[UdcaDenny]

gordontd, on 2013-January-20, 03:39, said:

Not in my law book. Can you quote what you have interpreted in this way? They aren't continuing to play at all, since play ceases when a claim has been made.

2. T he Director shall not accept any part of a defender’s
claim that depends on his partner’s selecting
a particular play from among alternative
normal* plays.

[Fluffy]

It is declarer who is making a claim, defenders do not get a share fom it. That law applies when defender is the one who claims (you have another thread with a good example). Only one player can make a claim.

[cmjohn]

I was a witness to this event and am a director at this club. I would say that, there was a punitive element to this ruling. The claimer has been advised in the past that he may not claim without stating a line of play. He has at least on one occasion, made this sort of claim when he did not have the tricks he claimed. Other players have complained about this behavior. The director ruled deliberately against the claimer, while believing he was within the letter of the laws, i.e. that "normal" play can include inferior or mistaken play. Had the player not repeatedly refused to follow the rules about claiming, the director might have ruled more generously towards the player, in my opinion. I believe it is acceptable for a director to make rulings with an eye towards the welfare of the club. So, my question is: Is it correct for a director to take a harder line rather than a softer one against a player in recognition of a continuing problem.?

[barmar]

The appropriate way to punish a player for not following proper procedures is by issuing a procedural penalty, not applying different standards in making rulings.

First of all, a PP will punish the offending player without giving the opponents a gift that they didn't deserve. Second, the TD can explain WHY he's giving him the penalty, and hopefully this will cause him to improve his behavior.

[blackshoe]

I agree 100% with Barry.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-24, 20:02, said:

I agree 100% with Barry.

Absolutely; wish we could upvote him.

I might discuss with the club management the unprofessionalism of the directors.

[cmjohn]

Thank you for your opinions. If I were to have made a judgement with an eye towards a club problem, I would have been wrong. But I didn't make that decision. However, there is now another question in my mind. The laws ask the director to make a rather subjective ruling, when applying the rule about "normal" play, it is quite probable that the director would have made the same ruling against any player who made such a claim. In the case under discussion, there were 10 tricks for the taking, without much difficulty in the play, but errors were possible, though not very probable. Is there some criteria for this "normal" play? In the case above, a declarer could due to overconfidence take the practice finesse or botch the communications. This would be unlikely for the player in question. Is "unlikely" enough of a criteria? Say, 90% unlikely? 95% unlikely, 99% unlikely? Is it possible to draw a line here somewhere?
Thanks for your consideration.

[gordontd]

cmjohn, on 2013-January-24, 23:15, said:

Thank you for your opinions. If I were to have made a judgement with an eye towards a club problem, I would have been wrong. But I didn't make that decision. However, there is now another question in my mind. The laws ask the director to make a rather subjective ruling, when applying the rule about "normal" play, it is quite probable that the director would have made the same ruling against any player who made such a claim. In the case under discussion, there were 10 tricks for the taking, without much difficulty in the play, but errors were possible, though not very probable. Is there some criteria for this "normal" play? In the case above, a declarer could due to overconfidence take the practice finesse or botch the communications. This would be unlikely for the player in question. Is "unlikely" enough of a criteria? Say, 90% unlikely? 95% unlikely, 99% unlikely? Is it possible to draw a line here somewhere?
Thanks for your consideration.

The law itself says:

Quote

For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or
inferior for the class of player involved.

In the case in the original post, playing a low diamond seems to me to be a lot worse than merely careless or inferior.

[Zelandakh]

Welcome to the forums cmjohn. Please recognise that your club was in the wrong here and consider taking steps to make sure that your games are run according to the Laws in future. There is no cause for "punitive" rulings in a case like this. The claim was good. Claims are constantly made without a statement when it is clear that there are the requisite number of top tricks and no trumps outstanding. This is normal, if not best, practise regardless of what the members may say. On the other hand, if the player concerns makes a claim without statement and there genuinely is a problem with the claim then feel free to rule against them.

As barmar points out, you can also use PPs in cases where proper procedure is not being used, although I personally think this would generally be inappropriate for a claim of 10 tricks with 10 tops (68C is only a "should" after all). What you cannot do is make a ruling that is against the Laws of the game. Your TD should already understand what "normal" means here; if they do not then make the investment of sending them to a TD training course. The end result will be a better game for your membership all around.

