Is this a claim or concession, and how should it be resolved?

[pran]

No, he didn't. So, the question remains: Why did North make his comment?

 

The answer: He attempted to curtail play.

 

Rik

I disagree.

Rik may think he is correct if he believes that "curtail play" and "speed up play" are synonymous.

 

But in the laws "curtail play" has a very distinct meaning and the comment by North does not in any way fit this meaning.

[gordontd]

But in the laws "curtail play" has a very distinct meaning

No it doesn't. It's not defined or explained in the Laws and so it has its ordinary meaning.

[pran]

But in the laws "curtail play" has a very distinct meaning and the comment by North does not in any way fit this meaning.

No it doesn't. It's not defined or explained in the Laws and so it has its ordinary meaning.

Indeed.

And the ordinary meaning of "curtail" is very distinct and not in any way compatible with any meaning that can be assigned to the comment made by North.

 

So what is your point?

[gordontd]

Indeed.

And the ordinary meaning of "curtail" is very distinct and not in any way compatible with any meaning that can be assigned to the comment made by North.

 

So what is your point?

I think it's quite likely that if we asked North why he made the comment, his explanation would include something like "to save time". Since the only way it could save time is if it shortened the play period, it is entirely consistent with suggesting that play be curtailed.

[blackshoe]

Objection! Speculation.

[pran]

Objection! Speculation.

 

And "STOP playing" is in no way compatible with "play faster"!

 

Besides, if you ask North I have already pointed out the more likely answer that he was "trying to help East".

[gordontd]

Besides, if you ask North I have already pointed out the more likely answer that he was "trying to help East".

To what end?

[barmar]

Sure, but it wasn't such a suggestion, it was a statement of fact - unless you can produce evidence from the player that he intended it as a suggestion to curtail play.

 

"It's cold outside" and "it's raining" are also just statements of fact. But in an appropriate context, they're also suggestions to put on a coat or take an umbrella.

 

IMO, in a situation where a player is taking a long time to decide on a play, a statement like the one in the OP seems like a suggestion that it doesn't matter. I don't see how simply telling a player what's in his hand helps him or speeds up play in any other way.

[Bbradley62]

"It's cold outside" and "it's raining" are also just statements of fact. But in an appropriate context, they're also suggestions to put on a coat or take an umbrella.

 

IMO, in a situation where a player is taking a long time to decide on a play, a statement like the one in the OP seems like a suggestion that it doesn't matter. I don't see how simply telling a player what's in his hand helps him or speeds up play in any other way.

Upvote!

[gnasher]

I think it's quite likely that if we asked North why he made the comment, his explanation would include something like "to save time". Since the only way it could save time is if it shortened the play period, it is entirely consistent with suggesting that play be curtailed.

 

"Curtail" implies cutting short, rather than merely speeding up. Though I don't think you agreed with me last time I said this.

[nige1]

After a heavy sigh from East, North says helpfully: "Oh, yes, you can't lead a diamond or a spade". (East has discarded on a diamond and ruffed a spade.) Has North claimed?

The only problem with this is that North has a good case if he states that he in no way tried to mislead East, on the contrary he tried to make life easier for him.

73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture . . . or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure. Said procedure being a breach of law 74 B2 - As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from making gratuitous comments during the auction or play. (As well as 74C3 - indicating the expectation or intention of winning or losing a trick that has not been completed)

Did North really attempt to mislead East?

I wish no one would talk to me while I am playing cards.

Sure, but it wasn't such a suggestion, it was a statement of fact - unless you can produce evidence from the player that he intended it as a suggestion to curtail play.

So, the question remains: Why did North make his comment? The answer: He attempted to curtail play.

Would you like to tell us why you think North made his comment?

Unless you've attended the mind-reading course for directors, it's hard to be sure why North made his comment. It's barely conceivable that North was trying to be helpful although, manifestly, his remark is gratuitous and unhelpfuI -- empty of information -- and likely to spoil East's concentration. As Weejonnie says, it flouts 73D2. North probably didn't intend his remark as a claim but it might qualify as such within the law -- and that interpretation accords with the interests of justice.

[gordontd]

"Curtail" implies cutting short, rather than merely speeding up. Though I don't think you agreed with me last time I said this.

No, I don't. I just don't see it. Consider if it all works as intended and speeds up play. Does it do so by making everyone play their cards faster but play the hand out until the end? Not in my opinion - in fact in the immediate term they may even slow down while they process the new information - but once they have done that and if they are satisfied with it they will... curtail play. So I think it's a suggestion that play be curtailed.

[gnasher]

No, I don't. I just don't see it. Consider if it all works as intended and speeds up play. Does it do so by making everyone play their cards faster but play the hand out until the end? Not in my opinion - in fact in the immediate term they may even slow down while they process the new information - but once they have done that and if they are satisfied with it they will... curtail play. So I think it's a suggestion that play be curtailed.

Sorry, I thought you and Pran were disagreeing about the meaining of "curtail".

 

I agree that declarer's words might well, in fact, have been intended to curtail play. They certainly had that effect.

