[pran]

 Vampyr, on 2013-January-19, 14:42, said:

Yes, but I decided that it didn't apply, because it referred to the claim of only the trick in progress. East claimed a further trick as well.

Are you aware of what you are saying?

Please state a situation where you with your understanding of the laws will consider the reference from Law 68 to Law 57A at all relevant.

The EBL commentary to Law 57 as of 1987 (Law 57 is essentially unchanged in later versions of the laws) states:
The Law is necessary in order not to leave scope for the one player to influence his partner's choice of action improperly.

It should be obvious that this applies also to East here who definitely attempts to influence his partner's choice of action in trick twelve. Whether East's attempt is accidental or deliberate is then immaterial.

[Trinidad]

 pran, on 2013-January-19, 16:53, said:

Whether East's attempt is accidental or deliberate is then immaterial.

There is no such thing as an "accidental attempt". An attempt is not even merely "deliberate". It is intentional with a specific goal.

Rik

[pran]

 Trinidad, on 2013-January-19, 17:01, said:

There is no such thing as an "accidental attempt". An attempt is not even merely "deliberate". It is intentional with a specific goal.

Rik

OK OK, go ahead and split hairs.

I consider East's action accidental if he was inattentive and unaware that West still had to play a card. I consider it deliberate if he wanted to prevent West from overtaking his ♥K.

In either case, deliberate or not, East attempted to influence West's choice of action inn trick 12.

[axman]

 Vampyr, on 2013-January-19, 14:42, said:

Yes, but I decided that it didn't apply, because it referred to the claim of only the trick in progress. East claimed a further trick as well.

The footnote refers [is attached to] to a trick ‘currently in progress’ and says four things about a trick ‘currently in progress’:
1. If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly;
2. cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards,
3. but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply,
4. and see Law 57A

#1. merely is a subset of a trick ‘currently in progress’ defined by the condition 'If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress'

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2013-January-19, 05:12, said:

Observe that what East essentially did was to alert his partner:
Be aware that I have the last trick if you let me keep the trick for my King, so please do not use your Ace!

Before that West could have a choice, now that choice has vanished. Do you really condone such tactics?

Of course not. But a claim is a claim, and Law 70 is quite adequate to deal with this.

[blackshoe]

 UdcaDenny, on 2013-January-19, 05:16, said:

Chiang Mai is a city in north of Thailand and we play in an english pub with mostly american and english players.
Maybe its possible that TD referred to Law 57 and had the law on his side. Still I think it was kind of greedy since
his partner was declarer and they both profited from the judgement. In this case when it is obvious that declarer have
the Queen it must be stupid to overtake. This TD also says if the claiming part can play wrong it shall be judged that
they must do that. If thats so maybe this rule shud be altered ?

Generally speaking, one should rarely assume malice in another's actions. Not to mention that the laws tell players to accept the TD's ruling "gracefully". Doesn't mean you can't appeal, of course, but maligning the TD is generally a bad idea.

I think your TD has misunderstood the laws, not that he is "greedy". I think, speaking with my moderator hat on, that identifying this problem as having occurred in a particular town or club is fine, so long as you present the facts and keep your opinions about the TD's (or an opponent's for that matter) motives to yourself.

We have another forum for discussing changes to the laws; this is not the place. That said, I don't think the law in this case needs changing; I think your TD needs training.

[RMB1]

 pran, on 2013-January-19, 16:53, said:

The EBL commentary to Law 57 as of 1987 (Law 57 is essentially unchanged in later versions of the laws) states:
The Law is necessary in order not to leave scope for the one player to influence his partner's choice of action improperly.

It should be obvious that East is claiming, play ceases, so there is no "choice of action" for West. If any further decision is to be made, it is by the director in deciding any objections to the claim.

It appears that many people do not think East should be allowed to claim, or the outcome of the hand should be judged by different standards when he does. I suggest this is a topic for another forum.

[Trinidad]

 pran, on 2013-January-19, 17:28, said:

OK OK, go ahead and split hairs.

I consider East's action accidental if he was inattentive and unaware that West still had to play a card. I consider it deliberate if he wanted to prevent West from overtaking his ♥K.

In either case, deliberate or not, East attempted to influence West's choice of action inn trick 12.

No! And this is not splitting hairs. This is the crux of the matter.

If East deliberately attempted to influence West's actions then he should be thrown out of the club (or something similar). What to do with trick 13 is the least of our worries.

