BBO Discussion Forums: A Careless Claim - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

A Careless Claim Drawing Trumps

#1 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,473
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2010-December-23, 10:31


Surprisingly, we had another tough claim ruling at last night's Woodberry Christmas Party (matchpoints). West led the king of diamonds and declarer claimed, indicating that he would draw trumps and ruff a heart in dummy. West stated that trumps were 4-0 so there would be no trump left in dummy. Declarer conceded one down but dummy chipped in with the remark that declarer still makes as the jack, ten, nine of clubs were tripleton. East thought there was an alternative but unsuccessful line of trying to ruff a heart before drawing trumps, but South stated that "drawing trumps" was part of his claim, and this meant all of them. How do you rule?
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#2 User is offline   RMB1 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,841
  • Joined: 2007-January-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Exeter, UK
  • Interests:EBU/EBL TD
    Bridge, Cinema, Theatre, Food,
    [Walking - not so much]

Posted 2010-December-23, 11:39

View Postlamford, on 2010-December-23, 10:31, said:

How do you rule?

According to Law 68D I should have been called before any further action (for example, objections to the claim being stated). I rule that both sides have lost their right to rectificaiton (Law 11): NS 7NT-1, EW 7NT=.

If called at the right time, I may have been able to adjudicate the outcome of the board equitably: for instance, by pointing out to declarer can not draw trumps and ruff a heart if trumps are 4-0. I would then be able to judge other lines of play suggested by the claimer. If he had said he would try to ruff a heart before drawing trumps, I would rule 10(?) tricks; if he had said he would play for heart/club squeeze (or 8 being good), I might rule 13 tricks.
Robin

"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
0

#3 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,473
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2010-December-23, 12:22

View PostRMB1, on 2010-December-23, 11:39, said:

According to Law 68D I should have been called before any further action (for example, objections to the claim being stated). I rule that both sides have lost their right to rectificaiton (Law 11): NS 7NT-1, EW 7NT=.

If called at the right time, I may have been able to adjudicate the outcome of the board equitably: for instance, by pointing out to declarer can not draw trumps and ruff a heart if trumps are 4-0. I would then be able to judge other lines of play suggested by the claimer. If he had said he would try to ruff a heart before drawing trumps, I would rule 10(?) tricks; if he had said he would play for heart/club squeeze (or 8 being good), I might rule 13 tricks.

I think it is too harsh to apply Law 11 here. That does say "may be forfeited" and cites the example of subsequent action causing the non-offending side to gain. That does not really apply here, as your 72D1 duty is only to establish the normality of other lines not embraced in the original clarification statement. I don't think it would be right for the TD to say to South "That line won't work as trumps are 4-0. How are you going to play now?". So, I do not think the typical discussion of the merits of a claim, which I would guess occurs with 95% of contested claims, should cause you to deny rectification. I agree you are allowed to, but I think it is poor judgement to do so. And, at MPs, 7NT = would be a particular harsh score for E/W!
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#4 User is offline   mfa1010 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 796
  • Joined: 2010-October-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 2010-December-23, 12:59

I don't think that RMB1 is being reasonable (for the reasons that lamford gives).

This is an easy down 1.

We should allow declarer to make his contract only if all normal sequences of play will do. So we just have to find one normal sequence of play where he will go down. Normal play is not very good and here there are plenty of beef on the end game to go wrong.

It is normal to roll all the trumps and then AKQ. When sneaky east has saved only the 5, it is normal for declarer to have miscounted and try to cash 2. Likewise we could give west a diamond trick instead on the 9.
Michael Askgaard
0

#5 User is offline   campboy 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,347
  • Joined: 2009-July-21

Posted 2010-December-23, 13:16

South's final argument is no good; although "drawing trumps" was part of his claim, so was "ruffing a heart", and he can't do both. There are normal lines which involve doing one of these things, though, so I think we ought to give him the least favourable of these, which seems to be drawing 1-3 rounds followed by A, 2... 10 tricks.
0

#6 User is offline   mfa1010 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 796
  • Joined: 2010-October-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 2010-December-23, 13:53

View Postcampboy, on 2010-December-23, 13:16, said:

South's final argument is no good; although "drawing trumps" was part of his claim, so was "ruffing a heart", and he can't do both. There are normal lines which involve doing one of these things, though, so I think we ought to give him the least favourable of these, which seems to be drawing 1-3 rounds followed by A, 2... 10 tricks.

