another claim

[greenender]

I hadn't seen Ed's post when I posted mine, but I entirely agree.

[pran]

I see a major question that must be considered first of all:

 

Can the claimer have miscounted her clubs and believed she had six?

 

If yes, then she should be given her twelve top tricks for down one.

 

If not, then she obviously has counted four spade tricks, overlooking that she misses the Queen. In that case there is no way she will ever discard the fourth spade from dummy, and in the course of play she will most likely end up in dummy being forced to play her remaining spades from top, luckily dropping the Queen.

 

From the given facts I feel pretty sure that the player counted four tricks in spades (and only five in clubs) and that the player never even remotely considered the possibility that she eventually might have to choose between a finesse and a drop.

 

We must avoid judging this situation with expert player's eyes, didn't OP state that the player was "average"?

[Codo]

We must avoid judging this situation with expert player's eyes, didn't OP state that the player was "average"?

But most average players know that a finesse is more likely to win then hoping for a 3-3 split.

 

So why shall an average player play for the drop? He did not stated that he will, so why must we force him to do so?

[bluejak]

I see a major question that must be considered first of all:

 

Can the claimer have miscounted her clubs and believed she had six?

 

If yes, then she should be given her twelve top tricks for down one.

 

If not, then she obviously has counted four spade tricks, overlooking that she misses the Queen. In that case there is no way she will ever discard the fourth spade from dummy, and in the course of play she will most likely end up in dummy being forced to play her remaining spades from top, luckily dropping the Queen.

 

From the given facts I feel pretty sure that the player counted four tricks in spades (and only five in clubs) and that the player never even remotely considered the possibility that she eventually might have to choose between a finesse and a drop.

 

We must avoid judging this situation with expert player's eyes, didn't OP state that the player was "average"?

These are not the only possibilities, and I find ruling on such an assumption strange. How about adding up her top tricks wrong, for example? It is not "obvious" that she has counted four spade tricks at all.

 

But most average players know that a finesse is more likely to win then hoping for a 3-3 split.

Sorry, I have been playing the game for a long time, and one of the many things i have learnt is that average players do not finesse against jacks. Odds do not come into it.

 

So why shall an average player play for the drop? He did not stated that he will, so why must we force him to do so?

We do not force people to do anything: we rule.

[jdonn]

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

You're doing both. Strictly speaking you're accomplishing what you said by doing what I said. Well ok you're not yanking a card out of his hand but you're causing the exact same result.

 

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.

I believe it's quite wrong to say declarer might have finessed the spade for the reasons I stated. You are making a falacious leap from "declarer didn't state a line + this play is normal" to "declarer might have made this play". Declarer would not have made this play, which you know for certain due to the existence, the timing, and the wording of the claim.

[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

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.

That may be true, but "pure psychology" is not the criterion. The criterion is whether it is "irrational" or not. Discarding the spade is not irrational when you think you have 13 on top.

 

Rik

[WellSpyder]

Suppose spades turned out to be 5-1 onside. Presumably those arguing that average players never finesse against jacks or that declarer is bound to play his tricks from the top would no longer argue this way? But equally, the possibility that declarer would discard a spade on a club before playing the suit is the same as before.

 

I must admit that when I read the OP I thought this was a fairly simple case where 12 tricks seemed right - if fact I wouldn't expect many declarers even to want to be awarded 13 tricks. But having read the replies it seems there are people arguing strongly for 11, 12 and 13 tricks. Maybe there is more than I thought in Nigel's argument that there has to be a more prescriptive way of settling disputed claims when judgments can differ so much....

[RMB1]

Sorry, I have been playing the game for a long time, and one of the many things i have learnt is that average players do not finesse against jacks.  Odds do not come into it.

Fine: if you judge that (for this (class of) player) finessing SJ is not normal then you are back to deciding the normality of discarding a small spade on the clubs.

[Codo]

But most average players know that a finesse is more likely to win then hoping for a 3-3 split.

Sorry, I have been playing the game for a long time, and one of the many things i have learnt is that average players do not finesse against jacks. Odds do not come into it.

The players who do not finess against a jack never bid grand slam if they have less then 15 tricks and even than....

 

The player who do not finesse do not claim at the first trick.

 

Sorry, I don't buy your argument despite the fact that I accept your superior knowledge in the laws.

