Contested claim - 6NT contract

[BudH]

[hv=pc=n&s=skt7hkqtdt9ckqj83&w=sj62h84dq7cat7654&n=sa95ha97dakj854c9&e=sq843hj6532d632c2&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1dp3np6nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Against 6NT, the ♣A is led followed by a spade switch to the 5, Q, and K.

 

At trick 3, declarer leads the ♦10 and passes it, followed by the ♦9, Q, A, 3.

 

Now declarer claims, saying, "throwing a spade loser on the king of diamonds, heart to my hand, and my clubs are good".

 

"Director, please!"

 

This happened in a moderate size club game with slightly below average quality players. The declarer in this case is a reasonable Flight B type player, better than the average player at this club.

 

What would be your ruling on how many tricks you allow declarer to score? And why?

 

If it matters, also describe if your ruling would change if the player was an expert or "near expert".

[Cyberyeti]

I don't think he makes it, and this is where I think the claim law is an ass. According to the claim law and his stated line he cashes 3 diamonds then is assumed to cash all the major suit winners leaving him with KQJ8♣ and loses the final trick when if he played it out he'd try the clubs first then go back to the diamonds.

[pescetom]

I think the ass is the claimant here and I would rule against him whatever his level. We've all been there and done the same thing, but his claim as expressed is temerarious and no way does he deserve a chance to understand why and claim or play differently.

[blackshoe]

I'm with Tom.

[ahydra]

Down 2 - simply follow the claim statement. Declarer plays DK throwing a spade, heart to K, then ♣KQJ8. West will beat the C8 with the C10 and cash a long club. Whatever West returns, declarer has the rest.

 

Notes:

- normally suits are considered to be played top-down, though your RA's view on this may vary

- one could try to argue for more down via e.g. discarding the SA on the clubs but I don't think that is equitable nor "normal". Indeed the "spade loser" part of the claim statement is consistent with declarer knowing he needs the SA to cover a round of spades.

- why on earth did declarer not just run diamonds after successfully finessing? :/

- my ruling is the same regardless of the skill level of the player. The claim statement is simply incorrect.

 

ahydra

[gordontd]

I don't think he makes it, and this is where I think the claim law is an ass. According to the claim law and his stated line he cashes 3 diamonds then is assumed to cash all the major suit winners leaving him with KQJ8♣ and loses the final trick when if he played it out he'd try the clubs first then go back to the diamonds.

If he would have tested the clubs first, he would have made a different claim statement.

[Cyberyeti]

If he would have tested the clubs first, he would have made a different claim statement.

 

Actually he just said "heart to hand" not cashing all of them, in practice I think he wakes up when E discards on the next club, but the claim law doesn't allow that.

[Tramticket]

Actually he just said "heart to hand" not cashing all of them, in practice I think he wakes up when E discards on the next club, but the claim law doesn't allow that.

 

I agree that declarer wakes up. But ...

 

This was probably not played in England, but under EBU guidance (WB: 8.70.9): "--- The interpretation/implementation of Law 70 in the EBU remains that it is careless, and therefore “normal”, for the claimer not to pay attention to cards played by the other side, and that claimer will continue with the original line until presumed winners are not winning."

 

I would be pretty cheesed-off if my claim were disallowed in these circumstanced, but I think that the EBU guidance is clear.

[Cyberyeti]

I agree that declarer wakes up. But ...

 

This was probably not played in England, but under EBU guidance (WB: 8.70.9): "--- The interpretation/implementation of Law 70 in the EBU remains that it is careless, and therefore “normal”, for the claimer not to pay attention to cards played by the other side, and that claimer will continue with the original line until presumed winners are not winning."

 

I would be pretty cheesed-off if my claim were disallowed in these circumstanced, but I think that the EBU guidance is clear.

 

I absolutely agree, the stupid thing is if he claims without a line he probably gets away with it due to the diamonds.

 

This is a law/guidance I've fundamentally disagreed with for a long time.

[blackshoe]

I absolutely agree, the stupid thing is if he claims without a line he probably gets away with it due to the diamonds.

He shouldn't, of course. if he does, the director has made an error.

[Cyberyeti]

He shouldn't, of course. if he does, the director has made an error.

 

Why not, you have about 14 of the last 12 tricks with no entry issues

[barmar]

I'm with Tom.

Me, too, but first I had to look up "temerarious".

