Yet another claim without a statement

[pran]

[...]

I don't see why the loud mouth claimer who yells a couple of things, most of them nonsense, but one of them: "He doesn't have diamonds" would be awarded an advantage over the player who trusts that the TD will do his job.

 

Rik

It depends.

Here I assumed that the last Diamond was cashed in trick 9, then Dummy was entered in trick 10 and thus had the memory of the diamonds still fresh.

 

If the player yelled a lot of nonsense including a stray remark on the diamonds I would just ignore it all and rule that he held on to the ♦A.

 

And anyway, I would still wonder why on earth he did not cash his ♦A earlier.

 

FWIW: My general attitude on questionable claims is to apply

[...] any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer.[...]

rather strictly.

[Vampyr]

The trouble with this claim is not that it was unaccompanied by a statement; the t libel is that the claim is faulty.

[blackshoe]

The claim is faulty because declarer is apparently unaware that her LHO has the good ♠J. A clear statement of her intended line of play would resolve the question which ace she would discard on trick twelve. Without it, the defense gets the benefit of the doubt.

[barmar]

The claim is faulty because declarer is apparently unaware that her LHO has the good ♠J. A clear statement of her intended line of play would resolve the question which ace she would discard on trick twelve. Without it, the defense gets the benefit of the doubt.

She didn't make a clear statement because she didn't think it mattered.

 

Now the TD has to decide what is "normal" given that her incomplete statement was based on a fallacy. Is it normal to hold on to a high card in a suit that everyone else has shown out of several times?

[blackshoe]

She didn't make a clear statement because she didn't think it mattered.

 

Now the TD has to decide what is "normal" given that her incomplete statement was based on a fallacy. Is it normal to hold on to a high card in a suit that everyone else has shown out of several times?

I don't see the relevance of your first statement. The law requires the statement, whether she thinks it's relevant or not.

 

No, that would not be normal. But there is no evidence that everyone (or anyone) showed out of anything either.

 

If I were the table TD in this case, I would ask, before defenders' cards are exposed, declarer to state what each defender holds. If she can do that correctly and with confidence, I'll give her the club trick. If she's seen either defender's last cards, of course, this won't work. Now, unfortunately for declarer, any statement she makes would be self-serving, and thus not worth much.

[barmar]

I don't see the relevance of your first statement. The law requires the statement, whether she thinks it's relevant or not.

Of course, but we knew this requirement is regularly ignored when claimer thinks he has all the top cards. He just shows his cards and everyone can see that they're good.

 

And if she had made the explicit statement "My hand is good", how would that have made adjudicating it any easier?

No, that would not be normal. But there is no evidence that everyone (or anyone) showed out of anything either.

I thought we were talking about the hypothetical where declarer ran a long suit and everyone showed out of it.

If I were the table TD in this case, I would ask, before defenders' cards are exposed, declarer to state what each defender holds. If she can do that correctly and with confidence, I'll give her the club trick. If she's seen either defender's last cards, of course, this won't work. Now, unfortunately for declarer, any statement she makes would be self-serving, and thus not worth much.

I'd be satisfied if she said something like "West has shown out of clubs, East has no hearts, and both showed out of diamonds."

[pran]

She didn't make a clear statement because she didn't think it mattered.

 

Now the TD has to decide what is "normal" given that her incomplete statement was based on a fallacy. Is it normal to hold on to a high card in a suit that everyone else has shown out of several times?

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

This is a "should" law so failing to make such statement is a minor irregularity. However, the option to specify a particular line of play for the claimed tricks is now gone.

 

From what we have been told she does not have a full and correct knowledge of opponents' remaining cards, she has previously chosen a line of play that appears close to being irrational (not cashing the ♦A in time) and now she suddenly finds herself under an unexpected pressure.

 

So yes, according to the "definition" of "normal" in Law 70, holding on to the ♦A can well be considered "normal" rather than "irrational" in her (probably) confused state.

[Zelandakh]

If I were the table TD in this case, I would ask, before defenders' cards are exposed, declarer to state what each defender holds. If she can do that correctly and with confidence, I'll give her the club trick. If she's seen either defender's last cards, of course, this won't work. Now, unfortunately for declarer, any statement she makes would be self-serving, and thus not worth much.

