[barmar]

 lamford, on 2015-November-24, 09:42, said:

This particular East had an NGS of 10, and had misplayed the suit combination of J92 opposite AT753 (for one loser) on the previous hand. Mind you this was only pointed out by Michael Rosenberg, so no disgrace there! However he was ranked in the bottom half of the field, and was described by his partner as "not a terribly strong player".

Doesn't a statement like that depend on the strength of the field? The bottom of the leaderboard on the 3rd day of the Blue Ribbon Pairs includes a number of champion players.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2015-November-24, 10:32, said:

Doesn't a statement like that depend on the strength of the field? The bottom of the leaderboard on the 3rd day of the Blue Ribbon Pairs includes a number of champion players.

Indeed. The player in question had a UK NGS ranking of 10, which I think put him in the top half of the country, but the bottom half of a strong club duplicate, such as the YC.

[axman]

 lamford, on 2015-November-24, 08:13, said:

You could be right. I would have interpreted West's action as a silent defensive claim, and as he did not make a claim statement he cannot be asked to repeat it. I don't think West's cards become penalty cards because he does not make it clear how many tricks he is claiming and how. In the main line, he actually makes no tricks, when his partner discards a heart and overtakes the ten of diamonds, but then his partner makes two!

Sometimes the implications of language can be obscured. Is it probable that, by law, a defender can claim for his side only those tricks that his hand will take? that is, referring to L70D2:

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

[pran]

 axman, on 2015-November-24, 14:10, said:

Sometimes the implications of language can be obscured. Is it probable that, by law, a defender can claim for his side only those tricks that his hand will take? that is, referring to L70D2:

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

No, a defender may claim any number (including all) of the remaining tricks. And his partner may immediately reject any claim that implies conceding one or more of the remaining tricks (such rejection makes that claim void).

But that part of Law 70D2 applies when resolving the claim if contested.

[mycroft]

That is the key. If West claimed to avoid East's misplay (whether it was because it was "obvious" to West, or whether West was actually concerned), then there's a problem. If it was deliberate, even more so.

But the claim is ruled under L70D2, and it's a question of whether, knowing that your hearts are alone, and having seen partner pitch the "queen-that-makes-your-jack-an-entry" on the last trick, it's careless or inferior not to keep all your winners, and not pitch the only entry card you can have. I would claim that clearly, had it been a few tricks earlier, yes, you could forget that the ♦J was an entry, but when the queen was just played, I would expect for most it would be beyond careless.

[lamford]

 mycroft, on 2015-November-24, 16:31, said:

That is the key. If West claimed to avoid East's misplay (whether it was because it was "obvious" to West, or whether West was actually concerned), then there's a problem. If it was deliberate, even more so.

But the claim is ruled under L70D2, and it's a question of whether, knowing that your hearts are alone, and having seen partner pitch the "queen-that-makes-your-jack-an-entry" on the last trick, it's careless or inferior not to keep all your winners, and not pitch the only entry card you can have. I would claim that clearly, had it been a few tricks earlier, yes, you could forget that the ♦J was an entry, but when the queen was just played, I would expect for most it would be beyond careless.

I don't think West's motives can ever be established, and you rule solely on what constitutes normal play for his partner. I agree you would not want someone claiming to prevent a weak partner from screwing up, and the bar should be set pretty low - somewhere around that for a primary school high jump.

I agree that pitching the JD is worse than careless, but I think pitching a heart and then not overtaking the ten of diamonds is "normal" for this class of player. I agree with the TD who thought the probable result of the hand would be 3NT-1, but that is not the way to rule on a defensive claim.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2015-November-24, 10:28, said:

What more do you need?
West held his cards in such a way that they "could be seen by East", in fact according to your story they were indeed seen.

Don't you understand Law 49?

I do, but you are the only person on this forum that thinks that makes them all major penalty cards. Everyone else thinks it was a silent defensive claim, and should be treated as such. The TD asks the claimer to repeat the clarification statement, and West states "there was none". The TD now rules accordingly.

On another point, it is worth noting that declarer on this hand has rejected his alternative line of making the contract by leading a diamond from dummy at trick ten, when East would have had to crocodile his partner's ten to beat him. That would have gone two off if (it was matchpoints) if East had found that defence, but now declarer is deprived of his second chance by the defensive claim, ruled by the TD to be one down (after reconsideration).

And this was a "report", rather than a "story", although I learn that the latter can be used about recent true events, but gives the impression of older or imaginary events.

[pran]

 pran, on 2015-November-24, 10:28, said:

What more do you need?
West held his cards in such a way that they "could be seen by East", in fact according to your story they were indeed seen.

Don't you understand Law 49?

 lamford, on 2015-November-26, 04:44, said:

I do, but you are the only person on this forum that thinks that makes them all major penalty cards. Everyone else thinks it was a silent defensive claim, and should be treated as such. The TD asks the claimer to repeat the clarification statement, and West states "there was none". The TD now rules accordingly.[...]

I seem to remember that I have clearly stated: All the exposed cards are major penalty cards unless West's action is considered a claim?

[lamford]

 pran, on 2015-November-26, 10:51, said:

I seem to remember that I have clearly stated: All the exposed cards are major penalty cards unless West's action is considered a claim?

No, you did not state that all. You wrote:
"Play continues with all West's card being penalty cards unless he makes it clear that he claims or concedes". West did not make it clear that he claims or concedes, but I agree with your revised belief above that West's action should be considered a claim and handled as such.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2015-November-29, 19:37, said:

No, you did not state that all. You wrote:
"Play continues with all West's card being penalty cards unless he makes it clear that he claims or concedes". West did not make it clear that he claims or concedes, but I agree with your revised belief above that West's action should be considered a claim and handled as such.

I naturally assumed that the Director was called before anybody took any action (Law 9B), and it was during the clarification with the Director present that West would either have to make it clear that he claimed/conceded or have all his exposed cards treated as penalty cards.

If I were called to a table in a situation like this my very first question would be to West whether he claimed/conceded or just exposed his cards. Failing to ask this question is a Director's error (unless West has already answered it by stating his intention).

[lamford]

 pran, on 2015-November-30, 03:31, said:

I naturally assumed that the Director was called before anybody took any action (Law 9B), and it was during the clarification with the Director present that West would either have to make it clear that he claimed/conceded or have all his exposed cards treated as penalty cards.

If I were called to a table in a situation like this my very first question would be to West whether he claimed/conceded or just exposed his cards. Failing to ask this question is a Director's error (unless West has already answered it by stating his intention).

A good point. The TD did not ask the defender whether he claimed or conceded, but just assumed that his action of showing his four cards to the table was a claim.

[mycroft]

 lamford, on 2015-November-24, 18:48, said:

I don't think West's motives can ever be established, and you rule solely on what constitutes normal play for his partner.

I agree with the latter; I disagree with the former. I actually think that a good TD can figure that out more often than not - trust me, players tend to figure that out right quick - and it's also a good TD's job to lean on people that are concerning. Frequently by having a "Probst Cheat" discussion, and a "I'm sure you didn't mean it this way,..." leader of sufficient sincerity.

Remember [Dr. Lawrence] Peter’s Ladder-of-Success Rule: "Sincerity is the secret of success. Once you can fake that, you’re on your way."