[BudH]

Took the exam for the new ACBL designation "Local Director" last night. Scored over 96%.

I did have some trouble on one topic (which led to one of my two incorrect answers out of 52 questions) regarding contested claims and determining what is considered "careless" and what is considered "irrational".

A couple of examples:

1. Declarer claims all the tricks holding one trump, side winners in two suits, and a void in the other side suit, but never mentions an outstanding higher trump. Do you have to assume declarer plays his trump early before side suit winners allowing the defense to potentially cash one or more tricks in the void side suit?

2. Declarer says "I have all four remaining tricks: two spades, a heart, and a diamond." If declarer cashes his two spade tricks (one in his hand and one in dummy) before cashing a red suit trick, he can't get back to the other red suit trick and gets only three tricks. Is that to be assumed when adjudicating this contested claim?

I'd like to see a bunch of these borderline cases to have a firm idea of what to allow or not allow as Director. Other than ACBL's Duplicate Decisions, is there any other reference material out there with contested claim cases like this (not just the "easy" situations) from ACBL, WBF, EBU, ABF, or others?

[BudH]

From Gordon Rainsford in 2018 - https://www.ebu.co.u...ting-claims.pdf

A few excerpts related to the cases I mentioned in my original post:

"If a claimer states which tricks they are taking, eg “four hearts, three spades and a diamond”, it does not necessarily follow that the intention is for the tricks to be taken in that order. However, slightly different wording, eg “four hearts then three spades and a diamond” does suggest an order of play. Each case needs to be considered on its own merit, taking into account what has been stated, what has happened thus far in the play and therefore what lines might be considered normal."

"If a player thinks that all their cards are good, it is normal for them to play their suits in any order and so we usually rule the most disadvantageous order of play."

"Having once started to play a suit by cashing winners, it is normal to continue that suit until it is exhausted before switching to another suit."

"If a player is conceding a trick as part of the claim, unless it has been otherwise specified in the claim it is normal for the player to either play to lose the trick immediately or at the end of play, so once again we rule according to the more disadvantageous of the two. It is not normal to
play some winners and then attempt to concede the trick in the middle of the play."

[PeterAlan]

EBU's White Book's section 8 gives supplementary guidance on all the Laws, including Law 70 (8.70; White Book 8.x comments on Law x).

[BudH]

Another one: http://www.eurobridg...s-committee.pdf

Note this is a 2010 document based on 2007 laws but also commenting on future changes which did happen in our present 2017 laws.

Interesting Paris 2001 claim situation on page 13 of 15 of this document. That exact board was one of my exam questions last night! (No, I didn't see this until today, after my exam - would have taken me less time if I had seen it previously!)

[jillybean]

BudH, on 2023-May-28, 13:23, said:

Took the exam for the new ACBL designation "Local Director" last night. Scored over 96%.

Congratulations.

[BudH]

PeterAlan, on 2023-May-28, 15:03, said:

EBU's White Book's section 8 gives supplementary guidance on all the Laws, including Law 70 (8.70; White Book 8.x comments on Law x).

In the White Book, near the end of a section on Law 70 it says the following:

Claim can be seen to break down – when can claimer change line?

"The L&EC is aware that different attitudes to this question are sometimes expressed, in both rulings and TD training. Some would allow claimer the benefit of noticing that the suit has broken badly (for instance) and to depart from their original line. The interpretation/implementation of Law 70 in the EBU remains that it is careless, and therefore ‘normal’, for the claimer not to pay attention to cards played by the other side, and that claimer will continue with the original line ..."

Why can't the World Bridge Federation issue the standards on these kind of decisions and not have it effectively be "zonal options" or whatever you want to call it?

Wouldn't it make sense that no matter what continent you were on that subjects like this are all treated the same instead of (for this topic) claimers can sometimes change tack when their stated line of play won't work on some continents but not on others?