[hirowla]

I'm after an opinion on a ruling - tell me how you would rule.

The contract is 5♦. When the claim is made, declarer has 2♦s and 2♣s (spot cards) left. All trumps have been drawn. One opposition player has Q♣, J♠ and two other spot cards (the J♠ is high).

The claim is made after losing one trick, stating - "2 good ♣s, 2 good ♦s". Naturally an opponent objects, and he shows the Q♣. So one trick is conceded. But the opponent claims he should get 2 tricks - if the trumps (♦) are played first then the ♣s, they should be able to get 2 tricks.

What would you decide? Do you agree with 1 or 2 tricks? This is in the ABF jurisdiction if it matters. The player making the claim is an experienced player if it matters, and at a decent competition (not a club event, but not a top level event either).

Regards,

Ian

[VixTD]

Unless the claimer made it clear they were playing the clubs first (it doesn't sound as if they did, nor as if they thought they had any reason to do so), I'd award two tricks to the defence.

[ahydra]

It depends if you think there's a difference between "two good clubs and two good diamonds" and "my hand is good". The former suggests a line of play - particularly if declarer displays the suits separately as he says "two good clubs" and "two good diamonds". The latter does not. If you think declarer's suggested a line of play then the result is made. If not, one down.

In NT, if declarer had ♠AKQ ♦x ♣xxxx opposite ♠- ♦AKQJT ♣xxx and the lead was in declarer's hand, nobody would think twice about a claim "three top spades and five top diamonds", but most opponents would (rightly) object to a claim "five top diamonds and three top spades". So personally I'm of the opinion declarer has suggested a line of play and I'm ruling one trick to the defence. [Consider that the OP's declarer might also have said "two good diamonds and two good clubs", where I would rule against him]

I suppose you could argue that my AKQ AKQJT example is much clearer than the OP example, but one has to define a boundary somewhere, and ruling that "if cards are listed in a certain order then they're played in that order" sounds sensible to me.

ahydra

[hirowla]

ahydra, on 2013-July-17, 07:29, said:

It depends if you think there's a difference between "two good clubs and two good diamonds" and "my hand is good". The former suggests a line of play - particularly if declarer displays the suits separately as he says "two good clubs" and "two good diamonds". The latter does not. If you think declarer's suggested a line of play then the result is made. If not, one down.

In NT, if declarer had ♠AKQ ♦x ♣xxxx opposite ♠- ♦AKQJT ♣xxx and the lead was in declarer's hand, nobody would think twice about a claim "three top spades and five top diamonds", but most opponents would (rightly) object to a claim "five top diamonds and three top spades". So personally I'm of the opinion declarer has suggested a line of play and I'm ruling one trick to the defence. [Consider that the OP's declarer might also have said "two good diamonds and two good clubs", where I would rule against him]

I suppose you could argue that my AKQ AKQJT example is much clearer than the OP example, but one has to define a boundary somewhere, and ruling that "if cards are listed in a certain order then they're played in that order" sounds sensible to me.

ahydra

An order wasn't implied - he was basically saying that they were all good. It turned out he was unaware that the Q♣ was even out there.

[PeterAlan]

VixTD, on 2013-July-17, 06:59, said:

Unless the claimer made it clear they were playing the clubs first (it doesn't sound as if they did, nor as if they thought they had any reason to do so), I'd award two tricks to the defence.

This raises an interesting point. Declarer has made a "clarification statement" - albeit, not a very explicit one - which mentions the clubs before the diamonds. If a club is played first then presumably (from the OP) the contract succeeds. The relevant parts of Law 70 appear to be:

Law 70A said:

LAW 70: CONTESTED CLAIM OR CONCESSION
A. General Objective
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. The Director proceeds as follows.

and

Law 70D1 said:

D. Director’s Considerations
1. 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 you've necessarily decided that playing the clubs before the diamonds is not "embraced in the original clarification statement", so how clear does the statement have to be before an order of play is implied? Presumably the addition / alteration of one word - "2 good ♣s then 2 good ♦s" - would suffice?

Statements that do not spell out every detail are the rule rather than the exception, and we end up with considerable latitude for the TD's judgment to decide how such a statement is treated. This may be as it should be; an alternative would be for RAs (or perhaps the Laws themselves) to provide that the order in which cards are mentioned in such a statement imply a deemed order of play.

[Zelandakh]

I think it is well etablished that the order in which the cards are mentioned does not establish an intended line of play. For example, playing in 7NT you might get a first round claim of "5 spades, 4 hearts, 3 diamonds and a club" but this does not mean that an expert declarer is revoking on the opening club lead or being forced to take the diamonds last without an entry.

