[VixTD]

Scoring: MP

4♠ all pass

---

West led ♣2 taken by the king in dummy. Declarer drew two rounds of trumps and led a diamond, taken by West's ace. West played a small heart, taken by dummy's ace. Declarer led a diamond from table, covered and ruffed, and proceeded to run the trumps. [Edit: Actually, South discarded a club on the second diamond, which explains the end position, and ruffed East's diamond continuation, which explains the end position.]

At this stage the position was something like:

Scoring: MP

4♠ all pass

---

The round had been called, everyone else had moved, East said to declarer: "Come on we've got to hurry up, partner's going to keep clubs".

South called the director. What's your ruling?

[Free]

Seems obvious for West to keep ♣Tx and not ♣T-♥J.

[blackshoe]

This is way too blatant. Whatever else I rule, EW are getting a PP.

It may be obvious to keep both clubs, but West has UI, and if pitching a heart is an LA (and it may be) then he can't keep both clubs.

I suppose someone will suggest we treat East's comment as a claim (which would let him off the hook for the PP). I'm not sure I buy that — I'll have to think about it.

[TylerE]

I don't see much to get worked up about. Can't ever see a PP being merited in these circumstances. Keeping Jh can't be right. If declarer has K stiff it doesn't matter, and if he has Kx, again, doesn't matter. In a club game I think it's totally ok to do something like this to keep the game moving. In fact, I think this is close to telling S to get a life...

[blackshoe]

Do we know that West was paying attention, and knows without his partner's help to keep 2 clubs? No, we don't know that.

[Phil]

PP to EW, but thats it. Tossing a club and keeping a heart is not playing bridge.

Give West the ♥K, and I would award all the tricks to NS.

[aguahombre]

Phil, on Jul 30 2010, 11:02 AM, said:

PP to EW, but thats it. Tossing a club and keeping a heart is not playing bridge.

Give West the ♥K, and I would award all the tricks to NS.

Yep. And if you need to find some reason for the PP to E, try:

--delay of game
--zero tolerance (insulting partner)
--General arrogance for showing how brilliant he is
--zero tolerance for implying that South should get a life

Please don't tell me there is no rule I can bend or make up to squeeze in the PP.

[jdonn]

Results stands and E/W get penalized. A defender can't claim for his partner.

[Pict]

I don't like the current claim laws.

But are we really saying (under the current laws) that it is beyond careless for West to discard a club?

Even if he had claimed, without massive UI from partner?

I'd stay be consistent, keep the PP in your pocket, and give declarer a trick.

[blackshoe]

If this is a claim by East, then we need to look at Law 70D2:

Quote

The director shall not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner’s selecting a particular play from among alternative normal* plays.

* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

Without knowing anything at all about the player, we can't know whether pitching a club is "normal" for him or her.

I can think of several players here for whom pitching a club at this point is "normal".

[jdonn]

I guess you do give declarer one more trick if west is completely hopeless at bridge, my mind usually doesn't go there unless I'm told it's the case. I would penalize them regardless though.

[gwnn]

Contrary to popular belief, not all bridge players are capable of counting to 13 or remembering all previous tricks at key points. Usually I'd say normal is no tricks to defence and a PP but perhaps in some special cases when they are known to be very good EW should get a trick.

[MFA]

No extra trick to declarer, and a strict warning to east will suffice.

[jdonn]

gwnn, on Jul 30 2010, 05:33 PM, said:

Contrary to popular belief, not all bridge players are capable of counting to 13 or remembering all previous tricks at key points. Usually I'd say normal is no tricks to defence and a PP but perhaps in some special cases when they are known to be very good EW should get a trick.

Oh I don't expect them to count or remember diddly. I just think even a bad player's thought process here is more like "hmm I can't remember what happened in the clubs but maybe declarer has more. but my hearts are sure not helping anything with those ones in dummy so no reason to keep those!"

In fact I'm not even sure they consider the clubs, maybe it's more like "yipe what do I do what do I do. Oh dummy's hearts are bigger than mine, ok throw a heart!" But I admit to little experience in this area...

