[blackshoe]

Suppose we took a poll, and fifty two pollees say claimer should make his contract, because after all looking at the hand, he has fourteen top tricks. The director says "but he stated a line of play which results in him losing a trick he claimed, so he's down one". So... "fifty two ayes, and one no. The noes have it." The fifty two may think that's harsh, but it's the law.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-September-28, 08:19, said:

Suppose we took a poll, and fifty two pollees say claimer should make his contract, because after all looking at the hand, he has fourteen top tricks. The director says "but he stated a line of play which results in him losing a trick he claimed, so he's down one". So... "fifty two ayes, and one no. The noes have it." The fifty two may think that's harsh, but it's the law.

I never dare try a poll among the players when I am the Director, I know very well that those "who best know the rules" have probably never even opened a law book - they just know.

[weejonnie]

I didn't say I wouldn't rule -1: I said it was a very hard thing to do - since the law does say that the TD has to be equitable to both sides.

This is the effect of the 'any doubtful point', (similar to the dreaded 'could have known' law 72C (which I applied yesterday and might have resulterd in a change of the winners of an event)), rather than 'any reasonably doubtful point'.

In forums (here and elsewhere) TDs and players delight in trying to concoct the most unlikely plays that result in declarer making the least tricks.

And the worst point - we cannot use discretion to award a weighted decision. We decide how the hand WOULD have been played out, rather than how the hand MIGHT have been played out. With the laws now encouraging weighted decisions in judgement cases arising from UI and MI, should they now extend it to claims?

[PeterAlan]

weejonnie, on 2019-September-30, 03:22, said:

I didn't say I wouldn't rule -1: I said it was a very hard thing to do - since the law does say that the TD has to be equitable to both sides.

I hope you wouldn't rule -1, since it's either making or -2 (W has a long ♣ as well as the 10).

weejonnie, on 2019-September-30, 03:22, said:

This is the effect of the 'any doubtful point', … rather than 'any reasonably doubtful point'.

That change of wording wouldn't change my view of this particular case in your and my [EBU] jurisdiction, unless EBU's guidance changed in a way that clearly made it necessary. Remember, it's not really that declarer can be thinking that his ♣s must be running through length, and will wake up to E showing out: he must be thinking that ♣8 is winning by force. What reason do you have for thinking that declarer would depart from the line of his claim statement?

weejonnie, on 2019-September-30, 03:22, said:

In forums (here and elsewhere) TDs and players delight in trying to concoct the most unlikely plays that result in declarer making the least tricks.

That's a real overbid in this case: as has been made clear, declarer's claim statement ignores several realities that he should be aware of, and it's hardly unreasonable to hold him to it. As soon as he loses the ♣8 he's -2, and I haven't seen anyone 'concocting' any other 'unlikely play' to increase the damage.

weejonnie, on 2019-September-30, 03:22, said:

And the worst point - we cannot use discretion to award a weighted decision. We decide how the hand WOULD have been played out, rather than how the hand MIGHT have been played out. With the laws now encouraging weighted decisions in judgement cases arising from UI and MI, should they now extend it to claims?

I think this would be a mistake: it's tantamount to deciding on an a priori probability that the player would have independently woken up to the deficiencies in a claim statement had the hand been played out, and I prefer the current single choice based on the requisite balance of the circumstances in each case. In virtually every contentious contested claim the contest is only over whether the player would or would not have done some specific thing at a particular point, and is a purely binary decision; this is not the general position in other judgment cases to which weighted scores apply, when there are frequently several possible outcomes to be considered and assessed.

[sanst]

pran, on 2019-September-28, 10:48, said:

I never dare try a poll among the players when I am the Director, I know very well that those "who best know the rules" have probably never even opened a law book - they just know.

When you have a poll, you don’t ask the players about the Laws, but about their bid or play in a given situation. So, I don’t understand your point.

[pran]

sanst, on 2019-October-01, 02:04, said:

When you have a poll, you don’t ask the players about the Laws, but about their bid or play in a given situation. So, I don’t understand your point.

Exactly.
And that is why I wouldn't dream of making a poll in a claim case like this.
The Laws are clear, the claimer has made his claim statement, any doubtful points shall be ruled to his disadvantage - end of story.

[lamford]

pran, on 2019-October-01, 03:15, said:

Exactly.
And that is why I wouldn't dream of making a poll in a claim case like this.
The Laws are clear, the claimer has made his claim statement, any doubtful points shall be ruled to his disadvantage - end of story.

Right. But that does not mean that he is forced to make a ridiculous play, even if that is his claim statement. The laws allow the declarer to replace an abnormal claim statement with the worst normal one:

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.

So, if he states: "Play ace, king, and another heart and whoever wins is endplayed to lead a diamond", and he meant "Play ace, king, and another diamond and whoever wins is endplayed to lead a heart", he is allowed to say that he "misspoke" and change it, if the former line is legal but ridiculous. For example, the hearts are AJ2 opposite KT3 and the diamonds are AK2 opposite 543, and the other card for declarer is a trump in each hand, trumps having been drawn.

And this example is two down I think. Declarer loses two clubs, as it is "normal" but inferior to cash the clubs before the hearts.

[pran]

lamford, on 2019-October-01, 05:23, said:

Right. But that does not mean that he is forced to make a ridiculous play, even if that is his claim statement. The laws allow the declarer to replace an abnormal claim statement with the worst normal one:

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
{.......}

If you want to be technical:
The laws do not distinguish between "normal" and "abnormal" claim statements.

A player is bound by his claim statement however "abnormal" it might be judged in a later analysis. The qualification "normal" is only relevant when considering alternative lines of play all embraced within the original claim statement.

[lamford]

Can you advise me which law says declarer is bound by his claim statement?

[lamford]

70D1 says otherwise.

[blackshoe]

No, it doesn't. It allows claimer to amplify on his original line of play statement, if in fact he made one, so long as he stays within the bounds of the stated line. If he strays outside of those bounds, the director will allow that only if there is no normal alternative line that would be less successful.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-October-03, 00:25, said:

No, it doesn't. It allows claimer to amplify on his original line of play statement, if in fact he made one, so long as he stays within the bounds of the stated line. If he strays outside of those bounds, the director will allow that only if there is no normal alternative line that would be less successful.

Including the originally stated line of play.
Note that while Law 70D explicitly requires an alternative line to be "normal" there is no such requirement for the originally stated line of play.
The fact that it was stated by the claimer automatically qualifies that line to be "normal" within the context of the laws.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2019-October-03, 00:25, said:

No, it doesn't. It allows claimer to amplify on his original line of play statement, if in fact he made one, so long as he stays within the bounds of the stated line. If he strays outside of those bounds, the director will allow that only if there is no normal alternative line that would be less successful.

It doesn't say that. Nothing about amplifying. Nothing about staying within the bounds of the stated line. Nothing about straying outside those bounds. It says:
1. 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 corollary of that is that the TD WILL accept a successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is no alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. Nothing in this Law suggests or implies that the successful line of play will be "trumped" by the original clarification statement.

If you force declarer to abide by a claim statement that is not normal, then RR should always claim silently.

[lamford]

pran, on 2019-October-03, 01:53, said:

The fact that it was stated by the claimer automatically qualifies that line to be "normal" within the context of the laws.

Again nothing in the Laws states that. If declarer says "drawing trumps from the bottom up", and the only normal line is "drawing trumps from the top down", then the declarer is allowed to replace his ridiculous "misspoken" claim with the only normal line. If he had said "drawing trumps", he would have been given the contract. It is a complete myth that the declarer is bound by his clarification statement or that his clarification statement is necessarily a normal line.