[pran]

Sorry, I thought you and Pran were disagreeing about the meaining of "curtail".

 

I agree that declarer's words might well, in fact, have been intended to curtail play. They certainly had that effect.

I just cannot understand how North's comment can be taken as a suggestion to curtail the play (and thus being a claim), but East certainly curtailed the play (by conceeding all remaining tricks).

[gordontd]

And North's comment was a suggestion that he do that.

[WellSpyder]

I just cannot understand how North's comment can be taken as a suggestion to curtail the play

Frankly, I find this a pretty amazing comment. You might want to disagree that it was a suggestion to curtail the play (though I wouldn't). But I don't see how any logical-thinking person can fail to see why at least some would take it as a suggestion to curtail the play.

[pran]

I just cannot understand how North's comment can be taken as a suggestion to curtail the play (and thus being a claim), but East certainly curtailed the play (by conceeding all remaining tricks).

And North's comment was a suggestion that he do that.

Oh, was it?

 

After a heavy sigh from East, North says helpfully: "Oh, yes, you can't lead a diamond or a spade". (East has discarded on a diamond and ruffed a spade.)

[helene_t]

It depends on the intonation. But we were told that he said "helpfully" that (...) so presumably he meant it as "it doesn't matter what you lead".

 

I wouldn't take this as a claim since even if it doesn't matter what East leads it might still matter what West plays, or it could be that North hadn't made his mind up what he would play. Although I concede that it is a bit far-fetched that it might not matter what E leads in such a scenario. It may be fair to call North's comment stupid/unhelpful/misleading but I don't see it as a claim. Even if we interpret his comment as "nothing matters anymore", he hasn't stated how many ticks he claims.

 

I would like to give a split score here since I believe North commited an infraction and I don't want him te benefit from that. But I have no clue if that is legal.

[blackshoe]

And North's comment was a suggestion that he do that.

Again, I'm with Sven here. I do not consider North's comment a claim.

 

I would like to give a split score here since I believe North commited an infraction and I don't want him te benefit from that. But I have no clue if that is legal.

Either North's comment was a claim, and your rule it as such (which means no split score) or it wasn't a claim, and you rule that East conceded the remaining tricks, so again no split score.

 

If North committed an infraction, you apply whatever redress is specified in the law he broke. Which one is it?

[pran]

Again, I'm with Sven here. I do not consider North's comment a claim.

 

 

Either North's comment was a claim, and your rule it as such (which means no split score) or it wasn't a claim, and you rule that East conceded the remaining tricks, so again no split score.

 

If North committed an infraction, you apply whatever redress is specified in the law he broke. Which one is it?

It can be a question whether North's comment is a violation of Law 74B2 and/or Law 74C4.

However, any reaction stronger than possibly a warning is in my opinion a gross over-reaction.

[blackshoe]

If you give a warning for violation of some part of 74, you should be prepared to give a PP if he does it again. Equally, if you've already warned him about this kind of thing in the past, you should almost certainly give a PP now.

[Trinidad]

I just cannot understand how North's comment can be taken as a suggestion to curtail the play.

I, and I suspect many others who think that this was a suggestion to curtail the play, can understand how someone could not take it as a suggestion to curtail play.

 

A more absolute opinion does not mean a better qualified opinion.

 

Rik

[pran]

If you give a warning for violation of some part of 74, you should be prepared to give a PP if he does it again. Equally, if you've already warned him about this kind of thing in the past, you should almost certainly give a PP now.

Sure.

A warning is an instruction from the Director not to commit the irregularity again, and if someone deliberately violates Law 90B8 (s)he will automatically face a significant PP from me.

 

As I remember I have had to penalize under Law 90B8 only once during my more than 30 years of directing, and then I penalized (I believe) 50% of top on one board. I have never since had any lack of respect from that player.

[VixTD]

I would like to give a split score here since I believe North commited an infraction and I don't want him to benefit from that. But I have no clue if that is legal.

I think it probably is just about legal. I think Pran et al. are arguing that in order to apply law 73F and from there award an assigned adjusted score under law 12C the TD has first to identify another part of law 73 that the offender has infringed. Since this is nothing to do with communication between partners or variation in tempo, and there has been no intention to mislead, law 73F does not apply. This does not mean that they cannot award an adjusted score, as they can always fall back on law 12A1 if they think an offender has gained from an infraction for which there is no specific penalty. If the TD really thought that North should not have made the remark, but also that East should not have been taken in by it, they could rule that both are at fault and award a split score. I'm not recommending it, but I think it would be just about legal.

 

I'm glad there's now more support for my original opinion that North's comment should be regarded as a claim.

[aguahombre]

I, and I suspect many others who think that this was a suggestion to curtail the play, can understand how someone could not take it as a suggestion to curtail play.

 

A more absolute opinion does not mean a better qualified opinion.

 

Rik

Although I am in Sven's camp that North's comment didn't quite reach "suggestion to curtail the play", I must applaud the way you presented the paragraphs I quoted. A plus just didn't seem like enough.