[iviehoff]

gnasher, on 2012-September-12, 08:41, said:

Are you saying that what was in declarer's mind when he claimed is irrelevant, and we should consider only what he actually said at the time of the claim?

That's not what I was saying when I first wrote that. The point is that on this occasion, what the claimer said later was an attempt to rationalise why in practice he thought he would get 12 tricks if he played on, not a reflection of what was in his mind at the time of the claim.

The law explicitly says that the TD should ask the claimer to repeat his statement of claim. In the case that it doesn't make much sense, it seems proper to ask him explain it. That isn't permission to change it or add new stuff not implied by it.

[c_corgi]

Surely declarer's statement is (from the director's POV) nothing more than a tool to determine what was in declarer's mind when he claimed. It is often the only evidence available, but L70D3 is an example of another possible source of evidence. If declarer tells you what was in his mind when it was against his interests to do so, it seems like reliable evidence which it would be ridiculous to ignore.

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2012-September-12, 04:56, said:

Indeed, so let us discount everything he said after the claim.

But when does "after the claim" start?

If the claimant says "I have the rest [5 trick]: a spade, a heart, and two diamonds. . .oh wait, that's only 4 tricks, I guess I'll have to take the diamond finesse for my 5th trick." why isn't the stuff after "oh wait" part of the claim? As long as there was no interference by another player that prompted the correction, I think the finesse can be considered part of the claim statement.

But maybe I just think that because I've been in a similar situation myself.

[iviehoff]

barmar, on 2012-September-12, 22:13, said:

But when does "after the claim" start?

If the claimant says "I have the rest [5 trick]: a spade, a heart, and two diamonds. . .oh wait, that's only 4 tricks, I guess I'll have to take the diamond finesse for my 5th trick." why isn't the stuff after "oh wait" part of the claim? As long as there was no interference by another player that prompted the correction, I think the finesse can be considered part of the claim statement.

L70D1 refers to the "original clarification statement":

"The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful."

I think a change of mind would not be considered the "original clarification statement" even if it arrived without a pause.

You've got one chance to get it right.

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2012-September-12, 04:56, said:

Indeed, so let us discount everything he said after the claim.

I don't think that's what the Laws tell us to do. We are told to discount any successful line of play he offers after the claim (assuming there are unsuccessful alternatives), but I can't see anything that tells us to ignore everything he says.

If we're allowed to take into account play that occurs after the claim, it seems reasonable to also consider what he tells us about his thoughts when he claimed, especially if that leads us to reject the claim.

[lamford]

ahydra, on 2012-September-12, 07:03, said:

Can one really argue that because he miscounted his tricks, he'll miscount a suit as well?

One can certainly argue that it would be careless not to notice, at trick 9 or thereabouts when he is playing out the hand, that the two of clubs has become good and the four of diamonds has not. Say that he finesses the club early, cashes the spade, pitching a heart and then he cashes the top clubs, discarding a heart from dummy and cashes the top two hearts and plays ace and another diamond. This will succeed when the person with four diamonds has the long club. The fact that there is no long club is just "careless". There was at the start, but because of the earlier triple squeeze there now is not.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2012-September-12, 08:41, said:

Are you saying that what was in declarer's mind when he claimed is irrelevant, and we should consider only what he actually said at the time of the claim? That's what the rules seem to say, but I don't like it much.

I don't think it is correct, either. I believe that this bit of Law is often ignored:

Law 70A [part] said:

In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer.

I believe that this means that claims are more subject to a general approach along the lines of what would have happened than any other judgement ruling.

iviehoff, on 2012-September-12, 09:13, said:

That's not what I was saying when I first wrote that. The point is that on this occasion, what the claimer said later was an attempt to rationalise why in practice he thought he would get 12 tricks if he played on, not a reflection of what was in his mind at the time of the claim.

The law explicitly says that the TD should ask the claimer to repeat his statement of claim. In the case that it doesn't make much sense, it seems proper to ask him explain it. That isn't permission to change it or add new stuff not implied by it.

True. We have to decide what are normal lines of play, and knowing the situation properly helps that.

iviehoff, on 2012-September-13, 03:09, said:

L70D1 refers to the "original clarification statement":

"The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful."

I think a change of mind would not be considered the "original clarification statement" even if it arrived without a pause.

You've got one chance to get it right.

This misses the point. Sure, the claimer has only one chance to get it right, but the TD has to get it right, and later clarification and/or explanation by claimer [and his opponents, of course] helps him decide what are normal lines of play.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2012-September-12, 08:41, said:

Are you saying that what was in declarer's mind when he claimed is irrelevant, and we should consider only what he actually said at the time of the claim? That's what the rules seem to say, but I don't like it much.

Actually, no, I don't, but I was responding to iviehoff's post and I think that's what follows from his argument. In practice I take the view that we should not punish players for poorly expressed claims if we think the claim itself is ok. We are working with L70A, and that can mean that we need to try to find out what was in the claimer's mind, but when we are still in doubt we rule such points against the claimer.

[gordontd]

iviehoff, on 2012-September-13, 03:09, said:

I think a change of mind would not be considered the "original clarification statement" even if it arrived without a pause.

