[ahydra]

1) Slow play - South at one table has a medical condition and so she plays a bit slowly. Combine this with another slow player and this table found themselves an entire board behind when the move was called (just before the move I saw they had a few cards left, but failed to spot they had an entire other board to play).

I went over to the table as they were halfway thorugh the auction and said "you're a board behind, please take an average" - only to be told (by the players) this wasn't allowed. I had no idea about this, but sure enough, EBU guidelines (e.g. White Book) state that a board "should not be removed" once it's been started. But I then had two other people tell me that rule is wrong, and two other others tell me that club rules can override this - in our particular case, the rules posted on the website do seem to allow for a board recently started to be cancelled, and so I can cancel the board despite the auction being in progress.

So, who is right?

2) Claim - defending an (overly ambitious) NT contract, with two tricks left the defender on my left had the lead. He claimed putting down ♦Kx (and didn't say anything). I had ♦AJ and his partner had ♠J ♦Q. I called another director over (not wanting to make a judgement ruling at my own table) and he said that I win both the remaining tricks, even though LHO was aware that I'd bid diamonds and that I had either AJ or AQ left. I think this ruling is right - do you agree? (Of course, "a claim must be accompanied by..." is the golden rule!)

3) MI - we had the auction, starting with partner, 1NT-(2H)-3S-(X). All bids were natural. The opps had an agreement that X was for penalty, but it was not alerted. Partner then went on to 4S. If there had been damage, would you adjust the score? I can't seem to find the rule that says something about redress not being given to a side that had the opportunity to ask about the opponent's calls without putting their own interests at risk, but I know it exists Does it apply here or should club players be expected to know the alerting rules for doubles?

The relevant EBU rules on alerting doubles are that any double of a natural suit bid below 3NT is not alertable if for take-out, alertable otherwise. My ruling would have been to adjust the score to 3SX making however many, but as it happens they doubled 4S and it made for a top.

ahydra

[Quartic]

ahydra, on 2012-November-16, 17:36, said:

2) Claim - defending an (overly ambitious) NT contract, with two tricks left the defender on my left claimed putting down ♦Kx (he didn't say anything). I had ♦AJ and his partner had ♠J ♦Q. I called another director over (not wanting to make a judgement ruling at my own table) and he said that I win both the remaining tricks, even though LHO was aware that I'd bid diamonds and that I had either AJ or AQ left. I think this ruling is right - do you agree? (Of course, "a claim must be accompanied by..." is the golden rule!)

I agree - since the defender didn't state a line we play his cards in the least favourable way possible - playing the ♦K first.

ahydra, on 2012-November-16, 17:36, said:

3) MI - we had the auction, starting with partner, 1NT-(2H)-3S-(X). All bids were natural. The opps had an agreement that X was for penalty, but it was not alerted. Partner then went on to 4S. If there had been damage, would you adjust the score? I can't seem to find the rule that says something about redress not being given to a side that had the opportunity to ask about the opponent's calls without putting their own interests at risk, but I know it exists Does it apply here or should club players be expected to know the alerting rules for doubles?

The relevant EBU rules on alerting doubles are that any double of a natural suit bid below 3NT is not alertable if for take-out, alertable otherwise. My ruling would have been to adjust the score to 3SX making however many, but as it happens they doubled 4S and it made for a top.

I think this should have been adjusted to 3♠x making however many overtricks despite it being a top. If I remember correctly this is a higher score than 4♠x.

[nigel_k]

1. I would definitely not cancel a board that has been started. They can finish it at the end. If this is not possible for some reason, they can continue and still probably catch up before long even if a whole board behind. Though it may be hard for you to facilitate this if you are also playing.

2. Assuming the defender who claimed was on lead, I think it is irrational to lead the king. Not only is it impossible for it to ever be correct, it is also contrary to the instincts of anyone who has played more than a few sessions.

