[lamford]

---

National Pairs Final. Contract 3NT by West. Table Result 3NT+1.

North led the two of hearts against 3NT and West won the nine with the ace, and played a diamond to the ace, and continued with the queen of diamonds, South discarding a small spade, normal attitude. North won with the king and played a second heart to the ten and queen. West cashed four rounds of clubs, pitching a spade and a diamond from dummy, while North pitched all three spades. Now declarer led a heart to the king, and South discarded a spade. North claimed at this point, stating "the last two tricks to me", facing his cards. West accepted this, but dummy immediately objected, indicating that North could be thrown in, either after cashing one more top diamond, or immediately. North thought dummy could not object, and the director was called. The director established that South had shown out of both red suits, and West was aware of which cards North had, but had not seen the endplay. West agreed that she probably would have played the top diamonds, but she had not decided on a play. The TD ruled that to throw North in was not a "normal" play, and, given the seniority of the TD, I wonder if he realised who had actually claimed (as I would not have awarded West three tricks if she had claimed)! Two tricks were awarded to North-South and East-West have appealed. How would you rule? The ending, with the lead in dummy (East) to save you work (South had discarded on both red suits):

---

[aguahombre]

When a claim is made, play is not in progress. He isn't Dummy with Dummy restrictions.

Of course the throw-in is reasonable after seeing the defensive claim. Declarer doesn't need to explain himself; he didn't claim.

I wouldn't rule on what that Declarer would have done had there been no claim. There is a line where the defenders get a different number of tricks from that which they claimed, and that is what they get.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-06, 13:13, said:

Of course the throw-in is reasonable after seeing the defensive claim. Declarer doesn't need to explain himself; he didn't claim.

I wouldn't rule on what that Declarer would have done had there been no claim. There is a line where the defenders get a different number of tricks from that which they claimed, and that is what they get.

I am worried that we completely agree, which is rare, especially as I stumped up the £20 to appeal as East-West! And I would have put this in simple rulings, but it was slightly more complicated than one by VixTD.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2014-April-06, 13:30, said:

I am worried that we completely agree, which is rare, especially as I stumped up the £20 to appeal as East-West! And I would have put this in simple rulings, but it was slightly more complicated than one by VixTD.

I understand your concern. However, if agreeing with me becomes intolerable, you could concede one of the three tricks to which your side was entitled and forfeit the deposit money.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-06, 15:46, said:

I understand your concern. However, if agreeing with me becomes intolerable, you could concede one of the three tricks to which your side was entitled and forfeit the deposit money.

No. +£20 plus agreeing with you is better than -£20 plus disagreeing with you.

[jallerton]

It seems to me that the claim has not been agreed as defined by Law 69A, therefore the TD has to adjudicate the claim under Law 70.

Law 70A said:

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.

We are told that:

lamford, on 2014-April-06, 12:48, said:

The director established that South had shown out of both red suits, and West was aware of which cards North had, but had not seen the endplay. West agreed that she probably would have played the top diamonds, but she had not decided on a play.

Declarer's statement seems to support the defender's claim. She would cash the next two tricks and North would make the last two. So there are two questions for the TD here:

1. Is it "equitable" to award two tricks each?
2. Is it a doubtful point whether declarer might have found the endplay?

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2014-April-06, 16:22, said:

It seems to me that the claim has not been agreed as defined by Law 69A, therefore the TD has to adjudicate the claim under Law 70.

We are told that:

Declarer's statement seems to support the defender's claim. She would cash the next two tricks and North would make the last two. So there are two questions for the TD here:

1. Is it "equitable" to award two tricks each?
2. Is it a doubtful point whether declarer might have found the endplay?

Declarer made no statement. The claimer did, "the last two tricks to me." Declarer was asked by the TD what she was likely to do but, in my view, she should not have been asked. She did not claim. The defender did and it is he or she that should be asked how they expected to make two tricks. The text of our appeal:

East-West are appealing against the decision to award two tricks to North. The basis of the appeal is that the TD was wrong in Law. It is true that the TD should rule as equitably as possible under Law 70, resolving doubtful points against the claimer. The TD made a value judgement that the declarer was not likely to find the throw-in. This is not the test. It was North who claimed, in a position where he is unable to make two tricks with best play. From North's point of view, it is a completely normal line to be thrown in. It can never be right to award a claimant tricks that the opponents can prevent him winning! To establish this principle, we pretend that North was declarer and said "I must make two tricks". East agrees but West objects. Declarer is only given one trick. Therefore North only gets one trick when he claims.