I had heard the same thing, from someone on the WBF Laws Committee, in the Bridge Laws Mailing List some time ago, but perhaps it was before the current laws which softened the position on things that happen after the claim statement. In any case I'm told there was a relevant high-profile appeal at Lille, including the same WBFLC member on the committee.

In that appeal the Director in Charge (DIC) was told by the floor TD that a player had started to make a claim but realised before the end of his statement (without any sort of prompting by other players) that there was a problem with what he was saying, and withdrew his claim. The DIC ruled as a matter of law that no claim had been made. This went to appeal where it was established that in fact there had been a pause after the end of the statement, which may have been what prompted the attempt to withdraw the claim. The AC sent this back to the DIC who ruled that with the new facts the claim had been made.

The DIC said to me that it seemed to him that both high-profile teams and the AC seemed to accept his view that a claim has not been made until the statement has been completed (if any statement is being made), but that once the claim statement has been completed, and any pause however small has followed, then the claim cannot be withdrawn.

So I don't think it's absolutely the case that you've only got one chance to get it right, although in the Pula case of this thread it's clear that a claim had been made.

[Zelandakh]

gordontd, on 2012-September-14, 04:41, said:

The DIC said to me that it seemed to him that both high-profile teams and the AC seemed to accept his view that a claim has not been made until the statement has been completed (if any statement is being made), but that once the claim statement has been completed, and any pause however small has followed, then the claim cannot be withdrawn.

This sounds a bit like the bridge version of Just a Minute! Keep talking until you can see the winning play!

[gordontd]

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-14, 05:41, said:

This sounds a bit like the bridge version of Just a Minute! Keep talking until you can see the winning play!

But I think there needs to be a cut-off point, and it makes sense to me that it should be at the end of the claim statement rather than the beginning, not only because we wouldn't know what the original intention was if changed in the process of making the claim, but also because people sometimes start talking before having completed their thought processes.

[lamford]

iviehoff, on 2012-September-12, 07:10, said:

Normally in a teams event, the difference between down 1 and down 2 is likely to be nugatory, though it is just possible at BAM it makes all the difference.

The contract in the other room was 3NT+3, as South carefully noted that he had the jack of clubs not the king, and therefore a 12 count opposite 18-19 balanced. My guess is that South thought he had the king of clubs throughout the auction too! So there was no difference between down 1 and down 2 at BAM.

[barmar]

What I don't understand is why "uhh... I mean I'll take the club finesse" isn't part of the original claim statement. That's what I meant when I asked when "after the claim" starts.

[blackshoe]

If an action or set of actions meets the definition of a claim, then it seems to me it's a claim. A claim, says the law, should be accompanied by a claim statement. That implies that the existence or lack of existence of a claim statement, or its completeness, has nothing to do with whether a claim has been made. So I think the DIC was wrong as a matter of law.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-14, 17:28, said:

If an action or set of actions meets the definition of a claim, then it seems to me it's a claim. A claim, says the law, should be accompanied by a claim statement. That implies that the existence or lack of existence of a claim statement, or its completeness, has nothing to do with whether a claim has been made. So I think the DIC was wrong as a matter of law.

Law 68A lists three ways in which a claim can be made. In the case from Lille it was in the process of being made by the first of those methods ("Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks."), but that statement was initially reported not to have been completed, and it was on that basis that the claim was ruled not to have been made. I understand that the player had not showed his hand.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2012-September-16, 04:11, said:

Law 68A lists three ways in which a claim can be made. In the case from Lille it was in the process of being made by the first of those methods ("Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks."), but that statement was initially reported not to have been completed, and it was on that basis that the claim was ruled not to have been made. I understand that the player had not showed his hand.

Normally, I would expect that the player made a statement like "I have the rest" and then proceed with his clarifying line of play statement. That a line of play statement is not completed does not mean that the claim was not made. So I would want to see the determination of facts in the case. In particular, I would want to see exactly what the claimer said, as far as it went, verbatim.

Generally speaking, I regard interrupting claimer's line of play statement to be rude and not in keeping with the spirit, at the very least, of the law. Generally, I would allow the claimer an uninterrupted opportunity to complete the statement. If he now says something different from what he originally intended (but not something different from what he originally said) well, perhaps next time the other side will be more polite.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-16, 09:56, said:

Generally speaking, I regard interrupting claimer's line of play statement to be rude and not in keeping with the spirit, at the very least, of the law. Generally, I would allow the claimer an uninterrupted opportunity to complete the statement. If he now says something different from what he originally intended (but not something different from what he originally said) well, perhaps next time the other side will be more polite.

I can't quite see how this paragraph fits in with what we are discussing.

[blackshoe]

It may not. I envisioned that claimer claimed, and then started a claim statement, which was interrupted by an opponent. If that's not what happened at Lille, then my post is not germane to that incident, though it will certainly be germane to some cases.

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2012-September-16, 04:11, said:

I understand that the player had not showed his hand.

The OP said that he DID spread his hand, then realized his mistake.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2012-September-16, 20:26, said:

The OP said that he DID spread his hand, then realized his mistake.

You're talking about the case from Pula in the original post; I was talking about the case from Lille, which has alos been considered in some detail in this thread. Sorry for confusing you.