Claim in comical hand

[iviehoff]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=s106h62dakj962ca54&w=skj9842h85d75c1062&e=sa3hj10974dq83ck97&s=sq75hakq3d104cqj83]399|300|Scoring: IMP

Bidding:

1N - pass - 3N - all pass[/hv]

I once read about this hand, but since it was said to have occurred in an Irish national competition, I suspect it may be apocryphal. I put it up because it bears on the issue of implied finesses in claims, and because it is funny.

 

West led the ♠8 to East's A. East, miscalculating the spade situation, returned the ♣K aiming to break declarer's communications. Declarer, perhaps illogically, took it in dummy with the A. Declarer crossed to hand in hearts and now passed the ♦10 to East, who continued with his plan by ducking. Declarer led his second diamond, and when W followed claimed 12 tricks without explanation. The ruling was 3NT-1. Comment?

 

Edited to correct dealer.

[campboy]

I do not think 70E1 applies here, as I read "accept from claimer any line..." to mean "accept that he would definitely take that line". On the other hand, 70D1 certainly does apply: the claim statement does not give a line of play, and taking the second finesse is certainly "normal".

[helene_t]

Maybe there is an inference that E has ♦Q since otherwise it is hard to make sense of ♣K.

 

Anyway, I am going to let declarer repeat the finesse. Then E plays spades and it is -3, isn't it?

[Pict]

Ideally you would like to complete this claim statement once you know who (if anyone) is objecting.

 

3N-1...I don't know. The Director must have thought equity demanded that East didn't recover from his delusions about the spades.

[ICEmachine]

I assume he is planning to repeat the diamond finesse and when West followed suit, he saw he would make it if diamonds are 4-1 with West then having 3 or 4, so I would rule -3 ( 6x spades and 1x diamond).

[peachy]

If the finesse was judged to be repeated in the hand recently under discussion, it would be judged to be repeated in this hand also, by common logic. Or is it that unresolved points should be ruled against claimer so in the recent hand the ruling is "finesse not repeated" while in this hand the ruling is "finesse repeated". I'm still a little in the dark...

[jdonn]

Of course he was finessing again and must be made to do so. I don't know where -1 came from, it should be 3NT -3.

[iviehoff]

Repeating the finesse is plainly "irrational" in the mathematical sense of the word, because the ♣K surely screamed "I've got the ♦Q and the spades are blocked"; and W following suit the second time tells declarer it is now dropping. And at that point declarer has 9 tricks on top without the finesse. But declarer is clearly somewhere else, otherwise he would have ducked the ♣K maintaining an entry to dummy if E has ♦Qxxx.

 

But I think in general when declarer claims without explanation we have to assume he is finessing here, precisely because it is the losing option. It's really a somewhat easier case than the other one where it was finessing that was the winning option.

 

Pict has the right reason for the director's ruling. The defender was too embarrassed to appeal. But is this a legal ruling? Would it survive appeal? I think that is probably the most interesting question about the hand.

[Vampyr]

Ideally you would like to complete this claim statement once you know who (if anyone) is objecting.

Yes, this is major problem when claiming without a statement.

 

I don't play on BBO, but I play on OKBridge, and there, when a claim is contested, play of the hand continues. Declarer doesn't get to see who contested it, but will tend to spot the danger.

[lamford]

Repeating the finesse is plainly "irrational" in the mathematical sense of the word, because the ♣K surely screamed "I've got the ♦Q and the spades are blocked"; and W following suit the second time tells declarer it is now dropping.  And at that point declarer has 9 tricks on top without the finesse. But declarer is clearly somewhere else, otherwise he would have ducked the ♣K maintaining an entry to dummy if E has ♦Qxxx.

I disagree. The correct defence for East is to switch to the king of clubs (assuming the spades are indeed blocked) with a singleton diamond (a routine pseudo-Merrimac coup) and with the queen of diamonds guarded. Now, when the first diamond holds and West follows to the second round, declarer does not know which layout it is. This should be routine even for an intermediate player (tongue in cheek to annoy jdonn). And the spades might be 4-4, when ducking the king of clubs by declarer is ludicrous.