[Bad_Wolf]

exactly. If declarer claims the rest but the defender not on lead objects saying "I can ruff a club" we award the trick. There is no discussion as to whether his partner would have found the club switch as it is at worse doubtful.

[lamford]

Bad_Wolf, on 2014-April-06, 17:44, said:

exactly. If declarer claims the rest but the defender not on lead objects saying "I can ruff a club" we award the trick. There is no discussion as to whether his partner would have found the club switch as it is at worse doubtful.

I don't think jallerton really believes that two tricks is equity, and is just playing devil's advocate.

[PeterAlan]

First, Law 68D makes it clear that dummy is entitled to contribute objections to the claim.

Second, the White Book guidance is helpful here in setting the general context in which the ruling should be approached:

White Book 2013 8.70.1, p132 said:

8.70.1 Interpretation of Law 70A
The TD is required to simply use their bridge judgement after consultation to decide the outcome of the deal, any doubt going against the claimer, with no opportunity for split or weighted scores. A suitable definition of ‘doubtful’ is ‘within the margins of reasonable doubt’.

Law 70B sets out the procedure for the TD to follow; in this case the claimer has not made a clarification statement (70B1), and indeed is not in control of the relevant part of the play sequence, so the TD next hears the opponents' objections (but is not limited to considering only them) (70B2) and then considers the claim, subject to the guidance in 70C (not applicable here), D and E. Without going into detail, I can see nothing in those that supports either seeking, or then relying on, a statement from West on how she would have continued the play.

The TD's job is to decide within the parameters of 70A what the outcome is to be, and I agree with you, lamford, that he should do so without that input. Another problem is that the TD has only asked West for what is essentially a snapshot view - even if it were to be admitted, he would also have to consider that she could still have woken up to the endplay possibilities after playing the first top diamond, even if not aware of them before, or, since she knew N's cards, have called for the ♥ thinking it didn't matter in what order she lost or won her tricks. So on the basis of reasonable doubt I would rule 3 tricks to E/W and 1 to N/S. Had W been making a claim, and used in her claim statement the words attributed to her here, I would have ruled 2-2, but that's not the case we're dealing with.

Finally, you make no mention of the TD having consulted before making the ruling, but that would have been appropriate in such a judgment case.

lamford, on 2014-April-06, 15:57, said:

No. +£20 plus agreeing with you is better than -£20 plus disagreeing with you.

I hope it's not asking for trouble to raise a pedantic point with you, but you're either +£20 vs £0 or you're £0 vs -£20, depending on whether your starting point is after or before the £20 that you've put down - there can't be a swing of £40 over the appeal cost.

[lamford]

PeterAlan, on 2014-April-06, 20:02, said:

I hope it's not asking for trouble to raise a pedantic point with you, but you're either +£20 vs £0 or you're £0 vs -£20, depending on whether your starting point is after or before the £20 that you've put down - there can't be a swing of £40 over the appeal cost.

I had a side-bet of £20 with RMB1 that I would win the appeal ... just teasing, you are right.

[aguahombre]

Worthy of note: There might be a reason why we agree with Lamford here. Unless he is telling a huge porky, this case...unlike the others...is real.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-06, 21:09, said:

Worthy of note: There might be a reason why we agree with Lamford here. Unless he is telling a huge porky, this case...unlike the others...is real.

Eventually it will wend its way into the Appeals Booklets on the EBU site. I also quoted from the text of the appeal sent yesterday to the EBU, so this is not a constructed hand. Also you will find the exact hand in due course on the EBU site for the National Pairs final.

[WellSpyder]

lamford, on 2014-April-06, 13:30, said:

I am worried that we completely agree, which is rare, especially as I stumped up the £20 to appeal as East-West! And I would have put this in simple rulings, but it was slightly more complicated than one by VixTD.

You're worried? I read the thread on "Correct procedure" immediately after this one and found myself agreeing with you on two consecutive threads! As gwnn said in his post on awful clichés, are there pills for this?

