[UdcaDenny]

Since I didnt get the information I wanted I want to have just one answer to this. Did the tournament director act correct. Yes or No. A short resume: After third trick in a NT contract when LHO W was on lead my partner declarer S put his cards on the table claiming the rest without saying in what order he would play the cards. He thought it was obvious as he had 10 toptricks regardless of distribution or needing any finess. However RHO E who is a beginner who could not see that protested and said I have the K of D. TD came to the table and asked W what card he would play and he picked a low D from Jxx. My partner was told he must play low on dummy, not taking the obvious Ace, and give E a trick for his K. Law 70 states that TD shud make a fair decision for both sides and that defenders shud play the cards in a normal way and not use the information they got from seeing open hands. It was not the most normal play to continue with a D from Jxx but since W knew that E had the K and Ace was on dummy he did that. Also TD by the law shud ask declarer to repeat how he was going to take his tricks even if he didnt do that when he put down his cards, the opponents didnt ask either. I shud also add to the story that TD and my partner dont like each other and my partner thinks TD took a chance to punish him. So my question is: Was that a correct and fair decision by TD ? Yes or No.

[JLOGIC]

No it was not fair to make declarer take a practice finesse if they had all the tricks.

[aguahombre]

No. Declarer has 10 tricks; he claimed ten tricks.

There is a provision where claims are not considered valid if they depend upon a certain card being in one defender's hand (and it hasn't yet been proved to be there). In the OP case this would apply to the diamond King; however, the claim is not dependent upon the location of the diamond King, and the TD requiring such finesse is ludicrous.

Perhaps the TD used to be a director in the club to which Dustin referred in the other thread.

Edit: BTW: there was a language problem in the earlier thread where the remaining ten tricks were referred to as "ten of the remaining tricks." This caused confusion.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2013-January-20, 21:37

[paua]

UdcaDenny, on 2013-January-20, 20:41, said:

Since I didnt get the information I wanted I want to have just one answer to this. Did the tournament director act correct. Yes or No. A short resume: After third trick in a NT contract when LHO W was on lead my partner declarer S put his cards on the table claiming the rest without saying in what order he would play the cards. He thought it was obvious as he had 10 toptricks regardless of distribution or needing any finess. However RHO E who is a beginner who could not see that protested and said I have the K of D. TD came to the table and asked W what card he would play and he picked a low D from Jxx. My partner was told he must play low on dummy, not taking the obvious Ace, and give E a trick for his K. Law 70 states that TD shud make a fair decision for both sides and that defenders shud play the cards in a normal way and not use the information they got from seeing open hands. It was not the most normal play to continue with a D from Jxx but since W knew that E had the K and Ace was on dummy he did that. Also TD by the law shud ask declarer to repeat how he was going to take his tricks even if he didnt do that when he put down his cards, the opponents didnt ask either. I shud also add to the story that TD and my partner dont like each other and my partner thinks TD took a chance to punish him. So my question is: Was that a correct and fair decision by TD ? Yes or No.

It was a bad decision. Declarer has all top tricks, no entry problems.
The TD needs to go back to school.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-20, 21:32, said:

There is a provision where claims are not considered valid if they depend upon a certain card being in one defender's hand (and it hasn't yet been proved to be there). In the OP case this would apply to the diamond King; however, the claim is not dependent upon the location of the diamond King, and the TD requiring such finesse is ludicrous.

Quote

Law 70E1: The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

What this law means is that when a claim is questioned, the claimer cannot modify his stated line of play, or propose a line of play when he did not state one at the time of the claim, the success of which etc. A proposal to take a finesse is the simplest example of this. "Shall not accept" means the TD is to reject any such proposal. But the claimer in this case did not make such a proposal. As Aqua says, he doesn't need it - he has his ten tricks without it.

The answer to Denny's repeated question is "no".

