another claim

[shevek]

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=sj98hj862dqjt4c54&w=sqt63hkt4da8c9876&e=sak7haqd953cakqjt&s=s542h9753dk762c32]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Perhaps this is basic.

East in 7NT wins the heart lead and says "I've got them all" spreading her cards for inspection. Clearly a miscount from an average player. N/S count 12 top tricks & call you.

 

How many?

[pran]

He has apparently counted four tricks in spades running them from top. And only because the spades break 3-3 he will get them.

(♥AQ, ♠AK, ♠QT, ♥K, ♦A and the club tricks)

[RMB1]

Law 70 E 1.

The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

 

Declarer's line for 13 tricks depends on finding spades 3-3. The finesse is an alternative line which fails and finessing is not irrational - 12 (11?) tricks.

[Cyberyeti]

Declarer clearly thinks he has 13 winners, so he's not taking the spade finesse, he's cashing from the top, the only issue is did he pitch a spade on the 5th club.

 

Possibly worth asking declarer which 13 tricks he thought he had.

[shevek]

Law 70 E 1.

The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

 

Declarer's line for 13 tricks depends on finding spades 3-3. The finesse is an alternative line which fails and finessing is not irrational - 12 (11?) tricks.

I suspect 11 tricks is right, though a bit mean.

Declarer may well play spades last and be compelled by Law to finesse in the 2 card ending.

 

I think declarer budgeted for 3 spades tricks but for her 3+3+1+5 = 13. Maybe she thought she had 6 clubs. Whatever.

[StevenG]

Law 70 E 1.

The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

 

Declarer's line for 13 tricks depends on finding spades 3-3. The finesse is an alternative line which fails and finessing is not irrational - 12 (11?) tricks.

I don't understand this. Surely taking the finesse is an unstated line of play, the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card (♠J), so L70E1 disallows that line.

 

If the spades had split 4-2 but the finesse was right we would give 12 tricks not 13. This is because the claim statement implicitly suggests that spades are played from the top and L70E1 makes that line mandatory.

[campboy]

If you think you have 13 tricks without the 4th spade, you might throw it on the last club. Therefore 12 tricks looks right to me.

[Trinidad]

If you think you have 13 tricks without the 4th spade, you might throw it on the last club. Therefore 12 tricks looks right to me.

Fully agree. If you think you have 13 tricks it is not irrational at all to discard the 13th spade on the clubs.

 

Rik

[pran]

If you think you have 13 tricks without the 4th spade, you might throw it on the last club. Therefore 12 tricks looks right to me.

Fully agree. If you think you have 13 tricks it is not irrational at all to discard the 13th spade on the clubs.

 

Rik

If he plays the clubs first (which is not irrational) then I assume he will discard the small Diamond rather than the fourth spade in at least 99 out of 100 times.

 

Pure psychology.

[Pict]

In this case I would call the TD rather than giving declarer a trick.

 

After that, I don't mind what the TD decides, though I suspect a majority would rule twelve tricks.

 

I am interested in the idea that declarer could be made to take the spade finesse. I have seen this before but it has an odd feel - making a play as TD the claimer isn't allowed to make.

[Cascade]

Law 70 E 1.

The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

 

Declarer's line for 13 tricks depends on finding spades 3-3. The finesse is an alternative line which fails and finessing is not irrational - 12 (11?) tricks.

I don't understand this. Surely taking the finesse is an unstated line of play, the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card (♠J), so L70E1 disallows that line.

 

If the spades had split 4-2 but the finesse was right we would give 12 tricks not 13. This is because the claim statement implicitly suggests that spades are played from the top and L70E1 makes that line mandatory.

I understand that law to give the worst of it to the bad claimer.

 

If declarer plays spades ace king and another then after south has contributed to the third spade with Q10 left on the table then at that moment playing for the drop is an "unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card" as would be playing for the finesse.

 

Since declarer needs four tricks in this suit it seems reasonable to force declarer to lose to whichever opponent holds the jack if it has not appeared in the first five cards played by the defense.

[Pict]

I fully understand Cascade's flight of fancy here.

 

But I'm not sure that playing for 3-3 (in advance), if that it is what happened, predicts the position of any card among the six.

 

Let's keep it simple. If the Law says that I cannot make an unstated finesse. How can the TD have me make that finesse in order to lose a trick.

[Cyberyeti]

If you think you have 13 tricks without the 4th spade, you might throw it on the last club. Therefore 12 tricks looks right to me.

Fully agree. If you think you have 13 tricks it is not irrational at all to discard the 13th spade on the clubs.

 

Rik

Which is why I said director should ask him which 13 he thought he had, if it involved 4 spades he won't.

[pran]

I fully understand Cascade's flight of fancy here. 

 

But I'm not sure that playing for 3-3 (in advance), if that it is what happened, predicts the position of any card among the six.

 

Let's keep it simple.  If the Law says that I cannot make an unstated finesse.  How can the TD have me make that finesse in order to lose a trick.

The applicable law is 70E1:

The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

 

You may notice that this law says nothing about finesse; it applies to any line of play (e.g. squeeze as well as finesse)

[bluejak]

The problem with forcing the finesse as some people put it [does not feel a good piece of jargon, but never mind] is that he has in effect stated a line: cash 13 top tricks. Thus I do not think a finesse is relevant.

 

I think this just comes down to whether discarding a spade on the last club is irrational or not.

[Cascade]

Its not so much forcing the finesse it is simply applying the law.

 

The claimer thinks he has 13 tricks.

