another claim

[iviehoff]

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

Let us suppose the player making this claim puts down his hand with a heart sorted into the diamonds. We now know why he thought he had 13 tricks. He will lose as many heart tricks as the opponents can cash.

 

Now that is not a "normal" line of play for a player looking at the hand diagram above. But it is normal for a player who thinks one of his small hearts is a diamond. So I think that is a legal ruling.

 

I think that puts us into the region of investigating the reason for the mistaken claim, in case we can find other good reasons why a player who claimed 13 tricks will likely in practice go down, even if the cards are as fortunate as in situation ©.

 

Some other reasons:

 

(i) He thought he was in 7 of a minor. It would be normal to "ruff" a heart in 7 of a minor. The opposition get all their heart tricks. Actually I think this is quite a likely reason for the false claim (because the other reasons are less likely), and unless I am reasonably sure it does not apply I might well rule along these lines. In this case, I will give the opps the benefit of the doubt that this was his misapprehension, and disallow the claim in all 3 cases.

 

(ii) He thought 5+5+1+1 = 13. I think this is very unlikely. Even the distracted and arithmetically challenged don't get that one wrong. And they don't think AKQJ10 is 6 tricks either. I'm probably going to discount this one unless there is strong evidence for it.

 

(iii) A range of other possible reasons for getting confused about the number of tricks in 7N: the most likely is that he counted the HA as two tricks, ie, hasn't realised it isn't there any more at the end of trick 1. Sometimes this happens because players don't turn the cards over in the completed trick before claiming, or claim before trick 1 is complete. Another possibility is that he saw two losing major suit cards in his hand and thought that the Aces covered them, so there was no loser.

 

So, if I've excluded the possibilty that he thinks he is in 7 of a minor, and excluded the possibility there was a heart in his diamonds, only now am I going to consider that the player is actually looking at something like the hand diagram you presented, aware he is in 7NT, and consider normal plays in that situation.

 

I consider (b) first, because it helps clarify my chosen ruling on (a).

 

(b) No. And I think this is easy and ought to be routine. Finessing is a normal line of play to 13 tricks, so by both 69D1 and 69E1 we allow the opponents the benefit of the doubt that he might finesse. The fact that declarer in practice might have had a particular confusion in his mind that (if it persisted) would have resulted in him cashing the SA and dropping the K is irrelevant - he can't rely on that line of play because (i) he didn't tell us about it and (ii) we can't (in nearly all cases) be sure that this was his confusion, or that this confusion would persist, so, resolving doubts in favour of the other side, we can reasonably say that the confusion may not persist or not be his actual confusion, in which case finessing is a normal line that fails. If the player does say that he was under a particular confusion that would result in him cashing the SA, it would require an extraordinary level of proof (extraordinary claims require extraordinary levels of proof, as scientists say to crackpots).

 

(a) This is the difficult case. I say no, and I think that this follows from the reasoning in (b) above. But I expect quite a lot of people disagree. In the same way that in (b) above we allowed the opponents the benefit of the doubt that he might wake up from his confusion, or have a different confusion, that resulted in him cashing the SA, I think here we have to allow the opponents the benefit of the doubt that he is under such a confusion that he can cash the SA and that this confusion will persist. So he could indeed fail to take the spade finesse, and cash the SA early in the hand, for example because he thought he had just two major suit losers to cover, or that he could win the HA again.

 

© Yes. And I think very few people would disagree. If you know you are in 7NT, and you know how many minor suit cards you have, the 13th trick falls into your lap unless you do something really bizarre. By saying you know you are in 7NT and you know you have 10 minor suit winners, I have excluded those bizarre lines. You can't block the spades, you can't discard the SQ before you need it. I think this really is the case where the trick you need falls into your lap, provided of course, that we have satisfactorily excluded the (rather likely) possibility that you think you are playing in 7 of a minor.

[WellSpyder]

I would also propose to rule (a.) no (b.) no (c.) yes - for the reasons that iviehoff has spelt out much more clearly than I could have done.

[nige1]

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

It may help to simplify the problem somewhat.East, declarer in 7NT on a heart lead, claims saying "I have them all". Do you allow this claim:

1. 
    