[iviehoff]

OP should recognise that declarer did depart from correct procedure in making this claim. It is correct procedure in making a claim to give a clarification statement, it is not optional. So declarer did open to the opposition the opportunity to call the director, and thus risk suffering a poor decision, and poor decisions are not uncommon some places. Indeed, some opponents will routinely call the director if there is any problem with a clarification statement and any faint opportunity of being awarded a trick. But if it is correct that declarer had 10 obvious top tricks, then it looks like a poor judgement by the TD. But we would need to see the cards to be sure of this. A lot of people say their claims are obvious when in fact they aren't.

So declarer should have given a statement. Even a statement of as limited a nature "I now have 10 top tricks, making the obvious precautions as to entries" would have helped here: it is clear from such a statement that declarer has counted his 10 top winners, that no finesse is being taken, and there are no doubtful long cards to be set up, and declarer has noticed that it matters to play the cards in a sensible order.

Incidentally, some details of the incident that OP criticised are in fact OK. The TD is required to ask declarer to repeat his statement of clarification. Since declarer made no statement in the first place, there is nothing to repeat, so TD was correct in not permitting declarer to make a new statement at this point. Further, the opposition have no duty to ask declarer to state a line of play: the opposition would only be acting abusively if they had cramped him or interrupted him so that he was impeded from giving one or completing it. It would be active ethics of the opposition to check that declarer had said all he intended to say before calling the director - it is something I always do - but it is not required. And declarer himself was clearly not into active ethics if he makes claims without statements.

Lesson: make a statement when making a claim, even if you think it is pretty darned obvious. Getting in a frame of mind where you routinely do such things will avoid problems.

[Vampyr]

iviehoff, on 2013-January-21, 04:47, said:

So declarer should have given a statement. Even a statement of as limited a nature "I now have 10 top tricks, making the obvious precautions as to entries" would have helped here: it is clear from such a statement that declarer has counted his 10 top winners, that no finesse is being taken, and there are no doubtful long cards to be set up, and declarer has noticed that it matters to play the cards in a sensible order.

Has none of us ever faced her hand when claiming the rest of the tricks in top cards? It's true that people will usually say something, like "Making twelve" or "I have the remainder" or something like that. Sometimes the statement is implicit, though, and I don't see why your statement above is any better than none at all.

Also, while the declarer cannot make a statement after having already claimed, he should have the chance to tell the director which (ten) tricks he thinks he has.

Anyway, I wonder if the opponents would have been given a trick if the remaining highest diamonds were the Ace, the 7 and the 8. Would they even have bothered to demand a trick with the ♦8? The fact that the King is quite a high card seems to have created the illusion in the defender and the director that it somehow deserves to win a trick.

I thought that the other thread made it clear that every poster agreed that it was wrong for a declarer who has the remainder of the tricks in top cards be randomly forced to give up a trick. What is the purpose of this new thread?

[UdcaDenny]

The purpose of this thread is to present the poll results to this TD who is very selfrighteous and stubborn. Maybe he could give an excuse to my partner who got very offended and who dont want to play in this club anymore. He is an old championplayer from Iceland who has played bridge more than 60 years and a very fair player who never use the law to punish opponents. Ive seen him many times telling players who played wrong to just pick up the card without calling TD.

[iviehoff]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-21, 08:10, said:

Has none of us ever faced her hand when claiming the rest of the tricks in top cards? It's true that people will usually say something, like "Making twelve" or "I have the remainder" or something like that. Sometimes the statement is implicit, though, and I don't see why your statement above is any better than none at all.
...
Also, while the declarer cannot make a statement after having already claimed, he should have the chance to tell the director which (ten) tricks he thinks he has.
...
I thought that the other thread made it clear that every poster agreed that it was wrong for a declarer who has the remainder of the tricks in top cards be randomly forced to give up a trick.

Having had the experience myself of having a trick awarded to the opposition, when I had all the remaining tricks in obvious high cards, without entry problems, I have learned the hard way that only the only way to avoid the risk of being directored out of a trick is to make a good claim statement. Which in fact is nothing more than complying with the law.

