[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-25, 23:40, said:

The laws require a line of play statement to accompany a claim. The fact that your partner is an expert does not exempt him from this requirement. In the absence of a clear line of play statement, the TD must use his judgement, not your partner's, and not yours, to decide what the outcome should be. Even if his judgement is in your opinion flawed you should not attribute his ruling to malice, nor should you characterize it as an insult. This is true even if you come here and post and most of us agree that the ruling was flawed.

As a general rule, if you disagree with a TD's ruling, accept it graciously, and then appeal. If it's a club, and you think the TD has it in for you or your partner, take it up with club management. If the outcome of that does not satisfy you, find another club.

I went back to take a look at OP together with the latest developments.

Law 68 A said:

[...]A contestant also claims [...] when he shows his cards[...]

so there is no doubt that the player claimed

Law 68 C said:

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement [...]

but

Introduction said:

[...]"should" do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)[...]

so failing to immediately state that the player had sufficient top tricks ("aces") to take all remaining tricks when this is obvious is no reason to award any trick to opponents.

I have had this situation many times, both as claimer, as opponent and as director.

In each and every case the fact that the number of "aces" matches the number of remaining tricks with no communication problem (or in case is insufficient!) is simply clarified, and everybody is happy about a result giving claimer the number of tricks matching the number of "aces" he has.

IMHO this case has blown way out of proportions.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-January-26, 03:58, said:

IMHO this case has blown way out of proportions.

Well, the ruling was outrageous, and the "explanation" sickening. Why shouldn't people comment?

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-January-26, 03:58, said:

IMHO this case has blown way out of proportions.

Well, the ruling was outrageous, and the "explanation" sickening. Why shouldn't people comment?

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-26, 07:06, said:

Well, the ruling was outrageous, and the "explanation" sickening. Why shouldn't people comment?

Through more than 60 posts?

[GreenMan]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-25, 23:40, said:

Even if his judgement is in your opinion flawed you should not attribute his ruling to malice, nor should you characterize it as an insult.

A good player had the rest in top tricks, and the director essentially said "You are a bad enough player that it would be normal for you to duck a trick instead of cashing out." I'd consider that an insult.

[pran]

GreenMan, on 2013-January-26, 13:44, said:

A good player had the rest in top tricks, and the director essentially said "You are a bad enough player that it would be normal for you to duck a trick instead of cashing out." I'd consider that an insult.

If I claim with high cards to cover all the remaining tricks and the director rules that I could play low instead of cashing one of my high cards I most certainly would consider that an insult.

[blackshoe]

I would consider the source. If the ruling were made by a competent TD, that'd be one thing. A ruling made by an incompetent TD is another thing altogether.

Would you demand an apology from your insulting TD?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-26, 22:09, said:

I would consider the source. If the ruling were made by a competent TD, that'd be one thing. A ruling made by an incompetent TD is another thing altogether.

Would you demand an apology from your insulting TD?

I might ask him: "Are you serious?" and point out my number of high cards.

But I wouldn't bother asking for an apology. If he is competent he would see his error and say "sorry", if not I wouldn't consider him worthy of being asked for an apology anyway.

[barmar]

GreenMan, on 2013-January-26, 13:44, said:

A good player had the rest in top tricks, and the director essentially said "You are a bad enough player that it would be normal for you to duck a trick instead of cashing out." I'd consider that an insult.

There's a difference between ducking and finessing.

[Zelandakh]

Barry, if you held ♠A ♥x in hand opposite ♥AQ on table with the lead in hand and claimed the rest, you would not consider it an insult when the TD decided that the heart finesse is a normal line for a player of your ability?

[blackshoe]

It suggests to me that the TD doesn't have a clue what Barry's ability is.

[barmar]

I was NOT suggesting that the finesse is normal in this particular case (or similar ones), just that there's a different meaning and different logic involved. When one "ducks" a trick, it means they're trying to lose the trick. So while one may try to take the rest on a finesse, it's nonsense to take the rest and also to duck.

But I agree that the ruling was ridiculous in this case. He clearly has 10 top tricks; he never made any mention of the diamond king because it was irrelevant.

It seems like the TD took advantage of the player's inarticulateness, which I suspect was partly due to being surprised at the objection, to conclude that he couldn't count top tricks.

If the goal was to get the player to make better claims, I suspect it will backfire. Instead, it might get him to make fewer claims.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-28, 10:27, said:

It suggests to me that the TD doesn't have a clue what Barry's ability is.

Or perhaps that the TD wanted to make a "punitive" ruling?

[barmar]

After this weekend's thrashing in our district GNT tournament, they might have reason to suspect my ability to count. But no one has ever called my ethics into question like that.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-29, 04:22, said:

Or perhaps that the TD wanted to make a "punitive" ruling?

That suggests to me that the TD is incompetent.

[bluejak]

cmjohn, on 2013-January-24, 19:04, said:

I was a witness to this event and am a director at this club. I would say that, there was a punitive element to this ruling. The claimer has been advised in the past that he may not claim without stating a line of play. He has at least on one occasion, made this sort of claim when he did not have the tricks he claimed. Other players have complained about this behavior. The director ruled deliberately against the claimer, while believing he was within the letter of the laws, i.e. that "normal" play can include inferior or mistaken play. Had the player not repeatedly refused to follow the rules about claiming, the director might have ruled more generously towards the player, in my opinion. I believe it is acceptable for a director to make rulings with an eye towards the welfare of the club. So, my question is: Is it correct for a director to take a harder line rather than a softer one against a player in recognition of a continuing problem.?

It is completely illegal to rule the wrong number of tricks in a claim situation because of some unconnected events and the TD's actions as reported here were unacceptable.

Bbradley62, on 2013-January-25, 12:22, said:

We wouldn't know if declarer ever said "two diamonds" because OP certainly wouldn't have told us so, since his priority appears to be to make the director look bad, not to actually provide all the facts.

This is an unjustified accusation and I would prefer you do not make such accusations with no evidence.

pran, on 2013-January-26, 08:43, said:

Through more than 60 posts?

Some of them yours. If you think there are too many, you know what to do.