[lamford]

---

This uninteresting deal will certainly satisfy ahydra that it might have occurred, and it might even get past jallerton's suspicions of an invented claim as well.

However, it did raise an interesting point. West led a spade, and East-West cashed four rounds, declarer discarding diamonds from both hands, and East throwing a small heart. Declarer won the heart exit, and cashed the rounded suits, all following. After some thought declarer said "I will play East for the queen of diamonds". The person with the West cards showed the queen, but declarer said, "I said I was playing you for the queen." West said "But I am West." South said,"No, I am North, but I see the board has been rotated through 180 degrees". This was the case, and in the particular event, a club pivot teams, the person holding the South cards on this board should have sat North throughout, and had done on the previous 13 boards. The opponents then asked why he would play "West" for the queen of diamonds, "as the spades were 4-3 making it more likely that "East" has the queen", but declarer said that this did not follow, as the fact that "West" did not have a five-card suit anywhere was more important than the spade break. East-West thought that South had noted the board had been rotated and was having a double shot, and he would have said nothing if "East" did have the queen of diamonds. The atmosphere got quite heated and nearly came to blows with allegations of cheating. So how is "East" defined and how would you rule?

OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth!

[blackshoe]

First thing is to investigate precisely who said what, and when. Second is probably a good sized disciplinary penalty to EW for issuing unfounded allegations, and probably also a smaller one to NS for their part in that argument. Third, the ruling on the claim must be for EW unless, after investigation, there is no doubt that declarer intended to finesse "West". I'm inclined, on the evidence presented, to believe declarer, but I'd still want to investigate. Although, come to think of it, after the "heat", declarer is hardly going to admit that he realized that the board had been rotated. So it looks like benefit of the doubt to the non-claimers (Law 70A).

[mycroft]

Not discussing what should happen here, but I who have played my share of 180-ed boards have never called anyone *else* by their board-correct position, except with things like "West deals, which is East because..." In fact, getting the correct declarer after the auction is insanely difficult, because I've been South all night, and South's RHO is East (and has been all my *life*), and it's my lead, so it's 3NT East, right? Oops, no, West on this board.

Having said that, the amount of confidence I have over that particular piece of self-serving testimony is small, and my suspicion large. My level of evidence required to support it is similarly higher than it would be with "run-of-the-mill" self-serving testimony. South may truly have meant what he said the way he said - but he'd be the first in my experience.

[bluejak]

Most self-serving testimony is true.

Anyway, in this case, assuming that you are suspicious of declarer, what do you think he has actually done? Come on, this is a forum, with an invented problem [sorry Paul, not invented, but a Paul Lamford problem] so tell the actual and complete truth: what do you think declarer is up to?

In my opinion declarer was telling the truth so I would be inclined to rule for him.

[campboy]

I think I would have to rule that declarer was stuck with the statement he made (70E1). If I understand the movement correctly, it is declarer's side who bear primary responsibility for the rotated board (7D); that being the case I would be particularly loath to give them the benefit of any doubt caused by it. It is unlikely that the claim would have been challenged had East held the queen.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2011-December-09, 21:06, said:

South may truly have meant what he said the way he said - but he'd be the first in my experience.

I would imagine that a claim which requires one to specify an opponent, as in this example, is very rare, so your sample would be too small to be meaningful. If the declarer had known the players' names, then I would agree that it was much more likely he would have said "I will play Bill for the queen of diamonds", but in this example, the players' names were not known to him. Given that he chose to indicate how he would play the three-card ending, I think it is much more likely that he would say "I will play East for the queen of diamonds", than "I will play the person on my left for the queen of diamonds."

But the more important thing is that if West is defined as "the person sitting in the West seat", then his claim cannot be contested. The rotation of the board should not affect who West is. West held the East cards on this deal, so I agree with bluejak on this one.

