I think you are fighting for the 5th down

[Fluffy]

[hv=pc=n&s=st2hajt94dk8643c9&w=s743hdjt5cqj86542&n=skqj986hkq62d7ct7&e=sa5h8753daq92cak3&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1s1n2h3c(alerted%20as%20transfer)3h5ddppp&p=c9cqc7cah5h4d5h2djd7d2dkd4dts9d9c2ct]399|300[/hv]

 

The 3♣ bid is alerted as transfer, 5♦X becomes the final contract.

 

♣9 is led, won by declarer who entes dummy wiht a heart ruff, and a trump comes back to south, who hesitates but takes it in the end to play another one.

 

Next comes a lub from dummy to ♣K. And south tanks.

 

When south has tanked for a while already East says: I think you are fighting for the 5th down.

 

a few seconds later south ruffs and plays ♠10 back. Declarer surprised makes the rest of the tricks for 11 total. South obviously calls director and says that declarer's comment influened his (poor) play.

 

How do you rule?

[ggwhiz]

-1 with a loud "duh" to declarer and a Homer Simpson level "Doh" to South for the opening lead and the rest of the (?) defence.

[mink]

By his statement, East has conceded at least a total of 6 tricks, one of them already lost (Law 68B1). Play ceases (Law 68D). Law 69D3 (about play after the claim) should not be applied because South probably was not aware that East's statement constituted a concession, and was influenced by the statement to think his further play will be immaterial, at least at MP scoring.

 

As a result of the concession the score is 5♦X-4 (1100 for N/S). E/W receive a penalty of half a top for the wording of the concession, which in effect criticizes South for tanking (Law 90 A , "nconveniences other contestants").

 

Karl

[iviehoff]

-1 with a loud "duh" to declarer and a Homer Simpson level "Doh" to South for the opening lead and the rest of the (?) defence.

What argument leads you to -1?

 

I think Mink is spot on, both reasoning and quantification.

 

Rather a sad case. EW behaved ethically in relation to their bidding mix-up, so they ended up in an appropriately ridiculous contract. I suspect E then letting himself down came from self-pity rather than malice.

[Codo]

Why does a statement like: I think you are fighting for the 5. down be a consession?

He did not show his cards, nor did he stated a line of play, nor did he say: I am, 4 down or I make 7 tricks.

 

So taking this as a claim does not fit my understanding of the rules for claiming- but I have no idea, whatthe right ruling wopuld be if this is no claim...

[iviehoff]

Why does a statement like: I think you are fighting for the 5. down be a consession?

He did not show his cards, nor did he stated a line of play, nor did he say: I am, 4 down or I make 7 tricks.

You can't say to the ops "it doesn't matter what you do" when actually it does, I hope you accept that. In general statements that do amount to "it doesn't matter what you do" are likely to be interpreted as claims.

 

Let's look at what L68 actually says to see why.

 

L68A Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of

tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests

that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards.

 

L68B1 Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number

of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of

tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. A player concedes all the

remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

 

So whilst showing your cards can be a claim, it is not required to show your cards in a claim. Stating a line of play isn't even part of the definition of what a claim is, and we have all had many claims without lines of play. Sometimes players don't even mention the number of tricks, they just expect you to see the obvious. So none of these things is a necessary part of a claim, though there presence would make it easier to say it was one.

 

Statements to the effect "it doesn't matter what you do" are likely to be interpreted as claims because of the wording on "suggests that play be curtailed". But to my mind, what makes this one quite clealy a claim is that it did mention a precise number of tricks, albeit in a wrapped up way.

 

In mentioning worrying about the 5th (impossible) undertrick, E made it clear that he was expecting to go 4 off, which is what will happen against best defence. If E had said "you are worrying about the 27th undertrick", or some other number that had no relation to the cards in front of us, that would obviously be a joke, not a claim of a precise number of tricks. But precisely because E has implied just the 4-off result he sees as likely, and 4-off is indeed the likely outcome against best defence, we can and should interpret it as a claim of 4-off. 5-off can't happen unless E deliberately plays Misere, because E now has 7 easy tricks regardless of the defence.

 

If it had less clearly been a jokey number like "27th undertrick", and maybe I'd say it was a statement of the kind "it doesn't matter" suggesting play be curtailed. And if not quite clear enough for that, I'd find it an offence against the proprieties (as it clearly is) and then adjust under Law 23. Fortunately on this occasion it is fairly straightforward to interpret as a claim.

