[mjj29]

Phil, on 2011-May-17, 09:05, said:

I am uncomfortable with the way this panned out:

- Declarer claims with a poorly worded statement (pressed for time? intimidated?);
- (Experienced) Defenders look confused;
- Declarer gets woken up to a problem regarding bad splits, and...
- Modifies the claim statement, and doesn't specify a winning line.

How can you award 12 tricks?

I don't believe it would be rational to play all the other cards before playing trumps. Especially if you are unaware of the possibility of a bad split, it's normal to start by playing some trumps. The claim law allows declarer to notice someone showing out and include that in whether continuing on that line is irrational or merely careless.

If there had not been a heart lead it's obvious to award 1 off, since you need to take 3 ruffs, but after the heart lead you only need two and you can take them both with the trumps outstanding, after discovering the bad split, even with a trump return.

Maybe it is correct to rule a failing line is merely careless, but I have no problem with a director awarding 12 tricks under the circumstances.

[axman]

mrdct, on 2011-May-17, 04:03, said:

Something not often considered in appeals cases that perhaps should be is how other table performed on the same board.

This approach is an inappropriate one. It can only have the effect of causing facts to be ignored or fabricated; and thus destroying any hope of justice. Yet, it serves only to possibly give the adjudicator some satisfaction of feeling better about himself.

[billw55]

mjj29, on 2011-May-17, 10:39, said:

Maybe it is correct to rule a failing line is merely careless, but I have no problem with a director awarding 12 tricks under the circumstances.

I do.

Allowing this sort of claim only encourages more sloppy claims in the future (from the general bridge population I mean - not necessarily from this specific declarer). Possibly, these claims might include cases where the declarer really doesn't know what is going on, but feels he/she can rely on the director or consulted peers to find an appropriate line of play that makes. Furthermore, encouraging nebulous claims also will tend to encourage objections to claims .. which slows down everything.

And about claim laws, I would love to see one added to the effect that any claim made before removing all non-high trumps from the defenders hands is automatically adjudicated against declarer, regardless of any other circumstance. From time to time a few extra unnecessary tricks would get (quickly) played out. But we would eliminate cases like this once and for all.

[jallerton]

Bbradley62, on 2011-May-16, 20:58, said:

making, with a procedural penalty against West.

A procedural penalty for a breach of which Law or regulation?

[AlexJonson]

I believe that for time-keeping convenience, we sometimes choose to forget that the claims law
creates a special case where players would otherwise be breaking several laws, but are allowed
to do so if they claim correctly.

So players should claim correctly or not at all, or accept the consequences.

[ahydra]

For me "I'll see how trumps go" isn't specific enough and so I'd award one down. If she'd said "I'll play trumps, ruffing two red cards in dummy before drawing all of them if they're 4-0" that's still not specific enough - suppose the first trump is ducked, how to ruff two cards in dummy without ruffing a club and therefore running out of trumps in hand?

billw55: There are already laws dealing with outstanding trumps in claims. Why shouldn't you be allowed to say "drawing trumps, then..."?

ahydra

[Bbradley62]

jallerton, on 2011-May-17, 12:43, said:

A procedural penalty for a breach of which Law or regulation?

This is the same discussion as in the "Claim in a grand slam" thread. You didn't like applying a PP then either, so at least we're all consistent.

Law 68C. Clarification Required for Claim said:

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

Law 90A. Director’s Authority said:

The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offense that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table.

Since we're now talking about a decision to be made by an appeals committee:

Law 93B3 said:

In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the Director that he change such a ruling.)

[Jeremy69A]

I would rule this one down. I think that after the trump show out continuations to go down maybe careless but are not irrational. It would be nice to fine declarer for being so careless as to make such a ridiculous claim, to waste so much of everyones time and to express the claim in such a way as to irritate. Regretably I don't think these are necessarily grounds for the imposition of a PP or 3.

[billw55]

ahydra, on 2011-May-17, 14:15, said:

billw55: There are already laws dealing with outstanding trumps in claims. Why shouldn't you be allowed to say "drawing trumps, then..."?

I suppose there may be; I don't know the laws well. If such things are already covered, good.

But in principle, I would personally prefer that drawing trumps is explicitly forbidden as part of a claim. Play two or three quick tricks then claim, this costs ... 30 seconds?

Jeremy69A, on 2011-May-17, 16:43, said:

I would rule this one down. I think that after the trump show out continuations to go down maybe careless but are not irrational.

Strongly agree.

[jallerton]

Bbradley62, on 2011-May-17, 15:51, said:

This is the same discussion as in the "Claim in a grand slam" thread. You didn't like applying a PP then either, so at least we're all consistent.

Indeed it is. But if you are suggesting a PP for a breach of Law 68:

Quote

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

then to be consistent you will need to apply a PP to virtually all claims; when a contract has 13 top tricks with fluid entries, it is rare for declarer to state his intended line of play, card by card.

The introduction to the Laws tells us that:

Quote

“should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized),

The relevance of the wording of Law 68 is to make it clear that if the claimer's statement is not clear, the benefit of any doubt goes against the claimer. So it is in the claimer's own interests to follow the "should" instruction in Law 68 and there is no need to give people PPs to discourage incomplete claim statements.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2011-May-18, 12:11, said:

But in principle, I would personally prefer that drawing trumps is explicitly forbidden as part of a claim. Play two or three quick tricks then claim, this costs ... 30 seconds?

Except they're often not quick tricks. If the opponents don't realize that the hand is effectively over, the opponent who's already out of trumps frequently struggles trying to find pitches while you're drawing his partner's trumps.

So the claim saves time AND anguish.

[mycroft]

Take 2 or three quick tricks, and...

So, what happens when the suit is 7-5-1 (as I had this week), and the 0 person needs to find 5 discards? Without a claim, it might be that partner can take the Nth trump, or it's a stop for the long suit in dummy, or maybe not, or...

As barmar says, they aren't always "quick" tricks. The play on this hand was stiff Q off the board (seeing the void), diamond ruffed back to hand, show the AKJT and the card back to board (then the rest of them), cards back in the tray.

[Bbradley62]

jallerton, on 2011-May-18, 16:54, said:

then to be consistent you will need to apply a PP to virtually all claims; when a contract has 13 top tricks with fluid entries, it is rare for declarer to state his intended line of play, card by card.

Not at all true. To be consistent, I would apply a PP to all claims that are sufficiently vague (not ones that are complete but incorrect) that they require the kind of interpretation and discussion that slows down the game instead of speeding it up. Of course, some agree and some disagree. No need to beat a dead horse.