 

 

So why shall an average player play for the drop? He did not stated that he will, so why must we force him to do so?

We do not force people to do anything: we rule.

 

I do not understand your semantic. You do not enforce the rules? You do not force players to choose the line of play they have to choose according to the law?

[blackshoe]

To force implies to use coercion, or threat, or physical strength. No, we (TD's) don't do that.

 

I believe it's quite wrong to say declarer might have finessed the spade for the reasons I stated. You are making a falacious leap from "declarer didn't state a line + this play is normal" to "declarer might have made this play". Declarer would not have made this play, which you know for certain due to the existence, the timing, and the wording of the claim.

 

No, you're the one who is certain. I'm not. You are calling things "certain" which are in my opinion by no means certain. In doing so, you are making the "fallacious leap" you accuse me of making. Sorry, Josh, but no.

 

OTOH, one TD and very good player to whom I showed this hand today opined that it would be irrational not to pitch the dummy's losing diamond on the fifth club. I'm not so sure, but if so it would lead to 13 tricks. I think it would be careless, not irrational, though. Particularly if declarer thinks she has another club on which to pitch. Yes, I know we have no evidence that she thinks that.

 

If there is no doubt in the TD's mind that declarer would play off his top tricks in such a way as to find that the ♠J drops while still leaving him access to the ten, then the TD will (and should) rule that the board be scored as 7NT making. If there is doubt in the TD's mind, he should give the benefit of that doubt to the other side, and rule that the board be scored as 7NT down 1 (or possibly down 2, though I think that's a bit much). I don't know about anyone else, but the statement declarer made when she claimed leaves doubt in my mind.

[jdonn]

To force implies to use coercion, or threat, or physical strength. No, we (TD's) don't do that.

 

I believe it's quite wrong to say declarer might have finessed the spade for the reasons I stated. You are making a falacious leap from "declarer didn't state a line + this play is normal" to "declarer might have made this play". Declarer would not have made this play, which you know for certain due to the existence, the timing, and the wording of the claim.

No, you're the one who is certain. I'm not. You are calling things "certain" which are in my opinion by no means certain. In doing so, you are making the "fallacious leap" you accuse me of making. Sorry, Josh, but no.

Sigh. The "you" that you are refering to ("Declarer would not have made this play, which you know for certain because...") is clearly definition 2, not definition 1. I made no accusation of what you blackshoe are certain of, just implied that a person should be certain.

 

Anyway you can think my opinion is wrong just like I can think yours is wrong. But you used fallacious logic, not me. You clearly said:

IF declarer didn't state a line of play AND some line of play is normal

THEN declarer might have taken that line of play.

That is not only wrong (by which I mean not necessarily true) but as far as I can tell has nothing to do with the (following) law, for the following reason.

 

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.

Focus on the word "embraced". Notice that it has a different meaning from "stated" which as far as I can tell is how you interpret the law (you even use that word exactly in your reasoning).

 

Now I will reiterate my 3 reasons stated earlier. Tell me if you disagree with any of these statements.

 

- Virtually (or literally) no one would see the opening lead and immediately make a plan to finesse the spades for the 13th trick.

- Even if such a person as that exists, they wouldn't claim without playing a card.

- Even if such a person as that exists, they would never fail to mention that clearly strange intention in their claim.

 

If I can just possibly convince you that any (not all, but any) of those statements are true then you are saying to declarer that he might have done something which you are fully aware he had no intention at all to do. Is that supposed to be just? Or are you saying Joe Blow from Wasilla Alaska sees dummy and says "Ok let's see, obviously I finesse the jack of spades for trick 13, I guess I'll just claim and to make things more interesting I won't mention that part." I would like to meet this man!

[nige1]

- Virtually (or literally) no one would see the opening lead and immediately make a plan to finesse the spades for the 13th trick.

- Even if such a person as that exists, they wouldn't claim without playing a card.

- Even if such a person as that exists, they would never fail to mention that clearly strange intention in their claim.

Alternatively ...

• Few players would see the opening lead and immediately make a plan to drop the ♠J for the 13th trick.
  
• If so, they probably wouldn't claim without playing a card.
  
• If so, they probably wouldn't fail to mention that intention in their claim.
  