3. Definitely adjust to 3♠X. There is no requirement to protect yourself by asking about an unalerted call when the non-alertable meaning is quite common and perfectly plausible in context.

[PeterAlan]

ahydra, on 2012-November-16, 17:36, said:

2) Claim - defending an (overly ambitious) NT contract, with two tricks left the defender on my left claimed putting down ♦Kx (he didn't say anything). I had ♦AJ and his partner had ♠J ♦Q. I called another director over (not wanting to make a judgement ruling at my own table) and he said that I win both the remaining tricks, even though LHO was aware that I'd bid diamonds and that I had either AJ or AQ left. I think this ruling is right - do you agree? (Of course, "a claim must be accompanied by..." is the golden rule!)

nigel_k, on 2012-November-16, 18:27, said:

2. Assuming the defender who claimed was on lead, I think it is irrational to lead the king. Not only is it impossible for it to ever be correct, it is also contrary to the instincts of anyone who has played more than a few sessions.

As Nigel says, it's not clear from the OP who's on lead, nor what the defender is claiming. But if it's the LHO defender and he's claiming both tricks, then clearly he thinks the A has gone, and it's not irrational then to play the K first - far from it.

[blackshoe]

ahydra, on 2012-November-16, 17:36, said:

1) Slow play - South at one table has a medical condition and so she plays a bit slowly. Combine this with another slow player and this table found themselves an entire board behind when the move was called (just before the move I saw they had a few cards left, but failed to spot they had an entire other board to play).

I went over to the table as they were halfway thorugh the auction and said "you're a board behind, please take an average" - only to be told (by the players) this wasn't allowed. I had no idea about this, but sure enough, EBU guidelines (e.g. White Book) state that a board "should not be removed" once it's been started. But I then had two other people tell me that rule is wrong, and two other others tell me that club rules can override this - in our particular case, the rules posted on the website do seem to allow for a board recently started to be cancelled, and so I can cancel the board despite the auction being in progress.

So, who is right?

You're the director, so you are (see Law 81C2).

In fact, the people who told you club rules can override the "board must be played out" rule are wrong. It is a matter of law, and clubs cannot override the law. So also are the people wrong who told you the rule is wrong. Nothing in the laws allows stopping a board in mid-stream just because the round is over at other tables. At the table where the board has been started, the round is not over yet (see Law 8).

I would gather there was no "don't start any new boards" warning, either from you directly or from a clock program, so unless they actually started the board (any one player physically removed his cards from the board, and was the first to do so) after you called the round, they legally started "in time". So let them finish. I would give both sides a PP of 10% of a top, though, for slow play, because they have affected the ability of both pairs' opponents for the next round to have the allotted time to play the boards in that round. And I would assure them that if they don't catch up, more PPs will accrue. Or, you can take the usual club attitude, let them get away with it, and later, if not sooner, lose control of your game.

ahydra, on 2012-November-16, 17:36, said:

2) Claim - defending an (overly ambitious) NT contract, with two tricks left the defender on my left claimed putting down ♦Kx (he didn't say anything). I had ♦AJ and his partner had ♠J ♦Q. I called another director over (not wanting to make a judgement ruling at my own table) and he said that I win both the remaining tricks, even though LHO was aware that I'd bid diamonds and that I had either AJ or AQ left. I think this ruling is right - do you agree? (Of course, "a claim must be accompanied by..." is the golden rule!)

Where was the lead? With the claiming defender? If so, two tricks to declarer. Since he didn't say he knew the ace was still out, it is "normal" to think both his diamonds are good, so it is "normal" to lead the king. If, OTOH, you're sure he knew the ace was still out, the problem becomes more interesting. One might argue, as NigelK did, that it is irrational to lead the K if you know the A is out, and if that's so, he would lead low and as the cards lie get one trick (if declarer had the AQ it wouldn't matter which card the defender led, he'd get no tricks).

