Ethics, rules, cultural norms

[gwnn]

I was surprised nobody posted this hand already (or did they?).

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj982hj542d2cj74&w=saha7dakqt73ckqt9&n=skt765hkq9863dj8c&e=s43htd9654ca86532&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=ppp7nppp]399|300|♥ lead[/hv]

The auction is, as you can imagine, not exactly the same as given in the auction, but it is irrelevant. On the low heart lead, declarer tables their cards and claims 13 tricks without a statement. NS call the director showing Jxx of clubs which will block the club suit so if declarer cashes diamonds first, there will be no entry to the clubs in dummy.

 

(Actually, NS called the director a few boards later, but I don't really think that should be the point of this thread.)

 

I don't really care about the legal aspect of this ruling, so I am not posting it in the Laws thread. As far as I can gather, it is a judgement ruling (whether or not starting with the diamonds is irrational or merely careless), and it would not be shocking if the TD ruled down 1. Assuming this to be the case,

- Would you call the director here? (aka "Would you want to win like this??") If not, what would you do?

- Would you be upset if your opponents called the director on you?

- As a 3rd party, would you regard someone who calls the director here as unethical (perhaps some people say "I wouldn't be upset if they call the director on me because ultimately I should have been more careful. but I consider it shady")? Does it matter where this happens?

- Anything else?

 

I actually am quite happy about this case since now I can point to it if someone accuses me of uncritically accepting everything the Sheriff postulates. :P

[diana_eva]

Glad you didn't post this in the laws forum, bec i feel that it's mostly a cultural thing. Edited November 3, 2015 by diana_eva

[PhantomSac]

Ofc all the facts are not noted in the OP. Like your table has been slow (there is an obligation to play the game within the time requirements, claiming on such a hand helps with that).

 

But yes of course it is not a cultural thing, it is just a douchey thing to do to call the director. If your opponents are novices then maybe ask them how they will play it (OMG UNLAWFUL PLAY CEASES AFTER A CLAIM), but this was a world championship.

 

The fact that it was one of the biggest known slimeballs in the game who called the director is not a shocker.

[billw55]

... but this was a world championship.

 

The fact that it was one of the biggest known slimeballs in the game who called the director is not a shocker.

I think this being a world championship makes a big difference. I gather that pros accept claims from other pros for lines of play that are obvious to them, but not necessarily to everyone else. Perhaps director should allow the claim, ruling that there are no doubtful points to be resolved per 70A.

 

At (say) an ACBL sectional, I think calling the director is perfectly in order, and should result in down 1. Many declarers at such an event could, and indeed would, block clubs. I would expect this ruling as either declarer or defender, and never consider it anything but correct.

[sfi]

Whether cashing diamonds first is careless or irrational surely depends on the level of play. And determining that is sometimes pretty hard to judge accurately in the middle of a match. I've also never been overly impressed by a claim from someone who can't be bothered to show any understanding of key points of the hand, even if it's fairly straightforward.

 

On this hand I wouldn't be annoyed if someone called the director when I claimed as in the original post, and I'd live with it if ruled against - mostly because I probably actually missed the problem if I hadn't indicated it in any way. Would I call the director? Sometimes, depending on level of player, their claiming style in the match, and whether it feels like they missed the point. But not just because there is a chance we can get a dodgy ruling in our favour.

 

Would I consider someone else who called unethical? Not on the evidence of this one hand.

 

BTW I don't know the actual hand, so the circumstances Justin mentioned would also come into play.

[billw55]

... I'd live with it if ruled against - mostly because I probably actually missed the problem if I hadn't indicated it in any way.

Definitely this for me. For sure, if I saw the problem in clubs (which I should), I would 100% mention it in my claim. This would involve an additional delay of about one second while I spoke the words "clubs first".

 

Sure, experts playing with each other will have a different standard of what is obvious. In fact I can think of things that are, for me, obvious enough to not mention in a claim, but that a true novice might not execute properly.

 

Out of curiosity, let's say I entered the Spingold and this deal came up. I make this claim, without any statement, in an otherwise very strong field, playing against a pro team. Will I get this same consideration from pros generally - that the line of play is too obvious to contest the claim?

 

 

[Bbradley62]

It may be a cultural thing, but based on the culture of a world championship, not the culture of a particular nation or similar demographic. Being completely unfamiliar with the culture of a world championship, I cannot comment on the appropriateness of the director call or of any potential ruling there.

