Successful Claim?

[barmar]

2) Although we want to avoid disconcerting other players, particularly novices, at the same time we don't want to patronize them. When we can claim by laying down our hand with all winners or point to Dummy which has all winners, we are getting them accustomed to claims so they will begin to be comfortable with them.

True, simple claims like that don't usually bother anyone. But sometimes claiming on a cross-ruff will confuse novices.

 

But I agree that you should do it anyway, they need to learn. But you should probably wait until they're more experienced before you claim on a squeeze, and even an end-play claim may waste more time than it saves.

[nige1]

If you ask to see the claimer's hand, he can refuse according to current daft laws :(

Sure he can refuse, but he certainly may not! See Law 66D (and in fact also Law 74A2)

Below, I've quoted the laws cited by Sven, together with a couple of other relevant laws.

A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

OK that law is a bit nebulous but does cover a multitude of sins. And I agree that the director should apply it when a claimer doesn't show his hand. But have you ever heard of a case where a director imposed a penalty for that behaviour?

After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or lost; but no player should handle cards other than his own. If, after such a claim has been made, a player mixes his cards in such a manner that the Director can no longer ascertain the facts, the Director shall rule in favour of the other side.

L70B3 (below) allows the director to inspect a player's cards. And L66D clearly allows a player to inspect his own cards. But it isn't clear that a player may inspect the cards of an opponent unless that player acquiesces.

Play Ceases. After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director's arrival.

When a claim is disputed, L68D forbids a player from taking any action before the director arrives.

The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.

This seems to confirm that a mere player may not insist on the claimer putting his cards face up on the table. Anyway, nowhere does the law clearly state that a claimer must show his hand on the request of another player. And that is the interpretation of some claimers and directors.

[gordontd]

I'll risk the wrath of Gordon Rainsford by hazarding a guess that (usually) he would allow this claim.

I didn't realise I was a wrathful person!

 

Actually I usually rule claims of this sort on the basis that a player who believes that all the cards in his hand are good might play them in any order. Certainly this declarer seems not to be aware that there's a trump outstanding.

[pran]

L66D clearly allows a player to inspect his own cards. But it isn't clear that a player may inspect the cards of an opponent unless that player acquiesces.

 

L66D clearly allows any player to inspect the other players' cards for the purposes stated in that law. However, as he may only handle his own cards he must obviously do such inspection with the assistance of the director unless the other players show their cards voluntary.

 

I do consider it a violation of L74A2 if a player refuses to show his cards voluntary in this situation and thus makes it neccessary to call the director solely for the purpose of executing the privilege in L66D.

 

Honestly I didn't imagine it neccessary to go into such details when showing that no player may refuse to show his cards if requested at end of play?

[Finch]

I didn't realise I was a wrathful person!

 

Actually I usually rule claims of this sort on the basis that a player who believes that all the cards in his hand are good might play them in any order. Certainly this declarer seems not to be aware that there's a trump outstanding.

 

I agree with Gordon, and disagree with Stefanie, and would rule one trick to the defence. I am not sure why Stefanie (and Nige1) think that 'in the EBU' declarer would get all the tricks. The law seems clear to me.

[Vampyr]

I agree with Gordon, and disagree with Stefanie, and would rule one trick to the defence. I am not sure why Stefanie (and Nige1) think that 'in the EBU' declarer would get all the tricks. The law seems clear to me.

 

I am convinced by the regulation quoted in post #13.

[blackshoe]

I am convinced by the regulation quoted in post #13.

I don't see why. 8.70.5 speaks of running a suit, which is not the situation here. Besides, declarer didn't say he was "running trumps" he said all his trumps were good. B-) 8.70.6 clearly implies that in this case the defender should get his trump trick.

 

There is, I think, a reason why the law speaks to "irrational" plays rather than "counterintuitive" plays.

 

There is also WB 8.70.4:

 

A declarer who is unaware of a missing trump is ‘careless’ in failing to draw the missing trump. Thus if a trick could be lost by playing other winners first then the TD should award that trick to the non-claimers.

Examples

(a) Declarer claims all the tricks with a good trump (♦9), two spade winners and a heart winner. The defence can ruff the heart with their outstanding small trump.

Despite declarer swearing on a stack of bibles that they knew there was a trump out, if they are too careless to mention it, then they may easily have forgotten it and the defence gets a trick.