[gordontd]

mycroft, on 2011-December-09, 21:06, said:

Not discussing what should happen here, but I who have played my share of 180-ed boards have never called anyone *else* by their board-correct position, except with things like "West deals, which is East because..." In fact, getting the correct declarer after the auction is insanely difficult, because I've been South all night, and South's RHO is East (and has been all my *life*), and it's my lead, so it's 3NT East, right? Oops, no, West on this board.

I've not found difficulty with this. Perhaps because this is the land of the arrow-switch, where most of us experience this every game we play, it just seems obvious that our position is not immutable and so the position on the board is the one we use.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2011-December-10, 07:17, said:

But the more important thing is that if West is defined as "the person sitting in the West seat", then his claim cannot be contested.

Why would you define it like that? It seems obvious to me that West should be defined as the person holding the West cards. You don't call yourself East when you are North in an arrow-switch, do you Paul?

[axman]

lamford, on 2011-December-09, 17:42, said:

---

This uninteresting deal will certainly satisfy ahydra that it might have occurred, and it might even get past jallerton's suspicions of an invented claim as well.

However, it did raise an interesting point. West led a spade, and East-West cashed four rounds, declarer discarding diamonds from both hands, and East throwing a small heart. Declarer won the heart exit, and cashed the rounded suits, all following. After some thought declarer said "I will play East for the queen of diamonds". The person with the West cards showed the queen, but declarer said, "I said I was playing you for the queen." West said "But I am West." South said,"No, I am North, but I see the board has been rotated through 180 degrees". This was the case, and in the particular event, a club pivot teams, the person holding the South cards on this board should have sat North throughout, and had done on the previous 13 boards. The opponents then asked why he would play "West" for the queen of diamonds, "as the spades were 4-3 making it more likely that "East" has the queen", but declarer said that this did not follow, as the fact that "West" did not have a five-card suit anywhere was more important than the spade break. East-West thought that South had noted the board had been rotated and was having a double shot, and he would have said nothing if "East" did have the queen of diamonds. The atmosphere got quite heated and nearly came to blows with allegations of cheating. So how is "East" defined and how would you rule?

OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth!

iirc L2 states that the board markings govern. As such, S's assertion of a <mis>understanding is irrelevant.

[gordontd]

campboy, on 2011-December-10, 05:30, said:

I think I would have to rule that declarer was stuck with the statement he made (70E1). If I understand the movement correctly, it is declarer's side who bear primary responsibility for the rotated board (7D); that being the case I would be particularly loath to give them the benefit of any doubt caused by it. It is unlikely that the claim would have been challenged had East held the queen.

I agree with your overall argument, but I would be looking to L70A. I certainly think it is a doubtful point as to what declarer meant, and so it should be resolved against him.

[ahydra]

Following on from my thread where we played a board backwards, could we not rule the board fouled because (I assume) it was played the correct way round at the other table? Indeed it's not uncommon to base part of your strategies in teams on who is sitting in your chair at the other table, though I doubt that would have much effect here.

In the meantime, as axman mentioned, Law 2 suggests that the board designates which hand is which. This is also what declarer meant when he said "East" (i.e. the hand marked East on the board). So I'd rule the claim is good. Sure, declarer might have not said anything had East West the-guy-who-usually-has-the-East-hand shown up with the DQ, but then the defence would have every right to notice the rotated board and say "oops, you said East, and East is over there, so you're down one".

ahydra

[gordontd]

ahydra, on 2011-December-10, 08:18, said:

Following on from my thread where we played a board backwards, could we not rule the board fouled because (I assume) it was played the correct way round at the other table?

No, it wasn't fouled.

ahydra, on 2011-December-10, 08:18, said:

Indeed it's not uncommon to base part of your strategies in teams on who is sitting in your chair at the other table, though I doubt that would have much effect here.

In an individual, whether teams or not, I doubt if you would do this even if you knew who it was.
[edit: I misunderstood it as an individual; you seem to have understood it as a head-to-head teams; it may well have been multiple teams]

ahydra, on 2011-December-10, 08:18, said:

In the meantime, as axman mentioned, Law 2 suggests that the board designates which hand is which. This is also what declarer meant when he said "East" (i.e. the hand marked East on the board). So I'd rule the claim is good.

