[Trinidad]

pran, on 2014-April-03, 01:46, said:

If the claimer is too careless to mention the outstanding trump it is quite likely that he is unaware of it and that ruffing with a low trump is quite "normal".

No, there are two likely possibilities (and a lot of less likely possibilities). The two likely ones are:

• he is completely unaware (and the opponents get a trump trick)
  
• it is blatantly obvious that he is aware, and the condition in Law 70C2 is not fulfilled (and the opponents do not get a trump trick)

As a TD, it is your job to investigate which of the two (or something else) it is.

pran, on 2014-April-03, 01:46, said:

How play has proceeded up to this point is completely irrelevant[]

In order to investigate that properly, in many cases, it is not merely relevant that you know how the play went up to this point. It is beyond "relevant". It is adamant.

Law 70C lists 3 conditions. A TD needs to investigate whether all 3 conditions are met before awarding a trick to the opponents. Stating that the claimer wasn't aware of the trump because he didn't mention it is jumping to conclusions. That is not investigating.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-03, 03:06, said:

No, there are two likely possibilities (and a lot of less likely possibilities). The two likely ones are:

• he is completely unaware (and the opponents get a trump trick)
  
• it is blatantly obvious that he is aware, and the condition in Law 70C2 is not fulfilled (and the opponents do not get a trump trick)

As a TD, it is your job to investigate which of the two (or something else) it is.



In order to investigate that properly, in many cases, it is not merely relevant that you know how the play went up to this point. It is beyond "relevant". It is adamant.

Law 70C lists 3 conditions. A TD needs to investigate whether all 3 conditions are met before awarding a trick to the opponents. Stating that the claimer wasn't aware of the trump because he didn't mention it is jumping to conclusions. That is not investigating.

Rik

How do you understand it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent’s hand,

To me "at all likely" means that there must be some overwhelming evidence that he was aware of the trump, or the Director shall rule that he probably was unaware of it.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2014-April-03, 03:16, said:

To me "at all likely" means that there must be some overwhelming evidence that he was aware of the trump, or the Director shall rule that he probably was unaware of it.

Indeed. And that "overwhelming evidence" may well be found in the play before the claim. But if you refuse to look, even in the most obvious hiding places, you won't find it.

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-03, 03:39, said:

Indeed. And that "overwhelming evidence" may well be found in the play before the claim. But if you refuse to look, even in the most obvious hiding places, you won't find it.

Rik

While I agree that the play to this point might show that declarer was aware of the missing trump, that may not be available, and going through the play will be too time-consuming. I think the times when the previous play does matter is when declarer has something like AKQxx opposite xxxx and draws one round of trumps and claims silently when everyone follows. He should say "drawing the remaining trumps" but some do not. However, it is extremely unlikely (although possible) that he has overlooked the two outstanding trumps, but this type of claim is allowed. Usually one rules declarer might have been unaware of a single missing trump but is unlikely to have been unaware of two missing trumps.

[bixby]

How hard is it to say "ruffing high"? In this kind of situation, I find any argument based on how "obvious" declarer's line of play is to be self-defeating. The more obvious it is, based on the previous play, that ruffing high was uppermost in declarer's mind when he faced his cards, the easier it should have been for declarer to say it. One trick to the defense.

[VixTD]

I was surprised this generated any more discussion than the first claim. I take Rik and Frances's point that there may be circumstances in which it's plausible that declarer knew there was a small trump out but was too shy or lazy to mention it, in this case his defence was not that he knew about the outstanding trump and it was clear to ruff high, but that he had a surfeit of high trumps and could afford to do so.

I awarded the defence one trick.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2014-April-03, 04:53, said:

While I agree that the play to this point might show that declarer was aware of the missing trump, that may not be available.

It may not be available to us, or to an AC. But it is available to the table director. The tricks are lying right there in front of him! And if an AC really cannot obtain the context of the previous play, I would rule this a TD's error and rule a split score in favor of both sides.

The only way I could not rule this a TD error is when the previous play was somehow "lost" before the TD arrived. (And I find it very hard to believe that no one would know whether there was a defensive cross-ruff when the hand is not even finished yet.) But in this unlikely case, I will rule that both sides are at fault and split the score so neither gets the trump trick.

lamford, on 2014-April-03, 04:53, said:

and going through the play will be too time-consuming.

What kind of an excuse is that for not doing your job? If one of your teenage kids would come home from school and said that s/he got a bad grade because studying was too time-consuming, would you accept that? Why would we accept that kind of an excuse from a TD (who is usually a little more mature/responsible than a teenage kid)?

lamford, on 2014-April-03, 04:53, said:

I think the times when the previous play does matter is when declarer has something like AKQxx opposite xxxx and draws one round of trumps and claims silently when everyone follows. He should say "drawing the remaining trumps" but some do not.