(b) Declarer is in 7♠  with thirteen tricks so long as spades (trumps) are not 5-0. Declarer cashes one round and says “All mine” when both players follow. They clearly have not forgotten the outstanding three trumps and the claim is good.

[Vampyr]

There is, I think, a reason why the law speaks to "irrational" plays rather than "counterintuitive" plays.

 

Yes I know, and I have been thinking about that -- I know that a strange line is not the same as an irrational one, but I also think that we all know what declarer would do in practice were he playing out the hand, and it seems to me that the claim should be awarded on that basis, with no need to refer to L70.

 

If no one had any trumps and declarer's last two cards were a high card in a plain suit and a low one, would declarer be deemed to play them in any order? If he had AK2 in a three-card ending? It seems inconsistent.

 

Also I did not read in the OP that declarer had said that all of his trumps were good. Perhaps it has been edited, but now it says that declarer said nothing.

[nige1]

I didn't realise I was a wrathful person!

 

Actually I usually rule claims of this sort on the basis that a player who believes that all the cards in his hand are good might play them in any order. Certainly this declarer seems not to be aware that there's a trump outstanding.

GordonTD isn't a wrathful person. I had no intention of maligning him. And I'm pleased that FrancesHinden and he would rule against this claim.

[blackshoe]

Yes I know, and I have been thinking about that -- I know that a strange line is not the same as an irrational one, but I also think that we all know what declarer would do in practice were he playing out the hand, and it seems to me that the claim should be awarded on that basis, with no need to refer to L70.

 

If no one had any trumps and declarer's last two cards were a high card in a plain suit and a low one, would declarer be deemed to play them in any order? If he had AK2 in a three-card ending? It seems inconsistent.

 

Also I did not read in the OP that declarer had said that all of his trumps were good. Perhaps it has been edited, but now it says that declarer said nothing.

"If 'everyone knows' such-and-such, then it ain't so." - R. A. Heinlein.

 

There's always a need to refer to the law, unless the director has a perfect memory, just to make sure you don't miss anything about the ruling.

 

It may be that this declarer, or some other declarer, or most declarers, or whatever, would ruff low in hand and then play his top trump. However, that doesn't matter. The laws not only take into account the possibility that declarer might make a mistake or be careless, they also give the benefit of any doubt to the non-claiming side. So unless you are absolutely certain that the declarer in question would never, under any possible circumstances, make a mistake or be careless here, you have to rule that he might. I don't know about you, but I'm only absolutely certain of one thing: I'm going to pay a lot in taxes between now and whenever I die, if I die. I'm not absolutely certain of dying because science may yet come up with some way of making us all immortal. A very tiny chance before my allotted three score and ten are up, but a chance nonetheless. I have some small hope for a society that would eliminate taxes, but I think that chance is less than the chance of immortality. B-)

 

You're right, declarer didn't say anything, I misremembered, sorry about that. Or maybe I just inferred from the fact that he didn't say anything that he thought all his trumps were good. Anyway, doesn't matter. We don't have any evidence that he knew a trump was out, so we cannot assume he did know.

[Vampyr]

Well, I will accept this principle since Gordon is the authority in my jurisdiction, but I would like to know how far to take it. If declarer's last three cards are AK2, and he claims without a statement, shall he be deemed to play the cards in any order:

 

If the suit is trumps?

 

If it is a plain suit?

[RMB1]

Well, I will accept this principle since Gordon is the authority in my jurisdiction, but I would like to know how far to take it. If declarer's last three cards are AK2, and he claims without a statement, shall he be deemed to play the cards in any order:

 

This is precisely the sort of distinction that is already covered in the White Book, which is also the authority in our jurisdiction. WB 8.70.5:

A declarer who states that they are cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the top, especially if there is some solidity. However, each individual case should be considered.

Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone. It would be normal to give them three tricks since it might be considered not ‘normal’ to play the 5 first. However, with 754 opposite void it may be considered ‘careless’ to lose a trick to a singleton six.

[Vampyr]

This is precisely the sort of distinction that is already covered in the White Book, which is also the authority in our jurisdiction. WB 8.70.5:

 

LOL I had looked this up in the White Book but had forgotten. :unsure:

 

Not that I expect to have to rule on zillions of this sort of claim, but is there a dividing line, ie a combination such that better holdings will play from the top while worse ones might play the cards in any order?

