[AlexJonson]

gordontd, on 2011-September-06, 15:44, said:

So 'meaningless' was not actually a quotation?

Well maybe an interpretation of a strong reference to attempts to apply 'equity' in claims, by a member of the EBU Laws and Ethics committee - not that I nedessarily disagree with him.

[bluejak]

Please can I have my MultiQuote back!

AlexJonson, on 2011-September-06, 14:33, said:

Difficult as a TD, though probably more difficult in the EBU where the words about equity in this Law are usually disregarded as 'meaningless'.

The real worry about this post is the word “usually”. I find no evidence for this personally.

AlexJonson, on 2011-September-06, 15:12, said:

I imagine I have read many posts from Laws experts originating in the EBU, where almost unimaginable contortions are pursued as to the meaning of rationality and normality in the context of claims, while equity is ignored as a relevant concept.

No doubt some say such things. But I worry that that makes you believe that a majority of EBU TDs are ignoring the words in the Law.

gordontd, on 2011-September-06, 15:44, said:

So 'meaningless' was not actually a quotation?

AlexJonson, on 2011-September-07, 04:11, said:

Well maybe an interpretation of a strong reference to attempts to apply 'equity' in claims, by a member of the EBU Laws and Ethics committee - not that I nedessarily disagree with him.

Let us remember that anyone who posts here, unless they quote an authority or say they are acting as an authority, is doing so personally. Official statements by the EBU L&EC are not made by members posting here. After all, such members have been known to disagree with each other and with various authorities.

However, what you say here does not really agree with your original quote anyway, where you say that equity is ignored in the EBU – see first quote above. It is that description of equity as “meaningless” that is worrying me.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-September-06, 17:17, said:

In this case if declarer had played it out he would have got 13 tricks in my view, so I give him 13 tricks. There is no doubtful point. He just made a bad clam statement: the claim was fine.

If declarer had stated "unless clubs break 3-3, I will take the diamond finesse", would you award him the contract? I would say that if declarer had played it out he would have made 13 tricks perhaps 90% of the time. I would estimate that the chance of him not noticing the fall of the jack of clubs was 5%, and the chance of him not noticing that he had the ten of clubs was 5%. The chance of him throwing a heart on the fourth club, or not ruffing a heart, was close to 0%. Does 70A mean that we give him his contract because he is very likely to make it?

[lamford]

phil_20686, on 2011-September-06, 15:08, said:

My comments were based on the discussion of the sky commentators, Nasser Hussein, David Lloyd, and David Gower, if i recall correctly. They all seemed to think this was the case, and had some example about a run/out stumping in new zealand. I have never even seen a written copy of the laws of cricket.

It is not clear that you have ever seen a written copy of the laws of bridge either, but that has not stopped you posting on here. The Laws of Cricket are hidden away on the first URL of a Google search at

http://www.lords.org...aws-of-cricket/

It seems clear that Bell left the field of play, and therefore the umpire decision could not be reversed under Law 27.8. But umpires make mistakes all the time, as do TDs.

[shyams]

lamford, on 2011-September-07, 08:54, said:

If declarer had stated "unless clubs break 3-3, I will take the diamond finesse", would you award him the contract? I would say that if declarer had played it out he would have made 13 tricks perhaps 90% of the time. I would estimate that the chance of him not noticing the fall of the jack of clubs was 5%, and the chance of him not noticing that he had the ten of clubs was 5%. The chance of him throwing a heart on the fourth club, or not ruffing a heart, was close to 0%. Does 70A mean that we give him his contract because he is very likely to make it?

As per the OP, declarer made a claim after playing 3 tricks. With 10 cards yet to play, this player was competent enough to make a conditional claim along the lines of "I try A. If it does not happen, I try B. If both fail, I'm out of luck".

In my opinion, for such a player, the 5% chance of not noticing the fall of the ♣J + 5% chance of not being aware of the ♣T in dummy are excessive.

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-September-07, 08:54, said:

If declarer had stated "unless clubs break 3-3, I will take the diamond finesse", would you award him the contract? I would say that if declarer had played it out he would have made 13 tricks perhaps 90% of the time. I would estimate that the chance of him not noticing the fall of the jack of clubs was 5%, and the chance of him not noticing that he had the ten of clubs was 5%. The chance of him throwing a heart on the fourth club, or not ruffing a heart, was close to 0%. Does 70A mean that we give him his contract because he is very likely to make it?