 

I do agree with billw55 and sfi that in a lesser event, it would be entirely reasonable (and probably appropriate) to punish a declarer who can't be bothered to say "unblocking clubs first" when he tables his hand.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj982hj542d2cj74&w=saha7dakqt73ckqt9&n=skt765hkq9863dj8c&e=s43htd9654ca86532&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=ppp7nppp]399|300|♥ leadI was surprised nobody posted this hand already (or did they?).The auction is, as you can imagine, not exactly the same as given in the auction, but it is irrelevant. On the low heart lead, declarer tables their cards and claims 13 tricks without a statement. NS call the director showing Jxx of clubs which will block the club suit so if declarer cashes diamonds first, there will be no entry to the clubs in dummy.(Actually, NS called the director a few boards later, but I don't really think that should be the point of this thread.)I don't really care about the legal aspect of this ruling, so I am not posting it in the Laws thread. As far as I can gather, it is a judgement ruling (whether or not starting with the diamonds is irrational or merely careless), and it would not be shocking if the TD ruled down 1. Assuming this to be the case,- Would you call the director here? (aka "Would you want to win like this??") If not, what would you do?- Would you be upset if your opponents called the director on you?- As a 3rd party, would you regard someone who calls the director here as unethical (perhaps some people say "I wouldn't be upset if they call the director on me because ultimately I should have been more careful. but I consider it shady")? Does it matter where this happens?- Anything else?I actually am quite happy about this case since now I can point to it if someone accuses me of uncritically accepting everything the Sheriff postulates. [/hv]

Ofc all the facts are not noted in the OP. Like your table has been slow (there is an obligation to play the game within the time requirements, claiming on such a hand helps with that). But yes of course it is not a cultural thing, it is just a douchey thing to do to call the director. If your opponents are novices then maybe ask them how they will play it (OMG UNLAWFUL PLAY CEASES AFTER A CLAIM), but this was a world championship. The fact that it was one of the biggest known slimeballs in the game who called the director is not a shocker.

Boye mentioned this deal in his BridgeWinners article 10 weeks.

• Most of those who replied agree with Phantomsac.
• A substantial minority (including Blackshoe, David Burn and me) think it's perfectly ethical to call the director. A claim without a statement is illegal. Top players can carelessly overlook a blockage. Some Top-level claims are incorrect. Even Boye was conned by such a claim. A brief explanation by declarer saves time and effort for opponents -- and can avoid hassle for directors.
• A few (including Tom Townsend and me) suggest that Duplicate claim law be simplified along Rubber Bridge lines (but we still feel that we should strictly adhere to existing rules until they are changed).. .

[blackshoe]

It may be a cultural thing, but based on the culture of a world championship, not the culture of a particular nation or similar demographic. Being completely unfamiliar with the culture of a world championship, I cannot comment on the appropriateness of the director call or of any potential ruling there.

 

I do agree with billw55 and sfi that in a lesser event, it would be entirely reasonable (and probably appropriate) to punish a declarer who can't be bothered to say "unblocking clubs first" when he tables his hand.

Yeah. Give him twenty lashes!

[gwnn]

I didn't get the impression that most agreed with PhantomSac. The split seemed to be close to even. It doesn't matter much either way, though. Everyone can see the thread for themselves, of course. There was quite a discussion going on (I liked a post about bridge on the Moon).

[EricK]

I would probably accept this claim. But I, myself, would never make a claim without some sort of statement. The laws say I should make some sort of statement, so I do. And I think not doing so is not only (slightly) unethical, but also (slightly) slows down the game as the opponents have to work out the line you intend for themselves. So, not knowing any of the participants, my sympathy here is with the non-claimers.

 

Obviously, I do not play at the exalted level of the people in the OP. And I realise that, at that level, there has arisen some sort of "honour code" where claiming without a statement is accepted. But I still don't like it.

[WellSpyder]

Frankly, I really struggle to believe a declarer would notice the problem and not mention it in his claim. However, that does not mean that he wouldn't notice the problem and deal with it sensibly if he played the hand out, even without any "warning" from a contested claim. If there is no reasonable doubt that declarer would have made the contract had he played it out, then I think that is the basis on which the laws require the TD to rule. If the TD concludes that since the declarer hasn't noticed the problem at the time of the claim then he might not notice it when playing the hand out, then the ruling is different. I think it is perfectly reasonable for players to make their own judgment about this before deciding whether or not they want to dispute the claim, but it is also perfectly reasonable to decide that it is an issue for the TD to decide.

[gnasher]

I'd ask them whether they'd noticed the club blockage. If they said they had, I'd accept the claim. If they hadn't, I'd call the director and contest the claim.

[gwnn]

I'd ask them whether they'd noticed the club blockage. If they said they had, I'd accept the claim. If they hadn't, I'd call the director and contest the claim.

