Defensive Claim 2

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj765haq2da42c543&w=s8hkjt987653dt5c2&n=sa432hdkj93cak876&e=skqt9h4dq876cqjt9&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=4hdp4sppdppp]399|300[/hv]

IMPS; Lead 8♠; Table Result NS+590

 

I am indebted to Don Smedley, Grandmaster of Double Dummy Solving, for composing a similar hand to the above which is from a match last night. West decided not to go to 5♥ at the vulnerability, which was wise, and led the singleton trump, having read Burn's Law about leading trumps against doubled contracts. Declarer played low in dummy, and East won and continued with the queen of clubs. North won, cashed the king of clubs, and noted that West discarded a heart. He was a bit of a rueful rabbit, so the information was of little value to him. He exited with a club to East who switched to his heart. South, RR, played the ace, and carelessly ruffed it in dummy, attempting to correct it to a small diamond fairly quickly. East, known for his active ethics, said, "That's ok, we know what you meant," but North, an SB lookalike, indicated that to discard would now be an irregularity, and he wanted to call the TD to prevent an irregularity. He was busy reciting 40B2 verbatim, when East interrupted him with, "I don't think it matters, I get two trumps anyway. If you draw trumps you lose a club or a diamond". "That is a defensive claim, and I object," continued SB, in his customary manner. "After ruffing the ace of hearts, partner could lead the jack of diamonds. If you play low (covering does not help), declarer ruffs a club, cashed the ace and king of diamonds and ruffs the nine of diamonds. Now he ruffs a heart with the ace of spades and scores the jack of spades en passant." "+590, I think, or do you want the TD to come to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s", he goaded, quite prepared to accept the PP for making his own ruling.

 

"And you did extremely well, partner, to realise that the ace of hearts was a mirage," continued SB provocatively. "If you had not ruffed it there was no way home."

 

East thought Dummy was participating in the play, but SB knew that he was no longer dummy when East claimed, and he was within his rights to object to the claim. How do you rule?

[broze]

SB knew that he was no longer dummy when East claimed

 

I am not too well versed in the laws so to save me leafing through them, where does it say/imply that dummy ceases to be dummy because there has been a claim/play has ceased?

[aguahombre]

I am not too well versed in the laws so to save me leafing through them, where does it say/imply that dummy ceases to be dummy because there has been a claim/play has ceased?

Law 68D tells us that play ceases upon a claim. 43B3 states dummy may call attention to an irregularity after play ceases. This gives official recognition to the common sense recognition that:

 

Dummy is the partner of Declarer, and these terms refer to the play period. During the auction period or between hands there is no dummy, no declarer, no defender.

[broze]

43B3 states dummy may call attention to an irregularity after play ceases.

 

To me this sentence implies that dummy remains so, at least nominally for the purpose of the laws, after play has ceased. It is also far from being common sense (for me at least) that dummy stops being dummy for one hand before that hand is over. I wouldn't have said that we were "between hands" in Lamford's scenario.

 

In any case, to me there seems to be a conflict in the laws between "dummy may object to a claim" and "dummy may not communicate anything about the play to declarer."

[blackshoe]

I think the first thing is to penalize SB one full board for being an obnoxious twit. B-)

 

Attention was called to an irregularity (declarer's attempted change of call). Thereafter, only one action is legal - calling the director. SB did not do that. Give him another PP. He "goaded", a violation of law 74A2. A third PP. No, make that one a DP. And yes, a PP for making his own ruling. Maybe that will shut him up. No, probably not. :(

 

It would be "normal" for this declarer to fail to take the line of play dummy suggested. So I'd rule the claim valid. I think that makes declarer down one, -100 to NS. Plus (in the EBU) at least 9 IMPs in PPs/DPs plus another 12(?) for the first, full board, penalty. Let's hope the table result leads to another 10 or 12 IMP loss.

 

Okay, I'm kidding about the full board penalty. Still, legitimate penalties and an adverse ruling should make the point.

[lamford]

It would be "normal" for this declarer to fail to take the line of play dummy suggested.

The PPs are probably justified, even though dummy did attempt to call the TD after attention had been drawn to an irregularity, but was interrupted by the defensive claim. Let us forget those for the moment as they are incidental to the main purpose of the post, the defensive claim. I think you are falling into the same trap as the eminent Chief TD at the National Pairs final. Declarer did not claim. A defender did. Any unsuccessful line for the defender is automatically normal, and SB is right that declarer makes +590.

[broze]

I agree that the "normal line of play" and "class of player" aspects of the law seem only to refer to impact on the claimer and not his opponents.