 

So, I would disallow the claim EITHER if the finesse were winning or if it were losing. Both finessing and playing for the drop are rational within the WBFLC recent advice that rationality is considered in an absolute sense, and it is broadly irrelevant what the player was thinking when he claimed.

[Pict]

So, I would disallow the claim EITHER if the finesse were winning or if it were losing. Both finessing and playing for the drop are rational within the WBFLC recent advice that rationality is considered in an absolute sense, and it is broadly irrelevant what the player was thinking when he claimed.

This brings us back more or less to previous long thread.

 

I would just suggest that the TD - faced with defective claim statement (of however many sentences) may judge that declarer's intention was clear, when certain things follow, or he may judge that declarer's intention was not clear, when issues around finesses come into play.

 

We can argue about a TD's judgement in a given case, but I can't see that we can eliminate the judgement step.

[jdonn]

I won't get into the same dumb argument as the last thread. But I will say you can't allow declarer to draw inferences that are somewhat advanced (and might not even be true!) in deciding what play is rational or he would or wouldn't make. In other words it's absurd to say "he won't finesse because if it were on east wouldn't have played the king of clubs".

[lamford]

I would just suggest that the TD - faced with defective claim statement (of however many sentences) may judge that declarer's intention was clear, when certain things follow, or he may judge that declarer's intention was not clear, when issues around finesses come into play.

I agree that it is up to the TD to decide what is rational, but I don't think he should be deciding what declarer's intention might or might not have been. And this is confirmed by both Endicott and Kooijman:

 

+=+ My understanding is that the decision to be made is whether, objectively examined, the proposed line of play fails to conform to the principles of reason and logic. Under the laws the judgement is one for the Director to make, and one for the appeals committee subsequently if the Director's decision is questioned.

Law 70E1 does not say "....would be irrational for the player concerned. " It concerns itself with irrationality in absolute terms.

~ Grattan ~ +=+

 

And Ton's response was "Amen!" indicating that he concurred.

 

This suggests that rationality is decided without considering "the player concerned", so that dburn's view that what is rational for Zia might not be rational for Zizi (with apologies for those that do not know the charming lady) is not supported by at least two members of the WBLFC.

[Pict]

I would just suggest that the TD - faced with defective claim statement (of however many sentences) may judge that declarer's intention was clear, when certain things follow, or he may judge that declarer's intention was not clear, when issues around finesses come into play.

I agree that it is up to the TD to decide what is rational, but I don't think he should be deciding what declarer's intention might or might not have been. And this is confirmed by both Endicott and Kooijman:

 

+=+ My understanding is that the decision to be made is whether, objectively examined, the proposed line of play fails to conform to the principles of reason and logic. Under the laws the judgement is one for the Director to make, and one for the appeals committee subsequently if the Director's decision is questioned.

Law 70E1 does not say "....would be irrational for the player concerned. " It concerns itself with irrationality in absolute terms.

~ Grattan ~ +=+

 

And Ton's response was "Amen!" indicating that he concurred.

 

This suggests that rationality is decided without considering "the player concerned", so that dburn's view that what is rational for Zia might not be rational for Zizi (with apologies for those that do not know the charming lady) is not supported by at least two members of the WBLFC.

Interesting but elusive argument.

 

Your eminent supporters can only come into play after the TD has heard and understood (including intentions/implications) the claim.

 

If I am the TD and conclude as a matter of fact and judgment, rather than Law that the intention of declarer was clear, then the consequences follow whatever our ancient authorities say.

[gordontd]

And Ton's response was "Amen!" indicating that he concurred.

Actually it was Kojak, not Ton.

[bluejak]

I would just suggest that the TD - faced with defective claim statement (of however many sentences) may judge that declarer's intention was clear, when certain things follow, or he may judge that declarer's intention was not clear, when issues around finesses come into play.

I agree that it is up to the TD to decide what is rational, but I don't think he should be deciding what declarer's intention might or might not have been. And this is confirmed by both Endicott and Kooijman:

 

+=+ My understanding is that the decision to be made is whether, objectively examined, the proposed line of play fails to conform to the principles of reason and logic. Under the laws the judgement is one for the Director to make, and one for the appeals committee subsequently if the Director's decision is questioned.

