[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2014-June-21, 18:17, said:

Sorry, I was writing about posters

Yeah, I figured it was a typo.

[sfi]

Bbradley62, on 2014-June-17, 17:26, said:

He did not claim the two queens. You left off the first half of the sentence. He claimed two tricks, (silently) expecting those two tricks to be his two queens. See OP's post #6 for a confirmation of this.

IMO, the first half of the sentence is not relevant to whether or not he claimed the two queens. The later post changes matters significantly though.

[blackshoe]

Technically, "two off" is equivalent to "there is no normal line of play which will result in more, or less, than two off". Now we just need to decide if that's true.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2014-June-21, 17:40, said:

IBLF posers seem fairly evenly split, which should auger well for a return of the deposit.

Not necessarily. The White Book states:

An appeal to the National Authority is heard on its merits, and the deposit normally returned, only if the L&EC considers the appeal to involve one or more of the following:
(a) A question of principle
(b) An error of tournament direction
( c) An error in the application of law or regulation
(d) A grossly inappropriate value judgement
If none of these factors is present the appeal will be dismissed and the deposit forfeited. Note that a request to revise a value judgement which falls short of being grossly inappropriate is not a sound basis for an appeal to the National Authority.

If the AC ruled two tricks to declarer, then that would be "an error in the application of law", unless it is decided that finessing was not a "normal" line. If the AC ruled only one trick to declarer, then the deposit could be lost.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-June-23, 05:12, said:

( c) An error in the application of law or regulation

Off-topic, but if you want to write "(c)" without it being turned into © you can use

(c[i][/i])

or similar.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-June-24, 03:42, said:

Off-topic, but if you want to write "(c)" without it being turned into © you can use

(c[i][/i])

or similar.

Thanks. Someone did tell me how to do that once, but I could not find it!

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2014-June-18, 05:09, said:

What was the result of the original appeal?

The original ruling was that declarer got one of the final three tricks (based on finessing the D10). This was upheld by the AC and the deposit was kept. The appeal to the national authority was heard (this is not automatic as certain criteria have to be fulfilled before such an appeal is heard) and also upheld the original ruling but returned the deposit from the first appeal.

[Aardv]

I was North on this hand. On the questions of fact, I can tell you that:

- Declarer's statement of concession/claim as recorded on the claim form was "I'll give you a spade" (before trick 11)
- Declarer's statement of concession/claim according to his statement of Appeal to the National Authority was "you take two spades" (during trick 10)
- The Director ruled three off, citing Law 70E1
- The Appeals committee confirmed the Director's ruling and retained the deposit, on the grounds that "The TD had read the law to the players. 70E1 made it clear what should happen, which is why the deposit was taken."
- The EBU L&E Committee has now ruled, upholding the Director's ruling, but returning both deposits. Its ruling says that:
- It discussed whether Law 71 rather than 70E1 should apply, and decided that 70E1 was appropriate.
- It discussed whether declarer's implied claim of two tricks still applies after the spade concession breaks down, and decided it does not.
- It rejected the argument in Declarer's Appeal submission that he would have worked out the diamond count, on the grounds that he hadn't known the spade count.
- It spent long enough discussing all this to make it right to return the deposits.

[Pig Trader]

I was the TD that made the ruling. The slight variation of statement of concession/claim that declarer submitted to the National Authority is trivial and made no material difference to that which I recorded as agreed at the table.

I found interesting the discussion here about North actually having another spade and deciding not to lead it. It means that a declarer has to be even more careful about a statement such as "I'll give you a spade"!

Barrie