 

Then again on the face of it you might rule under 70A that you should adjust the board "as equitably as possible to both sides" as it certainly doesn't seem equitable for South to make a contract he was not going to make without SB's help. And you might argue that North has breached 42C by communicating to declarer about the play; it wouldn't be equitable to allow NS to benefit from that either.

 

So I would rule contract one off. (Disclaimer: NAD [not a director])

 

(Nice hand by the way)

[barmar]

Then again on the face of it you might rule under 70A that you should adjust the board "as equitably as possible to both sides" as it certainly doesn't seem equitable for South to make a contract he was not going to make without SB's help. And you might argue that North has breached 42C by communicating to declarer about the play; it wouldn't be equitable to allow NS to benefit from that either.

The situation in this thread is essentially just a more advanced version of the one in "A defensive claim". In that thread, the concensus seems to be that declarer is given the benefit of the doubt and assumed to play as well as possible, even though dummy noticed it and declarer admitted that he didn't see the end-play.

 

So why is this hypo any different?

[lamford]

The situation in this thread is essentially just a more advanced version of the one in "A defensive claim". In that thread, the concensus seems to be that declarer is given the benefit of the doubt and assumed to play as well as possible, even though dummy noticed it and declarer admitted that he didn't see the end-play.

 

So why is this hypo any different?

I think someone suggested that a complex backwash squeeze only found by Deep Finesse might be different, although I cannot find that reference now. I think it is not, and for dummy to be competent at DD problems and alert when there is a defensive claim is part of the game. Dummy has few enough rights as it is! This post was designed to show that it does not matter how unlikely the defence to the claim is. If it is out there then the non-claimers are deemed to find it.

[lamford]

And you might argue that North has breached 42C by communicating to declarer about the play; it wouldn't be equitable to allow NS to benefit from that either.

 

So I would rule contract one off. (Disclaimer: NAD [not a director])

 

(Nice hand by the way)

You might argue that; the point is that the communication was after the claim, when he is allowed to give any line he likes as his objection. So your ruling is a clear error.

[aguahombre]

The situation in this thread is essentially just a more advanced version of the one in "A defensive claim". In that thread, the concensus seems to be that declarer is given the benefit of the doubt and assumed to play as well as possible, even though dummy noticed it and declarer admitted that he didn't see the end-play.

 

So why is this hypo any different?

Another way of looking at these is this: An opponent has prevented further play. That opponent nor the TD should then decide that the play he was prevented from making would have been inferior.

 

Does L23 apply? Declarer wouldn't likely have found the winning line. She admitted that in the first Lamford case. Could the person who made the defensive claim have known she might have found it? The winning line is staring him in the face; I say he could have known.

 

The TD does not have to say he did know preventing play from continuing would be to his advantage...only that doing so might well work to his advantage and that the defender could conceivably have known that.

[broze]

You might argue that; the point is that the communication was after the claim, when he is allowed to give any line he likes as his objection. So your ruling is a clear error.

 

Perhaps, although the law is that dummy "may not communicate anything about the play to declarer". It does not explicitly say that limitations on dummy only apply during the play period. And as evidenced by laws such as 42B3 stating that "dummy may call attention to an irregularity after play has ceased" dummy is still dummy at this point. You might therefore argue that he has the right to object to a claim but not to communicate anything about the play to declarer.

 

In any case I would also find SB liable for a procedural penalty (maybe debatable) and so would rule inequity in that NS should not directly benefit from an action of theirs that gives rise to a PP.

 

@barmar: I have not read the other thread.

[lamford]

Perhaps, although the law is that dummy "may not communicate anything about the play to declarer". It does not explicitly say that limitations on dummy only apply during the play period. And as evidenced by laws such as 42B3 stating that "dummy may call attention to an irregularity after play has ceased" dummy is still dummy at this point. You might therefore argue that he has the right to object to a claim but not to communicate anything about the play to declarer.

I think that after the claim they are only "declarer" and "dummy" to distinguish them, and there is case law on this issue. They are just two members of the non-claiming side, and the play period has ended, so they can say what they like when objecting. North could say "I object" without giving the line, and the TD should, if he is competent, find it. To give SB a PP for saving the TD ten hours minutes of analysis seems a little harsh.

[WellSpyder]

I think the first thing is to penalize SB one full board for being an obnoxious twit. B-)

Has SB become SoB?

[lamford]

Has SB become SoB?

That reminds me of the puzzle: which word in Chambers Dictionary has a one-word singular but a three-word plural? Off-topic I know.

[blackshoe]

Any unsuccessful line for the defender is automatically normal

Funny, it doesn't say that in my copy of the law book.