[barmar]

cmjohn, on 2013-January-24, 19:04, said:

I was a witness to this event and am a director at this club. I would say that, there was a punitive element to this ruling. The claimer has been advised in the past that he may not claim without stating a line of play. He has at least on one occasion, made this sort of claim when he did not have the tricks he claimed.

While it's true that the law says that the claimer must state a line of play, this rule is breached so often (except by my regular partner, who is obsessive about stating a line for even the simplest claims) that it's practically impossible to enforce it strictly. 90% of claims are incredibly obvious -- you can often just show your hand and everyone understands and accepts. This is why I don't think you'll ever see a PP given for claiming without stating a line. The particular claim in this situation is like that.

Almost everyone who claims regularly occasionally makes bad ones -- you forget about an outstanding trump, you think a card is high when it's not, you don't notice that there are communication problems, etc. Just because a player has occasionally made an incorrect claim is not a reason to force him to be fastidious in the future. Each claim should be judged on its own merits.

[blackshoe]

I think the key word, Barry, is "occasionally". A player who frequently botches his claims ought to be given an incentive to stop doing that - and an unfavorable score adjustment would not seem to do the job.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-25, 10:55, said:

I think the key word, Barry, is "occasionally". A player who frequently botches his claims ought to be given an incentive to stop doing that - and an unfavorable score adjustment would not seem to do the job.

Yes, I considered that. Then I went back and read the earlier post, where he said "on at least one occasion" -- that doesn't suggest that the player in question has a habit of making bad claims, just that, like the rest of us, he isn't perfect.

If, indeed, the player is regularly trying to pull a fast one with poor claims, he does need some disincentive. And when I made my earlier suggestion about PPs it was with that interpretation in mind.

[Bbradley62]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-25, 07:42, said:

The claim was good.

We don't know this for a fact. OP says declarer had trouble articulating his line of play. If declarer ever said "two diamonds" as part of his stumbling explanation, the claim was not good.

[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2013-January-25, 11:08, said:

We don't know this for a fact. OP says declarer had trouble articulating his line of play. If declarer ever said "two diamonds" as part of his stumbling explanation, the claim was not good.

I interpreted that as being due to the surprise that being asked to clarify, or maybe he's just generally inarticulate. And I assume he never said "two diamonds" or there wouldn't even be a question. It seemed as if it was the opponent who brought up the potential problem in diamonds. But as the OP said, it was clear that he had 10 top tricks, not including the ♦Q.

[Bbradley62]

We wouldn't know if declarer ever said "two diamonds" because OP certainly wouldn't have told us so, since his priority appears to be to make the director look bad, not to actually provide all the facts.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-January-25, 10:59, said:

Yes, I considered that. Then I went back and read the earlier post, where he said "on at least one occasion" -- that doesn't suggest that the player in question has a habit of making bad claims, just that, like the rest of us, he isn't perfect.

If, indeed, the player is regularly trying to pull a fast one with poor claims, he does need some disincentive. And when I made my earlier suggestion about PPs it was with that interpretation in mind.

Fair enough.

[blackshoe]

Bbradley62, on 2013-January-25, 12:22, said:

We wouldn't know if declarer ever said "two diamonds" because OP certainly wouldn't have told us so, since his priority appears to be to make the director look bad, not to actually provide all the facts.

We have two witnesses posting here. If you were right, would the second one not have said something about it?

Maybe not. Okay, I'll ask: can any witness to the event in question testify that the declarer said he had two diamond tricks?

[cmjohn]

I can definitely answer that question. There was no statement associated with the claim at all. Declarer simply exposed his hand and waited for someone to agree or disagree.

[UdcaDenny]

As cmjohn says my partner is to clever to say 2 diamonds. He just put his cards on the table to end the game
faster as the opponent who took Ace of club didnt know how to continue. My parter have played in the Icelandic
national team long time ago and still is sharp in his brain so taking a trick from him was an insult suggesting
he could play so bad.

[blackshoe]

The laws require a line of play statement to accompany a claim. The fact that your partner is an expert does not exempt him from this requirement. In the absence of a clear line of play statement, the TD must use his judgement, not your partner's, and not yours, to decide what the outcome should be. Even if his judgement is in your opinion flawed you should not attribute his ruling to malice, nor should you characterize it as an insult. This is true even if you come here and post and most of us agree that the ruling was flawed.

As a general rule, if you disagree with a TD's ruling, accept it graciously, and then appeal. If it's a club, and you think the TD has it in for you or your partner, take it up with club management. If the outcome of that does not satisfy you, find another club.