[blackshoe]

Until you explained it, Ivie, I had no idea what "playing for the fifth down" meant. I thought it was a football (American football, not soccer) reference. :ph34r:

[Codo]

Okay looks at the rules:

 

L68A Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of

tricks is a claim of those tricks.

 

Did he made such a stetement? NO. Even if you do not care about the "I think" part, he did neither name 5 or 6 tricks for his side or 4 or 5 down.

 

A contestant also claims when he suggests

that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards.

 

He did not show, nor did he suggest.

 

L68B1 Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number

of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of

tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. A player concedes all the

remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

 

He is NOT specific at all, it is 4 or 5 tricks- and again, just if you do not listen to the "I think" part....

 

So you (and others) interpret his wordings as a claim. Quite funny, because he surely did not meant it as one, nor did he fullfil any of the given criteria for one.

[WellSpyder]

...A contestant also claims when he suggests

that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards....

It certainly sounds to me like he suggested play be curtailed.

[blackshoe]

Only in the sense that he opened his mouth while his opponent was thinking about what to do.

 

People make comments for all sorts of reasons, and often for no reason. The fact that someone made one does not imply he wants to curtail play.

[iviehoff]

So you (and others) interpret his wordings as a claim. Quite funny, because he surely did not meant it as one, nor did he fullfil any of the given criteria for one.

"Hurry up, I'm going to be creamed here and you can only be worrying about getting me even further down than would be a top" certainly isn't a claim, and that's probably what the player meant. He's going to get some nasty enforcement for it though, because it isn't true and misled the ops. However when he mentions the 5th undertrick in a situation where the contract is going 4 down under best defence, for me that is specific enough to call it a claim, and thus enforce against him as a claim.

[Codo]

Do you mind to tell me, how many tricks he claimed then? 7 or 6?

 

Karl rules 7 tricks, despite the fact that declarer never ever mentioned 4 down- how could he?

[gnasher]

I don't believe it was a claim. East didn't suggest that play be curtailed, he suggested that it be accelerated.

 

However, I do believe that it was an irregularity, it damaged the opponents, and East could well have known that this damage would occur. Hence I adjust the score to -4 in order to restore equity. Fining East seems completely over the top - it doesn't sound as though he had any malicious intent.

[blackshoe]

I don't believe it was a claim. East didn't suggest that play be curtailed, he suggested that it be accelerated.

 

However, I do believe that it was an irregularity, it damaged the opponents, and East could well have known that this damage would occur. Hence I adjust the score to -4 in order to restore equity. Fining East seems completely over the top - it doesn't sound as though he had any malicious intent.

You're using Law 23, then?

[iviehoff]

Do you mind to tell me, how many tricks he claimed then? 7 or 6?

 

Karl rules 7 tricks, despite the fact that declarer never ever mentioned 4 down- how could he?

"You are fighting for the fifth down" implies "You are easily going to get it 4 down." So to my mind he conceded 4 down.

 

This is the trouble - we can't let people get away with implying things so as to escape their legal responsibilities they'd have if they stated it clearly.

 

Treating it as a claim it is plainly 4 down, which has the advantage that declarer clearly thought that is where he was going. As an adjustment under Law 23, it becomes a bit more complicated. I think this is a weighted average ruling jurisdiction, so probably some weighted mix of 4 down, 3 down and making would be a proper ruling under Law 23.

 

Gnasher says he didn't suggest play be curtailed, he suggested it be accelerated. But he suggested it be accelerated because it didn't require much thought to get him 4 down. See second para above.

[gnasher]

You're using Law 23, then?

Yes.

 

As an adjustment under Law 23, it becomes a bit more complicated. I think this is a weighted average ruling jurisdiction, so probably some weighted mix of 4 down, 3 down and making would be a proper ruling under Law 23.

Perhaps. It depends whether we think he would ever have misdefended if allowed to think uninterrupted.

[Zelandakh]

You're using Law 23, then?

Law 73 would work too, no? and this is certainly a gratuitous comment as per 74B.

[wyman]

Isn't this the crowd that usually jumps all over defenders for not calling the director when the claim is made and tells people who continue to play the hand out at the table that making their own ruling tends to forfeit their right to rectification?

 

I don't have a strong opinion about this particular hand, and I do feel that the defense deserves some rectification, but I think awarding it under claim laws is a bit inconsistent with some other "rulings" I've seen doled out on the forums. That is, I think we have to think harder about the defense's actions if we're saying that declarer claimed. So I guess I agree with Gnasher and want to apply L23.