The laws don't say a claim "must" be accompanied by a claim statement, they say it "should" be. This makes a difference to how ready the TD should be to issue a PP (moreso in the "must" case). I would rarely give a PP for no claim statement as the laws stand. I would almost always give one if they said "must".

Quartic, on 2012-November-16, 17:59, said:

I agree - since the defender didn't state a line we play his cards in the least favourable way possible - playing the ♦K first.

The law does not say that.

ahydra, on 2012-November-16, 17:36, said:

3) MI - we had the auction, starting with partner, 1NT-(2H)-3S-(X). All bids were natural. The opps had an agreement that X was for penalty, but it was not alerted. Partner then went on to 4S. If there had been damage, would you adjust the score? I can't seem to find the rule that says something about redress not being given to a side that had the opportunity to ask about the opponent's calls without putting their own interests at risk, but I know it exists Does it apply here or should club players be expected to know the alerting rules for doubles?

The relevant EBU rules on alerting doubles are that any double of a natural suit bid below 3NT is not alertable if for take-out, alertable otherwise. My ruling would have been to adjust the score to 3SX making however many, but as it happens they doubled 4S and it made for a top.

Quartic, on 2012-November-16, 17:59, said:

I think this should have been adjusted to 3♠x making however many overtricks despite it being a top. If I remember correctly this is a higher score than 4♠x.

I don't think so. The method of scoring is presumably matchpoints, so IMO adjustments should be made to the appropriate matchpoint score. If both 3♠X and 4♠X give the same 100% of a top, then it doesn't matter to which one you adjust.

If, on the other hand, the term "score" in Law 12 refers to the aggregate score obtained before matchpointing, then yes, the score achieved (for 4♠X) is "damage," because it's less than the score for 3♠X+1, so adjust to 3♠X+1.

[ahydra]

Sorry - yes, the defender with the Kx of diamonds had the lead. I'll edit the OP.

ahydra

[axman]

ahydra, on 2012-November-16, 17:36, said:

1) Slow play - South at one table has a medical condition and so she plays a bit slowly. Combine this with another slow player and this table found themselves an entire board behind when the move was called (just before the move I saw they had a few cards left, but failed to spot they had an entire other board to play).

I went over to the table as they were halfway thorugh the auction and said "you're a board behind, please take an average" - only to be told (by the players) this wasn't allowed. I had no idea about this, but sure enough, EBU guidelines (e.g. White Book) state that a board "should not be removed" once it's been started. But I then had two other people tell me that rule is wrong, and two other others tell me that club rules can override this - in our particular case, the rules posted on the website do seem to allow for a board recently started to be cancelled, and so I can cancel the board despite the auction being in progress.

So, who is right?


ahydra

Instructions were given to start the next round while a board was in play. The board is to be finished [including scoring] and then move. Here, instead of 'then move' the players commenced with a new board. This is insubordination.

Well, the board is being played now, isn't it. The law specifies that it be completed and scored.

Explain that the insubordination is very serious and has repercussions- one of which is a 2 board disciplinary penalty assessed both directions, and that further inconveniencing the movement will have repercussions.

[Fluffy]

I can't understand why someone with Kx in hand left would claim, only if he thinks he is endplayed into AQ or if he thinks the King is good it has a sense.

[Sjoerds]

ahydra, on 2012-November-16, 17:36, said:

2) Claim - defending an (overly ambitious) NT contract, with two tricks left the defender on my left had the lead. He claimed putting down ♦Kx (and didn't say anything). I had ♦AJ and his partner had ♠J ♦Q. I called another director over (not wanting to make a judgement ruling at my own table) and he said that I win both the remaining tricks, even though LHO was aware that I'd bid diamonds and that I had either AJ or AQ left. I think this ruling is right - do you agree? (Of course, "a claim must be accompanied by..." is the golden rule!)

When someone claims with AJ still in he surely doesn't have a complete picture of what is going on. The TD should look for an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. The defender surely thought his hand was good. A normal line then would be to play the King first.
I would rule 2 tricks for your side.