That is another example where the context of the previous tricks makes it obvious that declarer is aware of remaining trumps. I think that this is a case where the same may be the case. Therefore, I will not make a ruling until I get the context.

lamford, on 2014-April-03, 04:53, said:

However, it is extremely unlikely (although possible) that he has overlooked the two outstanding trumps, but this type of claim is allowed. Usually one rules declarer might have been unaware of a single missing trump but is unlikely to have been unaware of two missing trumps.

Though there may be a correlation, and even a causal relationship between the number of outstanding trumps and the likeliness that the claimer has forgotten them, fundamentally the number of outstanding trumps has nothing to do with it:

If we judge that it is likely that the claimer has forgotten then we rule that he has forgotten, whether there is 1 trump missing or 13.
If we judge that claimer knew about the outstanding trumps, then we rule accordingly, whether there is 1 trump missing or 13.

So, the TD shouldn't be counting the number of missing trumps. He should determine whether the claimer knew there was/were (a) trump(s) out.

Rik

[Trinidad]

VixTD, on 2014-April-03, 06:49, said:

I was surprised this generated any more discussion than the first claim. I take Rik and Frances's point that there may be circumstances in which it's plausible that declarer knew there was a small trump out but was too shy or lazy to mention it, in this case his defence was not that he knew about the outstanding trump and it was clear to ruff high, but that he had a surfeit of high trumps and could afford to do so.

I awarded the defence one trick.

Ah! That is clear. "Being able to afford" doing something is not enough reason to claim that you will do something.

I can afford to take my wife to the theater every now and then and bring her flowers every day ... ask my wife whether it is at all likely that I will be doing that.

Rik

[VixTD]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-03, 06:49, said:

So, the TD shouldn't be counting the number of missing trumps. He should determine whether the claimer knew there was/were (a) trump(s) out.

When we last had this discussion on whether the claimer was at all likely to have missed more than one outstanding trump the stories poured in of cases where they had obviously miscounted by two, three and even (DALB) thirteen trumps.

Trinidad, on 2014-April-03, 06:49, said:

And if an AC really cannot obtain the context of the previous play, I would rule this a TD's error and rule a split score in favor of both sides.

Even if your cross-ruffing situation did pertain, it's still not clear to deny North a trick. If declarers can miscount trumps in run-of-the-mill draw-trumps-and-cash-winners situations, why can't they do so in a defensive cross-ruff? There needs to be strong evidence that declarer knew about the missing trump, and I think I'd need more evidence than just that this was the first opportunity declarer had to draw trumps.

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-03, 06:49, said:

What kind of an excuse is that for not doing your job?

The TD's job is to adjudicate the claim as equitably as possible. Everyone will say that they were aware that one or more trumps are outstanding. Nothing in the Laws requires the TD to do anything other than
a) establish what the claimant said
b) to decide whether "it is all likely" that the claimant was unaware of the missing trump.
c) to rule as equitably as possible, giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOS.

I have never seen a TD go through the previous play. I have never done so. No top TD does so. Nor is he obliged to. Nor should he, because to do so would inconvenience the NOS by giving them less time to play other boards or the next round. There will be extremely rare occasions when the previous play - such as the example I gave - is of any relevance whatsoever. In general one rules routinely against the person who makes no mention of the missing trump. They are inconveniencing other people by not doing so.

I would change the Law by stating that if no mention is made of the missing trump, then it is assumed the declarer is unaware of it. But the powers that be do not share that view. Hence the caveat "if it is at all likely". That is just a value judgement by the TD, and if he is any doubt he rules against the offenders.

And I will not post again on this thread. You and I are poles apart on what you think the TD should do. And I think you are far removed from reality too. You can rant on as long as you want, but I shall not reply.

[Trinidad]

bixby, on 2014-April-03, 06:21, said:

How hard is it to say "ruffing high"? In this kind of situation, I find any argument based on how "obvious" declarer's line of play is to be self-defeating. The more obvious it is, based on the previous play, that ruffing high was uppermost in declarer's mind when he faced his cards, the easier it should have been for declarer to say it. One trick to the defense.

The point is that in many claims the rest of the play is absolutely obvious. After all, that is why people claim to begin with. Often a claim is made when "the problem" on the hand is resolved and often "the problem" was clear to all 4 players at the table.

What is a problem obviously depends on the level of the players. To use a variation of Lamford's example: You are declarer in 7♠. You have no side suit losers. Your trump suit is: ♠AQxxx opposite ♠KT9x.

A beginning player would win the opening lead, lead a trump to the king (honors from the short side first!), see everybody follow: 4 trumps have gone, 4 in my hand is 8, 3 in the dummy is 11, two more. He will follow with a small spade to the A, one opponent showing out: 4 trumps + 3trumps =7, + 3 in hand and 2 in dummy is 12. One more. And he plays the queen of trumps, one opponent following. This is followed by the ten of trumps "just to be sure", where both opponents show out and then he claims: "They are all there now.". The problem was to pull the trumps and make sure that they were really all gone.

