Is this a claim or concession, and how should it be resolved?

6 Pages
←
1
2
3
4
5
→
Last »

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

Is this a claim or concession, and how should it be resolved? EBU

#41 WellSpyder

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,627
Joined: 2009-November-30
Location:Oxfordshire, England

Posted 2014-July-24, 02:27

pran, on 2014-July-24, 01:46, said:

I just cannot understand how North's comment can be taken as a suggestion to curtail the play

Frankly, I find this a pretty amazing comment. You might want to disagree that it was a suggestion to curtail the play (though I wouldn't). But I don't see how any logical-thinking person can fail to see why at least some would take it as a suggestion to curtail the play.

#42 pran

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,344
Joined: 2009-September-14
Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2014-July-24, 02:53

pran, on 2014-July-24, 01:46, said:

I just cannot understand how North's comment can be taken as a suggestion to curtail the play (and thus being a claim), but East certainly curtailed the play (by conceeding all remaining tricks).

gordontd, on 2014-July-24, 01:53, said:

And North's comment was a suggestion that he do that.

Oh, was it?

VixTD, on 2014-July-21, 07:39, said:

After a heavy sigh from East, North says helpfully: "Oh, yes, you can't lead a diamond or a spade". (East has discarded on a diamond and ruffed a spade.)

#43 helene_t

The Abbess

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 17,196
Joined: 2004-April-22
Gender:Female
Location:UK

Posted 2014-July-24, 02:55

It depends on the intonation. But we were told that he said "helpfully" that (...) so presumably he meant it as "it doesn't matter what you lead".

I wouldn't take this as a claim since even if it doesn't matter what East leads it might still matter what West plays, or it could be that North hadn't made his mind up what he would play. Although I concede that it is a bit far-fetched that it might not matter what E leads in such a scenario. It may be fair to call North's comment stupid/unhelpful/misleading but I don't see it as a claim. Even if we interpret his comment as "nothing matters anymore", he hasn't stated how many ticks he claims.

I would like to give a split score here since I believe North commited an infraction and I don't want him te benefit from that. But I have no clue if that is legal.

The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket

#44 blackshoe

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 17,690
Joined: 2006-April-17
Gender:Male
Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2014-July-24, 05:58

gordontd, on 2014-July-24, 01:53, said:

And North's comment was a suggestion that he do that.

Again, I'm with Sven here. I do not consider North's comment a claim.

helene_t, on 2014-July-24, 02:55, said:

I would like to give a split score here since I believe North commited an infraction and I don't want him te benefit from that. But I have no clue if that is legal.

Either North's comment was a claim, and your rule it as such (which means no split score) or it wasn't a claim, and you rule that East conceded the remaining tricks, so again no split score.

If North committed an infraction, you apply whatever redress is specified in the law he broke. Which one is it?

--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean

#45 pran

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,344
Joined: 2009-September-14
Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2014-July-24, 07:36

blackshoe, on 2014-July-24, 05:58, said:

Again, I'm with Sven here. I do not consider North's comment a claim.

Either North's comment was a claim, and your rule it as such (which means no split score) or it wasn't a claim, and you rule that East conceded the remaining tricks, so again no split score.

If North committed an infraction, you apply whatever redress is specified in the law he broke. Which one is it?

It can be a question whether North's comment is a violation of Law 74B2 and/or Law 74C4.
However, any reaction stronger than possibly a warning is in my opinion a gross over-reaction.

#46 blackshoe

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 17,690
Joined: 2006-April-17
Gender:Male
Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2014-July-24, 08:00

If you give a warning for violation of some part of 74, you should be prepared to give a PP if he does it again. Equally, if you've already warned him about this kind of thing in the past, you should almost certainly give a PP now.

#47 Trinidad

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 4,531
Joined: 2005-October-09
Location:Netherlands

Posted 2014-July-24, 08:15

pran, on 2014-July-24, 01:46, said:

I just cannot understand how North's comment can be taken as a suggestion to curtail the play.

I, and I suspect many others who think that this was a suggestion to curtail the play, can understand how someone could not take it as a suggestion to curtail play.

A more absolute opinion does not mean a better qualified opinion.

Rik

I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg

#48 pran

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 5,344
Joined: 2009-September-14
Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2014-July-24, 13:22

blackshoe, on 2014-July-24, 08:00, said:

Sure.
A warning is an instruction from the Director not to commit the irregularity again, and if someone deliberately violates Law 90B8 (s)he will automatically face a significant PP from me.

As I remember I have had to penalize under Law 90B8 only once during my more than 30 years of directing, and then I penalized (I believe) 50% of top on one board. I have never since had any lack of respect from that player.

#49 VixTD

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,052
Joined: 2009-September-09

Posted 2014-July-29, 09:30

helene_t, on 2014-July-24, 02:55, said:

I would like to give a split score here since I believe North commited an infraction and I don't want him to benefit from that. But I have no clue if that is legal.

I think it probably is just about legal. I think Pran et al. are arguing that in order to apply law 73F and from there award an assigned adjusted score under law 12C the TD has first to identify another part of law 73 that the offender has infringed. Since this is nothing to do with communication between partners or variation in tempo, and there has been no intention to mislead, law 73F does not apply. This does not mean that they cannot award an adjusted score, as they can always fall back on law 12A1 if they think an offender has gained from an infraction for which there is no specific penalty. If the TD really thought that North should not have made the remark, but also that East should not have been taken in by it, they could rule that both are at fault and award a split score. I'm not recommending it, but I think it would be just about legal.