Unless I've mis-read the original post, I think that would lead you to rule that the claim is not good - which is why objections were raised.

[ahydra]

gordontd, on 2011-December-10, 08:50, said:

No, it wasn't fouled.


In an individual, whether teams or not, I doubt if you would do this even if you knew who it was.
[edit: I misunderstood it as an individual; you seem to have understood it as a head-to-head teams; it may well have been multiple teams]

Unless I've mis-read the original post, I think that would lead you to rule that the claim is not good - which is why objections were raised.

The OP states it's pivot teams.

I think I'm correct - decl says he plays East for the DQ. The board is rotated so the hand that actually holds the DQ is East (according to the sticker on the board) instead of the usual West (according to position relative to some wall of the room). The diagram shows it as it should have been, i.e. if the board was not rotated. My contention is that the sticker on the board determines which hand is which.

ahydra

[campboy]

ahydra, on 2011-December-10, 14:25, said:

I think I'm correct - decl says he plays East for the DQ. The board is rotated so the hand that actually holds the DQ is East (according to the sticker on the board) instead of the usual West (according to position relative to some wall of the room). The diagram shows it as it should have been, i.e. if the board was not rotated. My contention is that the sticker on the board determines which hand is which.

No. The board was rotated but the hands were rotated with it I think. So the hand that held the ♦Q was the West hand, held by the player indicated on the board as West, but sitting in the seat which had been East's for the preceding boards.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-December-10, 07:37, said:

Why would you define it like that? It seems obvious to me that West should be defined as the person holding the West cards.

Law 2 uses the phrase: "four pockets to hold the four hands, designated North, East, South and West". Therefore the board markings do indicate which hand, not which seat, is North, East, South or West. The organiser designates which seat is North, South, East or West, usually by an "N" sign on the wall. Usually the person sitting North will hold the cards in the pocket designated North, but sometimes he will not, and never will in the case of an arrow-switch. Notwithstanding this, the person who is North, South, West or East will be designated by the organisers, not by the way the boards are placed. It seems obvious to me that West should be defined as the person to the right of the person designated North by the organisers, but that does not seem obvious to you. We have to agree to differ.

[Mbodell]

I'd want to figure out exactly what was said when the Q was shown. If declarer makes the claim statement and LHO shows the Q without saying anything and declarer says "making 3" then I'd be much more inclined to give it to him then if he says "I said I was playing you for it". But if LHO show the Q and says "down one" now the "I said I was playing you for it" is totally understandable.

[lamford]

Mbodell, on 2011-December-10, 17:34, said:

I'd want to figure out exactly what was said when the Q was shown. If declarer makes the claim statement and LHO shows the Q without saying anything and declarer says "making 3" then I'd be much more inclined to give it to him then if he says "I said I was playing you for it". But if LHO show the Q and says "down one" now the "I said I was playing you for it" is totally understandable.

The manner of showing the queen of diamonds was as if to claim one down, leading to a protest from the claimer.

[mrdct]

lamford, on 2011-December-09, 17:42, said:

So how is "East" defined and how would you rule?

"East" is defined by the markings on the board. I rule one down and advise South to be more careful with his compass designations in future.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-December-10, 07:37, said:

You don't call yourself East when you are North in an arrow-switch, do you Paul?

I recall an announcement at the Easter Congress, after a complaint by my partner, that after an arrow-switch, North had to sit East. It is implicit that I should therefore take out the East cards if I am East. If I take out the West cards, I am still East taking out the wrong cards, just as if North took out the wrong cards without an arrow-switch.

If North took out the East cards by mistake without an arrow-switch, then he is still North.

[lamford]

mrdct, on 2011-December-10, 17:55, said:

"East" is defined by the markings on the board.

No, 'the East hand' is defined by the markings on the board. East is defined by the organisers.