[BudH]

I admit after some significant thought that I allowed 12 tricks to be claimed. I thought this was a close decision and the club split plus not seeing the ♣10 plus the fortunate dummy entry still available were factors in my decision.

 

Can someone point me to a source for either EBU or especially ACBL guidance about whether declarer is allowed to notice when either defender shows out on the line of play he describes, and using that information.

 

(I do seem to remember a claimer is allowed to notice an opponent showing out of a suit making a finesse a certainty through the other opponent.)

[pran]

I admit after some significant thought that I allowed 12 tricks to be claimed. I thought this was a close decision and the club split plus not seeing the ♣10 plus the fortunate dummy entry still available were factors in my decision.

 

Can someone point me to a source for either EBU or especially ACBL guidance about whether declarer is allowed to notice when either defender shows out on the line of play he describes, and using that information.

 

(I do seem to remember a claimer is allowed to notice an opponent showing out of a suit making a finesse a certainty through the other opponent.)

A claimer is allowed to "notice" a show-out if it must appear before the claimer needs this information in order to change his stated line of play (Law 70E1).

 

It appears to me that taken literally the stated line of play in this case will have cut off the access to the Diamond tricks in dummy at the time the claimer discovers that his Clubs do not break?

[BudH]

A claimer is allowed to "notice" a show-out if it must appear before the claimer needs this information in order to change his stated line of play (Law 70E1).

 

It appears to me that taken literally the stated line of play in this case will have cut off the access to the Diamond tricks in dummy at the time the claimer discovers that his Clubs do not break?

 

He has both a ♠A and a ♥A entry to dummy after leading low to his ♥K and then starting his club plays from the top.

[PeterAlan]

Can someone point me to a source for either EBU or especially ACBL guidance about whether declarer is allowed to notice when either defender shows out on the line of play he describes, and using that information.

 

(I do seem to remember a claimer is allowed to notice an opponent showing out of a suit making a finesse a certainty through the other opponent.)

The EBU White Book gives the following guidance: [Edit: I see that Tramticket has already posted the last paragraph above.]

 

8.70.9 Claim can be seen to break down – when can claimer change line?

 

Suppose it is explicit or implicit in declarer’s claim that a long suit will be good (if played from the top) but in fact the suit is breaking badly and the long cards in the suit are not good. Is it normal for declarer to continue to play the suit, when the bad break has come to light, or in adjudicating the claim, can declarer be assumed to try a different suit for the tricks they need?

 

The L&EC is aware that different attitudes to this question are sometimes expressed, in both rulings and TD training. Some would allow claimer the benefit of noticing that the suit has broken badly (for instance) and to depart from their original line. This attitude may have been more noticeable since the new laws in 2017, although there was no real change to Law 70.

 

The interpretation/implementation of Law 70 in the EBU remains that it is careless, and therefore “normal”, for the claimer not to pay attention to cards played by the other side, and that claimer will continue with the original line until presumed winners are not winning.

In this case, declarer finds that the presumed ♣8 'winner' is not in fact winning when W takes ♣10 and, presumably, another, so the result on the basis of the last paragraph would be -2.

[weejonnie]

The EBU White Book gives the following guidance:

 

 

In this case, declarer finds that the presumed ♣8 'winner' is not in fact winning when W takes ♣10 and, presumably, another, so the result on the basis of the last paragraph would be -2.

The law says:

 

"In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as

equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against

the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows."

 

It is very hard to have to rule that 6NT is going off when the declarer has 6 diamonds, 3 hearts, 2 spades and 3 clubs to cash. Is that equitable????

[Cyberyeti]

The law says:

 

"In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as

equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against

the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows."

 

It is very hard to have to rule that 6NT is going off when the declarer has 6 diamonds, 3 hearts, 2 spades and 3 clubs to cash. Is that equitable????

 

Well he has specifically stated that he thinks the clubs are all good, so his stated line is to cash them all. This is why I said had he stated no line he gets away with it, but here he doesn't, he possibly misremembered E's club as the 10 which is all that's required for this to be a correct claim.

[PeterAlan]

The law says:

 

"In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as

equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against

the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows."

 

It is very hard to have to rule that 6NT is going off when the declarer has 6 diamonds, 3 hearts, 2 spades and 3 clubs to cash. Is that equitable????