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on Jul 30 2010, 10:59 AM, said:

This is way too blatant. Whatever else I rule, EW are getting a PP.

It may be obvious to keep both clubs, but West has UI, and if pitching a heart is an LA (and it may be) then he can't keep both clubs.

I suppose someone will suggest we treat East's comment as a claim (which would let him off the hook for the PP). I'm not sure I buy that — I'll have to think about it.

East's comment is clearly a claim. Comments like that are explicitly contemplated in Law 68A (my emphasis added):

Quote

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 - for example, if declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply).

Because this claim by East depends on West finding a particular play when there are less successful alternatives (including careless and inferior plays) I believe we have to rule that West will pitch a ♣.

Bridge is a game of errors and lots of errors get made at all levels. By claiming, East has denied declarer the opportunity to squeeze West's memory and induce an error which, on these sorts of hands even in a Bermuda Bowl final, occur with surprising regularity.

I don't think it's a PP situation at all. East has made a genuine attempt to speed things up in a situation where it was blindingly obvious to him that his side gets one more trick. As it happens, though, upon application of the Laws his claim is faulty. Are we meant to hand out a PP everytime somebody makes a bad claim?

Can anyone in this forum honestly say that they have never made a wrong pitch as a defender in four-card ending where you should've had complete count on the hand but missed a pip or a discard somewhere and couldn't quite remember?

[gwnn]

jdonn: "I'd rather unguard a ten than a jack" ?

mrdct:

epic strawman said:

Are we meant to hand out a PP everytime somebody makes a bad claim?

[blackshoe]

Strawman indeed. I did say that if we treat this as a claim, that lets East off the hook for a PP.

[cherdanno]

I assume in real life we wouldn't jump to a conclusion but rather ask West which cards he thinks declarer has, and if he replies "Two trumps and ♣A9 unless my partner falsecarded at trick 2, but it doesn't matter anyway since my partner has ♥K in case it's a heart, but anyway, why should he falsecard in this situation? And then falsecard again in clubs, twice??" then maybe we would be inclined to let East's claim stand?

[axman]

mrdct, on Jul 30 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 30 2010, 10:59 AM, said:

This is way too blatant. Whatever else I rule, EW are getting a PP.

It may be obvious to keep both clubs, but West has UI, and if pitching a heart is an LA (and it may be) then he can't keep both clubs.

I suppose someone will suggest we treat East's comment as a claim (which would let him off the hook for the PP). I'm not sure I buy that — I'll have to think about it.

East's comment is clearly a claim. Comments like that are explicitly contemplated in Law 68A (my emphasis added):

Quote

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 - for example, if declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply).

None of the specifications [of what constitutes a claim] provided by L68 were satisfied so there is no basis for ruling that a claim occurred.

[a] E has told S to hurry up. THe facts give no indication that S was being lethargic. Further E has been rude and has given a distraction to declarer that could affect his play. This breaches L74 and a suitable PP should be assessed.

[b] E has communicated to W other than by call or play in direct contravention of L73B1. THis breach of L73B1 warrants a significant PP mitigated by an absence of a adjusted score; and subjects W to the provisions of L16.

[c] as it is possible from W's point of view for S to have a stiff C it is not illogical to discard a C on the trumps [a C is a LA to Hs]

[d] E telling W what to keep can be construed as a belief that W is capable of discarding a C was so strong that it was imperative to intervene. In the event of an adjusted score a weight of 90% discarding a C and 10% keeping clubs is justified.

[mrdct]

axman, on Jul 30 2010, 09:26 PM, said:

None of the specifications [of what constitutes a claim] provided by L68 were satisfied so there is no basis for ruling that a claim occurred.

What a load of rubbish! The definition of a claim from L68 is entirely satisfied.

If a statement of "come on we've got to hurry up, partner's going to keep clubs" is not a suggestion that play be curtailed what is?

Not only has he explicitly suggested that play be curtailed, but he has also stated the line of play the defence is going to take.