[jdonn]

bluejak, on Aug 1 2010, 05:24 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 30 2010, 06:25 PM, said:

A defender can't claim for his partner.

What Law says that?

If you are taking me for what I obviously meant and using the slightest modicum of common sense, 70D2.

If you are taking me completely literally at the expense of having an actual conversation that doesn't diverge into absurdity, none.

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on Aug 1 2010, 01:49 PM, said:

So sure, let's put all the blame on South, hammer him with a slow play penalty, and a violation of the proprieties, and a general penalty for not being the best player in the room. And maybe we can think of some more reasons to penalize him. After all, it's all his fault, isn't it?    

I think that's really harsh, particularly the general penalty for not being the best player in the room which doesn't really have any foundation in Law.

I'm not sure why everyone is suggesting procedural penalties at all for either south or east. East appears to be making an honest attempt to expedite matters given that the move has already been called and south is simply exercising his basic rights to contest a potentially dodgey claim. 99% of the time it's a simple matter of having a quite word to east telling him to pull his head in a bit and similarly have a word to south asking him to be a bit more mindful of time and (if appropriate to the skill level of the parties concerned) to be a bit more accepting of obvious defensive claims.

In the meantime you need to make a ruling about whether or not you are going to give EW another trick which can really only be done by the director on the floor who is in a position to determine whether or not east's statement was a claim and whether or not it was at all feasible having regard to all the circumstances for west to pitch a ♣.

[mrdct]

jdonn, on Aug 2 2010, 02:27 PM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 1 2010, 05:24 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 30 2010, 06:25 PM, said:

A defender can't claim for his partner.

What Law says that?

If you are taking me for what I obviously meant and using the slightest modicum of common sense, 70D2.

If you are taking me completely literally at the expense of having an actual conversation that doesn't diverge into absurdity, none.

The Laws allow you to claim for your partner, but you do so at great peril as Law 70D2 will operate to force your partner to do something sub-optimal if such a play can be selected from alternative "normal" plays.

The moral of the story is that it is highly non-advisable, but not illegal, to make a claim for your partner unless you are absolutely sure that nothing can possibly go wrong. In defence, the only time I ever claim is when partner's remaining actions can have no bearing on the outcome.

[OleBerg]

mrdct, on Aug 2 2010, 08:50 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 1 2010, 01:49 PM, said:

So sure, let's put all the blame on South, hammer him with a slow play penalty, and a violation of the proprieties, and a general penalty for not being the best player in the room. And maybe we can think of some more reasons to penalize him. After all, it's all his fault, isn't it?    

I think that's really harsh, particularly the general penalty for not being the best player in the room which doesn't really have any foundation in Law.

I'm not sure why everyone is suggesting procedural penalties at all for either south or east. East appears to be making an honest attempt to expedite matters given that the move has already been called and south is simply exercising his basic rights to contest a potentially dodgey claim. 99% of the time it's a simple matter of having a quite word to east telling him to pull his head in a bit and similarly have a word to south asking him to be a bit more mindful of time and (if appropriate to the skill level of the parties concerned) to be a bit more accepting of obvious defensive claims.

In the meantime you need to make a ruling about whether or not you are going to give EW another trick which can really only be done by the director on the floor who is in a position to determine whether or not east's statement was a claim and whether or not it was at all feasible having regard to all the circumstances for west to pitch a ♣.

+1

[dan_ehh]

Completely agree with mrdct's first post. Especially the part about robbing declarer of the chance to squeeze west's memory.
If we give EW this trick it is incentive for strong players to claim prematurely in order to avoid the chance of misdefense by their not-so-strong partners.

[VixTD]

I've edited the original post to correct a minor error in the description of the play, which explains where South's other club went. It doesn't change the general principle of the ruling.

East is a very good player, the best player at the table. West is also good, regularly plays for the county first team. EW, particularly East, have a tendency to protracted thinking, and had already lost a board on an earlier round to slow play. South, despite his play to trick one, is also a good and experienced tournament player.

I was the playing director, and overheard raised voices from this table, including South calling East or East's actions "most unethical" and East saying in frustration "OK, you can have the trick then", before I was called.

I calmed them down and did my best to establish what had happened, without looking at the hand, which I had yet to play. I said I would look at the hand afterwards and give a ruling.

I think East was genuinely trying to speed up play when he made his comment, and was not trying to influence his partner. I think he is used to playing in more expert circles where his claim would be readily accepted. I thought it very likely that West would keep his clubs, but still, it doesn't seem right to allow East to make sure he gets the defence right.

As mrdct says, East's comments obviously constitute a claim, and law 70D2 says that his claim that West will keep clubs cannot be accepted if there are alternative normal (including careless and irrational) plays.

