Claim
#1
Posted 2020-December-07, 14:59
#2
Posted 2020-December-07, 15:18
Chris3875, on 2020-December-07, 14:59, said:
Law 71C said:
1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and
2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent’s hand, and
3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play.
For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.
So the Director has IMHO no choice but to give one trick to the opponents for the outstanding 7 of spades.
#3
Posted 2020-December-07, 15:29
#4
Posted 2020-December-07, 19:16
Okay. Sven, it's Law 70C, not 71C.
Chris, the director should take into account any evidence he can gather that's pertinent to the ruling. In this case, even f2f he could ask how the previous play went. He can ask the declarer if he can honestly say that at the time he claimed he was aware of the outstanding trump. If a declarer answered yes to that, I'd ask him why he didn't mention it when he claimed.
If the director becomes convinced, on the basis of the evidence gathered, that declarer did know of the outstanding trump, she should rule result stands. However, I would give declarer a PP if I can, and if not, a severe tongue lashing. Failure to state a line of play is an infraction, and should be penalized, and players are expected to know that.
"At all likely". Hard to say exactly what that means. One the one hand, the earlier play indicates that maybe declarer knew of the outstanding trump. His failure to state a line of play, or at least to mention the trump, when he claimed, indicates that possibly he didn't. One might wonder how good this player is. If he consistently scores highly in these games, maybe you should lean towards "result stands". If not, maybe the other way. It's a judgement call.
Come to think of it, the online software, if it's BBO or works like BBO, makes rejecting a claim a problem, because that rejection does not include either a director call (which in theory should stop declarer from playing on) or a check to be sure all four players agree to play on. I'd be tempted to tell my players never to reject a claim, instead call the director. If declarer plays on then, he's added another infraction to the pile.
if instead of rejecting the defender had just called the director, and declarer played on, I'd rule down one, and give him a second PP for that infraction.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#5
Posted 2020-December-07, 23:43
#6
Posted 2020-December-08, 03:07
blackshoe, on 2020-December-07, 19:16, said:
Okay. Sven, it's Law 70C, not 71C.
Chris, the director should take into account any evidence he can gather that's pertinent to the ruling. In this case, even f2f he could ask how the previous play went. He can ask the declarer if he can honestly say that at the time he claimed he was aware of the outstanding trump. If a declarer answered yes to that, I'd ask him why he didn't mention it when he claimed.
If the director becomes convinced, on the basis of the evidence gathered, that declarer did know of the outstanding trump, she should rule result stands. However, I would give declarer a PP if I can, and if not, a severe tongue lashing. Failure to state a line of play is an infraction, and should be penalized, and players are expected to know that.
"At all likely". Hard to say exactly what that means. One the one hand, the earlier play indicates that maybe declarer knew of the outstanding trump. His failure to state a line of play, or at least to mention the trump, when he claimed, indicates that possibly he didn't. One might wonder how good this player is. If he consistently scores highly in these games, maybe you should lean towards "result stands". If not, maybe the other way. It's a judgement call.
Come to think of it, the online software, if it's BBO or works like BBO, makes rejecting a claim a problem, because that rejection does not include either a director call (which in theory should stop declarer from playing on) or a check to be sure all four players agree to play on. I'd be tempted to tell my players never to reject a claim, instead call the director. If declarer plays on then, he's added another infraction to the pile.
if instead of rejecting the defender had just called the director, and declarer played on, I'd rule down one, and give him a second PP for that infraction.
Of course it is 70C not 71C - sorry for the typo.
But the crucial question is if the claimer may be unaware of an outstanding trump, not whether he may be aware of it.
Any after the fact statement like 'of course I knew about the last trump', or how he has played his previous tricks is in itself no evidence that he is aware of the outstanding trump, adhering to the prescribed procedure is.
#7
Posted 2020-December-08, 04:19
#8
Posted 2020-December-08, 04:21
pran, on 2020-December-08, 03:07, said:
But the crucial question is if the claimer may be unaware of an outstanding trump, not whether he may be aware of it.
Any after the fact statement like 'of course I knew about the last trump', or how he has played his previous tricks is in itself no evidence that he is aware of the outstanding trump, adhering to the prescribed procedure is.
Adhering to the prescribed procedure of stating a line of play will provide evidence that he either is aware (I cash trumps then clubs") or is unaware ("all my cards are winners").
I am not allowed a good espresso at the bar during lockdown but I think I follow your distinction about may be unaware
![B-)](https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)
#9
Posted 2020-December-08, 06:07
Vampyr, on 2020-December-08, 04:19, said:
The laws explicitly state (in the footnote to Laws 70-71):
For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.
I have most certainly seen such plays.
#10
Posted 2020-December-08, 09:34
[If] 2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent’s hand, and
3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play.
