Re: Detroit Appeal 4
- From: gman175@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 14, 10:00 am, Nick France <gandal...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:47 am, "axma...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <axma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
APPEAL CASE 4
Subject: Claim
Event: Rockwell Mixed Pairs
Session: First Qualifying
Bernace DeYoung
Board: 17
Vul: None
Dlr: North
S___ T4
H___ --
D___ KQ83
C____AKQ7654
Judy Nassar Richard Ekstrum
S___ AQJ7 S___ K 9 6 2
H___ JT73 H___ K 6 5
D___ AJ54 D___ T 9 7
C___ 9 C___ J32
Cam Doner
S___ 853
H___ AQ9842
D___ 62
C___ T8
West North East South
___ 1C___ Pass 1H
Dbl 3C___ 3S___ Pass
Pass 4C___ Pass Pass
4S___5C___ All Pass
The Facts: The director was called after trick T.
The play had proceeded as follows:
1. S2 S3 SA S4
2.D4 DK D7 D2
3.D3 D9 D6 DJ
4. C9 CA C2 C8
5.D8 DT CT D5
6. HA H3 ST H5
7. H2 H7 C4 H6
Declarer then played three rounds of clubs.
North was left with two clubs and the DQ, West held the SQ J and the
DA, while East held the SK 9 and the HK. Dummy came down to the S8 5
and the HQ.
At this point East stated that he would hold the SK.
West then stated that she would hold theDA.
The Ruling: The table director applied Law 57
(Premature Play) ruling that West, in effect, lost the
DA. Directorial review determined that the appropriate
law was 68A (Claim Defined) as this was determined to
be a claim, not a premature play. In accordance with
Law 70 (Contested Claim), it was determined that in
light of the auction and play up to the point of the claim
it would be irrational for East to discard theDA.
Therefore, the result of 5C___ by North down one, North-
South minus 50, was instated.
The Appeal: South claimed to have seen some or
all of East's cards when he made his statement about
the spade king. South wanted the committee to consider
a procedural penalty (PP) against East-West.
When asked, South refused to quantify the
likelihood that East would have kept a heart not a spade
for trick 13 or that West would pitch theDAprior to
trick 13.
Neither North nor West saw East's cards. West
knew East had four spades from the auction so would
never keep a second high spade to discard theDA.
The Decision: The committee agreed with the
director's corrected ruling. Law 57 was not on point.
East's statement was tantamount to a claim. The
committee judged that East would keep the SK in the
one-card ending, both because she had seen North pitch
on the HAand ruff a heart and because she said that she
would keep it in her claim statement. West would then
retain theDAas her 13th card both because she knew
from East's 3S___ bid and the play so far that North held
no more spades and because the SQ was not a winner.
The committee upheld the final director decision of 5C
by North down one, North-South minus 50.
The committee considered a PP and determined
that East's actions were possibly unfortunate but
certainly understandable - a PP was not warranted.
I think that this case deserves a few comments.
[1] If E statement was a claim then the claim was that W cards are
totally immaterial and therefore normal for the DA to be jettisoned on
a club:
since E is going to take a S then that is an assertion that declarer
has a spade and 2 C. Since declarer can't have a D the DA is
irrelevant.
Given the presumption that a claim was made by E then E has claimed a
spade trick. In order for that to be so then declarer has 2 clubs and
a spade. Since declarer has no D to lead a T13 then the DA is
irrelevant and it is normal to play it on a club.
[2] This outcome is diametrically opposite to that of the DIC and AC.
[3] However, consider the ruling that E claimed:
L68A
A. Claim Defined
Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific
number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims
when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards
(unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim).
Did E say he was winning a specific number of tricks? No.
Did E suggest that play be curtailed? No. but it might be construed
as a way to get declarer to play faster.
Did he show his cards? It was proven that he did not.
Did E say he was taking tricks at all? No.
Did E say that he was claiming? No.
There is an old farm saying- if it waddles like a duck, and it quacks
like a duck........
[4] Is it safe to presume that no claim was made?
[5] So now, what has happened? E and W have talked across the table,
E stating he has the SK and W stating she has the DA. Notably, since
the only way to legally make such knowledge known at that point is to
play the cards, the statements have the effect of playing---
prematurely.
But, a look at
LAW 49 - EXPOSURE OF A DEFENDER'S CARDS
Except in the normal course of play or application of law, when a
defender's card is in a position in which his partner could possibly
see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand,
(penalty) each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but see the
footnote to Law 68 when a defender has made a statement concerning an
uncompleted trick currently in progress.
[6] States that a player that names a card incurs the penalty of it
being a PC. So, surely once the cards become PC there is no doubt as
to the outcome of the hand.
As for "The committee considered a PP and determined that East's
actions were possibly unfortunate but certainly understandable - a PP
was not warranted."
[7] I have a difficult time comprehending " certainly understandable
- a PP was not warranted."". To me it is certainly unfathomable that
a PP was not assessed to E and W. E and W both breached L73B1.
regards
axman
Well you and the director agreed but I don't. I would imagine EW were
trying to get the hand over with as declarer was playing it out
slowly. East obviously knew his partner had the Ace and West would
have no reason to keep the Queen of spades (its not a winner).
Notice that the committee didn't give a warning for an appeal without
merit only because of the director's poor ruling at the table.
Nick France- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I haven't closely analyzed this particular case, but in general I
think a claim by a defender that requires correct play by the other
defender, if not automatically disallowed, should at least be looked
upon with extreme suspicion. A desire to "get the hand over with" is
not a justification for telling your partner what cards you hold.
East announced that he would keep the SK. That tells his partner that
he *has* the SK. No matter how "obvious" that was from the bidding
and play, East is not entitled to assume that his partner is playing
properly, and I don't care if his partner is Zia.
I still remember a tournament where this happened to me twice in a
row: at trick 12, one defender exposed his cards and claimed, and the
claim required the other defender to make the right discard. Both
claiming defenders said it was "obvious" that their partner would get
it right and that they were just trying to save time. But if it's so
obvious, how long could it take the other defender to do it?
Defenders can properly claim when, for example, they have all high
cards left and partner can't get the lead anyway, or in other
situations where partner's play can never be relevant. But defenders
should not claim when the claim requires correct play by the other
defender. I suppose that under the Laws even such claims have to be
resolved "equitably" and there could be cases where it would be truly
irrational for the other defender to get it wrong, but I would be
strongly inclined to rule against any such claim.
Jon
.
- References:
- Detroit Appeal 4
- From: axman22@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Detroit Appeal 4
- From: Nick France
- Detroit Appeal 4
- Prev by Date: Re: Upcoming E-Ban
- Next by Date: Re: 2-2 fit at the Vanderbilt
- Previous by thread: Re: Detroit Appeal 4
- Next by thread: Re: Detroit Appeal 4
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