 

In fact there are only 12 top tricks.

 

"1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play

not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an

alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful."

 

There is a successful line of play dropping the ♠J and an unsuccessful line finessing for the ♠J. I would consider both of those lines normal. The law instructs the director to choose the least successful.

[RMB1]

Claimer did not say "cashing 13 top tricks" he said "I've got them all". We do not know the reason he thinks he has them all, perhaps he thinks spades always break 3-3, perhaps he thinks South always has SJ when he leads a heart against 7NT. He did not say he was cashing tricks, his statement is a claim of 13 tricks with no explicit or implicit line of play. So we have to consider all normal lines of play for 13 tricks and those include playing spades from the top and finessing in spades.

[bluejak]

Ok, perhaps I put it badly. To me "I've got them all" implicitly says they are top tricks.

[Cascade]

Maybe that is what is meant.

 

However a problem arises when there are not not enough top tricks for the number claimed.

 

It is likely if the hand was played out that at some point declarer would notice they did not have all of the tricks. In this case if there are alternative normal lines which are not explicitly part of the claim then the claimer gets the worst of it.

 

If you claim 13 top tricks when you have only 12 you can't really expect a windfall because a key card happens to drop when an alternative normal line would fail. The skill of the game is that you choose which of normal (or not so normal) lines you want to play. When you claim inaccurately you give up your rights to successful normal lines when there are unsuccessful normal lines.

 

Otherwise IMO it gets far to difficult to adjudicate fairly.

[nige1]

I understand the argument for allowing the claimer to discard a diamond rather than a spade on the last club. IMO, nevertheless, the director should rule one down. Even if all that was necessary was for declarer to choose between finessing and playing for the drop, I think the director could still rule one down. It depends on whether, for example, bluejak and the law would allow the claimer to drop a singleton king offside if his spades were ♠ AQJT opposite ♠ xxx?

 

As in other simple basic claim cases with undisputed facts, the worrying aspect is that the problem is not of judgement but of legal interpretation. And again there is no consensus.

[Pict]

I am not trying to get declarer 13 tricks on this hand.

 

But my problem with the bridge version of quantum mechanics (whoever has the cat, gets to keep it) is where do you draw the line.

 

AKQT - xxx

 

AKJxx - xxxx

 

AKT9 - xxxx

 

Given some constraints on entries there are very few interesting setups where I could not cause declarer to fail on the basis of an alternative line or lines at points in the play - especially if no plan is allowed.

 

So what's the point of the reference to equity in the Law?

[Codo]

I do not understand the supporters for all the tricks.

 

Even if East holds onto the spades.

 

The two card ending is:

 

♠QT 7

♦- 9

 

Even if declarer counted better then he claimed, there are 4 cards out- lets say 2 spades and two diamonds.

Why shall he play for the drop? This line is not so much better, that finessing is IWOG.

 

So if he had played it, he may had failed. How can you give him an advantage for his lazy claim?

 

Okay, if you understand "I've got them all" as "I play everything from the top", then you have a point. But my translater found quite different translations for these two sentences, so I would be quite surprised if these two sentences are really equal.

 

So, I am quite surprised that this is not a 11 tricks wtp hand.

[jdonn]

"No one" would plan to be finessing the spade at trick one.

But even if somehow somebody was, they wouldn't claim.

But even if somehow somebody did, they would state that in their claim statement.

 

In short there is no way declarer's intention at the time of the claim was to finesse the spade. I see absolutely no fairness in forcing declarer to do something he was clearly not intending to do. I at least see the point of those who want to make him discard a spade on the clubs (though it seems too harsh to me) but I very strongly disagree with forcing a spade finesse on him.

 

And I don't believe I'm failing to follow the law since the above 3 points tell me that the drop is embraced ("stated" is not necessary) in the claim statement.

[blackshoe]

I see absolutely no fairness in forcing declarer to do something he was clearly not intending to do.

<disappointed>Aw...(puts thumbscrews away).

<brightens, brings thumbscrews back out>Wait! Can we force him to do something else?

 

We're not "forcing" declarer to do (or not do) something. We're adjudicating a contested claim. Law 70A says

in ruling on a contested claim or concession, the director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer.

The doubtful point here is whether declarer would have, if she played it out, played for the drop or taken the finesse, or perhaps pitched the fourth spade on a club. In fact, since she didn't say which she would do, and since any of these plays is "normal" within the meaning of the law, then she might have done any of them. Since there is more than one way she might have lost a trick, and only one way she would not have lost it, the TD, by the rest of Law 70, is told to rule that she loses the trick. I suppose one might say "you lost it because you are deemed to have finessed", but it would be more accurate to say that "you lost it because you failed to follow Law 68C and clearly state your intended line of play".

[greenender]

I strongly prefer Robin and Wayne's view here. IMO the misapprehension as to the number of tricks could have come from anywhere, such as the absent sixth ♣ already mentioned.

 

The most favourable play (for declarer) that should be considered by the TD is to assume the cashing of the ♠AK and the other non-♠ winners, leading to a 2-card ending where the options are reduced to the ♠ guess. L 70 E 1 is now squarely engaged and (the ♠J not having dropped), declarer only gets 13 tricks when Jxx is onside. So I'm for down 2.

 

I accept that it boils down to whether playing ♠s from the top was embraced in the original statement. I don't buy it.

 

It would be nice if the law permitted a weighted score in these circumstances, but of course the adjudication of a claim isn't the award of an adjusted score, so it currently doesn't.