[Chris L]

iviehoff, on 2010-December-13, 05:01, said:

To be clear, it doesn't say that. It says the "benefit of any doubt shifts in favour of the claimer".

It shifts, but not all the way. The non-claimer has to show it is "likely" he would have got it right. He no longer has the benefit of the doubt if he had objected earlier. But while the benefit of the doubt has shifted, we can hardly say that the claimer now enjoys the full benefit of the doubt under this criterion.

I don't think this is right. Either there is doubt or there isn't; how can you get less than the full benefit of any doubt? If the claim is immediately objected to, the non-claimer gets the benefit of any doubt. If it is agreed and withdrawn later, the claimer gets it. In the latter case the T D has to decide whether it is "likely" that (here) declarer would have won the trick had play continued; if he does, declarer gets the trick. If he doesn't, or if he's not sure, declarer doesn't.

[iviehoff]

Chris L, on 2010-December-13, 05:56, said:

Either there is doubt or there isn't; how can you get less than the full benefit of any doubt?

By applying the law as written.

L69B. Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C:
1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, in fact, won; or
2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued.
The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

Under 69B2, it suffices that it is likely that the non-claiming side would have won the trick had play continued. At the level of "likely", some doubt remains. So the claiming side do not get the full benefit of any doubt. I think what the White Books says does not actually assist here, better look at what the law says.

[Chris L]

iviehoff, on 2010-December-13, 07:55, said:

By applying the law as written.

L69B. Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C:
1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, in fact, won; or
2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued.
The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

Under 69B2, it suffices that it is likely that the non-claiming side would have won the trick had play continued. At the level of "likely", some doubt remains. So the claiming side do not get the full benefit of any doubt. I think what the White Books says does not actually assist here, better look at what the law says.

The "doubt" referred to in the White Book is surely a reference to whether or not the TD thinks it "likely". Whatever "likely" means (does it mean, for example, "more likely than not"), he may think it is clear cut one way or another - or he may be in doubt, in which case the claimer gets the benefit of that doubt, no doubt in part reflecting the fact that the claim was originally agreed when it could have been challenged.

[bluejak]

Sounds worth a DP to me.

[jallerton]

iviehoff, on 2010-December-13, 05:17, said:

(1) is irrelevant. People make mistakes. It may even have been an unlikely mistake. We are asked to judge what is likely in the specific situation. As far is (2) is concerned, as we know well, some people claim in a manner that suggests that no further thought is necessary or welcome. Even if the claimer is not a person with such table arrogance, the mere fact of the claim may have suggested to declarer that no thought is necessary because it must be very obvious if the defender can make a claim - defensive claims usually require the situation to be very clear. (3) is irrelevant - Declarer may just not have thought about it any more.

This is not the same as what would have happened at the table if it had been played out. The claimed occurred before the event of the show-out occurred, and when this happens Declarer is likely to have a little think about it.

I'm not saying from this it is clear that Declarer should be given the trick. But it just isn't sufficiently clear the other way to say there's no doubt about it. Really, you need to know the player.

(1) is perfectly relevant. If a declarer is not alert enough to find the straghtforward line of establishing her 9th winner earlier in the play, then that level of alertness should help the TD form a view of the likelihood of the declarer finding a more advanced play (an endplay) later in the hand.

Re (2), are you suggesting that is the norm to accept claims without question and assume that the claimer is always right? As the declarer will well know, the best time to consider the vailidity of any claim is when the claim is made, whilst the cards are there and the hand is fresh in everybody's minds.

Re (3), are you suggesting that dummy is now allowed to assist his partner with declarer play?

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2010-December-13, 15:30, said:

Re (2), are you suggesting that is the norm to accept claims without question and assume that the claimer is always right?

I think it quite a common approach. I am afraid.