[Sjoerds]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-10, 21:50, said:

Let's go back and look at the OP. The question asked was "How should the director rule?" Let's take this, at least at first, not as "what's the ruling?" but rather "Via what process should the director arrive at his ruling?"

That is a clear analysis, which I endorse. Thanks!

[PinkBanana]

In a similar case, the facts were:

"East declares 3NT at pairs scoring and has lost two tricks. South is now on lead with the following cards remaining: At this point East claims the rest - having forgotten that a minor ace is still out. How should the Director rule - (it can be assumed that Declarer will avoid blocking suits)"

If South says he would cash ♣A, then the director might have to to rule that declarer gets only ten tricks. But greedy South says he might exit with ♥2. South optimistically suggests that a possible line for declarer would be to cash ♥AK ♠KAQJ and then attempt to run ♣! Admittedly, this ludicrous line of play would result in one-down but how can anybody seriously suggest this to be a normal line for any good declarer? Of course, the normal line, and the only rational line, is to take tricks known to be winners: ♥K, ♠KA and pointy winners. A less competent director might just award declarer his top ten tricks. Luckily, the actual director saw that South is unavoidably squeezed for eleven tricks, without any guess. And the director is expert enough to realize that South would still have succumbed to a triple repeating squeeze for eleven tricks, even if (on a different hand) South had held ♦T9 instead of ♦76 in the diagram ending!

---

[RMB1]

PinkBanana, on 2012-December-14, 02:30, said:

"East declares 3NT at pairs scoring and has lost two tricks. South is now on lead with the following cards remaining: At this point East claims the rest - having forgotten that a minor ace is still out. How should the Director rule -

On a heart return s normal line is to "cash" hearts then clubs then spades. After ♥A, ♥K, ♣Q, South takes 3 tricks -1.

Perhaps I have missed the attempted analogy / irony in the second problem - I don't really understand the smilies.

Does this mean I should rule two tricks to the defence in the OP - perhaps it does.

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2012-December-14, 06:33

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2012-December-14, 05:13, said:

On a heart return s normal line is to "cash" hearts then clubs then spades. After ♥A, ♥K, ♣Q, South takes 3 tricks -1.

Right...if declarer has forgotten that "a minor" ace is out, why are the diamonds and not the clubs known to be good?

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2012-December-14, 10:36, said:

Right...if declarer has forgotten that "a minor" ace is out, why are the diamonds and not the clubs known to be good?

If South were to play a card other than the ♦A, then anything is possible, with four off perhaps being the worst conceivable result for declarer. However, I think that cashing the ace of diamonds is the only normal line for the defender, and the object is to adjudicate the claim as equitably as possible. I think this is "one off".

[StevenG]

In other circumstances, people here rule that all sorts of unlikely lines fall into the category of normal. I don't believe that cashing running suits other than from the top is normal, yet I am in a small minority in that view.

Whatever the ruling in this case, I believe that, where it is possible, players will accept a mechanical ruling (where the rules are formally codified) whereas a director's judgement ruling, if disputed, will lead to apparent unfairness.

If, in this case, that leads to 4 down, or whatever, then that's the way it is.

[blackshoe]

What was South's objection to the claim (Law 70B2)?

[PinkBanana]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-15, 12:08, said:

What was South's objection to the claim (Law 70B2)?

TFLB Law 70B said:

B. Clarification Statement Repeated: The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim. Next, the Director hears the opponents' objections to the claim (but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the opponents' objections).

For the sake of argument, in both cases, suppose a defender timidly answers "Sorry, I lack your legal expertise, Mr Director, Sir, but I feel it is possible that Declarer may be mistaken that he has no top loser. I'm not sure but I'm told that play has ceased and you now adjudicate, resolving any doubtful point in defenders' favour. Without knowledge all four hands, South might exit with a low card in a major. Also, if South is aware that declarer has lost the place, then that is a plausible defence. Could that result in defeat for a declarer who is sure that his high cards are winners?"

[blackshoe]

The way you worded that, it must be North who "timidly answered". He may get a chance to speak, but because South is on lead, I want to hear from him without anything from North that may bias South's statement.

[PinkBanana]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-16, 01:28, said:

The way you worded that, it must be North who "timidly answered". He may get a chance to speak, but because South is on lead, I want to hear from him without anything from North that may bias South's statement.

Assume that LHO objects, in similar terms, e.g. "Declarer seems to be mistaken that he has no top loser. Without knowledge all four hands, I might exit with a low card in a major. In any case, believing that declarer has lost the place, that is a plausible defence. Could that result in defeat for a declarer who is sure that his high cards are winners?"

BTW, when declarer makes an obviously false claim under ACBL regulations

• May either defender object to the claim and call the director?
  
• Must defenders speculate on hypothetical lines?
  
• Is a defender's first answer binding on the defence?
  
• May the director consider only lines suggested by the defence -- suppose, for example that a defender's suggestion could result in one-down but the director realises that other plausible lines of declarer-play might result in four-down?

[blackshoe]

So far as I know, there are no ACBL regulations specifically designed to handle adjudication of claims; therefore the laws apply as written.

1. May either defender object to the claim and call the director? Law 68D: if [any claim or concession] is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. A claim does not have to be 'obviously false'.
2. Must defenders speculate on hypothetical lines? Law 70B2: the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim, but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections. (Given the quote from Law 68D above, I suppose dummy is considered an opponent for purposes of law 70B2. )
3. Is a defender's first answer binding on the defence? The law is mute on this question, so it is up to the TD to judge the weight to be given to additional input.
4. May the director consider only lines suggested by the defence -- suppose, for example that a defender's suggestion could result in one-down but the director realises that other plausible lines of declarer-play might result in four-down? ? The director is not limited to lines suggested by the objector. See the quote from Law 70B2 above.

