[VixTD]

Still in the Seniors Swiss Teams:

---

West was declarer in 6♠, lead ♦6.

West won the ace, played a spade to the king and finessed the nine. He tried to play ♠A to draw the last trump at trick four, but in doing so pulled out ♦2 by mistake. South ruffed, and West put his hand face down on the table in a gesture of annoyance at his error. East assumed the play was over and gathered dummy's cards. North, also now thinking play had finished, said to South "You are playing a heart, aren't you?"

West is firmly of the opinion that North shouldn't be allowed to do this. How should the director resolve the situation?

[blackshoe]

VixTD, on 2013-October-01, 07:09, said:

West is firmly of the opinion that North shouldn't be allowed to do this. How should the director resolve the situation?

West is correct. Regardless of any assumptions, the play period is not over (see the definitions in the laws). My ruling: South is presumed to lead the queen of clubs, resulting in dummy's heart loser going away on the third club trick. Making 6.

North will no doubt argue that West "abandoned his hand" thus conceding the remaining tricks. Pfui. I'm not buying it.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-01, 08:15, said:

My ruling: South is presumed to lead the queen of clubs,

Under which law is such a presumption made?

Do you think ♣Q is a logical alternative?

[blackshoe]

I think it's a "normal" play. North's comment precludes a heart lead. South has no diamonds and no spades. What else is he going to lead?

[mycroft]

Assuming the ♦2 is ruled a deliberate play (which it seems West has admitted by his frustration), the answer is:

"You're correct, North is not allowed to do this. North should call the TD, and the TD will rule that a heart is a reasonable play (*), and award the trick."

Edit: Reading the above, hmm. I'm treating it as a claim, "disputed" - because this is how many people here think you dispute claims (even now). If you're not ruling it a claim (which I think you should, given he showed his cards without "demonstra[ting that he] did not intend to claim"), then there's another issue, which now means that South has UI.

(*) especially as South has no more diamonds, and North has been given two chances to signal for a heart - he did, didn't he? Oh, and was an ace-asking bid used in the auction? If so, then South probably knows there is a keycard missing, and it isn't the ♦A, the ♠AK or the ♣A...

[blackshoe]

"A reasonable play" is not sufficient, in view of North's remark.

[mycroft]

Ed: even if this was "not a claim" North's comment does not *preclude* a heart lead, just requires there to be no LA. My footnote gives many reasons why there potentially wouldn't be a LA to a heart lead. "Normal*" applies to the claimer, not to UI.

And I disagree with your reply above, assuming we're ruling a disputed claim - I treat North's comment as a Law 70B2 objection.

[blackshoe]

There has been no claim, and nobody showed his cards. South, as far as I can see, has not done or said anything at all after winning the trump trick.

I'm not making a ruling based on assumptions about how the bidding went. We have no evidence on that question.

[gnasher]

I'm not sure if this is a UI case or a contested claim by North. However, East's irregularity in gathering dummy's cards seems to have caused North to think that West had claimed.

I doubt if East knew this was going to happen, but he could have. Whatever EW gain from the application of Law 16 or 70, we would then take back under Law 23. That means that the net effect of the ruling should be to restore the equity that existed before East's irregularity. Hence we're not interested either in LAs or in "normal" plays, but in equity.

Regardless of what law(s) we're ruling under, we would need to know the bidding and the three cards that North has played since trick one

[gordontd]

VixTD, on 2013-October-01, 07:09, said:

West put his hand face down on the table in a gesture of annoyance at his error.

mycroft, on 2013-October-01, 08:53, said:

If you're not ruling it a claim (which I think you should, given he showed his cards without "demonstra[ting that he] did not intend to claim"),

I don't think he did.

[mycroft]

My apologies. I read face up, not face down - even the second time. That changes everything (well, yes-no - East thought West was claiming!) Having said that, my footnote stands. What was the auction? What did North play on the two trumps?

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2013-October-01, 09:17, said:

What was the auction? What did North play on the two trumps?

Very good questions. North may have had an opportunity to make a lead-directional call during the auction, and could have been throwing discouraging clubs on the spade tricks. So unless South is a novice who doesn't understand defensive signalling, there may be no LA to a heart return.

[ggwhiz]

mycroft, on 2013-October-01, 09:17, said:

What did North play on the two trumps?

Key information. A couple of clubs or just the 2 playing standard signals and there is zero alternative to a heart if this pair has a bridge pulse.