 

edit: err I guess law 73 is what I was thinking of, now that I've looked it up.

[Codo]

Even law 73 is tricky, isn't it?

 

I guess you mean this part of the law:

§ 73 F 2. Player Injured by Illegal Deception if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score.

 

Could he really have known? Hard to say away from the table, isn't it?

In this hand the count in both minors should be quite clear for south, same is true for the honours in East hand. He KNOWS, that East has AK in clubs AQ in diamond and at least a spade stopper. Playing spades now is really inferior, it is really close to a serious error, even if for one reason or another you think that ruffing now will safe a trick.

So, could East have known that his remark will let south choose such an inferior line? I doubt it, because his line is so far off, that it is hard to think that a defender will choose that line.

 

 

 

[Zelandakh]

If I tell you that it does not matter what you play, and it does actually matter, then I can certainly envisage that I might benefit from that if my opponent then does not give full thought to the situation.

[mink]

I don't believe it was a claim. East didn't suggest that play be curtailed, he suggested that it be accelerated.

Ok, you don't believe, but you did not explain why. And I fail to see the relevance of East's intentions.

 

Law 68B1 reads: "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; ..."

 

There is nothing else required for a statement to qualify as a concession, not even East's intention to concede. There was a statement, and this statement clearly implies that East believes he is currently at least down 4. If South and North knew the Laws well enough, they would have accepted the concession and returned their cards into the board. And East would probably not have objected, because this is what he wanted to achieve by his statement, the play would have been accelerated a lot.

 

By the way, even if East tried to have his concession canceled, this cannot be done via Law 69B, which only deals with a withdrawn agreement by the opponents of the player who conceded. Rather, it could be only done via Law 71, but there is a normal play that leads to -4, so this Law is not applicable in this case.

 

However, I do believe that it was an irregularity, it damaged the opponents, and East could well have known that this damage would occur.

I doubt that. East's statement shows resignation. If you imply that maybe he only acted like he was sure to lose a fortune, and tried talk opps into some bad play, this would qualify for removal from the tourney site. Rather, my impression is that he was honestly sad about his bad contract and truly believed he was about to go down for sure.

 

Fining East seems completely over the top - it doesn't sound as though he had any malicious intent.

Right, it doesn't sound like this. However, I believe that it is one of the holiest rights of a player to be able to think as long as he needs. Any statement that criticizes a player for thinking is truly rude. In this case, the criticism is about South not being able to see that his thinking will yield no significant benefit and he should know that the score will be a top for him anyway. A bad score is not enough to show East that this is not acceptable.

 

Karl

[gnasher]

Ok, you don't believe, but you did not explain why.

I was participating in the conversation that took place in posts 5-12. I don't see any point in repeating arguments that others have already made, so I just addressed the part that I didn't think had already been refuted.

 

And I fail to see the relevance of East's intentions.

 

Law 68B1 reads: "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; ..."

See post no 8.

 

I doubt that. East's statement shows resignation. If you imply that maybe he only acted like he was sure to lose a fortune, and tried talk opps into some bad play, this would qualify for removal from the tourney site.

Of course I didn't imply that. I implied exactly what I said: "it was an irregularity, it damaged the opponents, and East could well have known that this damage would occur".

 

"Could well have known" does not mean the same as "intended".

 

Rather, my impression is that he was honestly sad about his bad contract and truly believed he was about to go down for sure.

Yes, that's my impression too.

[barmar]

Isn't this the crowd that usually jumps all over defenders for not calling the director when the claim is made and tells people who continue to play the hand out at the table that making their own ruling tends to forfeit their right to rectification?

The disagreement in this forum is clear evidence that it's not obvious to everyone that this should be considered a claim. So I think the defenders can be forgiven for not acting as if it were.

[Zelandakh]

If Declarer in 7NT, on seeing dummy, says something along the lines "Hmmm, I see 12, now where is the 13th?" would anyone consider this a claim? I think the whole claim argument is a red herring because the Law uses the term "specific number of tricks". A range is not a specific number from any player and it is wrong to treat it as such.

[iviehoff]

If Declarer in 7NT, on seeing dummy, says something along the lines "Hmmm, I see 12, now where is the 13th?" would anyone consider this a claim?

Of course it isn't, that's obvious. And the law, I paraphrase, says that something that obviously isn't a claim, isn't. Curiously, this is one of those cases where the law is asking for a bit of common sense to be applied. Common sense is that people who imply to their opponents that there is nothing to think about because a certain outcome is assured can reasonably be treated as having claimed the assured outcome.