If East made an erroneous claim then that is an honest mistake. The only thing East attempted was to speed up the play, he didn't attempt to influence West, because he thought (mistakenly) that West's action was immaterial. Fortunately, we have the lawbook to deal with honest mistakes.

Now, of course, it is possible that in this case East attempted to influence West's choice. But it is extremely unlikely. After all, EW brought this case to our attention. How likely is it that they would do that if East indeed attempted -deliberate and with purpose- to influence West's choice? Most (if not all) people would try to keep such an attempt as secret as possible. Therefore, we can reasonably assume that East made an honest mistake.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 axman, on 2013-January-19, 17:32, said:

The footnote refers [is attached to] to a trick ‘currently in progress’ and says four things about a trick ‘currently in progress’:
1. If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly;
2. cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards,
3. but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply,
4. and see Law 57A

#1. merely is a subset of a trick ‘currently in progress’ defined by the condition 'If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress'

I think you are reading wrong here. Law 68 says:

Quote

For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress*.
[List of things to do when the claim refers to tricks other than one currently in progress]
* If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play.

This means:

If
     the claim refers to tricks other than one currently in progress

then
     follow the list in law 68.

else (i.e. "If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress")
     - play proceeds regularly;
     - cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply,
     - and see Law 57A, Premature Play
End if


In this case:
     the if condition is met. (The claim referred to the trick in progress and the next trick.)
     the else condition is not met.
     the list in law 68 applies.
     the footnote does not apply.

Rik

[bixby]

Long ago I posted two similar Law 57/68 incidents that happened to me in the same tournament (after years of never encountering this problem at all): in both cases I, declarer, led a card to trick 12. In one case, my RHO immediately faced a winning card (out of turn) and then shortly thereafter faced his other card; in the other case, my LHO faced a winning card and then shortly thereafter (before RHO had a chance to play) faced his other card. Neither defender said anything in either case. In both cases, the defender who faced his cards prevented the possibility that his partner would make the wrong discard at trick 12 (wrongly overtaking wasn't in the picture). I called the Director in both cases. One Director applied Law 57, which allowed me to force a defender to make a discard that was favorable to me; the other Director applied Law 68 and ruled that the other defender would have made the discard that was good for him.

At the time I felt robbed by the second ruling, but with the perspective of time I think the answer is that when this kind of thing happens at trick 12, the Director must make a judgment call as to whether the defender has made a premature play or a claim. I don't think there can be any hard-and-fast rule about it. The factual circumstances of each case will be determinative.

If the Director rules that the defender was claiming, the laws on contested claims apply, including Law 70D2's statement that "The 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."

Personally, I hate any claim by a defender that relies on correct play by the other defender. It particularly drives me crazy when a defender (as happened in both of the cases above) indignantly insists that his partner's correct play would have been "obvious" and that he just claimed "to save time." The more obvious the partner's correct play is, the less time is saved by claiming. So I wouldn't allow such claims at all, but the Lawsmakers have taken a different path.

Returning finally to the OP, as much as I dislike these kinds of claims and as hard as I would be on them, I think the equitable ruling is that the defenders get both tricks, unless there is some reason to think that West doesn't know that the ♥Q is still out. Overtaking on defense is unnatural and is unlikely to be done carelessly; before overtaking a player would probably stop to think, and it doesn't take much thought for West to realize that either declarer has the ♥Q, in which case overtaking is a bad play, or East has it, in which case overtaking is unnecessary.

I don't like ruling for the defenders in this situation, but the Laws require the ruling that is as equitable as possible to both sides and in this case I think the probability that West would get it wrong is quite low.

[RMB1]

 bixby, on 2013-January-20, 12:26, said:

Personally, I hate any claim by a defender that relies on correct play by the other defender. ...

I don't like ruling for the defenders in this situation, but the Laws require the ruling that is as equitable as possible to both sides and in this case I think the probability that West would get it wrong is quite low.

See my topic in Changing Laws & Regulations.

[WellSpyder]

 CamHenry, on 2013-January-19, 04:20, said:

If I were to post saying, for example, "bluejak gave this ruling and we appealed it because we thought it was ridiculous", that would be over the line.

I was about to reply pointing out that that was a silly example since of course we all know bluejak would never give a ridiculous ruling. Then I remembered that one of only two rulings that I have appealed in the past ten years or so was indeed given by bluejak! (And the other one was given by RMB....)

