[BLML] (2017) Procedure Immediately following a claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Wed Mar 14 02:48:37 CET 2012


On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:47:00 -0400, <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:

> Robert Frick asserted:
>
>>>> It is widely agreed that defenders may look at
>>>> each others hand and then protest the claim.
>>>> Oddly enough, the laws do not allow this
>>>> unless the director is present.
>
> Harald Skjæran quibbled:
>
>>> Where is this widely agreed? I've never seen
>>> it happen.
>
> Robert Frick asked:
>
>> Very strange! Is this a huge regional difference?
>
> Richard Hills answers:
>
> Yes and No. It is not merely ACBL-land which
> contains grey-ethics declarers who claim without
> showing their cards, thus gaining an unearned
> trick or trick. ABF-land also contains such expert
> declarers who steal tricks from bunny victims.
>
> But the overwhelming number of declarers in
> ABF-land who claim reveal their cards in so
> doing, therefore it is unnecessary for any
> defender to look at her partner's cards.
>
> Robert Frick example:
>
>> Just to make sure we understand each other.
>> Declarer claims, the defenders don't object,
>> then they see each other's hands and realize
>> that if they lead a diamond, they get one more
>> trick. They call you, the director. The players
>> have not yet put their hands back in the board.
>> You rule...
>>
>> 1. Law 69, they have agreed to the claim so
>> they only get a trick if it was likely that they lead
>> a diamond. (L69B2)
>
> Richard Hills ruling:
>
> Law 82C Director Frick error. Law 69A defines
> when agreement with a claim is established.
> Since the players have not yet put their hands
> back in the board, Law 69A defines that
> agreement with the claim is NOT established.

I am not sure what you think you are saying. I am trying to figure out  
what Harold meant and how he handles this situation that he says he has  
never seen happen. I don't rule this way, I am in ACBL-land.

But, chalk up another mangled straw man.

>
> Robert Frick example:
>
>> or
>>
>> 2. UI, they have to treat each other's hands as
>> UI and can only lead a diamond if no other
>> lead is a logical alternative.
>
> Richard Hills ruling:
>
> Law 82C Director Frick error. Law 68D states
> that "play ceases", hence Law 16B1(a) no
> longer applies.


same

>
> Robert Frick example:
>
>> Here in the US, I am pretty sure it would be
>> an easy ruling to give them the trick. They
>> would be perceived as being allowed to
>> construct a double-dummy defense
>> knowing each other's hands.
>
> Richard Hills ruling:
>
> Law 82C Director Frick error. If the defenders
> are incapable of finding a one-card guard
> stepping stone squeeze, then Law 70A
> demands -- "as equitably as possible to both
> sides" -- that the defenders are not given that
> unearned double-dummy trick by a Director
> whose hobby is double-dummy problems.

Perhaps. The actual situation was the defenders finding a defense that  
would give them another trick. The defenders were (and are) adament that  
they would never have found that defense at the table. So the ruling pits  
"equity", which you quote but I believe is a throwaway line that no one  
uses, against principles that aren't in the law book. Mike Flader said  
that the defense should get another trick. I believe that is a fairly  
standard ruling here in the US.

While I am not quibbling with the notion that you say, I am not sure it is  
widely supported. And of course you are not going to find it in the laws,  
as they put no limit on director's skill and creativity, nor do they  
mention who is to find the problems with the claims, nor do the laws allow  
the players to see each other's hands without director permission.

Look, the point is to improve the laws. Harald is claiming some huge  
regional difference. I would like to know what it is, if it exists. We all  
know there isn't going to be any clarification on the current laws.






>
> ACBL 2008 Duplicate Decisions, page 67:
>
> There can be no pat solution to rulings on
> claims. A degree of bridge judgment is
> required since the intent of the Laws is to
> resolve each individual case as equitably
> as possible to both sides.

Which is bullshit, right? We treat the faulty claimer as the offending  
side.

> [snip]
> The director’s most difficult task, in dealing
> with claims, is to distinguish between a poor
> claim and a poorly stated claim. In the first
> instance the player has erred, the claim is
> likely to be faulty. In the second instance the
> player has solved the bridge problem,
> though stating it poorly; the director should
> allow the claim.

great advice. Not always so easy to follow.


More information about the Blml mailing list