[nigel_k]

Sjoerds, on 2012-November-17, 10:07, said:

When someone claims with AJ still in he surely doesn't have a complete picture of what is going on. The TD should look for an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. The defender surely thought his hand was good. A normal line then would be to play the King first.
I would rule 2 tricks for your side.

In order for the defender to think his hand was good, he would need to have failed to notice not only that the ace of diamonds was still out, but also the queen and jack and every other card higher than his x. I don't think it is being too generous to say this crosses the line into irrational rather than careless.

[blackshoe]

Depends on who the player is. Some of my partners I can guarantee would have no clue what diamonds were out.

[ahydra]

I don't think the defender thought his hand was high. But without a claim statement, who knows how many tricks he was claiming?

ahydra

[pran]

IMO there is only one important question to settle here:
Did LHO (the claimer) have a valid reason to "know" that his partner held the ♦Q?

If so he may argue that playing his small diamond is obvious, otherwise he should be ruled as to having played his King

[barmar]

The OP said "LHO was aware that I'd bid diamonds and that I had either AJ or AQ left". If so, it seems more like LHO may have been conceding, not claiming.

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-November-18, 22:13, said:

The OP said "LHO was aware that I'd bid diamonds and that I had either AJ or AQ left". If so, it seems more like LHO may have been conceding, not claiming.

True, but the "either AJ ..." worries me - where does LHO think the Queen is? Already played, with partner or with declarer?

Still I rule as if he played the King.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-16, 19:08, said:

I would give both sides a PP of 10% of a top, though, for slow play <snip>

I would never give someone with a medical condition a PP for slow play, if it was the sole cause of the slow play.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-17, 16:02, said:

Depends on who the player is. Some of my partners I can guarantee would have no clue what diamonds were out.

And some of my partners do not seem to have read the last sentence of Law 1. However, in this case, I think the most likely explanation for the silent claim is that it was a silent concession, thinking he was endplayed, in which case leading the king is careless but still normal. He might also have thought that both his partner and declarer now had a singleton honour left, and it might have been necessary to crocodile his partner's putative queen.

[bluejak]

There is no limit to the number of threads an individual person can start, within reason. Ed or I will control obvious abuses.

But threads like this one get very messy. So, if you want opinions on three rulings, please start three separate threads.



There are problems with slow play, though I think the ability of players to catch up is often underestimated in this forum. But taking a board away once it has been started is not just illegal, it is seriously upsetting. The last time someone in a club did it to me, we were late because the opponents had come to our table seven minutes late, they then played out very slowly a hand with only top tricks left, and on the final board we bid to a slam that gets us 100% of the matchpoints to be told at the end of the bidding to "take an average". My letter to the Committee was vitriolic, and the club concerned has agreed never to do it again.

It is not half so upsetting to remove a board before it starts. Furthermore, it is the TD's job to assess blame and give averages accordingly.

blackshoe, on 2012-November-16, 19:08, said:

I don't think so. The method of scoring is presumably matchpoints, so IMO adjustments should be made to the appropriate matchpoint score. If both 3♠X and 4♠X give the same 100% of a top, then it doesn't matter to which one you adjust.

It is important that you give adjustments even when no matchpoints are involved for two reasons. First, you should never look at the score before giving a ruling, so how do you know no matchpoints are involved? Second, if a player has asked for a ruling it is offensive to him and does not train his opponents if you give no adjustment because it does not matter.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2012-November-20, 17:30, said:

It is important that you give adjustments even when no matchpoints are involved for two reasons. First, you should never look at the score before giving a ruling, so how do you know no matchpoints are involved? Second, if a player has asked for a ruling it is offensive to him and does not train his opponents if you give no adjustment because it does not matter.

Good points. They imply that adjustments should be made to the aggregate score, whatever the final form of scoring and that neither the TD nor the players will know what the final result in MPs or IMPs will be at the time the ruling is made.