Right. I missed that fact that he goes down many, if he tries to ruff a heart. So we have to consider if he should be forced to do so. This is a little tricky and I had hoped to avoid this judgement by stating that he will go down anyway.

I note that declarer concedes down one immediately after being told that trumps are 4-0. I think that this is sufficient to count as a clarification of his plan = to draw all the trumps. ~Law 70D3.

So I stick with down 1, but I withdraw calling the ruling "easy". :)
Michael Askgaard
0

#7 User is offline   richlp 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 2009-July-26

Posted 2010-December-23, 14:01

View Postlamford, on 2010-December-23, 10:31, said:


Surprisingly, we had another tough claim ruling at last night's Woodberry Christmas Party (matchpoints). West led the king of diamonds and declarer claimed, indicating that he would draw trumps and ruff a heart in dummy. West stated that trumps were 4-0 so there would be no trump left in dummy. Declarer conceded one down but dummy chipped in with the remark that declarer still makes as the jack, ten, nine of clubs were tripleton. East thought there was an alternative but unsuccessful line of trying to ruff a heart before drawing trumps, but South stated that "drawing trumps" was part of his claim, and this meant all of them. How do you rule?


Any declarer capable of noticing that the club is high (or recognizing that there might be a heart/club squeeze) would, in actual practice, play Spade, Heart, Heart.......OOPS and wind up down 3.

When a claim is contested do we hold South to the literal claim statement even when that is unfavorable to the defenders?
0

#8 User is offline   Phil 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,092
  • Joined: 2008-December-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Texas, USA
  • Interests:Mountain Biking

Posted 2010-December-23, 14:02

I'm getting a perverse enjoyment reading these threads about claims. :)

I'd love to see something conclusive, but it seems to me that the program "crashes" when B does not follow A. In the other thread, declarer said, I have 13 tricks including five club tricks. (buzzer sounds) - No, you don't, so adjudicate the claim as if no statement were made, and take the spade hook.

Here, (declarer says): "I'm drawing trump...."(check, but we draw all the trump) and "ruffing a heart". (buzzer sounds). So can't we accept the initial 'part' of the claim, or does the entire claim statement get thrown out? If this is the case, declarer will try for a squeeze. In all variations I can see, declarer is not pitching the club that is becoming a winner. As a matter of fact, since West holds all of the high diamonds, I believe declarer is stone cold on any layout of the clubs.
Hi y'all!

Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
0

#9 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,482
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2010-December-23, 14:29

View Postlamford, on 2010-December-23, 10:31, said:

Surprisingly, we had another tough claim ruling at last night's Woodberry Christmas Party (matchpoints).


Really? Last night?
0

#10 User is offline   vigfus 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 73
  • Joined: 2009-October-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Iceland
  • Interests:Tournament director of BR. The largest bridgeclub in Iceland
    vip@centrum.is

Posted 2010-December-23, 17:38

no question about this. 10 tricks
There is no justice using law 11 here.
Vigfus Palsson
Hlidartun 6
270 Mosfellsbaer
Iceland
vip@centrum.is
www.bridge.is
0

#11 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

Posted 2010-December-23, 17:58

View PostRMB1, on 2010-December-23, 11:39, said:

According to Law 68D I should have been called before any further action (for example, objections to the claim being stated). I rule that both sides have lost their right to rectificaiton (Law 11): NS 7NT-1, EW 7NT=.

