[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-06, 20:35, said:

If directors are, "in practice", making incorrect rulings, should they not be taken to task for it?

But are such rulings really incorrect? What director would really rule against a claim explanation whose intent is clear, just because it doesn't go to the level of detail required by a strict interpretation of the Law?

[blackshoe]

We seem to have drifted. The original post was about whether it is correct to say - in effect to teach players and directors - that a line of play statement is "not required". The practical ruling effect of this would be that a player claims without a claim statement, and the TD fails to give the benefit of the doubt to the other side — and that players will expect this to happen.

When the intent of a claim is clear even without a line of play statement, no one except Mrs. Guggenheim should have a problem with it — and if she calls the director, he should ever so gently say "Sorry, Mrs. G., but you don't get any more tricks (than those conceded in the claim, if any)". Conversely, if a player's claim is questionable, Mrs. G. (or Meckwell, for that matter) gets the benefit of the doubt.

In the end, it seems to me far better to teach players and directors that a line of play statement is required (because it is), even though leaving it out will rarely if ever draw a penalty, and will probably not cause a problem at the table.

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-07, 23:27, said:

We seem to have drifted. The original post was about whether it is correct to say - in effect to teach players and directors - that a line of play statement is "not required". The practical ruling effect of this would be that a player claims without a claim statement, and the TD fails to give the benefit of the doubt to the other side — and that players will expect this to happen.

I disagree. The laws are quite clear that irrespective of whether or not a claim was accompanied by a stated line of play, the benefit of any doubt always goes to the non-claiming side (Law 70A). Mike Flader's dicta doesn't alter the way in which disputed claims are adjudicated.

Any player who has had a claim disputed will be well aware that dodgey claims are high risk. The "practical ruling effect" is that there may be an increase in sub-standard claims (e.g. "the rest are mine" on a hand requiring some delicate care and/or drawing of trumps) but TDs will continue to follow the guidance in Law 70 together with any pronoucements by their Regulating Authority under Law 70E2.

[blackshoe]

Will they? If training is adequate, they might. But in North America, at least, club TDs get almost no training. There is a (one day, I think) TD course at Nationals, and occasionally at some Regionals, but it's a big continent. Plus the Nationals are expensive. No one's going to spend the money to get a couple of hours of "training" which isn't required anyway (all you have to do to qualify as a club level TD is take a 100+ question multiple guess open book test. Took me about 2 1/2 hours, and I missed three questions, two of which were poorly worded. I would hope tournament TDs get more training, but ACBL is secretive about that, and my experience at a local Regional last week makes me wonder.

Oh, there's a club TD "refresher" course, as well. Also short, infrequent, and frequently expensive and a hassle to get to.

[McBruce]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-07, 23:27, said:

We seem to have drifted. The original post was about whether it is correct to say - in effect to teach players and directors - that a line of play statement is "not required". The practical ruling effect of this would be that a player claims without a claim statement, and the TD fails to give the benefit of the doubt to the other side — and that players will expect this to happen.

When the intent of a claim is clear even without a line of play statement, no one except Mrs. Guggenheim should have a problem with it — and if she calls the director, he should ever so gently say "Sorry, Mrs. G., but you don't get any more tricks (than those conceded in the claim, if any)". Conversely, if a player's claim is questionable, Mrs. G. (or Meckwell, for that matter) gets the benefit of the doubt.

In the end, it seems to me far better to teach players and directors that a line of play statement is required (because it is), even though leaving it out will rarely if ever draw a penalty, and will probably not cause a problem at the table.

Perhaps if we could get defenders to sit still for a proper claim statement after declarer shows his cards, it would happen more often and sooner in the play. In practice what often happens is that a declarer knows he has the rest and begins to make a claim statement, misspeaks somehow, and the defenders pounce upon it, interrupting and calling the TD like a cat that suddenly spies a mouse. Many defenders seem to think that if they don't call the cops, the poor declarer might discover that he said "clubs" instead of "spades" and correct it.

But if we have the Bulletin insist that a claim statement must accompany each claim while simultaneously saying (confirmed by rulings) that "leaving it out will rarely if ever draw a penalty," or even change the ruling if the claim is contested, what happens? Players will soon realize it is just as bunk as the "requirement" to announce a 1NT opening, which, years after its introduction in ACBL-land, still is often ignored or forgotten, and virtually impossible to get the offender into any kind of trouble.

Better to write in the Bulletin, with examples, that not making a claim statement, or interrupting one, is hazardous: if the statement-less claim is contested, the question is not "what did declarer intend to do?" but more like "is there any reasonable line of play that fails?" And the same thing goes for catch-as-catch-can defenders: an interrupted claim statement changes the question from "does declarer's stated line work?" to "what did declarer probably mean to say, and does THAT work?"