[shevek]

---

West - a decent player - plays 6S at IMPs on H3 lead-Q-K.
Pass (13+) - (no) - 1H (spades) - (2H)
6S - end

Then she spreads her cards and says "I think I can handle this."
N-S look quizzical. She adds "I'll see how trumps go, then ruff two red cards in dummy."
South suggests that she plays on, so the director is called.
Declarer restates her "claim." N-S agree that she "will probably make."
Director comes back with +100 NS at the end of the session, saying that he "can't see a making line".

E-W appeal, 23 IMPs at stake, Butler. To be held in 6 days time.

A few points:
- N-S don't believe they acquiesced.
- The director's comment about "no making line" seems to suggest that he requires declarer to keep playing trumps.
- If trumps were 3-1, declarer's stated "line" would fail, since she would presumably play a second round of trumps and end up a trick short. (She's allowed one club trick only)
- Declarer needs to ruff THREE red cards in dummy. "Cross-ruff" was never uttered.

West's contention is that the 4-0 trump break will alert her to the need to stop trumps and cross-ruff. All the cross-ruff lines work, don't need to be careful. She didn't mention clubs so there seems to be no alternative line.

So declarer was made a "careless" claim, not counting tricks.
Is she then permitted to count tricks in the face of the 4-0 trump break?
Is it "rational" for a declarer who has made such a careless claim to keep playing trumps?

[billw55]

I'm no law whiz. But strictly from a play point of view, I feel that declarer deserves whatever penalty is handed down, for failing to draw trumps before claiming. There's a reason for the phrase "draw trumps and claim".

To be more technical, declarer is not allowed to make up a new line of play after claiming. So sorry, no crossruff allowed.

[Bbradley62]

making, with a procedural penalty against West.

[alphatango]

shevek, on 2011-May-16, 19:16, said:

E-W appeal, 23 IMPs at stake, Butler. To be held in 6 days time.

If this means the appeal is yet to take place, perhaps we should defer discussion until after the hearing?

[Bbradley62]

Which seat were you in, North or South?

[aguahombre]

if trumps were 3-1, I would rule as the director did.

Since they were 4-0, declarer's statement about seeing how trumps go seems valid. She would find out at trick-two, in time to rough red cards as stated.

[alphatango]

Bbradley62, on 2011-May-16, 22:00, said:

Which seat were you in, North or South?

Neither, fortunately. Nor, before you ask, was I East, West, or the director.

I do believe it's a sensible rule of thumb that appeals should not be publically discussed before they are heard. Is that not generally accepted? There is always the chance that AC members may see or hear such a discussion, and both sides should have the chance to present their case to a committee free of that influence, for obvious reasons.

[Bbradley62]

I certainly didn't think you were East or West, since you appear to be advocating on behalf of North-South.

[alphatango]

...Now confused. Why do you believe I am advocating for N-S? Is the idea that we should defer public discussion of a case which is yet to be heard so outrageous?

[Bbradley62]

alphatango, on 2011-May-17, 00:41, said:

...Now confused. Why do you believe I am advocating for N-S? Is the idea that we should defer public discussion of a case which is yet to be heard so outrageous?

Sorry, my bad... you answered a question (were you East or West?) that I intended for OP, who appears to be advocating for E/W.

[gordontd]

alphatango, on 2011-May-16, 21:46, said:

If this means the appeal is yet to take place, perhaps we should defer discussion until after the hearing?

Yes, indeed.

[mrdct]

I'm not entirely convinced about the subjudice thing. It is the responsibility of the members of the NSWBA Appeals Committee to keep themselves pure and recuse themselves if their independence may have been compromised by trawling through bridge forums. However, I don't think it's particular wise by Nicoleta to post such overtly identifying information about the case given that she is, afaik, the only female in Australia that plays a forcing pass system (and good on her for that )

Something not often considered in appeals cases that perhaps should be is how other table performed on the same board. This case was Board 16 from Round 4 of the NSW ANC Butler Pairs - Open with a fairly competent field in which Nicoleta and her partner ran 21st out of 32. Of the 16 results, it appears that 6♠ was the contract on 12 occasions of which 6 made, 5 failed and 1 failed on a TD ruling. This suggests to me that the contract was by no means a "gimme" on a "I think I can handle this" claim by a pair running mid-field hitting a 4-0 trump break.

[shevek]

Okay more info.