[mycroft]

I play what I think is the winning heart and show declarer my last trick winner, I think it's obvious, and I get some of the reactions to my *ethics* of some of the comments in this thread? Srsly?

Okay, I didn't realize that partner still has a problem (maybe I thought he had the winning diamond or something. Maybe I "knew" the King was high, because partner clearly has the Ace, but then forgot the last part and just thought the King was high (who hasn't done that?))

I probably would have (had I been not thinking) dropped both cards, no pause, and had the same problem. And said something like "oh, yeah, right. Partner has an option; didn't think about that. Oh well, what do you think, Director?" But she'd still be ruling on my claim, even if it was non-simultaneous showing of the cards; if she attempted to call it a lead out of turn, I'd have a problem.

Absolutely, if East was telling partner not to overtake, we have an issue, and that has to be dealt with - let's investigate (at the table, of course). But this looks like a boring old contested defensive claim here.

As far as the footnote is concerned, I couldn't imagine anyone reading the conditional at the head of that footnote (claim...must refer to tricks other than the one in progress*. *If the statement pertains only to...[the] trick in progress...) to not refer to the entire footnote. Clearly I was wrong. I still think it's an incorrect reading.

[blackshoe]

 WellSpyder, on 2013-January-21, 04:40, said:

I was about to reply pointing out that that was a silly example since of course we all know bluejak would never give a ridiculous ruling. Then I remembered that one of only two rulings that I have appealed in the past ten years or so was indeed given by bluejak! (And the other one was given by RMB....)

The fact that you appealed a ruling does not mean that the ruling was ridiculous — even if the AC changed it.

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2013-January-21, 10:25, said:

Absolutely, if East was telling partner not to overtake, we have an issue, and that has to be dealt with - let's investigate (at the table, of course). But this looks like a boring old contested defensive claim here.

Even if East wasn't deliberately "telling" his partner not to overtake, partner will figure it out when he sees East's last card.

[WellSpyder]

 blackshoe, on 2013-January-21, 11:55, said:

The fact that you appealed a ruling does not mean that the ruling was ridiculous — even if the AC changed it.

Yes, I did realise I was over-simplifying a bit! As it happens I did think the ruling was ridiculous, but that's another story. The AC agreed with my argument that Pass was not a LA, but given where they thought the auction might end up after one of the LAs, they could not be bothered to change the ruling from 3♣+1 to 4♣=...

[mycroft]

 Vampyr, on 2013-January-21, 13:43, said:

Even if East wasn't deliberately "telling" his partner not to overtake, partner will figure it out when he sees East's last card.

Yes, but that's the Law 70D2 issue (boring old contested defensive claim, ruled on "normal*" lines), not a Proprieties issue ("claiming in such a way as to avoid partner making a mistake must at the very least violate correct procedure", "interrupting your partner's choice [when it will matter] is an irregularity", "shenanigans").

If East was trying to influence partner's decision, then absolutely we have a Propriety issue, and some investigation should be done to determine if that was the case. That might lead to education or a PP. But it's clearly a claim, not a premature play to T13; and so whether there's an ethical issue or not, it's ruled Law 70D2. And since Law 70D2 uses the dreaded "normal*" construction, trying to influence partner to do the right thing by obviating his guess is more likely to force the overtake by Law than letting partner work it out on his own, so it's its own reward.

[PhilKing]

When I went to Chiang Mai, we had to build a boat out of bamboo and the use it to wild water raft our way down a leech-infested river to rendezvous with a herd of elephants - even now it sounds vastly preferable to claiming a contract at the local bridge club.

[Zelandakh]

 Trinidad, on 2013-January-20, 09:29, said:

If East made an erroneous claim then that is an honest mistake. The only thing East attempted was to speed up the play, he didn't attempt to influence West, because he thought (mistakenly) that West's action was immaterial. Fortunately, we have the lawbook to deal with honest mistakes.

This is the argument which I just do not get. East did not attempt to influence West because West's action was immaterial, that is because East does not realise that the ♥A is still out. And yet the claim depends on West knowing that the ♥Q is still out. It seems like ruling in favour of the defence here involves giving it to them both ways. Worse than this, the ruling is an open invitation to cheats. I think the correct ruling ought to be a trick each; if it is not under the current rules then the relevant Law should be adjusted.

[Fluffy]

 pran, on 2013-January-18, 16:08, said:

Whichever way you look at it: Interrupting your partner's choice of which card to play when this choice can have an impact on the result is an irregularity.

Please state under wich law