East started the mess and North compounded it but was a bit suckered into it. Probably lucky for him I would bet a lot that his previous plays scream for a heart. At this point though I'm not sure the bulk of this field are playing "signals".

Very entertaining though and we may not run out of Brighton hands before next years event.

[WellSpyder]

mycroft, on 2013-October-01, 09:17, said:

My apologies. I read face up, not face down - even the second time. That changes everything (well, yes-no - East thought West was claiming!)

I read face down OK, but I have seen several people claim like that. It is certainly possible to interpret such a gesture as a suggestion that play be curtailed, and I don't see why the TD shouldn't judge this to be a claim if he feels so inclined.

[barmar]

Interestingly, the qualifier "unless he demonstrably did not not intend to claim" only appears in the clause of 68A about a player showing his cards, not the clause that says "suggests that play be curtailed". But this suggests to me that the latter clause refers to a more explicit action -- while a player might claim after expressing exasperation as in this incident, I'm not sure it's overt enough that the TD should rule it as a claim.

[mycroft]

mycroft, on 2013-October-01, 09:17, said:

What was the auction? What did North play on the two trumps?

barmar, on 2013-October-01, 09:35, said:

Very good questions. North may have had an opportunity to make a lead-directional call during the auction, and could have been throwing discouraging clubs on the spade tricks. So unless South is a novice who doesn't understand defensive signalling, there may be no LA to a heart return.

Also, as I said in the footnote, if they had a keycard auction, especially if it was one that sounded like "we might be looking for 7", there may be no LA to aiming for the one keycard that South doesn't know about. [Edit: he can, after all, see those lovely "pitch my losers" diamonds (at least 2 of them) on the board.]

[nige1]

ggwhiz, on 2013-October-01, 09:40, said:

Very entertaining though and we may not run out of Brighton hands before next years event.

Posters who marvel at the number of director calls may not realise that the Brighton congress lasts 10 days. IMO
West, declarer, could know that his performance might disturb players' concentration.
East shouldn't take part in the play and could know that picking up the dummy is usually a signal that play is over.
West's firm opinion is right: North shouldn't be tricked by these shenanigans into claiming his heart ace.
Luckily for the defence, South has no logical alternative to a heart return.

[blackshoe]

The play is not over, whatever dummy did. I expect (though I could be wrong) that anyone playing at the Brighton Congress is experienced enough to know that.

A director's ruling should be based on the laws and regulations in force, not on how the director feels inclined.

I'm not convinced we should apply Law 23 here. I do agree that the table director should investigate how the bidding and play so far has gone. With any luck, perhaps Vix can answer those questions. On the evidence we have so far, I don't think there's been a claim, and I do think there's been illegal, though not deliberately so, communication North to South. West's action in putting his hand face down is not an irregularity, IMO, and certainly not an infraction. It is unfortunate, as it complicates things. East's action in picking up the dummy is a violation of Law 65D.

I'm beginning to wonder if a couple of procedural penalties might not be appropriate.

[VixTD]

By the time I got to the table the message that play had finished had been so reinforced that it wasn't possible to continue from this point. I don't remember if some players had now faced their cards. If North had said of his own volition "play a heart back, partner" it would have perhaps been correct to continue play with a warning that North's remarks are UI to South, but I really felt that EW's actions (particularly East's) had prompted North to think someone had claimed.

It's a while ago now, and I didn't write it down, but I think there had been an RKCB sequence so South knew North had an ace. Anyway, I ruled that there was no alternative to a heart return and that the score of 6♠(W)-1 would stand.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough, but I don't like it. It feels like NS are gaining from illegal communication.

I wonder... is North's comment about "a trick currently in progress" or about a future trick? The trick South trumped has been quitted, and we're waiting for a lead to the next trick, so I think one could rule either way. Law 44 is not clear as to whether a trick "starts" with the lead, or with the quitting of the previous trick — and I note the latter interpretation may be problematic, since there's no previous trick to the first one. Anyway, if North's comment is about a future trick, is it a claim? If so, then Law 70D2 applies. I would think, as I said upthread, that leading a club is "normal" in the legal sense, so one could rule under 70D2 that South leads a club, not a heart. The "no logical alternative" question is not, IOW, relevant. This strikes me as a fairer ruling, but it hinges on the question whether North's question is a claim. What say you?