A more advanced player would win the opening lead, put down the ♠A because that way he can pick up any trump split. In the next tricks, he will pull the outstanding trumps and claim. The problem is to pick up all trump splits and pull the trumps.

An even more advanced player would win the opening lead, put down the ♠A (showing that he solved the problem of the 4-0 break) and show his hand. In a setting where it is normal to understand that the problem of the hand is a possible Jxxx-void break, no one is going to miscount trumps. Everybody understands that the issue of the hand was solved... next hand. Sometimes, you hear declarer say: "Pulling.." as the defenders are putting their cards in the board and reach for the next one.

Rik

[barmar]

If someone claims after drawing just one round of trumps, it's not at all likely that they were unaware that there are outstanding trumps. In that case, we give them the benefit of the doubt that they know how to handle the remaining trumps.

But if someone claims later on in the hand, after having abandoned drawing trumps (or not drawing them at all -- perhaps the defenders were able to use their trumps), it's less obvious that they kept track of them. In this case, I expect them to mention them in the claim statement.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-03, 00:41, said:

That may be the case, but your sympathies are yours. The Law says that the TD is supposed to judge how many tricks the claimer gets. If it is obvious that he takes all of them, he gets all of them, also if he sh/could have said "ruffing high, drawing the last trump, ruffing the low diamonds".

The law says "any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer". That was just my flippant way of saying that I consider this to be doubtful, not obvious, if declarer doesn't make it clear.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-03, 00:41, said:

I see people "claim" by simply putting their cards back into the board and entering the score. I hate that, and I think it is arrogant and obnoxious. But then too, if it is obvious that claimer takes all the tricks, he gets all the tricks.

I think that if this happened to me, I would say "so down <n>" or whatever, counting the remaining tricks as having been conceded. Then we can have the director sort it out.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2014-April-03, 11:06, said:

I think that if this happened to me, I would say "so down <n>" or whatever, counting the remaining tricks as having been conceded. Then we can have the director sort it out.

I have been tempted, but you and I both know that we are not allowed to claim tricks that we know we didn't actually win.

And the fact that opponents misbehave does not give me the right to do the same.

Rik

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2014-April-03, 07:38, said:

I have never seen a TD go through the previous play. I have never done so. No top TD does so.

They certainly do. I have ruled on a number of appeals involving claims, and the TD form always includes both the current position and the play so far. There's even a special version of the appeal form for claims which asks for the play up to the point o the claim. I never rule on a disputed claim without knowing how the play has gone.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-03, 12:18, said:

I have been tempted, but you and I both know that we are not allowed to claim tricks that we know we didn't actually win.

And the fact that opponents misbehave does not give me the right to do the same.

Rik

yeah, you're right. Still, it's tempting.

[blackshoe]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-April-03, 15:00, said:

They certainly do. I have ruled on a number of appeals involving claims, and the TD form always includes both the current position and the play so far. There's even a special version of the appeal form for claims which asks for the play up to the point o the claim. I never rule on a disputed claim without knowing how the play has gone.

Well, yeah, but you're doing it right.

[jallerton]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-03, 06:49, said:

It may not be available to us, or to an AC. But it is available to the table director. The tricks are lying right there in front of him! And if an AC really cannot obtain the context of the previous play, I would rule this a TD's error and rule a split score in favor of both sides.

That's a posible ruling, but if at the appeal hearing declarer is unable to reconstruct the play, the TD should be more inclined to believe that he was not aware of how many outstanding trumps there were!

Trinidad, on 2014-April-03, 06:49, said:

The only way I could not rule this a TD error is when the previous play was somehow "lost" before the TD arrived. (And I find it very hard to believe that no one would know whether there was a defensive cross-ruff when the hand is not even finished yet.) But in this unlikely case, I will rule that both sides are at fault and split the score so neither gets the trump trick.

Would you really rule a split score? Under which Law?

[Trinidad]

jallerton, on 2014-April-03, 15:58, said:

That [TD error] is a posible ruling, but if at the appeal hearing declarer is unable to reconstruct the play, the TD should be more inclined to believe that he was not aware of how many outstanding trumps there were!

It may be that there are conflicting versions of the play during the hearing. It may also be that neither side is present at the hearing.

jallerton, on 2014-April-03, 15:58, said:

Would you really rule a split score [when the players have made it impossible for the table TD to reconstruct the play]? Under which Law?

No, I wouldn't. But I thought it contrasted nicely with the TD's error.

I simply can't believe that there would be a situation like that where there is a disputed claim, the play to the previous tricks is disputed and the play cannot be reconstructed, because the players haven't followed law 65D. And if I get very creative, I could read 65D (and 66C) in such a way that messing up your cards might jeopardize your rights in the adjudication of a claim (70A).

Rik