[aguahombre]

 mrdct, on 2011-September-08, 22:37, said:

To rule this contract as going down is one of the worst rulings I've ever seen and whether or not it mattered to the outcome of the event in question, I would be appealing.

 lamford, on 2011-September-09, 09:36, said:

If I were on an AC, and you appealed on this one, I would vote to retain your deposit, or award an AWM whichever jurisdiction I was in.

I agree with both posts. The first, deals with the case. The second refers to what Lamford would do.

[mycroft]

 lamford, on 2011-September-08, 16:57, said:

I simply followed the definition in Wikipedia: The phrase "speaks with a forked tongue" means to say one thing and mean another, when selecting the heading, and I did not do substantial research on the etymology, sorry.

In context, add "deliberately" to "say one thing..." and one gets closer to the common meaning. I will admit I was a bit confused by the subject as well, but no more so than a lot of them.

Having said that, I think anything I would have to say bridge-wise has been said. And I *am* an SB (well, I am a "play to the Laws, and expect others to as well" person, maybe not quite SB-hood).

[lamford]

 aguahombre, on 2011-September-09, 09:55, said:

I agree with both posts. The first, deals with the case. The second refers to what Lamford would do.

The difference is that I think mrdct believes in his extreme view and my post was intended to sarcastically take the other extreme. Arguments for making and one down have validity. I agree with the table ruling of one down.

[Bbradley62]

My solution would probably piss off everyone... Making 7, but a small (1 IMP) penalty to declarer for failing to make a "clear" statement when claiming. (It was not "clear" if it's been argued for 100+ posts here.)

[aguahombre]

It is not a good decision, unless everyone is pissed off.

[barmar]

 mycroft, on 2011-September-09, 13:05, said:

In context, add "deliberately" to "say one thing..." and one gets closer to the common meaning.

It's wikipedia, anyone can fix it. So I did.

Although now it seems like it would be more appropriate to replace the entire phrase "deliberately say one thing and mean another" with "tell a lie".

[Trinidad]

 lamford, on 2011-September-09, 09:36, said:

 mrdct, on 2011-September-08, 22:37, said:

To rule this contract as going down is one of the worst rulings I've ever seen and whether or not it mattered to the outcome of the event in question, I would be appealing.

If I were on an AC, and you appealed on this one, I would vote to retain your deposit, or award an AWM whichever jurisdiction I was in.

Fortunately, AC's have at least three members and the odds of finding an other lamford are a zillion to 1.

Rik

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2011-September-10, 00:42, said:

Although now it seems like it would be more appropriate to replace the entire phrase "deliberately say one thing and mean another" with "tell a lie".

I might be wrong about this, but beyond the Cowboy/Indian movies I thought the term had evolved to be more than just telling a lie --- emphasizing intentional clever wording which disguises deceit.

Couldn't find a direct quote of this interpretation, though.

[Trinidad]

 aguahombre, on 2011-September-09, 09:55, said:

I agree with both posts. The first, deals with the case. The second refers to what Lamford would do.

 lamford, on 2011-September-09, 14:07, said:

The difference is that I think mrdct believes in his extreme view and my post was intended to sarcastically take the other extreme. Arguments for making and one down have validity. I agree with the table ruling of one down.

The view of mrdct in this case can hardly be called extreme. He interpreted the facts as presented in such a way that "break" is intended to mean "break favorably" and not "break 3-3". Therefore, a favorable break includes dropping the jack. He judges that the player's intent was to play the clubs when they break favorably (split 3-3, a jack dropping or even split 5-1 or 6-0 onside so a finesse is marked). His interpretation is a common interpretation of the verb "break". I could go as far as to say that it is the normal interpretation.

Your interpretation may be different from his, but his interpretation cannot be called extreme. His view is valid. Your view might be valid (it certainly is a lot less valid than his in my view). The mere fact that his view is valid means that an AC could not keep his deposit or issue an AWM warning.

And about sarcasm: A view, expressed in a sarcastic way, may still be a wrong view.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Just for the record: although Lamford has made his opposition well known on this post, I didn't believe for a minute he would have advocated an AWM. He might be wrong on the ruling, but that part was clearly hyperbole.

[blackshoe]

"Clearly" is clearly an overbid.

[lamford]

 Trinidad, on 2011-September-10, 09:53, said:

The view of mrdct in this case can hardly be called extreme.

The view of mrdct "To rule this contract as going down is one of the worst rulings I've ever seen" can hardly be described as moderate.