    
    
    
   
2. if South has the guarded king of spades
    
    
   
3. if North has the singleton king of spades
    
    
   
4. if South has the singleton king of spades
    
    
   
5. in no circumstances
    
    
   

[/hv]

Assuming David has given us all relevant facts, then, IMO, the director should rule d. Among normal lines, the claimer is assumed to choose the losing option, if there is one, even if it is inferior.

 

But is playing for the drop, here, really a normal line? I would sympathise with a director who allowed declarer to finesse successfully, arguing that playing to drop the ♠K is so inferior as to be abnormal.

 

In contrast, in the original post case, the drop is only slightly better than the finesse. There, it is a close decision and both lines are quite normal.

[blackshoe]

After the opening lead, you are in dummy with the ♥A. I suppose the question is whether it is normal to:

 

1. Play the ♠A immediately.

2. Go to hand in either minor, and then play a spade to the AQ, and either

   take the finesse or

   play the Ace

3. Go to hand, play out your ten minor suit tricks, and then play a spade towards the AQ and either finesse or don't.

 

For my money, 1 is insane, and 2 is damn close to the same. That still leaves the question what to do on trick 12, given you still have no clue where the ♠K is.

[shyams]

That still leaves the question what to do on trick 12, given you still have no clue where the ♠K is.

So, in reference to per dburn's original post, how would you rule if you know that South had a singleton King (situation c)?

[iviehoff]

After the opening lead, you are in dummy with the ♥A. I suppose the question is whether it is normal to:

 

1. Play the ♠A immediately.

2. Go to hand in either minor, and then play a spade to the AQ, and either

   take the finesse or

   play the Ace

3. Go to hand, play out your ten minor suit tricks, and then play a spade towards the AQ and either finesse or don't.

 

For my money, 1 is insane, and 2 is damn close to the same. That still leaves the question what to do on trick 12, given you still have no clue where the ♠K is.

1 is only insane if the player knows he is in 7NT and knows he only has 10 minor suit tricks. If he knows all that, why did he claim 13 tricks?

[WellSpyder]

 

Assuming David has given us all relevant facts, then, IMO, the director should rule d. Among normal lines, the claimer is assumed to choose the losing option, if there is one, even if it is inferior.

And the losing option in case c (singleton K with south) is...?

[helene_t]

I think it's a little harsh to let declarer block a suit or discard a spade. But at some point during the play he will see that he needs a 4th spade trick. Percentage play is the drop (and also the drop will, if it fails, keep it to one downtrick even if he postpones the decision to the 2-card endplay). But he may not know this, or he may act on some perceived extra information form opps' discards or w/e.

 

I am inclined to adjust to -2. Not that it is particularly likely to happen absent the claim (there is the added possibility that either opp discards a spade at some point and declarer observes this), but it is not irrational to take the finesse at the 2-card endplay.

 

I would prefer to ask declarer to play the hand but of course the law does not allow that.

[blackshoe]

If he knows all that, why did he claim 13 tricks?

I dunno. Guess you'll have to ask him. :P

[blackshoe]

That still leaves the question what to do on trick 12, given you still have no clue where the ♠K is.

So, in reference to per dburn's original post, how would you rule if you know that South had a singleton King (situation c)?

13 tricks, because when declarer leads a spade from his hand, South will play the king.

[lamford]

It may help to simplify the problem somewhat.

 

Dealer: West Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ AQ ♥ A ♦ 65432 ♣ 65432 ♠ 2 ♥ 32 ♦ AKQJ10 ♣ AKQJ10

 

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

 

RMB's answer deals with the original post - neither finessing nor playing for the drop is irrational - and I would make the same decision whether or not a count of the hand indicated that neither North nor South could have more than two spades. Declarer has shown no evidence of the ability to count the hand.

 

I would add that if North had a singleton spade, I would allow a third-round finesse, and I regard discarding a spade from dummy as worse than careless.

 

In David's problem we cannot tell the state of mind of the player who claimed. He might have thought the queen of spades was the king (those annoying French cards again). Probably the most likely explanation for the faulty claim is an addition error, but we only have to decide if not taking the spade finesse is irrational. I would award the contract when South has the king of spades, and not otherwise. No doubt David would rule 11 off, cashing the major suit aces and the quing of spades, and misguessing in the one-card ending which minor to keep after the defence cash the majors.