[nige1]

Not sure about authorities other that the EBU, Campboy, but 'generally' the EBU has specified top down in the white book:

Top down?

A declarer who states that they are cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the

top, especially if there is some solidity. However, each individual case should be considered.

Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has

not gone. It would be normal to give them three tricks since it might be

considered not 'normal' to play the 5 first. However, with 754 opposite void it

may be considered 'careless' to lose a trick to a singleton six.

8.70.6 Different suits

If a declarer appears unaware of an outstanding winner, and a trick could be lost by playing or

discarding one suit rather than another then the TD should award that trick to the nonclaimers.

Example Declarer has three winners in dummy and must make three discards. They appear

to have forgotten their J is not a winner. It is 'careless' that they should discard

some other winner to retain the J"

Another clear as mud regulation that, as usual, raises intriguing questions:

1. Do "careless" and "normal" depend on the skill level of the claimer (IMO they shouldn't but I'm unsure of the law).
2. Where do you draw the line? e.g. AJT with the Q out, 732 with the 6 out? Does this again depend on the whim of the director?
3. When a claimer makes no specific statement but would be forced to "cash a suit" in the course of play, do these guide-lines still apply? Vampyr, quite reasonably, thought so. In particular, does this regulation apply in the OP case. e.g if declarer's trumps were A32 might the director uphold his claim?

A simpler law would eliminate these fascinating controversies.

[blackshoe]

There is nothing in the law that depends "on the whim of the director". And I think your implication that directors rule by whim is rather insulting. :(

[Vampyr]

There is nothing in the law that depends "on the whim of the director". And I think your implication that directors rule by whim is rather insulting. :(

 

Would it not have been helpful to add the guideline that replaces 'whim' in this situation? Nigel and I would both like to know which holdings are played top-down and which are 'carelessly' potentially played in any order. I would hate to have to rule on such a case before receiving an answer!

[billw55]

A simpler law would eliminate these fascinating controversies.

Agree. I would support the following law:

 

When a claim is made, the non-claiming side is automatically awarded one trick for each trump they hold which is not specifically mentioned or negated in the claim statement, unless it is impossible to win such tricks by any sequence of legal plays.

 

Harsh? Yep. Ambiguous? Nope. That's how I roll.

[axman]

There is nothing in the law that depends "on the whim of the director".

 

This assertion is dubious.

[billw55]

There is nothing in the law that depends "on the whim of the director".

This assertion is dubious.

It depends if you consider "judgement" and "whim" as synonyms. I don't.

[gordontd]

This is precisely the sort of distinction that is already covered in the White Book, which is also really the authority in our jurisdiction.

FYP :)

[axman]

It depends if you consider "judgement" and "whim" as synonyms.

 

A dubious assertion.

 

 

 

In America there is a nationally rated TD that has a policy of requiring a defender with an exposed card [at a time other than his turn] to deem it not a PC, and return it to hand without penalty. Supposedly he relies upon L50.

 

Then, there are the curious words ‘the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law’ found in L64C. the curiosity arising from the fact that there is no definition for the standard ‘insufficiently compensated’

[billw55]

Let me try this again.

 

There is nothing in the law that depends "on the whim of the director".

This assertion is dubious.

As you can see, I am talking about the laws, as was blackshoe. While occasionally a director may use his whim, this does not mean that the laws depend on it or encourage it. Some aspects of the law do require the director to use his judgement, which is not the same as whim, at least not to me.

 

You have had whimsical director rulings? Many of us have. That is unrelated to the laws.

[Vampyr]

Then, there are the curious words ‘the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law’ found in L64C. the curiosity arising from the fact that there is no definition for the standard ‘insufficiently compensated’

 

Well, this Law reads "sufficiently compensated ... for the damage caused", which makes it clear that the NOS should have their equity, sans revoke, restored.

 

But I am still waiting for someone to answer the question of how to differentiate between a holding in a suit that will be played from the top and one which may be played in any order. :huh:

[gnasher]

Do "careless" and "normal" depend on the skill level of the claimer (IMO they shouldn't but I'm unsure of the law).

A good way to become more sure of the law is to read it. The footnote to Laws 70 and 71 reads:

For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

[nige1]

A good way to become more sure of the law is to read it. The footnote to Laws 70 and 71 reads:

For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

Thanks. I feared as much :(