[lamford]

 bluejak, on 2011-September-08, 09:05, said:

Would I give him 13 tricks? Yes. Do I give him a contract because he is "very likely to make it"? No. I give him the contract because, in my view, he would have made it if he had played it out, which is thus a correct decision based on the wording of Law 70A

gordontd disagrees that the wording of Law 70A requires you to judge whether he would have made it if he had played it out, as do I. I am told that South did appeal, unsuccessfully, and the AC comments on their form were as follows:

The AC considered the appeal by South against the decision of the TD overleaf to award a score of 7S-1. South and East were present at the appeal, but none of the other players was. The TD stated that he was called to the table when East contested South's claim of 13 tricks. We consulted the relevant Laws and first observed that Law 70A and Law 70B1 requires the claimer to repeat the original clarification statement. We established that this was "if the diamonds don't break, I'll take the club finesse". East had replied that declarer was therefore one down, but South had then amended the statement transposing the suits in the claim: "if the clubs don't break, I'll take the diamond finesse".

We then moved on to what were stated to be East's objections to the claim under 70B2. The director had stated that East had indicated that the diamonds did not break and therefore the club finesse had to be taken and this would fail. All members of the AC agreed that the original claim was a clear slip of the tongue by South. However, under 70D1, "the director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful". The preface of the Laws states that "shall not" is strong, although not as strong as "may not". The AC then moved on to decide whether there was an alternative normal line of play, other than the second one stated by South. They were unanimous that the immediate diamond finesse was an inferior and careless line of play, but still normal. They were also unanimous that testing the clubs first was not embraced in the original clarification statement. The TD was not therefore able to accept the second line proposed by South, despite the fact that the first was an obvious transposition. It was not necessary therefore to decide what was meant by "if the clubs don't break" as this line was not being allowed. Nor was it necessary to judge whether the contract would have been made in practice.

In particular, Law 68C prescribes: "A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed." This did not occur, and the AC was unanimous that the wording of 70D1 therefore means that when the clarification statement is invalid the claimer is deemed to adopt the least successful normal line, and this is the immediate diamond finesse. The TD decision was upheld, although not for the same reasons as the TD gave that South might not have noticed the ten of clubs. No deposit had been taken.

[aguahombre]

O.K., so the appeals committee got hung up on the tangled tongue and didn't even consider the obvious intent to test clubs as first priority....garbage in, garbage out.

[blackshoe]

I find it interesting that the AC considers the paragraph in the preface regarding wording to be binding on the TD as well as on players, given that the paragraph speaks also to when penalties may be applied, and there is no provision in the law to apply a penalty of any kind to the TD. But I suppose they're probably right about it.

I think it's a bit much for the AC to hold the claimer to what the AC itself admitted was a clear slip of the tongue. They are within their rights, though.

The reference to 72D1 is clearly in error, and should be to 70D1. But 70D1 doesn't say what the AC claims it says. If there are a number of unsuccessful normal lines, the TD is not required to select the worst one. He just can't allow a successful line if there are any unsuccessful normal ones.

I suspect it will be a while (perhaps a very long while) before this player claims again, given he's in effect been told he'd better get it 100% right on first utterance, or he's screwed.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-10, 19:25, said:

I suspect it will be a while (perhaps a very long while) before this player claims again, given he's in effect been told he'd better get it 100% right on first utterance, or he's screwed.

Indeed he has given up bridge, I am told. And the wrong reference was my typo, sorry.

[lamford]

.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-10, 19:25, said:

He just can't allow a successful line if there are any unsuccessful normal ones.

Right. So the TD cannot allow the successful line of cashing the clubs from the top, if the immediate diamond finesse, which is unsuccessful, is a normal line. It does not matter what his intention was. But I agree their wording is inaccurate.

[Trinidad]

 lamford, on 2011-September-10, 18:14, said:

The view of mrdct "To rule this contract as going down is one of the worst rulings I've ever seen" can hardly be described as moderate.

Well, the TD's ruling certainly makes it into my top 10% of bad rulings. In that light mrdct's statement may be harsh and it may not be moderate, but it certainly is not extreme (which is what you claimed), since it is the simple truth.

But, I must give it to you: The decision by the AC on this board (not allowing the swap in the minors) easily beats the ruling by the TD (not allowing for the drop of the jack). So yes, there are decisions that are worse than the TD's ruling.

 lamford, on 2011-September-10, 19:33, said:

Indeed he has given up bridge, I am told.

I hope you mean he has given up the game that the TD and AC are playing, because this has little to do with bridge.

Maybe he will find that there are other places where he can actually play bridge.

Rik

[lamford]

 Trinidad, on 2011-September-11, 01:44, said:

But, I must give it to you: The decision by the AC on this board (not allowing the swap in the minors) easily beats the ruling by the TD (not allowing for the drop of the jack). So yes, there are decisions that are worse than the TD's ruling.

I disagree with the route the AC took, but I don't think it is the decision by the AC that is wrong, but LAW 70D1 which should read something like:

"the director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful, or unless the TD is satisfied that the claimer's original intention is incontrovertible."

And no, there is no need to move this to Changing Laws and Regulations; that is just one aspect of this case.