- I was East.

- The AC is unlikely to read any of this. If they do, can't see that being a bad thing.
I look at this panel as a bunch of appeals advisors. If everyone said "EW have no chance, save your money/VPs" we might duck out.

- NS were Australia's top-rated pair.

- I believe the 6 who failed in 6S were playing from East with South usually silent. I think they should make anyway but it's tougher. Certainly played by West on a heart lead after a heart overcall makes it lot easier, though not trivial or even routine.

[nige1]

shevek, on 2011-May-17, 05:38, said:

Okay more info.
- I was East.
- The AC is unlikely to read any of this. If they do, can't see that being a bad thing.
I look at this panel as a bunch of appeals advisors. If everyone said "EW have no chance, save your money/VPs" we might duck out.
- NS were Australia's top-rated pair.
- I believe the 6 who failed in 6S were playing from East with South usually silent. I think they should make anyway but it's tougher. Certainly played by West on a heart lead after a heart overcall makes it lot easier, though not trivial or even routine.

IMO

• I doubt that BBF ramblings will influence the committee. If they do, so much the better.
• Defenders disputed the claim by calling the director.
• Subsequently, it is the director's decision as to whether the claim should be allowed.
• Although the claim was poor, it included testing the trumps and ruffing 2 red cards in dummy.
• The director should not consider a trump-finesse in clubs.
• Nevertheless, the director may judge that declarer will make, following her claim statement.
• After a trump lead and return, if declarer attempts to cash red winners first, then she makes 6 ♠, 2 ♥, 3 ♦, and 1 ♣.
• It would be silly not to cash as many red winners as possible, as early as possible, in view of the known bad trump break.
• The director/committee must judge whether failure to do this would be careless or irrational.
• I agree with MrDict that the director should take the bidding and play at other tables into account
• Usually this kind of case just hinges on who are the directors/committee members.
• Some take the Burns "letter of the law" attitude (shoot the claimer) .
• But most take the liberal attitude (If they can make it -- perhaps with some help from deep finesse - then allow the claim)
• Until claim law is radically simplified, there will be many such cases.
• Luckily, although most claims are "faulty", few players bother the director about them..
• I go further than MrDict. IMO, Forcing pass should be legal everywhere at any level -- except, perhaps, in no-fear competitions for beginners.

[bluejak]

I do sometimes wish, Nigel, you would keep on topic and not ramble. The question is how this should be ruled, not should the Law be different and whether different people have different ideas and so on.

While the TD's comment is unfortunate, it really comes down to whether this player would have made it on any line that is not irrational. I do not believe it: for example, anyone casual enough to make that claim might easily play a second trump in my view.

As for whether we should discuss sub judice matters, I really see no point in worrying once the case is posted and there are some replies. Certainly it might be better if it had never been posted but that is too late now.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2011-May-17, 08:23, said:

anyone casual enough to make that claim might easily play a second trump in my view.

Does this mean her statement about "see how trumps go" came too late to be considered? It did not come with the claim, but pretty quickly it seems. Remember, South shows out on the first lead and with that statement it would probably be "irrational" to lead a second one.

[bluejak]

Yes, I understand that. I just feel such a player might play a second round.

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-May-17, 08:23, said:

I do sometimes wish, Nigel, you would keep on topic and not ramble. The question is how this should be ruled, not should the Law be different and whether different people have different ideas and so on.

Most of my ramblings were responses to other posts in this topic. My fresh point was: BBF discussions seem to indicate that rulings in disputed claims-cases depend more on prejudices about claims-law, than on the facts of the case. IMO, the composition of the appeals committee will be critical.

[nige1]

aguahombre, on 2011-May-16, 22:17, said:

if trumps were 3-1, I would rule as the director did. Since they were 4-0, declarer's statement about seeing how trumps go seems valid. She would find out at trick-two, in time to rough red cards as stated.

Fair enough but If turmps are 3-1 and declarer remembers to unblock diamonds in her stated line, then she easily makes her contract (5 ♠, 3♥, 3♦ and 1♣)

[Phil]

I am uncomfortable with the way this panned out:

- Declarer claims with a poorly worded statement (pressed for time? intimidated?);
- (Experienced) Defenders look confused;
- Declarer gets woken up to a problem regarding bad splits, and...
- Modifies the claim statement, and doesn't specify a winning line.

How can you award 12 tricks?