but such a claim would probably be doubtful) or after West had followed suit to this trick, but it is highly improper to claim at his partner's turn to play unless partner's choice of play has absolutely no impact on the result.

[Zelandakh]

the laws use the term "could have known" for such situations.

I assume you are referring to 73F here. Tell me which innocent player has drawn a false inference. Is claiming not a bridge reason for saying something to the table? If you do mean 73F then you have a long way to go to establoish that all of the necessary conditions have been met.

[blackshoe]

it is highly improper to claim at his partner's turn to play unless partner's choice of play has absolutely no impact on the result.

You keep saying that, but repeating an assertion does not make it true. Try again.

[bluejak]

I don't know exactly what happened, but it seems to me that it may be difficult to distinguish a trick 13 claim from a lead to trick 13. Calling it a lead solves the problem in one way. I like this way because I think that East's irregularity should work not only to his detriment but to declarer's advantage. Also, the "other way" of solving the problem, ie giving East the last two tricks and a PP may run into a practical problem -- many clubs are reluctant to issue PPs.

The OP said the ♣A was claimed. A solution that assumes it was led not claimed is clearly wrong.

 

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 :)

The embargo is on naming people. Other names are not covered by the rules.

 

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 ?

As several answers have made clear that is not the rule. Putting it simply, if the claiming side might make a mistake, for example by a poorly judged play, their opponents get a trick. But they do not get a trick if to lose a trick the claimers have to make a completely irrational play to give them a trick.

 

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.

We know East "claimed" the ♣A: the OP said so.

 

:ph34r:

 

We have, as usual, several posters complaining about the actions of the defender in claiming as and when he did, and even, in one or two posts, suggesting ulterior motives. Please may I remind everyone that this is a rulings forum, not a forum to teach people correct deportment at the bridge table. Quite frankly, it seems pointless that people complain about claims made whenever there is a contested claim here. Could we not just accept that people make mistakes, claim inappropriately, and will continue to do so? We are meant to decide how to rule when someone has done something that is not best practice.

 

:ph34r:

 

I notice that, yet again, we have a playing TD making a dubious ruling in his own favour. I trust and hope that everyone here, if forced to rule at his own table, will do his absolute best to make sure his opponents are not disadvantaged. It is one of the wonderful advantages of being a playing TD that you expect to lose points whenever there is a doubtful case at your own table. It would be nice to be in North America where at least we might be paid for ruling against ourselves.

[bluejak]

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.

Of course it is fine in a laws forum, whether we agree with it or not. We make no attempt to encourage Bridge Lawyers.

 

It occurs to me that we rarely use the term any more, so people will not know what I mean. A "Bridge Lawyer" is a player who actively seeks to get an extra edge through manipulation of the Laws in his favour.

 

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

We have no evidence that East attempted to do any such thing, and I consider it a disgraceful assertion.

 

I was about to reply pointing out that that was a silly example since of course we all know bluejak would never give a ridiculous ruling. Then I remembered that one of only two rulings that I have appealed in the past ten years or so was indeed given by bluejak! (And the other one was given by RMB....)

I don't equate people appealing my rulings with them thinking them ridiculous.

 

East's behaviour was effectively a means for telling his partner that if he (East) was allowed to keep the trick in progress he would also have the last. This happened at a time when West might possibly have a choice on whether or not to overtake East's King.

 

This behaviour was therefore communicating some information to West in a manner which made that information UI. We do not have to demonstrate that East did this deliberately, the laws use the term "could have known" for such situations. And to make life easier for the Director we have Law 57 which specifically handles situations like this. Law 57 allows no judgements on what is "normal" or "irrational" play.

 

East could have claimed properly before leading to trick 12 (but such a claim would probably be doubtful) or after West had followed suit to this trick, but it is highly improper to claim at his partner's turn to play unless partner's choice of play has absolutely no impact on the result.

The Laws give you a right to claim at any time during t.he play. Of course it is not improper to claim at partner's turn to play.

 

Of course it is improper to claim when you are not certain that all the tricks claimed belong to your side but it really does seem a waste of time saying it for the umpty-thousandth time. We deal with interesting contested claim positions here and someone always says claimer should not have claimed.

 

Perhaps we need a FAQ, which would start:

 

1. It is improper to claim in any situation where the opponents will not accept the claim unchallenged.
   

 

:)

[pran]

I had written:

East's behaviour was effectively a means for telling his partner that if he (East) was allowed to keep the trick in progress he would also have the last. This happened at a time when West might possibly have a choice on whether or not to overtake East's King.

 

This behaviour was therefore communicating some information to West in a manner which made that information UI. We do not have to demonstrate that East did this deliberately, the laws use the term "could have known" for such situations. And to make life easier for the Director we have Law 57 which specifically handles situations like this. Law 57 allows no judgements on what is "normal" or "irrational" play.

 

East could have claimed properly before leading to trick 12 (but such a claim would probably be doubtful) or after West had followed suit to this trick, but it is highly improper to claim at his partner's turn to play unless partner's choice of play has absolutely no impact on the result.

 

[...]

The Laws give you a right to claim at any time during the play. Of course it is not improper to claim at partner's turn to play.

[...]

 

Of course the laws give any player the right to claim at any time.

 

When I used the word improper on East's claim I did not refer to the claim as such but (and I think this is apparent from my comment) to the fact that the claim was made in such a way and at such time that it effectively was illegal communication to partner suggesting a particular play by him.

 

I cannot see that you address this aspect of the situation at all and would appreciate your comments on:

 

Can or should the Director adjudicate the claim by giving most weight to the unfortunate timing of the claim, the illegal communmication and unauthorized information to partner resulting from this timing?

 

(Of course there is no such question if the Director may treat the exposure of the ♣A as a (premature) lead to the thirteenth trick.)

[Vampyr]

I notice that, yet again, we have a playing TD making a dubious ruling in his own favour. I trust and hope that everyone here, if forced to rule at his own table, will do his absolute best to make sure his opponents are not disadvantaged. It is one of the wonderful advantages of being a playing TD that you expect to lose points whenever there is a doubtful case at your own table.

 

I think it is better to call over another of the club's directors.

[bluejak]

What other TDs? It is lucky enough that there is one TD present!