Does this depend on the manner in which they said it or do you just take their word for it unconditionally? What if their answer is a blank look for 3 seconds and then said "what? oh yes of course."

[gnasher]

it is just a douchey thing to do to call the director

There's nothing "douchey" about calling the director. What's wrong is getting the director to rule one down if you personally think that declarer had noticed the blockage and was going to play it correctly.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this procedure:

- Call the director and explain the problem

- Listen to what declarer says to the director

- If you think declarer knew about the blockage, tell the director you accept the claim.

- If you think declarer didn't know about the blockage, tell the director you wish to contest the claim.

 

Note to Ed: Law 70 begins "In ruling on a contested claim or concession". If the claim isn't contested, he has no power to rule on the claim.

[gnasher]

Does this depend on the manner in which they said it or do you just take their word for it unconditionally? What if their answer is a blank look for 3 seconds and then said "what? oh yes of course."

I'd tend to believe them (or pretend to believe them) unless it was obvious that they were lying. If I did think they were lying I'd call the director, whilst being aware that I'd rather weakened my position. That, of course, is why the Laws tell you to call the director immediately.

Edited November 4, 2015 by gnasher

[helene_t]

If your opponents are novices then maybe ask them how they will play it (OMG UNLAWFUL PLAY CEASES AFTER A CLAIM), but this was a world championship.

I don't think you need to be a novice to miss this one. I you play against me and I make such a claim without stating that I will play clubs first it is odds on that I have missed it.

 

But I'll take your words for it w.r.t. World Championship level.

[helene_t]

I'd tend to believe them (or pretend to believe them) unless it was obvious that they were lying. If I did think they were lying I'd call the director, whilst being aware that I'd rather weakened my position. That, of course, is why the Laws tell you to call the director immediately.

But if you call the TD, declarer has some time to think it through while you are waiting for the director. So maybe the spontaneous response you get if you ask him how he will play it is more illuminating.

[nullve]

Sorry for stating the obvious, but it seems like the laws force the players to play a form of Prisoner's Dilemma with 'call the director'/'accept the claim' instead of 'defect'/'cooperate'. In an ideal world maybe no player would call the director over something like this, but there's no question what the optimal strategy is if the overarching objective is to win bridge tournaments and not e.g. to repair a damaged reputation.

[helene_t]

Btw, even if he didn't notice that clubs could be blocked, it is possible that would start thinking about it once he saw North discarding.

[EricK]

Sorry for stating the obvious, but it seems like the laws force the players to play a form of Prisoner's Dilemma with 'call the director'/'accept the claim' instead of 'defect'/'cooperate'. In an ideal world maybe no player would call the director over something like this, but there's no question what the optimal strategy is if the overarching objective is to win bridge tournaments and not e.g. to repair a damaged reputation.

In an ideal world, players make a statement when making a claim.

[jgillispie]

Nothing wrong in calling the director. So long as the board is available for inspection, I can't fathom any reason that the call would be disregarded. Some authority regulations might need to be considered (I believe ACBL's window is about half an hour after play is concluded. Not precisely sure).

 

What might taint the call is if N-S are aware of E-W (theoretical) lack of skill, calling with a psychological intent. How a director determines this, to me, is unclear. Surely there's a forum on this somewhere.

 

In a club setting (I'm in SE U.S), I suspect most folks wouldn't think twice about the board. It's too laid back of a setting for most players to care too much, should they have the capacity to see the blockage. In a tournament, however, where everybody is there to compete, I'd expect a majority of players to call. Most of the field is competent and blood thirsty for any IMPs/MPs at stake.

 

As a point of interest, any good E-W can overcome the !C blockage w/ the !D9 entry, right?

[sfi]

As a point of interest, any good E-W can overcome the !C blockage w/ the !D9 entry, right?

 

Yes, but you have to play on clubs first. That's really all there is to the hand.

[gnasher]

Most of the field is competent and blood thirsty for any IMPs/MPs at stake.

I think that's a undeserved slur on "most of the field". Most people call the director in order to protect their equity. That is, they call the director to protect the IMPs/VPs that they're entitled to, not to gain IMPs/VPs that they're not entitled to.

 

In this case, if you contest the claim, that's because you believe that declare hadn't noticed the blockage and would have gone down some of the time. Very few people would contest this claim if they were sure that declarer had noticed the blockage.

[helene_t]

As a point of interest, any good E-W can overcome the !C blockage w/ the !D9 entry, right?

Yes, that's the point. If we accept the claim it is because we believe declarer saw that.