I have never heard this suggestion before and it does not seem to me to follow normal TD practice. Are you sure this is a valid use of Law 11?
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

#12 User is offline   bixby 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 163
  • Joined: 2009-August-06

Posted 2010-December-23, 19:48

Hmmm . . . . the chief problem is that the hand appears to be fictional. West's miraculous J109 tripleton is suspicious enough, as well as the 7-1 heart split that makes it impossible for South to make the slam by ruffing a heart before drawing trumps, but what really seems like a setup are East's J1098765 and 76543. Not to mention the trump layout -- AKQJ10, 9876, 5432! Oh, and the diamond layout looks setup too.

I'm guessing that this hand is a setup hypothetical. (Or at least the spots have been altered.)
0

#13 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,473
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2010-December-24, 05:13

View Postbixby, on 2010-December-23, 19:48, said:

Hmmm . . . . the chief problem is that the hand appears to be fictional. <snip>

Why would this matter in the slightest? And why would it matter if the pips were not accurately recorded?
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#14 User is offline   mfa1010 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 796
  • Joined: 2010-October-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 2010-December-24, 05:15

View PostPhil, on 2010-December-23, 14:02, said:

I'm getting a perverse enjoyment reading these threads about claims. :)

I'd love to see something conclusive, but it seems to me that the program "crashes" when B does not follow A. In the other thread, declarer said, I have 13 tricks including five club tricks. (buzzer sounds) - No, you don't, so adjudicate the claim as if no statement were made, and take the spade hook.

Here, (declarer says): "I'm drawing trump...."(check, but we draw all the trump) and "ruffing a heart". (buzzer sounds). So can't we accept the initial 'part' of the claim, or does the entire claim statement get thrown out? If this is the case, declarer will try for a squeeze. In all variations I can see, declarer is not pitching the club that is becoming a winner. As a matter of fact, since West holds all of the high diamonds, I believe declarer is stone cold on any layout of the clubs.

Cute post :). But there is no contradiction.

Here I'm allowing declarer's second statement as evidence. I can do that at my own discretion.

When told that trumps are 4-0, declarer immediately concedes down 1. Obviously because there won't be a trump in dummy for the heart ruff when he has drawn trumps. So now we have a claim of 12 tricks and a plan leading to 12 tricks. Alles in Ordnung. He gets 12 tricks.

[Contrast to the other hand where we were left with a discrepancy between declarer's statement and his actual number of tricks.]

Declarer won't get a 13th trick because he might misjudge (= miscount) the end position and try to cash a red "winner" before testing the clubs at all. That is within normal play.

Merry Christmas everybody :)
Michael Askgaard
0

#15 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

Posted 2010-December-24, 10:27

View Postbixby, on 2010-December-23, 19:48, said:

Hmmm . . . . the chief problem is that the hand appears to be fictional. West's miraculous J109 tripleton is suspicious enough, as well as the 7-1 heart split that makes it impossible for South to make the slam by ruffing a heart before drawing trumps, but what really seems like a setup are East's J1098765 and 76543. Not to mention the trump layout -- AKQJ10, 9876, 5432! Oh, and the diamond layout looks setup too.

I'm guessing that this hand is a setup hypothetical. (Or at least the spots have been altered.)

I am not sure why this makes it a "problem". When abstract questions have been asked here and on other forums it has often proved very difficult to answer them. Far better is to discuss an actual hand which can make a point much clearer. So if a person wants to discuss a point and invents a hand that fits, why not?
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

#16 User is offline   Bbradley62 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,542
  • Joined: 2010-February-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY, USA

Posted 2010-December-24, 13:08

Law 12C1(e)(ii): For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred.

Both sides are offending sides, so 7S-3 for North/South and 7S= for East/West.
0

#17 User is offline   campboy 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,347
  • Joined: 2009-July-21

Posted 2010-December-24, 13:22

View PostBbradley62, on 2010-December-24, 13:08, said:

Law 12C1(e)(ii): For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred.

That law only applies when some other law tells us to adjust the score. Law 70 (on contested claims) does not give the director the right to adjust the score, only to adjudicate how many tricks were taken. (Law 68D, which seems to be the only law that either side has violated, also does not give the director the right to adjust the score.)
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users