However, JDonn believes that this was what was in declarer's mind. Luckily for declarer, some directors agree with JDonn :)

[jdonn]

Few players would see the opening lead and immediately make a plan to drop the ♠J for the 13th trick.

STRONGLY disagree!

 

If so, they probably wouldn't claim without playing a card.

They probably wouldn't but they might, unlike in the other case.

 

If so, they probably wouldn't fail to mention that intention in their claim.

Actually if they did indeed claim and didn't state a line, it's overwhelmingly likely that the claim was on the basis of what declarer perceived as top tricks. So you are quite backwards on this point.

 

It is indeed fortunate for declarer that some directors agree with me. Otherwise he would receive a truly unfair result.

[nige1]

Few players would see the opening lead and immediately make a plan to drop the ♠J for the 13th trick.

STRONGLY disagree!

A matter of opinion. IMO an expert might plan to count the hand. Most ordinary players would plan to cash ♠AK. They would plan to finesse against favourable 5-1 or 6-0 splits :)

 

Of course, a player may think he has 13 top tricks, but, IMO, few players would immediately count ♠ 10 as one of them.

[blackshoe]

You clearly said:

IF declarer didn't state a line of play AND some line of play is normal

THEN declarer might have taken that line of play.

Did I? Or did I say that the law says that if declarer didn't state a line of play, and some line of play is normal, then if that line of play is less successful than some other (also normal, presumably) line of play, then the TD rules that the board be scored according to the less successful result? That, at least, is what I thought I said (I'm not going to go back and hunt down my exact words).

 

That is not only wrong (by which I mean not necessarily true) but as far as I can tell has nothing to do with the (following) law, for the following reason.

 

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.

Focus on the word "embraced". Notice that it has a different meaning from "stated" which as far as I can tell is how you interpret the law (you even use that word exactly in your reasoning).

 

The original "clarification statement" was "I have them all". As far as I can see, that doesn't embrace any particular line of play, except perhaps "play off top tricks, in no particular order".

Now I will reiterate my 3 reasons stated earlier. Tell me if you disagree with any of these statements.

 

- Virtually (or literally) no one would see the opening lead and immediately make a plan to finesse the spades for the 13th trick.

- Even if such a person as that exists, they wouldn't claim without playing a card.

- Even if such a person as that exists, they would never fail to mention that clearly strange intention in their claim.

 

I think some people might very well do that first thing - although I would expect most of them to then look for a better plan. Then, of course, there are those for whom the question is "plan? what's that?"

 

#2: Why not? If they think taking the finesse is the only way to make it, they don't need to play a card.

#3: People fail to mention things in claims all the time. I see no reason to believe your hypothetical player wouldn't do the same.

[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.

That may be true, but "pure psychology" is not the criterion. The criterion is whether it is "irrational" or not. Discarding the spade is not irrational when you think you have 13 on top.

 

Rik

I simply placed myself in the chair of the claimer and tried to visualize how she, being an average player, counted to thirteen tricks for her claim. (This is where psychology came into the picture.)

 

She could not possibly count more than one Diamond trick and three in hearts.

 

Assuming that she counted (only) five tricks in clubs she must have counted four spade tricks making the rather easy mistake of not noticing that the Jack was missing.

 

And I consider it vastly more probable that she counted four tricks in spades rather than six tricks in clubs (remember we are still discussing an average player) .

 

This in my opinion results in that the only line of play embraced in her claim statement is to cash her "thirteen aces" while taking care not to block herself from any of them.

 

During this process the Jack of spades will, probably to her surprise and luckily for her, drop under the Queen.

[pran]

Of course, a player may think he has 13 top tricks, but, IMO, few players would immediately count ♠ 10 as a certain trick.

Certainly not, but many "average" players can easily overlook that this ten was part of a non-continuous suite where the Jack was missing.

 

I am much more reluctant to accept that this player may have gone through the complete auction and opening lead errouneously believeing that she had six clubs even after counting her total number of "aces".

[campboy]

By far the most likely misapprehension the player was under when claiming is that 3+3+1+5=13.

[jdonn]

The original "clarification statement" was "I have them all". As far as I can see, that doesn't embrace any particular line of play, except perhaps "play off top tricks, in no particular order".

