[UdcaDenny]

Declarer S played low H from dummy and when
he followed with the 10 E claimed his Ace of
C before W played a card. S called TD who by
the way was his dummy partner at the table.
TD said W could have played wrong overtaking
K and give S the last trick with Q.
With KQ E would offcource normally play the Q
so there is no reason why W shud overtake.
Can this be a fair judgement from a playing TD
who also benefite from his decision?

---

[sfi]

Overtaking is a 0% play, isn't it? East maybe should receive a procedural penalty here, but giving declarer a trick seems harsh.

[RMB1]

sfi, on 2013-January-18, 01:16, said:

Overtaking is a 0% play, isn't it?

It requires East to have a non-heart loser and South to have a non-heart winner instead of ♥Q.
(We don't know what trumps are?)
It is 0% if West knows what cards are left - but this is pretty much the point.

sfi, on 2013-January-18, 01:16, said:

East maybe should receive a procedural penalty here,

Why? What procedure has East breached - claims by defenders are permitted by Law 68.

[paua]

UdcaDenny, on 2013-January-18, 00:51, said:

Declarer S played low H from dummy and when
he followed with the 10 E claimed his Ace of
C before W played a card. S called TD who by
the way was his dummy partner at the table.
TD said W could have played wrong overtaking
K and give S the last trick with Q.
With KQ E would offcource normally play the Q
so there is no reason why W shud overtake.
Can this be a fair judgement from a playing TD
who also benefite from his decision?

---

Really another director should be called.
I think E was dumb to claim, but W is not going to overtake.

[axman]

UdcaDenny, on 2013-January-18, 00:51, said:

Declarer S played low H from dummy and when
he followed with the 10 E claimed his Ace of
C before W played a card. S called TD who by
the way was his dummy partner at the table.
TD said W could have played wrong overtaking
K and give S the last trick with Q.
With KQ E would offcource normally play the Q
so there is no reason why W shud overtake.
Can this be a fair judgement from a playing TD
who also benefite from his decision?

---

Sometimes it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaffe; so, perhaps knowing precisely what happened would be germane but I suggest that L57A has some meaning here and in particular L57A1.

[pran]

axman, on 2013-January-18, 02:23, said:

Sometimes it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaffe; so, perhaps knowing precisely what happened would be germane but I suggest that L57A has some meaning here and in particular L57A1.

If East showed (i.e. led) his ♣A before West had followed suit then Law 57A1 is certainly the one applicable. The case is slightly more difficult if East just claimed without showing any card.

[UdcaDenny]

Forgot to mention it was a NT contract

[UdcaDenny]

This TD in Chiang Mai also have an inclination to apply Murphys Law, if anything can go wrong it will.
It is true that he said I take the last trick with Ace Club before his partner followed with an obvious Jack.
Why shud he take over when claimer denied the Queen by playing the King. Anyway I think it was very greedy by
declarer and his TD partner to clim a trick.
By mistake I posted 3 messages too much as I didnt know how to add a Diagram. Is there any way to delete these ?

[nige1]

A.
UdcaDenny writes "Declarer S played low H from dummy and when he followed with the 10 E claimed his Ace of C before W played a card. S called TD who by the way was his dummy partner at the table. TD said W could have played wrong overtaking K and give S the last trick with Q. With KQ E would off courxe normally play the Q so there is no reason why W shud overtake. Can this be a fair judgement from a playing TD who also benefite from his decision?"

---

B.
IMO: Sometimes it's unavoidable but a director should be reluctant to rule at his own or a friend's table. Directors, like players, make mistakes so we should be wary of imputing evil motives. West is unlikely to overtake deliberately but East's claim prevented a careless error. Hence, the decision is close .

Reminds me of an ending something like this ...
South is declarer in a notrump contract. The lead is in dummy. Declarer leads dummy's ♠A. West, a novice, discards a ♥, "Aces are better than kings".

East, an expert, berates himself. "I should have claimed earlier -- Whoever has ♥K must get the last trick"

---

C. A more sophisticated example
South, declarer in a ♠ contract, leads a ♥ from hand. West ruffs with ♠K.

How should the director rule had East claimed before declarer led?

In the past, Bridge-rules were simpler.
The game was more popular with players but more boring for directors
The old rule was that when a defender claimed, the claimer's partner's cards became penalty cards -- which made for easy and consistent rulings -- but meant that director judgement had a less important role in deciding the winners of events. So the game was more enjoyable for most players but less interesting for the likes of Peregrine the Penguin, Oscar the Owl, the Secretary Bird, and the Hideous Hog.

---

This post has been edited by nige1: 2013-February-11, 17:31

[sfi]

RMB1, on 2013-January-18, 01:40, said:

It requires East to have a non-heart loser and South to have a non-heart winner instead of ♥Q.

It is 0% if West knows what cards are left - but this is pretty much the point.

Sort of true. If West knows the HQ is still out than overtaking can never gain. It doesn't matter what the other cards are.

Quote

Why? What procedure has East breached - claims by defenders are permitted by Law 68.

