bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings :: the curse of scotland tells the story

John_M,UK

Re: the curse of scotland tells the story ( 22:48:43 ThuMar 6 2003 )

Country: England

No, I wasn't being serious. As I said before I agree with you. It was Declarer's mistake and declarer should have been the one to pay the price of his inattention.

I was being flippant.

From what bluejak has said the TD should have ruled the Ace was called for (on the balance of the details presented).

I am the last person that would "help" the opposition :biggrin:

Regards,

John.

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: the curse of scotland tells the story ( 23:42:28 ThuMar 6 2003 )

While Law 46A needs to be applied at the time so that play can continue, ie the TD must decide which card was called for, UI rulings are given later. If the TD allows the card to be changed because he believes a different card was called for, he will warn the players about UI and suggest they call him back at the end if they have any problem. The procedure is similar to that when a player has hesitated.

As to deciding the facts when people differ, TDs have to do that all the time. It is a basic part of the job's skills. As with any other job some people are better and more skillful than others. Such is life.

You point out that there is a Law telling declarer how to call for a card. Sure there is, but so what? There is a Law that says that the play goes clockwise, but occasionally a TD will be called because it has not. Most TD calls occur when some Law has not been followed.

All TDs do their best. That does not mean that they do not make mistakes, and it is reasonable to appeal against judgement rulings. If a TD really does something stupid it is not unreasonable to make a small suggestion. None of this really affects this which is a normal standard and usually very easy ruling.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: the curse of scotland tells the story ( 23:48:05 ThuMar 6 2003 )

Quote: ne-trepide

for the defender to ask for a clarification is a clear signal to the declarer that the king of hearts (in this particular example) is held by the RH defender.

Goodness, you must play in a vicious game! :sad:

In the rest of the world, a defender asking declarer what card he asked for is a clear signal that he thinks dummy played the wrong one, nothing more!

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

John_M,UK

Re: the curse of scotland tells the story ( 09:31:48 FriMar 7 2003 )

Country: England

Quote: bluejak at 23:42:28 Thu Mar 6 2003

You point out that there is a Law telling declarer how to call for a card. Sure there is, but so what?

I am not sure what you mean by "so what?".

Quote: bluejak at 23:42:28 Thu Mar 6 2003

All TDs do their best. That does not mean that they do not make mistakes, and it is reasonable to appeal against judgement rulings.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Quote: bluejak at 23:42:28 Thu Mar 6 2003

If a TD really does something stupid it is not unreasonable to make a small suggestion.

When a TD "does something stupid" I usually find that it is the quality/character of the person [TD] that determines if I mention it. If they are, in my opinion, likely to take it the wrong way I "leave it alone".

Quote: bluejak at 23:42:28 Thu Mar 6 2003

None of this really affects this which is a normal standard and usually very easy ruling.

What I will say about this is;
Once upon a time I was playing in a slam. It got to the last 6 or 7 cards and I "claimed" with explanation ~ Opps summoned forth the TD.

Opps claimed that I had claimed the tricks but failed to explain fully. On the play they outlined they would come to the last trick.

The TD's judgement was that with the cards held between my hand and dummy it would be unreasonable to award a trick against declarer (I can't remember the exact words he used, but they were good :wink:

)

Now this was a league match. After the TD had gone, the opp who summoned the TD said to me when claiming tricks always make sure you give a good clear description about how claimed tricks are to be played out.

Now being the sort of person I am, I took these words as the opp intended. To give "a lesser/inexperienced :wink:

" player a bridge lesson and they don't get better than real-life examples.

Perhaps a different TD would have ruled in opps favour, who knows. But when the opps call for the TD but are "graceful" about it I find that whatever the ruling the game proceeds more often than not with no rancour.

When the opps summon TD with an air of indignation the game rapidly distintergrates.

Perhaps I am one of a few lucky bridge players. I may have encountered inexperienced TD's but I have never encountered a bad TD. But I would never hold inexperience against anyone, especially someone who is giving their free time so that people like me can play social/competitive game in an orderly fashion.

BTW, I promise all my future postings will be about the laws and rulings and not "What-if scenarios".

Kind regards,

John.

James Vickers

10 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: the curse of scotland tells the story ( 13:53:07 FriMar 7 2003 )

Country: UK

Quote: John_M

So if the TD is to decide if the Ace was called for or not based on what people say how should he rule?;
1 person says he called for the Ace
1 person says he called for "small"
2 people didn't hear what he called for.

I would tend to rule that the ace had been called for, but it is difficult to say without having been present.

Quote: John_M

From my "neutral" perspective, once the TD rules the ACE was called for then declarer is in possession of the following UI;
1. The KH is held by his RHO;
1.1 The Ace cannot catch the King.
1.2 The King cannot catch the Queen.
2. RHO holds another diamond;
2.1 The diamond lead was probably a singleton*
3. The RHO holds at least 1 other heart;
3.1 Therefore if a diamond ruff is taken there is no chance of RHO getting back in with a heart ruff.

True, but it is UI, and declarer is not allowed to gain from possession of this information. As David says, if there is any suspicion that declarer played in a way that could have been influenced by this UI and gained an advantage as a result, the director should award an adjusted score.

Having said that I must admit that the chances of the director at my local club getting the original rule right would be pretty slim, and I would bet my bottom dollar they would have notion of when or how to adjust the score, so the defenders would probably lose out anyway.

Still, we have to live with such imperfections, and this is no reason to deviate from the laws.

James

9 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 8 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from any country in the world, this is the place!Hosted by David StevensonSenior Consultant DirectorEnglish Bridge Union

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union