Would I give him 13 tricks? Yes. Do I give him a contract because he is "very likely to make it"? No. I give him the contract because, in my view, he would have made it if he had played it out, which is thus a correct decision based on the wording of Law 70A

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2011-September-08, 09:05, said:

Would I give him 13 tricks? Yes. Do I give him a contract because he is "very likely to make it"? No. I give him the contract because, in my view, he would have made it if he had played it out, which is thus a correct decision based on the wording of Law 70A

I don't disagree with you giving him 13 tricks, but I don't see anything in the wording of Law 70A about "if he had played it out". The problem with this is that in the kind of situations where people make claims, they never would play it out.

[aguahombre]

I upped Bluejack's summary post, also. I don't think it matters that declarer was not going to actually play it out. It is clear to me what declarer intended, and after cashing two clubs, he undoubtedly would have claimed then, anyway. "If he had played it out", is just another way of stating the obvious; on this hand he would have made 13 tricks. Not finding that wording in 70a doesn't change what Bluejack was trying to say.

BTW, in my world speaking with a forked tongue refers to deceit, not to tangling up one's tongue.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-08, 11:45, said:

BTW, in my world speaking with a forked tongue refers to deceit, not to tangling up one's tongue.

I think it was an old American Indian metaphor. Or at least, it was used in cowboy and Indian movies as if it were.

I think the OP simply confused "forked tongue" with "tongue tied", much the same way that the subject of the post had confused clubs and diamonds. How appropriate!

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-September-08, 09:05, said:

Would I give him 13 tricks? Yes. Do I give him a contract because he is "very likely to make it"? No. I give him the contract because, in my view, he would have made it if he had played it out, which is thus a correct decision based on the wording of Law 70A

If your opinion is that he would have always made it if he had played it out, you are of course correct to give him his contract. That involves assigning a probability of 100% to his noticing the fall of the jack of clubs and 100% to his noticing the ten of clubs is a winner. I disagree with those percentages, by some value between 1 and 40%, but those are value judgements. I disagree particularly because of the specific wording used. Now, I am quite happy that equity under 70A means, say, that contracts that declarer would have made 90% of the time are allowed, but this does not seem to be your view.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-08, 11:45, said:

BTW, in my world speaking with a forked tongue refers to deceit, not to tangling up one's tongue.

I simply followed the definition in Wikipedia: The phrase "speaks with a forked tongue" means to say one thing and mean another, when selecting the heading, and I did not do substantial research on the etymology, sorry. There was no intention to refer to North American Indians, who, as far as I am aware, do not play bridge.

[lamford]

shyams, on 2011-September-08, 05:19, said:

In my opinion, for such a player, the 5% chance of not noticing the fall of the ♣J + 5% chance of not being aware of the ♣T in dummy are excessive.

In my opinion, after speaking to the TD, I am sure the player did not realise he had the ten of clubs. The TD is responsible for the finding of fact. The TD decided that his phrase "if the clubs don't break" meant "if the clubs don't break 3-3". The TD decided that if he had noticed the ten of clubs, he would have been more likely to have used the phrase "if the jack drops", or "if the clubs come in" or somesuch phrase. If I were to revise my estimate now, I would say that it was more like 3% that the player aware of the ten of clubs did not notice the jack drop, 40% that the player was not aware of the fact that he had the ten of clubs and 57% that he would notice the jack fall and would notice that he had the ten of clubs. The TD was happy with my estimates when I spoke to him.

I was not there, so cannot judge, but I am very happy that the TD followed correct procedure.

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-September-08, 16:54, said:

If your opinion is that he would have always made it if he had played it out, you are of course correct to give him his contract. That involves assigning a probability of 100% to his noticing the fall of the jack of clubs and 100% to his noticing the ten of clubs is a winner. I disagree with those percentages, by some value between 1 and 40%, but those are value judgements. I disagree particularly because of the specific wording used. Now, I am quite happy that equity under 70A means, say, that contracts that declarer would have made 90% of the time are allowed, but this does not seem to be your view.

No, it isn't. While I am pedantic in some things, this is not one of them. I think percentages is a pretty terrible way of looking at this problem, and I don't.

If I believe something would have happened, that is not the same as saying it would have happened 100% of the time. I think that is a misunderstanding of the language. I believe that next summer there will be a Congress in Brighton. Am I 100% sure? Of course not, some calamity might stop it happening.