There isn't a canonical list of correct procedures, but claiming in such a way as to avoid partner making a mistake must at the very least violate correct procedure. If you want to argue that declarer gets a trick under law 57 or similar adjustment under law 23, that's not unreasonable. However, overtaking the HK seems like such a poor play that I would have to be convinced that West doesn't know the HQ is still out there.

[pran]

sfi, on 2013-January-18, 04:38, said:

Sort of true. If West knows the HQ is still out than overtaking can never gain. It doesn't matter what the other cards are.



There isn't a canonical list of correct procedures, but claiming in such a way as to avoid partner making a mistake must at the very least violate correct procedure. If you want to argue that declarer gets a trick under law 57 or similar adjustment under law 23, that's not unreasonable. However, overtaking the HK seems like such a poor play that I would have to be convinced that West doesn't know the HQ is still out there.

Law 57 A said:

A. Premature Play or Lead to Next Trick

When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn before his partner has played, the card so led or played becomes a major penalty card, and declarer selects one of the following options. He may:

1. require offender’s partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led, or
[...]

As East led his ♣A before West had played to the current trick South has every right in the world to require West following to the trick with his highest card in the suit led, i.e. the ♥Ace.

This is a simple mechanical law, there is no question about reasonable, normal, careless or irrational play.

Just follow the law (and there is no reason to bring Law 23 into the picture).

[blackshoe]

sfi, on 2013-January-18, 04:38, said:

There isn't a canonical list of correct procedures, but claiming in such a way as to avoid partner making a mistake must at the very least violate correct procedure. If you want to argue that declarer gets a trick under law 57 or similar adjustment under law 23, that's not unreasonable. However, overtaking the HK seems like such a poor play that I would have to be convinced that West doesn't know the HQ is still out there.

You have both a right and a wrong idea here. Correct procedure in claiming is defined by Law 68, and the claimer in this case has not breached that law. However, in adjudicating the claim, Law 70D2 applies:

Quote

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.

So the adjudication of this claim boils down to the question whether West overtaking East's king is normal within the meaning of the laws. It would certainly be inferior to do so, it's probably careless to do so, even without the information that partner has the ♣A, but is it irrational? If it's irrational to overtake, then it is not normal, and the TD should not rule that West might do so. If OTOH it's not irrational, but merely careless or inferior, or possibly both, then the TD should rule that West might overtake.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2013-January-18, 05:54, said:

As East led his ♣A before West had played to the current trick South has every right in the world to require West following to the trick with his highest card in the suit led, i.e. the ♥Ace.

This is a simple mechanical law, there is no question about reasonable, normal, careless or irrational play.

Just follow the law (and there is no reason to bring Law 23 into the picture).

Objection! Counselor is assuming facts not in evidence!

Objection sustained. The OP did not say East led the ♣A, he said East claimed the ♣A.

[billw55]

paua, on 2013-January-18, 01:50, said:

I think E was dumb to claim,

With this director in action, anyone would be.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-18, 06:23, said:

Objection! Counselor is assuming facts not in evidence!

Objection sustained. The OP did not say East led the ♣A, he said East claimed the ♣A.

And doesn't claiming the ♣A imply exposing it in an act of playing (i.e. leading) it?

The nature of Law 57A is such as to prevent a defender from obtaining an advantage for his own side by prematurely exposing (i.e. playing) any of his cards before his partner has played a card in his turn.

If this logic is turned down then we have an irregularity for which these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent. That is precisely the condition prescribed in Law 12A1. And the only logical adjustment is then to apply Law 57A1 as if the exposed card had indeed been led at the time it was exposed.

[campboy]

I can't think of a good reason to claim at this point. If partner's decision is not completely obvious the TD will rule against you; if it is completely obvious then you could just claim after he plays, which should be a fraction of a second later.

[Bbradley62]

Despite OP's choice of verb, is it possible that East thought Trick 12 was over and he thought it was simply his turn to lead to Trick 13?

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2013-January-18, 10:47, said:

And doesn't claiming the ♣A imply exposing it in an act of playing (i.e. leading) it?

No.

pran, on 2013-January-18, 10:47, said:

If this logic is turned down then we have an irregularity for which these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent. That is precisely the condition prescribed in Law 12A1. And the only logical adjustment is then to apply Law 57A1 as if the exposed card had indeed been led at the time it was exposed.

Since when is claiming an irregularity?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-18, 14:23, said:

Since when is claiming an irregularity?

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.

Exposing a card is an irregularity resulting primarily in a penalty card. Premature play is an irregularity resulting in restrictions on partner's choice of play. Why should a defender be free to relieve his partner from having to decide his choice of play by claiming at this partner's turn to play?

The Laws do not define claims as part of the regular flow of activities during the play period, they define claims as a (legal) means to interrupt and terminate the play.

[Phil]

I speak about ten Chinese words, but assuming "Chiang Mai" is a physical location and not a state of mind, this thread seems to be skirting the Rules of the Site.