[gnasher]

When a player simply lists his winners one suit at a time, I don't think that the order in which they're named specifies the order in which they'll be played. In ahydra's example, I'd definitely allow the claim "five top diamonds and three top spades".

[campboy]

While it's certainly true that the order you mention things in does not necessarily indicate the order you intend to do them in, sometimes it does. For example, if declarer in 7NT claims "3 spades, 4 hearts, 3 diamonds, a club and 2 spades" he is obviously specifying an order.

This case feels pretty borderline to me. It's clear what tricks you are winning, so there's no reason to say "2 clubs and 2 diamonds" except to establish an order.

[campboy]

Oh, actually, I think it depends whether declarer is on lead. If he isn't, he can't be specifying an order since he needs to ruff the next trick.

[jeffford76]

One trick. Generally in a trump contract it is not a normal line of play to play off all trump first. It would be different if declarer had only one trump because then "checking for lurkers" is normal.

[blackshoe]

I think the folks who want to award two tricks are ignoring "as equitable as possible to both sides".

A line of play statement is, by definition, a statement of the order in which he will play his remaining cards. He said "2 clubs, 2 trumps" so the order is clubs, then trumps. He plays one club, loses, ruffs in, and the rest are his. One trick to the defense.

[hirowla]

What if the statement was simply laying down the cards and saying 'all good'? It's possible that's all that was said. I don't want to get into too much language semantics. No line was play was stated.

[blackshoe]

In order to rule on whether what was said constitutes a line of play statement, we need to know what it was. If what you originally reported is what was said, that's one thing. If this change you want to make in your report is what was said, we have a different case.

The first thing a director should do when called to make a ruling is to establish the facts. That's hard to do when somebody keeps changing his story.

[hirowla]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-17, 17:17, said:

In order to rule on whether what was said constitutes a line of play statement, we need to know what it was. If what you originally reported is what was said, that's one thing. If this change you want to make in your report is what was said, we have a different case.

The first thing a director should do when called to make a ruling is to establish the facts. That's hard to do when somebody keeps changing his story.

I'll give the full facts as to what happened.

The incident occurred against myself (more my partner) - the opposition claimed with the above hand. I don't recall the exact words (which is why I'm appearing to change the story) but in essence, no line of play of stated and that the claim was based on the fact that all the cards were good. My partner objected and called the director. The director didn't spend very long at the table, said 1 trick and left. My partner had been trying to say 2 tricks but wasn't listened to.

The director was approached later about it. The reasoning about the 2 tricks was presented and he looked at the hand. His ruling was that it would be irrational for somebody to play the trumps first, so the penalty was 1 trick. I said that if somebody was careless enough to claim not knowing that there was a higher card out there, surely they could be just as careless when playing out the hand by leading trumps first. He disagreed - insisting it would be irrational.

Some people have implied answers to this but the main reason to ask the question (without giving too much away initially) was whether it would be careless or irrational to play the trumps first? I think the ruling is clear once that decision has been made, but I was after other people's opinions.

[ggwhiz]

hirowla, on 2013-July-17, 06:19, said:

The player making the claim is an experienced player if it matters, and at a decent competition (not a club event, but not a top level event either).

1 1/2 tricks with a -1/2 a trick penalty for disturbing the ambiance = 1 trick.

Seriously, do I need to bring a lawyer to this level of event? I'm more concerned with protecting the rest of the field than the claimer and would not consider questioning the TD's decision, subjective though it may be.

[blackshoe]

hirowla, on 2013-July-17, 18:15, said:

I'll give the full facts as to what happened.

The incident occurred against myself (more my partner) - the opposition claimed with the above hand. I don't recall the exact words (which is why I'm appearing to change the story) but in essence, no line of play of stated and that the claim was based on the fact that all the cards were good. My partner objected and called the director. The director didn't spend very long at the table, said 1 trick and left. My partner had been trying to say 2 tricks but wasn't listened to.

The director was approached later about it. The reasoning about the 2 tricks was presented and he looked at the hand. His ruling was that it would be irrational for somebody to play the trumps first, so the penalty was 1 trick. I said that if somebody was careless enough to claim not knowing that there was a higher card out there, surely they could be just as careless when playing out the hand by leading trumps first. He disagreed - insisting it would be irrational.

Some people have implied answers to this but the main reason to ask the question (without giving too much away initially) was whether it would be careless or irrational to play the trumps first? I think the ruling is clear once that decision has been made, but I was after other people's opinions.