Of course it's equitable: we have a declarer who's careless enough not to realise (or at least to mention) that all his ♦s are good, and instead bases a claim on making all 4 further ♣ tricks when they don't all cash, presumably because he's also careless enough not to realise that the ♣10 is still out. It must be a 'doubtful point' that he would wake up to that latter point, and I see no conflict with the law in resolving it against him.

[sanst]

The declarer should have noticed that he had 5 clubs and the dummy just one. That makes it rather likely that the clubs are not “good” already when the dummy is tabled. The declarer obviously didn’t notice that, or thought that both the nine and ten had been played in the first trick. On top of that he didn’t notice that the diamonds were good. At the moment of the claim he had 14 potential tricks, but made a wrong and rather stupid claim. Whether he would notice the bad break of the clubs is irrelevant, but a claim that is faulty, is relevant and therefore you should decide against him.

[blackshoe]

Suppose we took a poll, and fifty two pollees say claimer should make his contract, because after all looking at the hand, he has fourteen top tricks. The director says "but he stated a line of play which results in him losing a trick he claimed, so he's down one". So... "fifty two ayes, and one no. The noes have it." The fifty two may think that's harsh, but it's the law.

[pran]

Suppose we took a poll, and fifty two pollees say claimer should make his contract, because after all looking at the hand, he has fourteen top tricks. The director says "but he stated a line of play which results in him losing a trick he claimed, so he's down one". So... "fifty two ayes, and one no. The noes have it." The fifty two may think that's harsh, but it's the law.

I never dare try a poll among the players when I am the Director, I know very well that those "who best know the rules" have probably never even opened a law book - they just know.

[weejonnie]

I didn't say I wouldn't rule -1: I said it was a very hard thing to do - since the law does say that the TD has to be equitable to both sides.

 

This is the effect of the 'any doubtful point', (similar to the dreaded 'could have known' law 72C (which I applied yesterday and might have resulterd in a change of the winners of an event)), rather than 'any reasonably doubtful point'.

 

In forums (here and elsewhere) TDs and players delight in trying to concoct the most unlikely plays that result in declarer making the least tricks.

 

And the worst point - we cannot use discretion to award a weighted decision. We decide how the hand WOULD have been played out, rather than how the hand MIGHT have been played out. With the laws now encouraging weighted decisions in judgement cases arising from UI and MI, should they now extend it to claims?

[PeterAlan]

I didn't say I wouldn't rule -1: I said it was a very hard thing to do - since the law does say that the TD has to be equitable to both sides.

I hope you wouldn't rule -1, since it's either making or -2 (W has a long ♣ as well as the 10).

 

This is the effect of the 'any doubtful point', … rather than 'any reasonably doubtful point'.

That change of wording wouldn't change my view of this particular case in your and my [EBU] jurisdiction, unless EBU's guidance changed in a way that clearly made it necessary. Remember, it's not really that declarer can be thinking that his ♣s must be running through length, and will wake up to E showing out: he must be thinking that ♣8 is winning by force. What reason do you have for thinking that declarer would depart from the line of his claim statement?

 

In forums (here and elsewhere) TDs and players delight in trying to concoct the most unlikely plays that result in declarer making the least tricks.

That's a real overbid in this case: as has been made clear, declarer's claim statement ignores several realities that he should be aware of, and it's hardly unreasonable to hold him to it. As soon as he loses the ♣8 he's -2, and I haven't seen anyone 'concocting' any other 'unlikely play' to increase the damage.

 

And the worst point - we cannot use discretion to award a weighted decision. We decide how the hand WOULD have been played out, rather than how the hand MIGHT have been played out. With the laws now encouraging weighted decisions in judgement cases arising from UI and MI, should they now extend it to claims?

I think this would be a mistake: it's tantamount to deciding on an a priori probability that the player would have independently woken up to the deficiencies in a claim statement had the hand been played out, and I prefer the current single choice based on the requisite balance of the circumstances in each case. In virtually every contentious contested claim the contest is only over whether the player would or would not have done some specific thing at a particular point, and is a purely binary decision; this is not the general position in other judgment cases to which weighted scores apply, when there are frequently several possible outcomes to be considered and assessed.

[sanst]

I never dare try a poll among the players when I am the Director, I know very well that those "who best know the rules" have probably never even opened a law book - they just know.

When you have a poll, you don’t ask the players about the Laws, but about their bid or play in a given situation. So, I don’t understand your point.