So that's what the line of play you require declarer to take and, lo and behold, 13 tricks arise! The only caveat I would throw in is "without blocking any suits".

[nige1]

Of course, a player may think he has 13 top tricks, but, IMO, few players would immediately count ♠ 10 as a certain trick.

Certainly not, but many "average" players can easily overlook that this ten was part of a non-continuous suite where the Jack was missing. I am much more reluctant to accept that this player may have gone through the complete auction and opening lead erroneously believing that she had six clubs even after counting her total number of "aces".

By far the most likely misapprehension the player was under when claiming is that 3+3+1+5=13.

Campboy's surmise is as plausible as any other. When declarer discovers his mistake (assuming that he hasn't already discarded ♠T), he may now decide to finesse or to play for the drop. Is the finesse a normal (but inferior) option?

[blackshoe]

So that's what the line of play you require declarer to take and, lo and behold, 13 tricks arise! The only caveat I would throw in is "without blocking any suits".

Blocking a suit is certainly careless. Guess what? People block suits all the time.

[bluejak]

But most average players know that a finesse is more likely to win then hoping for a 3-3 split.

Sorry, I have been playing the game for a long time, and one of the many things i have learnt is that average players do not finesse against jacks. Odds do not come into it.

The players who do not finess against a jack never bid grand slam if they have less then 15 tricks and even than....

 

The player who do not finesse do not claim at the first trick.

 

Sorry, I don't buy your argument despite the fact that I accept your superior knowledge in the laws.

My knowledge of the Laws, superior or otherwise, does not come into it. I have given you an opinion based on playing experience.

 

So why shall an average player play for the drop? He did not stated that he will, so why must we force him to do so?

We do not force people to do anything: we rule.

 

I do not understand your semantic. You do not enforce the rules? You do not force players to choose the line of play they have to choose according to the law?

I have a horror of the modern method of arguing by persuasion via buzz words rather than logic. When a player leads out of turn and is told to replace the card in his hand it is just that: but if you want to make it seem very unfair you say he is forced to put it back.

 

Similarly here, people who do not think the finesse should be allowed, rather than just say so, are trying to persuade by using a buzz word: instead of saying "We rule he finesses ..." which does not imply anything people say "He is forced to finesse" which makes it sound terrible. Presumably such people would say he would play for the drop: should we say "He is forced to play for the drop"? It worries me because there is an argument against ruling via a finesse but it is not seen because of the sound of "forced".

 

I really would prefer if we could try to sort this claim out without psychological ploys based on the horror of buzz words.

[dburn]

It may help to simplify the problem somewhat.

 

[hv=d=w&v=b&w=saqhad65432c65432&e=s2h32dakqj10cakqj10]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

East, declarer in 7NT on a heart lead, claims saying "I have them all". Do you allow this claim:

 

[a] if South has the guarded king of spades

if North has the singleton king of spades

[c] if South has the singleton king of spades

[d] in no circumstances

[jdonn]

So that's what the line of play you require declarer to take and, lo and behold, 13 tricks arise! The only caveat I would throw in is "without blocking any suits".

Blocking a suit is certainly careless. Guess what? People block suits all the time.

Do you believe blocking spades here would be a "normal" line?

[Pict]

It may help to simplify the problem somewhat.

 

[hv=d=w&v=b&w=saqhad65432c65432&e=s2h32dakqj10cakqj10]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

East, declarer in 7NT on a heart lead, claims saying "I have them all". Do you allow this claim:

 

[a] if South has the guarded king of spades

if North has the singleton king of spades

[c] if South has the singleton king of spades

[d] in no circumstances

I would be interested in the recommended ruling on this, albeit hypothetical, position.

 

Personally I would expect to find that declarer imagined he was playing in seven of a minor, and planned to 'draw trumps' and play A♠ and Q♠ 'ruffing'.

 

If that were so I would give the contract where there is a singleton King and some appropriate number off when there isn't. This seems equitable to me.

 

Some appear to interpret the rules in a different way, that involves looking at the cards and finding a losing line where possible.

 

I find this a strange reading (though it may be established as correct) because to say 'do not accept an unstated line of play etc' seems not relevant when the claimer is not attempting to add an unstated line of play. It seems to me that control passes to the TD to resolve the situation in an equitable fashion, whatever that might be in the given case.