91% of claims are silent on BBO, so Blackshoe is going to be pretty busy dishing out those PPs. All of them will be overturned on appeal at our club, as this is a should law, not normally punished: "A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement of the line of play or defence <snip>"
This one looks like a clear case of the claim being allowed.
The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. “from the top down”) in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law).
People often claim silently at trick one with several trumps outstanding. If they are able to draw those without a finesse, leading from the top down, then appeals committees in the past have assumed that trumps will be drawn even though this was not stated.
#12
Posted 2020-December-08, 11:24
Vampyr, on 2020-December-08, 04:19, said:
Also, next time it'll be a high trump out, and the same declarer who "didn't mention it" will claim "it's irrational to 'pull' the trump". Of course it's not only "normal*" (*footnote), but "normal" to play out plain cards before trump.
I can't believe the number of threads and discussions IRL and otherwise are gripes about claims with an outstanding trump. The Law isn't hard to understand, and converting the Law to "hey player, if you want to avoid all of this, do this" is trivial even to non-Law readers.
You know to put trumps on your right when you put down dummy.
You know to put the score (and potentially the lead) in to the machine correctly and as soon as possible.
You know if you're claiming with outstanding trumps, you mention it.
It's just one of the things you do.
Frankly, *because* it's just one of the things you do, when you don't, the Laws' bias is toward a forget ("if it is at all likely").
As far as "should" laws go, "failure to do so *is an infraction* jeapordising the infractor's rights..." Sure, it's "not often penalised", but that does not mean "never penalised". And if there's any hint that the failure to regularly make claim statements is deliberate, I remind everyone that L72B1 is a "must" law (okay, a "must not" law). [Edit to add: the TD could also turn this into a L90B8 case, at least next time. I can see cases where that would be appropriate, even if I think it's petty in general.]
Specifically on BBO, I wouldn't mind if we could enforce rubber Law 69B, for games with no Arbiter or when the Arbiter won't come to the table: "if declarer may have been unaware at the time of his claim or concession that a trump remained in a defender’s hand, either defender may require him to draw or not to draw the outstanding trump." Given that we can't really stop continued play if the Arbiter won't/can't come.
#13
Posted 2020-December-08, 11:46
lamford, on 2020-December-08, 09:34, said:
No I'm not, since BBO's software doesn't allow the director to use that power.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#14
Posted 2020-December-08, 11:55
lamford, on 2020-December-08, 09:34, said:
The law says that failure to comply with a "should" law "is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalized". I suppose you could interpret "not often" as "not normally", but I don't think that's what the law is trying to say here. It certainly doesn't say "never penalized". I would think in view of the widespread habit of most players to simply ignore the requirement to state a line of play PPs are appropriate in an attempt to get people to follow the law, since merely telling them the law isn't working. One could argue (I wouldn't) that if people are ignoring this law the law should be deleted from the book, but a) that's a bad idea and b) until it actually happens the TD has to enforce this law.
The lack of a line of play statement means that any benefit of the doubt should go to the non-claiming side. So unless the director is convinced that there is no doubt that the declarer was aware of the outstanding trump, he should not rule that declarer gets the rest of the tricks.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#15
Posted 2020-December-08, 15:54
blackshoe, on 2020-December-08, 11:55, said:
Agreed. But often there is no benefit of doubt and as they say BBO does not support imposition of penalties.
mycroft, on 2020-December-08, 11:24, said:
I would certainly prefer that to the current situation.
But much better IMO would be a playout button, giving the arbiter a well earned rest, as already discussed on other threads.
#16
Posted 2020-December-08, 20:07
#17
Posted 2020-December-08, 20:23
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#18
Posted 2020-December-08, 23:24
Playing with real opponents, it gives you boxes to select how many tricks you are taking, and a line underneath for a claim statement.
As mentioned, in casual play, the BBO "tradition" is "unless it's not obvious, just show your hand. Opponents aren't supposed to hold you to the letter of the law, if it's 'obvious'." In club play, or other serious play, there is a TD to do precisely that (and it has been a shock to people with a lot of online experience who play in ACBL tournaments and get held to FtF standards).
#19
Posted 2020-December-09, 08:20
blackshoe, on 2020-December-08, 20:23, said:
You can claim any number of the remaining tricks.
#20
Posted 2020-December-09, 09:45
blackshoe, on 2020-December-08, 20:23, said:
You could also call the director and reject the claim verbally rather than through the BBO software, which would allow the director to follow face to face laws, including the "new" possibility to play on without exposing hands if all four players agree (not that partner or any but the most taliban of directors will thank you for this).
I have rarely been called about a claim on BBO and then it was just complaint that an obvious claim had been refused and the clock timed out, or whatever. Probably because I only direct club games and our players are more used to stating a line of play than most.