So once again you are giving an advantage to a defender that takes the opportunity to display their cards and thus disadvantaging "nice" defenders that do not do so. Do you think this is fair?

[blackshoe]

Of course, but we knew this requirement is regularly ignored when claimer thinks he has all the top cards. He just shows his cards and everyone can see that they're good.

 

And if she had made the explicit statement "My hand is good", how would that have made adjudicating it any easier?

 

I thought we were talking about the hypothetical where declarer ran a long suit and everyone showed out of it.

 

I'd be satisfied if she said something like "West has shown out of clubs, East has no hearts, and both showed out of diamonds."

Well, I was talking about the original case. As for "regularly ignored" so what? Does that mean we should pretend she said "I'll keep my ♣A"? (Original case.)

 

If she'd said "my hand is good", then clearly she doesn't know what's going on, because her hand isn't good. Benefit of the doubt to the defense.

If she'd said that last bit, I'd think she might need psychiatric help. She was West. :P

[blackshoe]

So once again you are giving an advantage to a defender that takes the opportunity to display their cards and thus disadvantaging "nice" defenders that do not do so. Do you think this is fair?

I said what I would do if the defenders' cards were not exposed. I did not say what I would do if they were. and what's with the "once again"?

[Zelandakh]

I said what I would do if the defenders' cards were not exposed. I did not say what I would do if they were. and what's with the "once again"?

And I am asking you now what you would do in the case where the defender chose to expose both cards in their objection. The "once again" refers to the point from my previous post in the thread (it was not aimed at you personally B-) ).

[blackshoe]

Suppose someone claims, and makes no line of play statement, and an opponent simply says "I object" and calls the director. Would you, following the procedure in Law 70B, require the opponents to expose their cards, and then allow the claimer to state a line of play that takes those cards into account? I would not, for the laws require, generally, that I hold the claimer to his original stated line, and if he didn't state one, I won't be looking for normal lines that save his ass, I'll be looking for normal lines that don't. I don't see why it makes any difference to the laws whether the objector's cards are exposed as above, or prematurely. If I came upon a situation where I thought it did make a difference, I would take that into account in my ruling. IOW, I'm not giving objector a chance to "foul" the claim and gain from that. Either way, it's not an automatic ruling, it would depend on the circumstances.

[Zelandakh]

Is that an answer Ed? You wrote that you would ask declarer if the defender's cards were not exposed. Now I am asking what you would do if the cards were exposed by the defender at the time of the objection. It is not a trick question.

[blackshoe]

It seems rather pointless to ask declarer what cards the defenders hold when each has only two, and one of them has exposed both her cards. So I guess I wouldn't ask. If you're implying that asking in the one case but not in the other is unfair to declarer, then I guess if I agree with that I shouldn't ask in either case. So now what?

[Zelandakh]

So now what?

That's a good question Ed. The first question is whether it is right to ask. If we assume that it is, the logical corollary for me would be to amend the rules so that a defender should not be allowed to expose their cards here. Otherwise we are back to giving an advantage to SB and penalising "nice" players.

[blackshoe]

That (whether the rules should be changed) is not an issue for this thread. Given the rules we have, what do we do?

[pran]

I see no problem with the claim laws in this respect.

 

The very fact that a claim is contested is itself an alert to the claimer that his claim might be faulty.

 

He is not (and should not be) allowed to take this alert into consideration if attempting to clarify his claim.

 

So a defender facing his cards after a claim changes nothing in how the claimer may clarify his claim or how the Director shall adjudicate the claim.

[Zelandakh]

So a defender facing his cards after a claim changes nothing in how the claimer may clarify his claim or how the Director shall adjudicate the claim.

OK, so you are saying that the TD should not ask declarer anything about the remaining cards should the defender not face them. So under what circumstances do you rule one trick rather than none?

[pran]

OK, so you are saying that the TD should not ask declarer anything about the remaining cards should the defender not face them. So under what circumstances do you rule one trick rather than none?