 

Also, SB was not interrupted in his attempt to call the director, he was interrupted in his attempt to be the director — or to show his vast knowledge of the law, or both.1

[jallerton]

I am indebted to Don Smedley, Grandmaster of Double Dummy Solving, for composing a similar hand to the above which is from a match last night.

<snip>

How do you rule?

 

I rule that the board is cancelled. Law 6D2.

[barmar]

Funny, it doesn't say that in my copy of the law book.

 

Also, SB was not interrupted in his attempt to call the director, he was interrupted in his attempt to be the director — or to show his vast knowledge of the law, or both.1

The OP said that SB wanted to call the TD, and then started reciting the relevant law, and East interrupted this by making his claim. Thus, East violated the law that says that no action should be taken until the TD arrives. Worse, he was trying to prevent calling the TD -- he said they didn't need the TD, because nothing mattered at that point.

 

I think SB is at worst guilty of violating proprieties by showing off his knowledge of the law instead of just calling the TD. But once he indicates that he wants to call the TD, it's more wrong for another player to take action.

[lamford]

I rule that the board is cancelled. Law 6D2.

Because the duplimate machine dealt a similar board to a double-dummy problem of over 30 years ago? I don't think that is grounds to cancel the board. And the fact that SB was familiar with the problem is not either.

[lamford]

Any unsuccessful line for the defender is automatically normal

Funny, it doesn't say that in my copy of the law book.

I didn't say that it did. The basis of ruling on claims is in 70D1:

The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful. Normal includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

 

The claim statement in this example was basically, "I have to get two tricks whatever you do". There is a line of play that would be less successful, which involves both sides playing perfectly; if you cannot accept that is "normal", then I do not know how to persuade you. The same goes for jallerton who seems to have the same blind spot.

 

And I now have to do a few major projects unconnected with bridge, and am unlikely to post on here for a while. "Good riddance", I hear many of you say.

[blackshoe]

The OP said that SB wanted to call the TD, and then started reciting the relevant law, and East interrupted this by making his claim. Thus, East violated the law that says that no action should be taken until the TD arrives. Worse, he was trying to prevent calling the TD -- he said they didn't need the TD, because nothing mattered at that point.

 

I think SB is at worst guilty of violating proprieties by showing off his knowledge of the law instead of just calling the TD. But once he indicates that he wants to call the TD, it's more wrong for another player to take action.

I suppose it depends on how you read Law 9B2. I've always considered it to apply once the director is called. The director wasn't called here because SB was too busy showing off. So SB violated Law 9B1{a} by not summoning the director at once, as that law requires, and unless 9B2 is to be read that "no action shall be taken" after attention is drawn to an irregularity (which is a possible interpretation), East did not violate that law.

[Vampyr]

Does L23 apply? Declarer wouldn't likely have found the winning line. She admitted that in the first Lamford case. Could the person who made the defensive claim have known she might have found it? The winning line is staring him in the face; I say he could have known.

 

The thing is, and maybe this comment should be in the other thread, the winning line is quite obvious once the defender faces his cards. I am sure that declarer is now allowed to find the right line even though she may have been playing mechanically before seeing the oponnents' cards.

[aguahombre]

The thing is, and maybe this comment should be in the other thread, the winning line is quite obvious once the defender faces his cards. I am sure that declarer is now allowed to find the right line even though she may have been playing mechanically before seeing the oponents' cards.

Declarer doesn't need to find the right line, although it would be nice. That's the whole point of what should be the correct ruling. If the TD, whose job it is to find your winning line and rule accordingly, is not capable, then either of the two non-claimants can point him in the right direction. Failing that, you go to committee where hopefully they can see it.

 

In the first thread (your case), the solution is not even double-dummy or requisite on seeing the claimer's hand; it is knowable from the play of the cards exactly what the situation is. The claimer who can see both dummy and his own cards can see declarer's winning line staring him in the face. Hence, my L23 reference. I know L23 requires there to have been an irregularity (offense). A false claim is an irregularity on my planet.

 

In fact your case is so obvious, I would start wondering why, by now, the claimer himself hasn't conceded that his side was only entitled to one of the four remaining tricks solely because of his claim when you admit you would have gone wrong.

 

You might consider keeping that question in the back of your mind for future reference.

[Vampyr]

In the first thread (your case), the solution is not even double-dummy or requisite on seeing the claimer's hand; it is knowable from the play of the cards exactly what the situation is.

 

Yes, quite. But it is true that I was tired and not really paying attention, so I would probably have gone wrong without the reminder of seeing LHO's cards.