Yet another Claim

[lamford]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s543hkqdkqcakq654&s=sak2ha32da32ct987]133|200|Scoring: IMP

1NT-4C*-4NT*-7NT (Gerber and 3 aces)[/hv]

West leads the jack of hearts and declarer claims with only the wording "I have 14 tricks". Clubs are 3-0.

[greenender]

I think I will generously allow declarer to score 13 of his 14 tricks. There is no reason to think that he is unaware of the potential blockage in ♣s, and it would not be a normal line to cash too many red winners in dummy so that the actual ♣ blockage becomes a problem.

[iviehoff]

What kind of people call the director for this one? I really want to rule 13 tricks, but on grounds of consistency find it hard to argue against a ruling of 12 tricks. I think we have to say that cashing dummy's red suit winners before tackling clubs comes in the realm of careless rather than irrational, so the ruling has to be one off.

 

If only the guy had had the sense to say "and I can point out an exact order of play if you really want".

[iviehoff]

There is no reason to think that he is unaware of the potential blockage in ♣s,

But unfortunately he didn't mention it, and thought a claim without any word of explanation was appropriate. So, resolving doubtful points in the opponents favour, I'm thinking we have to suppose he did overlook it.

[StevenG]

QUOTE (greenender @ Mar 25 2010, 02:16 PM)

There is no reason to think that he is unaware of the potential blockage in ♣s,

 

But unfortunately he didn't mention it, and thought a claim without any word of explanation was appropriate. So, resolving doubtful points in the opponents favour, I'm thinking we have to suppose he did overlook it.

Oh, this is just plain stupid. There is no blockage, there are 14 tricks on top. Why ever you should rule 12 tricks - on the grounds that declarer just might be incompetent, rather than that he didn't say something that didn't need saying - is absolutely beyond me.

[CSGibson]

The claim of 14 tricks stands - unless - wait, with the club blockage, I think I'll only allow 13 tricks.

[lamford]

What kind of people call the director for this one?

I would; and would have no qualms about doing so. And I am generally, as described on the old forum, "too generous to the claimant". And I bet you both dburn and jeremy69 would do so as well, and rule 12 tricks if called to do so.

 

Do you really think it is irrational to unblock the red suit winners before running the clubs? Oops....

 

I would also appeal if the TD awarded 13 tricks.

 

But the split views so far do show that, as dburn says, the situation is intolerable.

[blackshoe]

Oh, this is just plain stupid. There is no blockage, there are 14 tricks on top. Why ever you should rule 12 tricks - on the grounds that declarer just might be incompetent, rather than that he didn't say something that didn't need saying - is absolutely beyond me.

The problem is that it did need saying.

A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defense through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

established usage has been retained in regard to … “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)…

(The emphasis in these two quotes is mine).

 

Claimer committed an infraction in failing to state a clear line of play. Why should we allow him to benefit?

[VixTD]

I agree with one off.

[Cyberyeti]

Everybody on the planet cashes AC at trick 2 (or possibly 3 after unblocking the other heart), it is irrational to do anything else, at that point the route to 13 tricks becomes obvious.

 

I would be very surprised if you polled anybody that did anything else, so unless the standard is VERY poor, I would rule 13 tricks.

 

To rule 12 you are demanding declarer takes a line of play so poor I would deem it irrational for any but the very worst players. For most players it's about as likely as somebody throwing CJ on the first round.

[jeremy69]

You wonder sometimes what the problem is that people won't open their mouths and make some sort of statement. Yes, as suggested, I would rule this to be 12 tricks if called as a director. Declarer has shown himself to be unaware of any problem that might be caused by a club blockage. He turns up for a duplicate, reaches the grand and can't be bothered to play one card!!! (alright maybe tihs is a fictional hand)

 

What kind of people call the director for this one? I really want to rule 13 tricks, but on grounds of consistency find it hard to argue against a ruling of 12 tricks.

 

Are you suggesting bad faith? bad sportsmanship? It's not hard to construct variants of this hand where blockage problems are more subtle. I have most certainly seen players claim 6 tricks in a club suit such as the one shown where there is no entry and the blockage is unavoidable. Rarely does anyone do this deliberately but the carelessness shown in not looking deserves to be met with the appropriate adjustment (and yes I understand that we are not meting out punishment here, more's the pity.

[blackshoe]

When I looked at the hand, the first thing I thought about was the red suits: I have to play KQ in both, and then go to my hand in another suit to get the two aces. If I played this hand in my usual half-assed unthinking manner, I would have blocked the clubs.

[lamford]

Everybody on the planet cashes AC at trick 2.

Everyone on the planet claims at trick one; careful players consider the club blockage, those that don't might easily unblock the red suits first (necessary on this hand, for example, if dummy had AKx and declarer xxx).

[StevenG]

When I looked at the hand, the first thing I thought about was the red suits: I have to play KQ in both, and then go to my hand in another suit to get the two aces. If I played this hand in my usual half-assed unthinking manner, I would have blocked the clubs.

Are you really claiming to be that poor a player? I wouldn't expect anyone other than a novice to get it wrong.

[jdonn]

How would people rule if the clubs were T98765 opposite AKQJ and declarer made the same statement?