The consideration of other lines of play is not directed to 'plausible' lines, but to 'normal' lines as defined in the footnote to law 70. If in either case South takes his Ace and leads another card, the TD must consider 'normal' lines from that point. If South does not take his Ace, but leads something else, again the TD considers 'normal' lines for the declarer from that point. If declarer has made a clear line of play statement (including when he is interrupted in making that statement by an opponent's objection or director call — then the TD will give him the opportunity [before hearing any objections] to finish it) then that statement will govern his line of play as much as possible. So the problem here, as in almost all claim rulings, is that the claimer did not provide a clear line of play statement when he made his claim. If he makes a habit of that, I'd say at some point (second time? third time?) the TD should start issuing PPs. If an opponent makes a habit of interrupting claimers before they can get their line of play statement out there, that opponent should get a PP.

[PinkBanana]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-16, 16:23, said:

The consideration of other lines of play is not directed to 'plausible' lines, but to 'normal' lines as defined in the footnote to law 70. If in either case South takes his Ace and leads another card, the TD must consider 'normal' lines from that point. If South does not take his Ace, but leads something else, again the TD considers 'normal' lines for the declarer from that point. If declarer has made a clear line of play statement (including when he is interrupted in making that statement by an opponent's objection or director call — then the TD will give him the opportunity [before hearing any objections] to finish it) then that statement will govern his line of play as much as possible. So the problem here, as in almost all claim rulings, is that the claimer did not provide a clear line of play statement when he made his claim. If he makes a habit of that, I'd say at some point (second time? third time?) the TD should start issuing PPs. If an opponent makes a habit of interrupting claimers before they can get their line of play statement out there, that opponent should get a PP.[/color]

The OP makes no mention defenders interrupting declarer. When the director asks either defender his objection to the claim, he answers "Declarer seems to be mistaken that he has no top loser. Without knowledge all four hands, a low major exit is possible. In any case, believing that declarer has lost the place, that is a plausible defence. Could that result in defeat for a declarer who is sure that his high cards are winners?" The defender may not be familiar with correct Bridge legal jargon but the meaning of what he says is clear.

[blackshoe]

PinkBanana, on 2012-December-16, 18:27, said:

The OP makes no mention defenders interrupting declarer. When the director asks either defender his objection to the claim, he answers "Declarer seems to be mistaken that he has no top loser. Without knowledge all four hands, a low major exit is possible. In any case, believing that declarer has lost the place, that is a plausible defence. Could that result in defeat for a declarer who is sure that his high cards are winners?" The defender may not be familiar with correct Bridge legal jargon but the meaning of what he says is clear.

I didn't say anything about evidence of an interruption in the OP case, I said that if there is one, certain things should happen. It was a general comment.

How does North, who has no high cards, know that declarer is missing any?

Look, there was an objection to a claim, the TD has to hear what it is and decide whether there are normal plays by which declarer could lose tricks he's claimed. What's the problem?

[PinkBanana]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-16, 23:03, said:

I didn't say anything about evidence of an interruption in the OP case, I said that if there is one, certain things should happen. It was a general comment.

How does North, who has no high cards, know that declarer is missing any?

Look, there was an objection to a claim, the TD has to hear what it is and decide whether there are normal plays by which declarer could lose tricks he's claimed.

What's the problem?

If defenders had interrupted declarer's explanation, the case would be different. Assume, just for the sake of argument, that they did not interrupt...

If North is a good player and has been following the play he may be able to work out that declarer is missing a high card when declarer exposes his hand while claiming the rest. In practice, it seems, declarer was unlucky: a defender did notice, and called the director

Anyway, suppose either defender objects "Declarer seems to be mistaken that he has no top loser. Without knowledge all four hands, a low major exit is possible. In any case, believing that declarer has lost the place, that is a plausible defence. Could that result in defeat for a declarer who is sure that his high cards are winners?"

The problem is that different directors seem to apply different criteria when adjudicating such disputed claims. Suppose, as here, blocking considerations aside, there is a question about which order the claiming declarer would play cards he believes to be winners. (e.g. ♦Q and ♣Q). Some directors judge most orders to be normal and resolve doubtful points in favour of defenders.

[barmar]

PinkBanana, on 2012-December-17, 07:24, said:

Some directors judge most orders to be normal and resolve doubtful points in favour of defenders.

As required by Law 70A:

Quote

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.

[blackshoe]

If you're going to insist we not assume things not in evidence in the OP (I didn't, but never mind that) then you can't assume that declarer exposed his hand when claiming.

What directors apply is their judgement. As the saying goes "good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement".

[c_corgi]

If declarer shows his hand and claims, is it not reasonable to assume the defenders will play double-dummy accurate from that point on?

[bluejak]

StevenG, on 2012-December-15, 03:46, said:

I don't believe that cashing running suits other than from the top is normal, yet I am in a small minority in that view.

I think it may be a majority. It certainly is not a small minority.

c_corgi, on 2012-December-17, 10:25, said:

If declarer shows his hand and claims, is it not reasonable to assume the defenders will play double-dummy accurate from that point on?

No, since that is not what the Law says.

[barmar]

That's the difference between disputed claims in rubber bridge and duplicate bridge. In RB, you play on and the defenders can essentially play double dummy, in duplicate the TD adjudicates, based on the claim statement and what he believes is "normal" play.