If there is any reasonable doubt about which line of play the claimer might have selected from what he said, and even more important from what he did not say, with his claim I shall rule according to the possible line of play that would be less successful for the claimer.

 

Anything he says subsequent to learning that an opponent contests his claim is irrelevant unless it is obviously not the result of such learning.

[Zelandakh]

If there is any reasonable doubt about which line of play the claimer might have selected from what he said, and even more important from what he did not say, with his claim I shall rule according to the possible line of play that would be less successful for the claimer.

 

Anything he says subsequent to learning that an opponent contests his claim is irrelevant unless it is obviously not the result of such learning.

So in the given case, if the defender on lead had shown out of diamonds at some point during the play, would you rule one trick or zero? And are there circumstances under which it might vary between these two possibilities?

[pran]

So in the given case, if the defender on lead had shown out of diamonds at some point during the play, would you rule one trick or zero? And are there circumstances under which it might vary between these two possibilities?

Reasons for ruling against the claimer:

- He did not mention anything about the Diamonds with his claim.

- Not cashing his ♦A earlier was a serious and incomprehensible error.

 

Possible reason for not ruling against the claimer:

- If the defender now on lead had shown out of Diamonds in the last previous trick so that the claimer could hardly have overlooked or forgotten it.

[Zelandakh]

Here is an example layout that I think matches the OP:

[hv=pc=n&s=shd543c7&w=shda2caq&n=shjdck32&e=shdkc654]399|300[/hv]

 

West, thinking that all the hearts are gone, crosses in diamonds and on seeing North throw a club takes the finesse. Not unravelling the diamonds earlier may or not have been an error but certainly is not a serious and incomprehensible error at this point. That leaves your point 1 against declarer and point 3 in favour. How many tricks?

 

Now the same layout except that North shows out of diamonds a trick earlier:

[hv=pc=n&s=shd543c87&w=s2hda2caq&n=s3hjdck32&e=sahdkc654]399|300[/hv]

 

Declarer crosses in diamonds and cashes the ♠A before taking the club finesse. Now only point 1 remains from your list. Zero tricks?

[pran]

Here is an example layout that I think matches the OP:

[hv=pc=n&s=shd543c7&w=shda2caq&n=shjdck32&e=shdkc654]399|300[/hv]

 

West, thinking that all the hearts are gone, crosses in diamonds and on seeing North throw a club takes the finesse. Not unravelling the diamonds earlier may or not have been an error but certainly is not a serious and incomprehensible error at this point. That leaves your point 1 against declarer and point 3 in favour. How many tricks?

 

Now the same layout except that North shows out of diamonds a trick earlier:

[hv=pc=n&s=shd543c87&w=s2hda2caq&n=s3hjdck32&e=sahdkc654]399|300[/hv]

 

Declarer crosses in diamonds and cashes the ♠A before taking the club finesse. Now only point 1 remains from your list. Zero tricks?

Inventing new layouts incompatible with the situation under discussion is a distraction. Your new diagrams differ from OP in such serious ways that we probably need the full history in order to judge.

[billw55]

Certainly, there are circumstances where the TD could correctly rule that declarer gets the last trick, and circumstances where the TD could correctly rule that the defense gets the last trick.

 

IMO the default ruling should be for the defense. If a good argument exists to do otherwise, declarer can offer it for the TD's consideration. But the TD should not make declarer's argument for him, and so should not need to dig into the prior play. If north showed out of diamonds and declarer knows it, he should be able to say so.

[pran]

Certainly, there are circumstances where the TD could correctly rule that declarer gets the last trick, and circumstances where the TD could correctly rule that the defense gets the last trick.

 

IMO the default ruling should be for the defense. If a good argument exists to do otherwise, declarer can offer it for the TD's consideration. But the TD should not make declarer's argument for him, and so should not need to dig into the prior play. If north showed out of diamonds and declarer knows it, he should be able to say so.

In these new diagrams I would need the full history in order to decide whether or not the blockage in Diamonds was a serious error.

 

And I have already stated that I expect a claimer to point out all important facts with a claim (agreeing with you!), once a claim is disputed the option to point out such facts is usually gone.