I would commend to you two things: one a statement from the Introduction to the laws: "Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director". The other is from Law 92A: "A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director". So you and your partner have an absolute right to appeal the director's ruling, although note that's "you and your partner". If he does not wish to appeal, that's the end of it.

At this late date I'm not inclined to provide a "ruling" on your specific case. I will tell you that the director's job in making a ruling is to determine the facts. If the players agree on the facts, then the director applies the relevant law(s). If the players do not agree on the facts, the director, "in determining the facts, bases his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect". So he looks at the evidence he has, and makes a judgment call. If he's satisfied that he has the facts, he applies the law, just as in the case where the facts were agreed by all the players. If he's still not happy that he has the relevant facts, he "makes a ruling that will allow play to continue". This is all in Laws 84 and 85.

The question "what line of play, if any, was stated?" is a question of fact. The question "is playing all the trumps first irrational, or merely careless" is a matter of judgment. While it is certainly reasonable to question a TD's judgment if you believe it to be wrong, if you go to him, as you did, and present a different judgment, and he doesn't buy it, your only recourse is to appeal.

If you believe that the director erred in his application of the law (or in his fact-gathering procedure) an appeal may not help you much, since those are matters of law, and the appeals committee cannot override the director on such matters, they can only recommend he change his ruling. If this is a club level director, you can bring the matter to club management for review, although if the director owns the club that probably won't get you anywhere. In that case, it seems to me your only choice, if you feel strongly enough about it, is to vote with your feet — IOW find another club. If it's at a sanctioned tournament, you can bring your complaint to the Tournament Organizer. In such cases remember Davy Crockett's advice: "Be sure you're right, then go ahead".

We can certainly speak to the general procedure by which a director makes a ruling in a claim case if you like, though it seems to me we've pretty well covered it.

[paua]

One trick to the defence. More importantly, educate all four players.

[hirowla]

Blackshoe, I'm asking to see if my interpretation of things is reasonable - mainly for my life as a directory in lower events. My partner was more upset than me, but mainly because in the middle of his arguing for 2 tricks the directory said 1 trick and left while my partner was mid-sentence. It was the last board of the round (a Swiss Pairs event) so that might be why he was trying to leave in a hurry. I didn't see the 2 trick possibility until my partner pointed it out (he was upset). Given that my partner felt he wasn't heard the first time, he asked again during the lunch break. The director then looked at the hand record for the board, wrote down what cards we said were left (as shown above), thought for about 2 mins and then said it would be irrational for an experienced player to play the trumps out first before the clubs. I suggested it would be careless - after all, his claim had already been careless! He disagreed, I said thanks and went away.

There is no misapplication of the law once the director had listened to all the facts and decided it was irrational to play trumps rather than careless - it is a judgement call. One I disagree with but hey, you can't win them all! We got a fair hearing (eventually), which was the thing that upset my partner originally. No appeals were considered after the fair hearing of the facts. I wanted to hear what other people thought about the judgement call. Discussion will help me in the future if I have to rule in that type of situation.

Thanks for your opinions.

Regards,

Ian

[campboy]

When diamonds are trumps I don't see how any line declarer believes will give him all the remaining tricks can be irrational.

[blackshoe]

Heh. The more you post, the more information comes out about the situation.

Walking away when someone is talking to you is rude. Absent an apology from the director, I would report the incident to his employer — the NBO or TO, as this was a tournament and not a club.

I think that if the claimer said "two clubs and two trumps" then he gets three tricks. If he said "my hand is high" he gets two tricks.

On the question whether, given no claim statement, or in the "my hand is high" case, it would be irrational to play the trumps first, it is, as you say, a judgment call. These judgments are probably the weakest area of my directing, but in my opinion a player who claims without a statement may well believe all four of his cards are high - in which case it is careless, but not irrational to play the trumps first. I would, of course, listen to counter-arguments, but they'd have to be pretty convincing.

It seems to me it is incumbent on a director to explain his rulings in two particulars: the specific laws (and regulations, where applicable) he is applying, and the reasoning behind his judgment calls. Both, but especially the latter, are particularly important when the players involved question the ruling. I've known some TDs to do that consistently, and some not. I remember a time when I questioned a ruling, the TD was insulted that I would do so, and basically told me to shut up. Later she looked up the law, and came and apologized to me and admitted I was right. I don't remember, however, if she changed her ruling.

I hope this helps. Feel free to ask further questions.