West said that he knew which cards to keep. He knows South has ♣A from the play at trick one, and knows his partner has ♥K as that would give South too much for his pre-emptive opening. He also has a count on the heart suit from partner's spot card.

I thought it was a close decision, but in the end I decided that for West to discard a club was "careless or inferior" rather than abnormal, and I awarded declarer the remaining tricks. I could not argue with a director who gave EW a further trick. Even good players make bad mistakes sometimes, and where West's actions are based on partner's signals and assumptions about what declarer would do there seems to be some room for doubt.

Quote

[Bluejak]QUOTE (jdonn @ Jul 30 2010, 06:25 PM)
A defender can't claim for his partner.

What Law says that?

Isn't this the wrong question? I thought the principle was that anything not sanctioned by the laws is not permitted. The fact that there's a law which tells you what to do if a defender claims for partner does not mean that it is allowed, any more than the existence of law 27 gives players permission to make insufficient bids.

[RMB1]

On the topic of whether a defender "can claim for his partner".

Nothing in the laws suggests any claim is an offence: unlike law 27, where there are earlier laws requiring bids be sufficient.

If play had continued for two more tricks so that South and West had two clubs each, then for East to claim "West will make a club" is accurate and proper.

[VixTD]

What Robin says is true, of course, and I was not suggesting that claiming for partner in all cases constitutes an offence. Where West is left with ♣107 sitting over declarer's A9 it would clearly be abnormal (irrational, worse than just careless or inferior) for West to throw the ten under the ace, and I wouldn't expect anyone to argue with the claim.

In the actual case West has a decision to make, albeit one that he should get right. While I accept in this instance that East was acting with good intentions, he is in a situation where claiming could prevent partner from making an error.

The more I think about it, the happier I am with my ruling.

[bluejak]

VixTD, on Aug 2 2010, 03:15 PM, said:

Quote

[Bluejak]QUOTE (jdonn @ Jul 30 2010, 06:25 PM)
A defender can't claim for his partner.

What Law says that?

Isn't this the wrong question? I thought the principle was that anything not sanctioned by the laws is not permitted. The fact that there's a law which tells you what to do if a defender claims for partner does not mean that it is allowed, any more than the existence of law 27 gives players permission to make insufficient bids.

No Law says you may claim. To say you may not claim for partner because no Law says you may means you may never make a claim of any sort.

Furthermore, I do not agree with the principle you mention. Nothing in the Laws allows you to hold your cards in your left hand. That does not mean you are not allowed to.

I asked the question because it seems so obvious to me that a player can claim for his partner and I had no idea why jdonn said otherwise, and his reply did not help, producing no argument of any sort.

mrdct's post on Aug 2 2010, 08:00 AM, covered anything else needed to say on the subject so I was not going to post again until the above post. But I think we must be clear: the Laws do not tell you that you may claim or when you may claim: we allow anyone to claim except dummy [Law 43A1C] at any time.

[MBV53]

looking at Heart Q in dummy[still king is out,mostly with east] keeping H Jx is not of Right choice. so discarding hearts is Right assumption, East gets is Club Trick ,same time 3 imp PP is mandatory for EW.
MBVSubrahmanyam. India.

[blackshoe]

There is no law that makes any PP mandatory. Nor should there be.

[shyams]

VixTD, on Aug 2 2010, 03:15 PM, said:

As mrdct says, East's comments obviously constitute a claim, and law 70D2 says that his claim that West will keep clubs cannot be accepted if there are alternative normal (including careless and irrational) plays.

I thought careless or irrational was supposed to be based on the class of player. If West "regularly plays for the county first team", would he really make such a silly mistake at this stage? I am not convinced.

If you were placed into the West seat after trick 9 was turned over and only told:
   a. HA has been cashed (no one showed out) but HK is still in play
   b. South has two more trump winners, to be played on tricks 10 and 11
would you not find the two heart discards on the remaining two rounds of trumps? If the answer is yes, then E/W deserve a trick

[Bbradley62]

blackshoe, on Aug 2 2010, 02:04 PM, said:

There is no law that makes any PP mandatory. Nor should there be.

I think he simply meant that it was blatantly appropriate here.

[Bbradley62]

blackshoe, on Jul 31 2010, 06:10 PM, said:

peachy, on Jul 31 2010, 05:37 PM, said:

South has, nevertheless, contributed to the problem with undue slowness and no effort to catch up when round is already called.

Has he? Frankly, I want to hear it from him, and we haven't.

His answer would probably be: We wouldn't have a problem if East hadn't taken 10 minutes to declarer the previous board.