Law 70E1 does not say "....would be irrational for the player concerned. " It concerns itself with irrationality in absolute terms.

~ Grattan ~ +=+

 

And Ton's response was "Amen!" indicating that he concurred.

 

This suggests that rationality is decided without considering "the player concerned", so that dburn's view that what is rational for Zia might not be rational for Zizi (with apologies for those that do not know the charming lady) is not supported by at least two members of the WBLFC.

I think they are barking! :D

 

Whatever their eminence, unofficial comments by members of the WBFLC are not binding on anyone, and I do not believe irrationality is not decided on the ability of the player.

[lamford]

I would agree that unofficial comments are not binding, and understand that from time to time the WBFLC issue interpretations of the Laws, which I presume have some status.

 

For what it is worth, I do not think they are barking in this instance - irrational should be interpreted as absurd in its broadest sense, and I hope there will be official clarification of how one decides what is rational and what is not, as I agree with dburn that the current Law is unsatisfactory. And gordontd is correct that Amen! was a comment of Kojak, not Ton.

[bluejak]

If a play would never be made by a player that is irrational for him, even if it might be made by another player owing to him being far better, or far worse. I think the idea of irrational being absolute makes no sense.

[lamford]

Your view is a perfectly reasonable one, but the principle of establishing rationality by considering only the remaining cards and the play to date is also understandable. The question is whether "irrational" means "irrational for that particular player" or "irrational for the bridge world as a whole". You think the former; some others think the latter. It does make sense, but you are quite entitled to your view that it is barking!

[shintaro]

[

 

This suggests that rationality is decided without considering "the player concerned", so that dburn's view that what is rational for Zia might not be rational for Zizi (with apologies for those that do not know the charming lady) is not supported by at least two members of the WBLFC.

:)

 

 

nuff said paul

 

:D

[pran]

Your view is a perfectly reasonable one, but the principle of establishing rationality by considering only the remaining cards and the play to date is also understandable. The question is whether "irrational" means "irrational for that particular player" or "irrational for the bridge world as a whole". You think the former; some others think the latter. It does make sense, but you are quite entitled to your view that it is barking!

When we received the 2007 laws to prepare for translation (into Norwegian) we were informed that the reference to "irrational" together with "class of player" had been intentionally removed in order to make it clear that "class of player" should not (no longer) be a question when judging "irrational".

[bluejak]

If the WBFLC meant that the Law should make it clear. Something that is not there proves nothing.

 

The problem is that the way the Law reads, you have to decide whether a play is normal or irrational. Since normal means for the class of player involved - the Law says so - it is irrational that irrational does not.

[RMB1]

The problem is that the way the Law reads, you have to decide whether a play is normal or irrational.  ...

I don't think the laws do require us to decide whether a play is normal or irrational - meaning that these are (the only) alternatives.

 

[Excuse me while I indulge in some semantics/textual analysis]

 

Law 70C/D and Law 71 require us to decide whether plays are normal (or not) with no mention of irrational.

 

Law 70E1 requires us to decide whether plays that reveal the location of a card are normal (or not) and to decide whether plays that depend on the location of a card are irrational (or not).

 

Nowhere (not even Law 70E1 which is the only place that "irrational" appears) are we required to decide between "normal" and "irrational" for the same play.

 

Holding A10xxx opposite KQx we have to decide whether cashing KQ first is "normal" and then allow the claim when there is Jxxx on-side.

 

Holding A10xx opposite KQx we have to decide whether playing for one of 3-3 break or Jxxx on-side is irrational (given the previous play).

 

Because (on my reading of the laws) there is never a direct contraposition of "normal" and "irrational", it is possible for "normal" to depend on the class of player and "irrational" not to depend on the class of player.

 

Robin

[blackshoe]

Grattan once told me that "irrational" was to be taken to mean something like "implausible for the class of player involved". However, that was under the 1997 laws, and given the comment attributed to him here, it seems clear that there has been a change in the LC's view - and for once we have a word in the laws that actually means exactly what it says.