[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2012-March-16, 04:37, said:

I think you forgot to read law 70C3 that Lamford was referring to.

Lamford is well aware that the trump may be used as an exit card. He just found an excellent way to deal with a Secretary Bird.

There is no doubt in my mind (or in Lamford's) that the Law is worded wrong. But as it is written it is 100% clear that you have to rule 6♠ making. Under normal circumstances, I would overlook the exact wording of Law70C3 and interpret it in the way it must have been intended. But if I have to deal with a Secretary Bird I will use the actual wording of Law 70C3.

Rik

This time I agree with you exactly, and I am all for using a miswording of the Law to catch SB. And the argument that it says "if" but not "only if" is nonsense. The subheading "there is an outstanding trump" indicates that this is how the TD acts in such case.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2012-March-16, 09:14, said:

This time I agree with you exactly, and I am all for using a miswording of the Law to catch SB. And the argument that it says "if" but not "only if" is nonsense. The subheading "there is an outstanding trump" indicates that this is how the TD acts in such case.

This is ridiculous. If I make a claim and the side AKs are out as well as a trump but the trump cannot take a trick on any normal line it does not mean I get the remaining tricks when the AKs are unavoidable losers. What the Law is saying is that in addition to the other aspects of a contested claim an outstanding trump will also count as a winner should the given conditions be met. This is obvious and simply common sense and I am surprised to see this line of reasoning from you.

[kenrexford]

If I was directing, here is what I would do. I would give East an option.

Option #1:

Adjust the score to 6♠ down one. However, if that option is elected, then I would promise to publicize this deal and this ruling with East's name included (not anyone else) in as many ways as possible. I would post this online in every format possible, and I would try to get this in print as an example of how East was very clever in his observations.

Option #2:

The result stands, and East is allowed to escape the shame of everyone knowing that he is a jerk.

[aguahombre]

Somehow, I think East already knows he is a jerk and also knows that everyone else is aware of it, too.

Unfortunately, your proposed action cannot include extortion: the threat of the PP. That could only be used by the declarer before you get to the table as director ---since, once your are there, you have to put on the appearance of following the rules and making rulings.

[kenrexford]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-16, 09:49, said:

Somehow, I think East already knows he is a jerk and also knows that everyone else is aware of it, too.

Unfortunately, your proposed action cannot include extortion: the threat of the PP. That could only be used by the declarer before you get to the table as director ---since, once your are there, you have to put on the appearance of following the rules and making rulings.

You can always ask East, "Are you sure that he did not mention pulling the last trump?"

[aguahombre]

kenrexford, on 2012-March-16, 09:54, said:

You can always ask East, "Are you sure that he did not mention pulling the last trump?"

That might work, if you ask it after stating you must decide on the table result and also on whether there has been the violation of giving a ruling at the table without the director. Still extortion, but subtle enough to slide on

[axman]

kenrexford, on 2012-March-16, 09:21, said:

If I was directing, here is what I would do. I would give East an option.

Option #1:

Adjust the score to 6♠ down one. However, if that option is elected, then I would promise to publicize this deal and this ruling with East's name included (not anyone else) in as many ways as possible. I would post this online in every format possible, and I would try to get this in print as an example of how East was very clever in his observations.

Option #2:

The result stands, and East is allowed to escape the shame of everyone knowing that he is a jerk.

In NA the law is utilized by a large number as a battle ax to wage war against one's enemies- merely an observation, mind you. I am inclined to believe that such is not aligned with the proper function; also, that it suggests evidence that the law was, itself, misconceived.

One more comment, it would appear that you hold that E has committed some atrocity and must be banned, yet you have not explained what the atrocity was...at least then maybe E could be in the position of giving a valid defense.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2012-March-16, 09:18, said:

This is ridiculous. If I make a claim and the side AKs are out as well as a trump but the trump cannot take a trick on any normal line it does not mean I get the remaining tricks when the AKs are unavoidable losers. What the Law is saying is that in addition to the other aspects of a contested claim an outstanding trump will also count as a winner should the given conditions be met. This is obvious and simply common sense and I am surprised to see this line of reasoning from you.

Right. But in the example you quote no trick is awarded as far as the trump is concerned. In our example, the only error by declarer was the failure to mention the missing trump.

[kenrexford]

axman, on 2012-March-16, 10:24, said:

One more comment, it would appear that you hold that E has committed some atrocity and must be banned, yet you have not explained what the atrocity was...at least then maybe E could be in the position of giving a valid defense.

Declarer's language and line suggests that he knows how to count to 13 and has not made a math error here. He has made an articulation error. I am not stealing a board because my opponent was not precise. That would embarrass me.

I will, however, retract my comment that East is a jerk. I was struggling for the right word at the time. I cannot come up with the right word to describe someone who I find to be an embarrassment to themselves (in my eyes) in this situation.

[HighLow21]

kenrexford, on 2012-March-16, 10:52, said:

Declarer's language and line suggests that he knows how to count to 13 and has not made a math error here. He has made an articulation error. I am not stealing a board because my opponent was not precise. That would embarrass me.

I will, however, retract my comment that East is a jerk. I was struggling for the right word at the time. I cannot come up with the right word to describe someone who I find to be an embarrassment to themselves (in my eyes) in this situation.

I think one such word is 'jerk.'

[gnasher]

Regarding the question in the heading, "Would you contest this?", it would depend on what declarer said when I asked him the obvious question, which is "Did you know that there was another trump to draw?" If he said he did, I'd accept the claim; if he didn't I'd contest it. Whilst this procedure is probably illegal, it does have the merit of both maintaining equity and saving a lot of time.

[gordontd]

kenrexford, on 2012-March-16, 10:52, said:

Declarer's language and line suggests that he knows how to count to 13 and has not made a math error here.

I see nothing in the original post to support this assertion. His language and line are entirely consistent with someone who thinks they started with 11 trumps. How hard is it to say "drawing the last trump" or simply to do it before claiming?

I think you would have a much better case if he hadn't drawn any trumps at all.

[barmar]

I wonder why 70C is needed at all -- aren't 70C1 and 70C3 included in 70D1? 70C2 is kind of special, though -- it allows the TD to decide that declarer would draw (or somehow deal with) the outstanding trumps, even if not mentioned in his claim statement.

[AlexJonson]

In reply to the OP title I would not challenge the claim.

[Trinidad]

Never.

Rik

[phil_20686]

I am pretty sure I would contest easts claim if I were sitting west.