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2014-April-06, 16:57, said:

Declarer made no statement. The claimer did, "the last two tricks to me." Declarer was asked by the TD what she was likely to do but, in my view, she should not have been asked. She did not claim. The defender did and it is he or she that should be asked how they expected to make two tricks. The text of our appeal:

East-West are appealing against the decision to award two tricks to North. The basis of the appeal is that the TD was wrong in Law. It is true that the TD should rule as equitably as possible under Law 70, resolving doubtful points against the claimer. The TD made a value judgement that the declarer was not likely to find the throw-in. This is not the test. It was North who claimed, in a position where he is unable to make two tricks with best play. From North's point of view, it is a completely normal line to be thrown in. It can never be right to award a claimant tricks that the opponents can prevent him winning! To establish this principle, we pretend that North was declarer and said "I must make two tricks". East agrees but West objects. Declarer is only given one trick. Therefore North only gets one trick when he claims.

I was referring to declarer's statement in response to the TD's question. I agree that the defender should have been asked to repeat/clarify his or her claim statement. Although 70D is not directly relevant here (as play did not continue) it's interesting that 68D talks about using "evidence of the players' probable plays subsequent to the claim".

Given the stated basis of appeal, was the appeal heard by the Chief TD?

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2014-April-07, 12:43, said:

I was referring to declarer's statement in response to the TD's question. I agree that the defender should have been asked to repeat/clarify his or her claim statement. Although 70D is not directly relevant here (as play did not continue) it's interesting that 68D talks about using "evidence of the players' probable plays subsequent to the claim".

Given the stated basis of appeal, was the appeal heard by the Chief TD?

I think it is 70D, not 68D, that talks about subsequent play being evidence of declarer's probable plays, but there was no subsequent play, and the claim was by a defender. Any statement by declarer is irrelevant. She was not the claimer. There was no clarification statement by the defender. He just said "the last two tricks to me" or words to that effect. The fundamental principle of any claim must be that if the opponents can win more than the tricks the claimer is giving them, then the claim fails. As just about everybody other than you seems to agree.

The Chief TD began to convene an AC, and asked me to stand, but I recused myself. He then asked one half of the National Pairs winners, who seemed distinctly unhappy at the prospect of remaining behind after the event had finished. I then suggested that both Vampyr and I were happy to have the appeal heard by a referee, which is where the matter stands. And I have also commented enough on this thread, and will not comment any more. Even cut-and-dried cases on here seem to go on interminably, with the same or similar points being made. I shall, however, report the result of the appeal on this thread when it is known, and correct any posts which seem to be based on the wrong facts.

[barmar]

I think 69B2 is the relevant law here. Declarer was agreeing with the claim, but the TD must determine if he's agreeing to the loss of a trick he "would likely have won had the play continued." Note that this doesn't say "would possibly have won", but sets a higher bar with "likely". If declarer admits that he didn't see the end-play, it doesn't seem likely that he would have won the extra trick.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2014-April-07, 15:39, said:

I think 69B2 is the relevant law here. Declarer was agreeing with the claim, but the TD must determine if he's agreeing to the loss of a trick he "would likely have won had the play continued." Note that this doesn't say "would possibly have won", but sets a higher bar with "likely". If declarer admits that he didn't see the end-play, it doesn't seem likely that he would have won the extra trick.

Any player including dummy can object: "if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies." Dummy immediately objected. The TD got that far, but then fell at the second fence.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 15:21, said:

As just about everybody other than you seems to agree.

You seem to be suggesting the Jallerton disagrees.

I cannot see any post where Jallerton has said how he would rule. He has asked a number of questions, some of which have not been answered.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-April-07, 15:55, said:

You seem to be suggesting the Jallerton disagrees.

I cannot see any post where Jallerton has said how he would rule. He has asked a number of questions, some of which have not been answered.

My view was that the questions were not relevant. There was a defensive claim. Best play for declarer (which has to be a normal line) takes more tricks than the claimant conceded. End of the matter. It is cloud-cuckoo-land when someone of the Chief TD's or jallerton's ability is even contemplating asking further questions let alone asking them. And that must be my last word on the matter. Someone else can answer jallerton's questions if they choose.