 

How about if the hand was this:

[hv=n=sxxxhkqdkqcqjt987&s=saxxhaxxdaxxcak65]133|200|[/hv]I mean he made no mention of unblocking any suits.

 

What if the clubs were AKQ987 opposite T654 and blackshoe feels he would not think of unblocking them?

[iviehoff]

What kind of people call the director for this one?

I would; and would have no qualms about doing so. And I am generally, as described on the old forum, "too generous to the claimant"....

 

I would also appeal if the TD awarded 13 tricks.

 

But the split views so far do show that, as dburn says, the situation is intolerable.

Your recent posts on claims suggest to me that you've lost some of your past generosity.

 

Does your willingness to object to this one depend upon the standard of the opposition?

 

I was of the understanding that at a sufficiently high level of contest claims there is a sort of gentleman's agreement that not much or anything in the way of explanation is required if the claim can be played out using basic technique, which this one certainly is well within. You would certainly be rocking the boat if you called the director at that level of contest.

 

But I do agree that 12 tricks is the correct ruling. So in response to Jeffrey's question, taking into account the previous paragraph, I'd say objecting to it is somewhere between bad sportsmanship and bad faith depending upon the quality of the opposition.

[RMB1]

Do you really think it is irrational to unblock the red suit winners before running the clubs?

In the natural language meaning of the word "irrational" - yes it is irrational. A rational agent would be aware of the whole hand (including the club position) and would preserve their entries as necessary. (Of course bridge players are not rational agents.)

 

But this is irrelevant for two reasons, the footnote to laws 70/71 no longer uses the word "irrational" and the WBF LC secretary tells us that "irrational" in the 1997 laws did not mean the natural language meaning of the word.

[lamford]

Your recent posts on claims suggest to me that you've lost some of your past generosity.

 

Does your willingness to object to this one depend upon the standard of the opposition?

Not so; in the example with AKx opposite Q10xx, in another thread, I would have awarded 13 tricks if the jack fell in two rounds or if the person over the Q10xx showed out on the second round. And I was positively magnanimous in awarding a trick when the king of spades was onside in dburn's example in the same thread.

So, which posts (note the plural) suggest to you that I have lost some of my past generosity?

 

Yes, the objection will indeed depend upon the standard of the opposition; but good opponents normally draw attention to the blockage themselves.

[blackshoe]

When I looked at the hand, the first thing I thought about was the red suits: I have to play KQ in both, and then go to my hand in another suit to get the two aces. If I played this hand in my usual half-assed unthinking manner, I would have blocked the clubs.

Are you really claiming to be that poor a player? I wouldn't expect anyone other than a novice to get it wrong.

Why in Hell would I lie about something like that?

 

Most of the time, I would get it right, because I do try to stop and think before I act. But sometimes I'm tired, or otherwise disengaged, and I screw up. If that makes me a novice, so be it.

[mjj29]

Sure you can say "they should have made a proper claim statement" or at least "avoiding blockages", but seriously, in what way is this not completely obviously all the tricks.

[lamford]

Do you really think it is irrational to unblock the red suit winners before running the clubs?

In the natural language meaning of the word "irrational" - yes it is irrational. A rational agent would be aware of the whole hand (including the club position) and would preserve their entries as necessary. (Of course bridge players are not rational agents.)

 

But this is irrelevant for two reasons, the footnote to laws 70/71 no longer uses the word "irrational" and the WBF LC secretary tells us that "irrational" in the 1997 laws did not mean the natural language meaning of the word.

70E1 still includes irrational at the end for an unstated line of play. You are saying therefore that the rationality test only applies if the line's success or failure depends on the opponent having a particular card! It looks to me as though that was an irrational missed in the editing stage.

[jdonn]

So the laws say we have to give declarer (whether he is a novice or not) the result that only a novice could achieve, a minority of the time, on a bad day where he is tired or not paying attention. Seems fair to me. Why don't we poor sugar in his gas tank afterwards to really rub it in?

[blackshoe]

So the laws say we have to give declarer (whether he is a novice or not) the result that only a novice could achieve, a minority of the time, on a bad day where he is tired or not paying attention. Seems fair to me. Why don't we poor sugar in his gas tank afterwards to really rub it in?

Because that would be stupid, childish, and a violation of state law.

[jdonn]

Ok let's try that last one again since the lawyers are in the house taking everything literally.

 

So the laws say we have to give declarer (whether he is a novice or not) the result that only a novice could achieve, a minority of the time, on a bad day where he is tired or not paying attention. Does that seem fair? If so, why?

[blackshoe]

Let's see what happens when we follow the laws...

 

Law 68A tells us that declarer has claimed.

Law 68C tells us that declarer should have included "a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played". He didn't do that, so we have an infraction of law.

The Introduction to the laws tells us that this infraction jeopardizes declarer's rights. What rights? His rights under the law.

Law 68D tells us that if a player objects to the claim, the director should be called, and he should apply Law 70.

Law 70A says "the director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides". Note that this is a right which declarer has jeopardized by failing to follow Law 68C.

Law 70B2 says "next, the director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim". So, let's see. Have we heard any objections from the opponents? No? Okay, no problem. 13 tricks to declarer.

 

Next case! <_<