[blackshoe]

I think it's a mistake to speak of percentages in this context, as if they govern how the TD should rule. They do not. You cannot say that the TD should rule one way if there's an X percent chance the player will do a particular thing, and a different way if there's a Y percent chance he will do that thing. In particular, one cannot assign percentages to possible perceived meanings of what the player said — it's up to the TD if he meant "if they break 3-3" or "if the jack falls". It's up to the TD to decide if it would be normal (including careless) for a player to fail to notice that his ♣10 is good when the J drops. This isn't physics, folks, it's human nature.

Yahoo! answers has this to say about forked tongues: "In many mythologies a demon/devil is portrayed to have a forked tongue, and more likely to lie than tell the truth. Therefore, someone believed to be lying is akin to the devil." Merriam-Webster says "intent to mislead or deceive — usually used in the phrase to speak with forked tongue".

Although I had always related "tongue tied" to simply mispronouncing words, it seems that the term refers to a "congenital oral anomaly" call Ankyloglossia, one of the common effects of which is the aforementioned mispronunciation. An example is the cartoon character Elmer Fudd, who cannot pronounce the letter r.

[mrdct]

Even if declarer was initially unaware that he held the ♣10; when the ♣J appears that would most definately focus his attention on what ♣ pips he had and unless he is an absolute noob, I can't really accept that there would be any chance that he wouldn't work out he had four guaranteed ♣ tricks at that point.

The intended line of play is obviously to play ♣ from the top and if that doesn't work, take a ♦ hook. When the ♣J appears (and I think it is completely unreasonable to give any weight to the possibility of not noticing a key honour card falling when playing in a grand slam) any declarer skilled enough to know what a finesse or claim is will do a quick retake on what's going on and spot that the ♣10 is high and claim the rest of the tricks. The fact that this declarer is familiar with the technique of combining one's chances would of itself place him in the "expert" (note: not "BBO expert") category.

To rule this contract as going down is one of the worst rulings I've ever seen and whether or not it mattered to the outcome of the event in question, I would be appealing.

I'm not a great fan of having a sookie-fit and refusing to play at a club anymore, but I don't think I would go out of my way to play in events run by this TD.

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-08, 11:45, said:

I upped Bluejack's summary post, also. I don't think it matters that declarer was not going to actually play it out. It is clear to me what declarer intended, and after cashing two clubs, he undoubtedly would have claimed then, anyway. "If he had played it out", is just another way of stating the obvious; on this hand he would have made 13 tricks. Not finding that wording in 70a doesn't change what Bluejack was trying to say.

I think perhaps it does matter, since the post to which I was replying said:

bluejak, on 2011-September-08, 09:05, said:

based on the wording of Law 70A

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-September-08, 16:57, said:

I simply followed the definition in Wikipedia: The phrase "speaks with a forked tongue" means to say one thing and mean another, when selecting the heading, and I did not do substantial research on the etymology, sorry. There was no intention to refer to North American Indians, who, as far as I am aware, do not play bridge.

It's generally unwise to rely on Wikipedia for anything - if you didn't know what it meant, couldn't you have asked Stefanie?

Having chosen this as your reference, however, I think you would have done better to read to the end of the sentence:

Wikipedia said:

The phrase "speaks with a forked tongue" means to say one thing and mean another or, to be hypocritical, or act in a duplicitous manner.

[blackshoe]

I am sure there are plenty of Native American bridge players. And I do know several North American Indians (some of them, at least, born in India) who play bridge.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-September-09, 06:44, said:

The phrase "speaks with a forked tongue" means to say one thing and mean another or, to be hypocritical, or act in a duplicitous manner.

I think that there was an element of hypocrisy if South duplicitously claimed that he had observed the ten of clubs and had meant "if the jack of clubs does not fall", which, speaking to the TD again, I understand to be the TD's judgement, with which I concur. So the heading meets both definitions, depending on your view of South. It certainly fitted the first part of the definition. And you might have done better to look up the definition of "or" before posting.

[lamford]

mrdct, on 2011-September-08, 22:37, said:

To rule this contract as going down is one of the worst rulings I've ever seen and whether or not it mattered to the outcome of the event in question, I would be appealing.

If I were on an AC, and you appealed on this one, I would vote to retain your deposit, or award an AWM whichever jurisdiction I was in.