When everyone is a consenting, short-cuts can and will be taken. In the present case, there were a couple of people who weren't consenting: a novice opponent who just didn't understand, and a director with an attitude. Short cuts now present a risk.

It isn't generally true that just because a claimer has a high card for every remaining trick, and a straightforward entry situation, they shall always be awarded all the tricks in a claim regardless of what they say. It can sometimes be doubtful whether they in fact recognise that all of their cards are high. Or they may be suffering from an illusion that some alternative cards are high when they are not, and thus conspire to throw tricks away by trying to cash those instead. If the director has reason to suspect declarer is suffering from such illusions, it is not illegal or wrong for the director to award tricks to the opposition, though his decision would be the clearer if he had evidence of such illusions. In the complete absence of a claim statement, a director has the possibility of suspecting such illusions even when they don't exist. Therefore whilst the director's decision in this case is extreme, we cannot say beyond shadow of a doubt that it is illegal. The very minimal claim statement I suggested would at least have dispersed any such imagined problems.

If one's hand is indeed high, ie there is nothing to the play at all, regardless of the order of the cards, then nothing can prevent you obtaining all the tricks and you can get away with saying nothing regardless of the quality of the directing. But with winning cards split between the hands, then there is usually some possibilty of being directored out of one's tricks, so the need to be explicit in the claim statement rises.

Law 70 refers to the possibility that the claimer may say things other than his original statement of claim or repetition of it, but gives the director explicit instruction to ignore anything helpful to the player that was not encompassed in the original statement of claim. A director who refuses to listen to a claimer beyond his original statement might be guilty of poor people skills, but he is not depriving the claimer of any rights he had.

It appears that OP here is well aware of his Director's propensities, and therefore it would make sense for him carefully to keep to the proprieties of claims to avoid being directored out of his deserved result, especially when he doesn't know his opponents. It can be achieved lightly and pleasantly.

[blackshoe]

Iviehoff has invented a new verb!

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-22, 09:34, said:

Iviehoff has invented a new verb!

I like it. Director (vb) to unduly influence the outcome of a Bridge hand, or Bridge event, through action(s) not authorized by the regulating authority. Refers to willful ignoring of rules and regulations, or failure to correct a mistaken ruling ---not to an erroneous ruling itself.

[blackshoe]

That definition implies that one doesn't have to be a director to director.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-22, 10:14, said:

That definition implies that one doesn't have to be a director to director.

Yep. A table bully could director, if there were acquiescence.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-22, 10:14, said:

That definition implies that one doesn't have to be a director to director.

Any more than one has to be a junior to junior someone.

[aguahombre]

And one needn't be a goose to.....

[Fluffy]

UdcaDenny, on 2013-January-20, 20:41, said:

So my question is: Was that a correct and fair decision by TD ?

No

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-21, 08:10, said:

Has none of us ever faced her hand when claiming the rest of the tricks in top cards? It's true that people will usually say something, like "Making twelve" or "I have the remainder" or something like that. Sometimes the statement is implicit, though, and I don't see why your statement above is any better than none at all.

The other day I tried putting my hand down and saying "How many tricks are you going to give me?"

"Eleven," said RHO, so I looked at him.

"Ok, ok, I was joking, I meant twelve," he said.

UdcaDenny, on 2013-January-21, 20:10, said:

The purpose of this thread is to present the poll results to this TD who is very selfrighteous and stubborn. Maybe he could give an excuse to my partner who got very offended and who dont want to play in this club anymore. He is an old championplayer from Iceland who has played bridge more than 60 years and a very fair player who never use the law to punish opponents. Ive seen him many times telling players who played wrong to just pick up the card without calling TD.

This sort of thing is called personal ethics or active ethics, being ethics above and beyond what is required by the Laws. Unfortunately it does not mean that others will treat him with the same courtesy.