 

Oh, as an aside, let us say that a player says during the auction "I hate these French court cards". What is the penalty; and what if he says "that is an unusual logo", a remark that clearly indicates he possesses the ace of spades? Both just UI?

[Pict]

This whole thread has been, probably, as educational as I deserve.

 

However

 

One of my opponents (lols if you like) says:

 

'I prefer if you do not make claims. I find they confuse me, and I've been told I ought to call the Director if I am uncertain.'

 

This doesn't deserve a thread on it's own, and I have no doubt at all about how I would react in the real world.

 

But what is the legal position and does it change if the oppo is one of Meckwell.

[blackshoe]

If one of Meckwell asked me to not claim, I'd laugh at him — and claim if I felt like it.

 

If a lol asked me to not claim, I wouldn't. I would, however, explain that claims are legal and often desirable, that it is true she should call the TD if she's not sure a claim is valid, and that she should never, in any way, feel that she should not call the TD if she feels there's a problem. Even if (especially if?) some self-described "expert" tells her she's wasting his time.

[peachy]

But what is the legal position and does it change if the oppo is one of Meckwell.

If a many time world champion asked me not to claim, I would assume he is mentally or physically ill, maybe a stroke...

[Pict]

But  what is the legal position and does it change if the oppo is one of Meckwell.

If a many time world champion asked me not to claim, I would assume he is mentally or physically ill, maybe a stroke...

I've been slightly under the weather today.

 

There are Laws about claims and for that matter there are Laws about playing out of turn.

 

I suppose I was wondering why people feel empowered to claim, rather than being constrained by the consequences. Is there a Law that says you are entitled to curtail play, rather than a Law that says what happens when you choose to curtail play?

[nige1]

[hv=n=skjt9hkqjt98765dc&w=saqhad65432c65432&e=s2h32dakqjtcakqjt&s=s876543h4d987c987]399|300| Another amusing possibility: Here, if the ♠ finesse is forbidden to the claimer, then ♠K will usually drop off-side. If North says he will always keep his ♠ guard, however, should the director judge that the claimer will notice that ♥3 is a trick? And what if declarer's original ♥ holding were ♥Q2?

IMO, what is needed is a simpler claim law (for example BBO on-line rules).

[/hv]

[blackshoe]

I suspect what you're really looking for, Nigel, is a law that says "don't ever claim:. :)

[lamford]

I suspect what you're really looking for, Nigel, is a law that says "don't ever claim:. :blink:

No, what Nigel (might be) looking for is something like:

Defender: I object; play on please with your hand exposed; I may consult with my partner if I wish.

Declarer: Sure, and let me know when you acquiesce.

 

Indeed, I could be persuaded that this might be better.

[Trinidad]

I suppose I was wondering why people feel empowered to claim, rather than being constrained by the consequences. Is there a Law that says you are entitled to curtail play, rather than a Law that says what happens when you choose to curtail play?

It is more extreme than that: There is a law that pretty much instructs you to curtail play when possible (74B4).

 

Rik

[jdonn]

I suppose I was wondering why people feel empowered to claim, rather than being constrained by the consequences.  Is there a Law that says you are entitled to curtail play, rather than a Law that says what happens when you choose to curtail play?

At the very least it's a courtesy. If there is nothing more to think about then why make everyone sit there and toss cards? People are busy these days and have either new hands to get to or lives away from the table. It is definitely rude to not claim if the player knows better.

[nige1]

I suspect what you're really looking for, Nigel, is a law that says "don't ever claim:.  :blink:

No, what Nigel (might be) looking for is something like:

Defender: I object; play on please with your hand exposed; I may consult with my partner if I wish. Declarer: Sure, and let me know when you acquiesce.

Indeed, I could be persuaded that this might be better.

Thank you Paul. Such a rule is simpler. Players and directors can understand it. Rulings are more consistent because rarely is a director required to mind-read. And, if on-line experience is relevant, then Blackshoe may be gratified to learn that it encourages claims, (even when players don't have a common language).