I'm glad there's now more support for my original opinion that North's comment should be regarded as a claim.

#50 aguahombre

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 12,029
Joined: 2009-February-21
Gender:Male
Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2014-July-29, 21:24

Trinidad, on 2014-July-24, 08:15, said:

Although I am in Sven's camp that North's comment didn't quite reach "suggestion to curtail the play", I must applaud the way you presented the paragraphs I quoted. A plus just didn't seem like enough.

"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)

#51 FrancesHinden

Limit bidder

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 8,482
Joined: 2004-November-02
Gender:Female
Location:England
Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2014-August-02, 04:03

I also would rule that it is a claim i.e. a suggestion to curtail the play.
I also understand why some people would not rule that way, because I am interpreting what I believe was the intent of the statement.

I believe that most (all?) people would interpret the statement "it doesn't matter what you play" as a claim.
What is less obvious is whether the actual statement is equivalent. Clearly it isn't in a logical/grammatical sense, but I think the import was intended to be the same, and I would rule accordingly.

#52 blackshoe

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 17,690
Joined: 2006-April-17
Gender:Male
Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2014-August-02, 11:22

FrancesHinden, on 2014-August-02, 04:03, said:

If the intent was "it doesn't matter what you play, I have the rest (or at least one of the future tricks)" then it's a claim. If the intent was "it doesn't matter what you play, I'm winning this trick" it's not a claim. I don't think you can infer either intent reliably from the statement alone.

#53 barmar

Group: Admin
Posts: 21,576
Joined: 2004-August-21
Gender:Male

Posted 2014-August-02, 21:16

Why would a player make a statement that only pertains to whether he's going to win that trick? There's so much more to the play of a trick than who will win it that the statement is not at all helpful. And unless he makes it clear that he's only talking about how it affects what he does, I'd say that it's misleading, and deserves a PP.

#54 blackshoe

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 17,690
Joined: 2006-April-17
Gender:Male
Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2014-August-02, 22:06

barmar, on 2014-August-02, 21:16, said:

If no player would ever make a statement that only pertains to the current trick, why would the lawmakers word the beginning of Law 68 the way they did? I wouldn't call such a statement misleading, and I would certainly not say that it necessarily deserves a PP.

#55 barmar

Group: Admin
Posts: 21,576
Joined: 2004-August-21
Gender:Male

Posted 2014-August-03, 03:20

It's not just that it only pertains to the current trick, it's that it's not even true about the current trick. "It doesn't matter" means there's no difference between the choices, not just that the differences don't affect who will win that trick. Declarer was supposedly trying to be helpful, but it's not helpful if the choice still affects what his partner should play to the trick. On the contrary, it's misleading.

#56 blackshoe

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 17,690
Joined: 2006-April-17
Gender:Male
Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2014-August-03, 09:27

It seems that about the only thing we can all agree on here is that the comment was extraneous.

#57 WellSpyder

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,627
Joined: 2009-November-30
Location:Oxfordshire, England

Posted 2014-August-04, 03:22

blackshoe, on 2014-August-03, 09:27, said:

It seems that about the only thing we can all agree on here is that the comment was extraneous.

Indeed.

I'm entirely happy to agree with the rest of Barmar's recent posts, though, and wish (not for the first time) that I could give them an upvote.

#58 Zelandakh

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 10,696
Joined: 2006-May-18
Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2014-August-20, 05:38

FrancesHinden, on 2014-August-02, 04:03, said:

I believe that most (all?) people would interpret the statement "it doesn't matter what you play" as a claim.

Say the table conversation went as follows:
Dec: "It does not matter what you play."
Def: "How many tricks are you claiming then?"
Dec: "I am not claiming."

How do you think the TD should resolve this?

(-: Zel :-)

#59 Bbradley62

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,542
Joined: 2010-February-01
Gender:Male
Location:Brooklyn, NY, USA

Posted 2014-August-20, 05:44

Zelandakh, on 2014-August-20, 05:38, said:

How do you think the TD should resolve this?

By telling Dec to either claim or stfu.

#60 blackshoe

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 17,690
Joined: 2006-April-17
Gender:Male
Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2014-August-20, 08:21

Bbradley62, on 2014-August-20, 05:44, said:

By telling Dec to either claim or stfu.

You want him to unsay what he said?

If a director said that to me I wouldn't say a word. After all, he's told me to shut up.

6 Pages
←
1
2
3
4
5
→
Last »

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

BBO Discussion Forums: Is this a claim or concession, and how should it be resolved? - BBO Discussion Forums

Is this a claim or concession, and how should it be resolved? EBU

#41 WellSpyder

#42 pran

#43 helene_t

#44 blackshoe

#45 pran

#46 blackshoe

#47 Trinidad

#48 pran

#49 VixTD

#50 aguahombre

#51 FrancesHinden

#52 blackshoe

#53 barmar

#54 blackshoe

#55 barmar

#56 blackshoe

#57 WellSpyder

#58 Zelandakh

#59 Bbradley62

#60 blackshoe

5 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users

Delete Post

Skin and Language

Execution Stats

BBO Discussion Forums: Is this a claim or concession, and how should it be resolved? - BBO Discussion Forums

Is this a claim or concession, and how should it be resolved? EBU

5 User(s) are reading this topic 0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users

Delete Post

Skin and Language

Execution Stats

5 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users