I was playing with Norman McGeagh, and we had Martin Stephens and Jake Corry at the other table, with Yvonne Wiseman also in our team for if/when anyone needed a rest.
The event was good fun, and I gather with Paul's help, the format was much improved from previous years - all the matches until the Sunday Swiss were "long" matches (at worst, in a triad playing 2 8 board matches, but most of them 16 or more). We didn't manage to keep both our lives intact on the Friday night, despite beating Ian Sime's seeded team by 5 IMPs when John Murdoch misdefended to let through 4HX, to let us claw back our 11 IMP deficit at half time. We lost to the other team in our group (Bob McKinnon's team), and actually ended up in third place, as Sime roundly thrashed them.
We won two matches in the morning when Yvonne Wiseman sat in in place of Martin (actually, we won 2/3, but did well enough in the triad to keep one of our lives intact). This meant that winning at least one of our last two matches in the afternoon/evening would put us into the consolation final on the Saturday. Unfortunately, we didn't quite manage it, and played the Swiss on Sunday. Norman decided to opt out of that, and Martin's wife Sally sat in.
I have a few biding/play hands that I'll write about in the next week or so, but for now, here's the most-talked-about hand that we played all weekend, when Norman attempted to claim his 9 top tricks in 3NT (on a combined 20 count...), and things didn't go quite to plan...
After a spade lead, Norman won the first trick, put the Jack of Diamonds on the table, and said "I'll take 7 of those and the Ace of Clubs".
Our opponents were Laura Middleton and William Hawkins. Laura was about to put her cards back in the board, when Will decided to question the validity of the claim "I'm afraid you've claimed in the wrong order" he said, almost apologetically, and we called for the director. Norman didn't react well to this (which is understandable, but probably didn't help the situation). The director eventually ruled that the claim was invalid (if you cash the diamonds first, you can't get back to the club ace, for those who haven't spotted it), and we had to complete the match (Norman was almost unwilling to continue after this) in a somewhat uncomfortable atmosphere. To Laura's credit, she seemed almost as embarrassed by the situation as I was.
We lost by 12 IMPs, including an 11 IMP swing on this board, so we never actually got round to appealing the decision. However, I've asked everyone I can think of who might possibly have found their way onto an appeals panel, and the general agreement so far is that even to call the director on this hand is lawyering of the worst kind. No-one in the right mind actually thinks Norman was going to forget to cash the Ace of Clubs, and it's just unhelpful to the game if the rules are going to be quite so pedantic - it's not even clear the claim statement actually implies an order in which the tricks are going to be taken, and I'm not convinced Norman was ever asked state a line of play.
I'm not sure if we should do anything else officially, but since this hand was certainly being discussed by various other people over the weekend, I thought I might as well get it written down.
Norman should have stated a line of play when he claimed, but it is not compulsory nor an infraction. However he cannot state a line of play after the Director has been called except in response to the Director's questions.
ReplyDeleteAssuming that the director consulted some people, it's hard to see any basis for an Appeals Committee to overturn his decision.
This specific case is one of those difficult ones. To my mind cashing the tricks in the wrong order is careless but not irrational. I think it would be a very subjective decision in an appeal which is why leaving it unchanged is quite possible.
Paul, bit sure what you mean by "consulted some people" (as I may have mentioned, I basically don't know the rules), but she didn't leave the table before making her decision, if that's relevant.
DeleteNormally a TD would like to consult a colleague, and perhaps some experienced players, before making a decision.
DeleteIn this case there were only two directors who were kept fairly busy but I'd have expected them to discuss it before giving a decision. There was no need for an instant, at the table, ruling and she could have come back a board later.
Of course the director may have felt that the decision was a clear-cut, book ruling and there was no need to consult.
I don't agree or disagree with the director's actual ruling. For something like this you often have to be there, which is why I'd expect either ruling to be sustained on appeal a fair proportion of the time.
Wherever you play, and perhaps whatever game, there will be those who seek to use the law book to their advantage. I don't think there is anything wrong with this, after all we play a game according to the rules.
ReplyDeleteMy concern is when a pair comes across as bullying their opponents, making their own (directing) decisions at the table, and treating less experienced opponents differently than they would the Chairman of the Laws & Ethics Committee.
It's pretty unfortunate. Although it's very likely declarer knew how he was going to play it perhaps that's not good enough. Does it depend on the level of the event? At this level maybe it's OK to be more casual with claims, as everyone is known to be a good player?
ReplyDeleteI misclaimed at the event in a similar situation, having ruffed in dummy and then claiming drawing trumps forgetting that there was no way back to dummy. Luckily it did not matter, but it's easy enough to do.
DeleteAlso, good bidding to get to 3NT!
ReplyDelete