 

A theoretical draw-back is that a claim may become a fishing expedition. For example, an unscrupulous expert may claim when he has a two-way finesse, in the hope that protesting beginners will give away the position of the missing honour. In practice, however, on-line players are wise to this ploy and treat it with the contempt that it deserves.

[Pict]

I suppose I was wondering why people feel empowered to claim, rather than being constrained by the consequences.  Is there a Law that says you are entitled to curtail play, rather than a Law that says what happens when you choose to curtail play?

At the very least it's a courtesy. If there is nothing more to think about then why make everyone sit there and toss cards? People are busy these days and have either new hands to get to or lives away from the table. It is definitely rude to not claim if the player knows better.

Sigh

 

My point was that if we make it hard enough to claim, no-one in their right mind would do it.

 

There may be those who think that going two off in the odd grand slam that obviously makes, is a small sacrifice to pay for faciltating speed dating for others. I don't know any of those people.

 

If we really can't ask people what they had in mind, or even play something quarter way sensible on their behalf, who would recommend claiming to a friend they wanted to keep.

[campboy]

No-one is suggesting making it hard to make correct claims. Incorrect claims, on the other hand, get evaluated to give the benefit of doubt to the innocent side -- and here there is doubt. Taking the spade finesse is not an unreasonable thing to do once you discover that you only have 12 tricks; indeed, on some similar layouts it may be the percentage play (if, for example, South started with a singleton club, you will probably get enough information from the play of the other suits to favour the finesse over the drop).

 

Honestly, this player is not going to stop claiming just because of an adverse ruling. If he is sensible, he will instead do what I do -- if you think you have 13 top tricks, count them three times before claiming.

[bluejak]

Again we get comments that suggest people have never seen a game of bridge. Claims that get discussed on forums are not typical: they are a very very small minority of all claims.

 

I claim on average seven or eight time a session, maybe 2000 times a year. The last person who challenged my claim in any meaningful way was myself, about six years ago. That's 12000 claims ago.

 

The idea that we should not claim because sometime somewhere a claim has gone wrong is so ludicrous it would be laughable if I did not have the very sad feeling it was not meant as a joke. You might as well tell people not to finesse because a finesse might lose.

[dburn]

Again we get comments that suggest people have never seen a game of bridge.  Claims that get discussed on forums are not typical: they are a very very small minority of all claims.

 

I claim on average seven or eight time a session, maybe 2000 times a year.  The last person who challenged my claim in any meaningful way was myself, about six years ago.  That's 12000 claims ago.

 

The idea that we should not claim because sometime somewhere a claim has gone wrong is so ludicrous it would be laughable if I did not have the very sad feeling it was not meant as a joke.  You might as well tell people not to finesse because a finesse might lose.

Oh, I do not suggest that one should not claim. What I do suggest is that the laws regarding claims should be so constructed that when a faulty claim occurs, it should be obvious what the ruling ought to be, and what the procedure that leads to the ruling ought to be. As this and many other cases have amply shown, this is not obvious in the least.

 

In the original case, it is quite clear to me that under the laws as presently constituted declarer is (at least) one down. It is quite clear to other people, whose ability to construe complex English phraseology is (at least) equal to mine, that he isn't. Notions of "normality", "carelessness", "inferiority", "irrationality" and (ridiculously) "equity" are bandied about, and the only thing that is clear is that these mean completely different things to different people. Noch zu, these are different people who speak as their native tongue the language in which those words are written - God help those whose task it is to translate them into other languages, and to follow such translations.

 

This is intolerable. The success or failure of any claim should not be a matter of whether jdonn or I arrive at the table to resolve the claim (whether the contract is 7NT or 2♥). It should be a matter of following, step by step, a well-formulated procedure that requires nothing whatsoever in the way of subjective judgement, and arriving at a conclusion that though it may seem unpalatable is at least objectively justifiable.

 

Nigel's idea of emulating the online claiming procedure in face-to-face bridge is, though practicably completely hopeless, at least philosophically sound. The Laws of Duplicate Bridge are the former without the redeeming feature of being the latter.