Yet another Claim

[jdonn]

Ah, the director was called about a claim by players who didn't object to the claim. Now I feel better. <_<

[blackshoe]

Where in this thread did anyone say the director was called? Certainly it wasn't in the original post.

 

If the director was called, then he wants to hear the objection. So, anyone want to take the part of the defending side here, and state an objection?

[RMB1]

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.

I do not think that Law 70E1 is relevant to this ruling so I do not think that "irrational" is the right test in this case.

 

We can use "irrational" as a label for plays that are not normal (where normal includes careless or inferior). But since the law makers deliberately removed the word from the footnote I think this is bad usage. All I can suggest is "worse than careless/inferior".

 

I am also trying to point out that "irrational" is not a useful term. Many plays are clearly simultaneously careless, inferior and irrational. Carelessness can be a reflection of failure to give sufficient thought to the correct line of play: it is careless and inferior to not realise a small card has unexpectedly become good but it is irrational not to cash it.

 

It is also both careless/inferior and irrational to play the A from A10xxx v KQ9x or from AK9xx v Qxxx.

 

I suspect the failure to remove "irrational" from Law 70E1 could be an oversight.

 

(I also suspect, as I have said elsewhere, that the right concept is "bounded rationality")

[vigfus]

Law 70.D.1. Clears it.

If declarer is a beginner, I would give him 14 tricks, just to punish the Opp's for trying to get easy score against the beginners. (Behaviour like this, makes the beginners stop entering the tournaments, when they get treatment like this.)

If declarer is not beginner, I would give him 13 tricks, (footnote 22)

[campboy]

Hmm. I think the people who are trying to give 12 tricks are taking declarer's statement too literally.

 

Declarer indicated that he knows he has more top tricks than he needs, so why on earth, knowing that, would he unblock both red suits immediately? The only possible reason for doing so would be if he was intending to try to take all 14 tricks. Now that is irrational by anyone's definition.

[lamford]

<snip> so why on earth, knowing that, would he unblock both red suits immediately? The only possible reason for doing so would be if he was intending to try to take all 14 tricks. <snip>

Have you been drinking?

 

Law 1: Duplicate Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards, and:

 

Law 44B: After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, and the four cards so played constitute a trick.

 

So, there are only 13 tricks.

[lamford]

Law 70.D.1. Clears it.

If declarer is a beginner, I would give him 14 tricks, just to punish the Opp's for trying to get easy score against the beginners. (Behaviour like this, makes the beginners stop entering the tournaments, when they get treatment like this.)

If declarer is not beginner, I would give him 13 tricks, (footnote 22)

I disagree with the method of flagrantly ignoring the Laws to try to make bridge more friendly for beginners. The opponents have done nothing wrong, and I disagree with punishing them by giving them what is clearly a (very) artificial adjusted score. If I entered an event as a beginner, and were patronised in this way, that would make me stop entering tournaments, not a correct ruling against me.

[campboy]

So, there are only 13 tricks.

 

That is the point. Declarer's statement clearly indicates that he knows he has more top tricks than he can take. So he knows he doesn't need to unblock both red suits.

[blackshoe]

Declarer's statement clearly indicates that he knows he has more top tricks than he can take. So he knows he doesn't need to unblock both red suits.

Does he? Really?

[iviehoff]

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.

I think it is implicit from the fact that the opponents have asked for an adjudication of the claim that they object to declarer being awarded the number of tricks he claims, which I take to be 13 tricks (once jocularities are translated). I think that is a sufficient objection for the director to proceed to adjudicate it in the manner the laws prescribe.

[iviehoff]

Declarer indicated that he knows he has more top tricks than he needs, so why on earth, knowing that, would he unblock both red suits immediately? The only possible reason for doing so would be if he was intending to try to take all 14 tricks. Now that is irrational by anyone's definition.

A simple way to play this hand - if you don't realise the clubs are blocked - is "cash all the winners in dummy, retaining 3 aces in hand". Unfortunately if you start with the red winners in dummy, which is what the opening lead has pushed your attention towards, it goes wrong.

 

Easy to overlook: one poster on this topic (5th post) actually asserted that the clubs aren't blocked!

[StevenG]

Easy to overlook: one poster on this topic (5th post) actually asserted that the clubs aren't blocked!

I overlooked nothing. I said that there is no blockage - perhaps that was a clumsy way of putting things, but whereas the clubs taken in isolation are blocked, there is no shortage of entries to unblock them. There is an easy route to 13 top tricks by cashing the top tricks in the right order, no top tricks have to be sacrificed to create entries (and we could afford to lose one, in any case), therefore the claim is not flawed.

[blackshoe]

I think it is implicit from the fact that the opponents have asked for an adjudication of the claim that they object to declarer being awarded the number of tricks he claims, which I take to be 13 tricks (once jocularities are translated). I think that is a sufficient objection for the director to proceed to adjudicate it in the manner the laws prescribe.

Go back and read the OP again. Where does it say the opponents asked for a judgment?

 

You are hypothesizing that the opponents object to the claim on the basis that "he doesn't have 13 tricks"? Okay, fine. Explain to me why not.

 

It's not up to the TD to do the opponents' work for them, or to guess what they mean.

 

Note: I'm not saying how I would rule with an explanation of their objection, I'm simply emphasizing the process to which you referred ("in the manner the laws prescribe").

[greenender]

I haven't changed my view that declarer should get his 13 tricks. Although I hadn't thought of it in that way, campboy's analysis makes a lot of sense.

 

However, I don't think anyone should be criticised for asking for a ruling. Whilst I personally wouldn't, that is a matter of my own philosophy of how to play the game. I would raise an eyebrow if a player of reasonable standard or better, knowing me to be of a similar standard, were to do so against me, but perhaps I shouldn't be: if I had failed to mention the club blockage, that would be evidence that I hadn't noticed it.

 

My favourite claim statement, incidentally, is the one favoured by a certain well-known member of the YC: "not doing anything ****ish".

[jdonn]

Easy to overlook: one poster on this topic (5th post) actually asserted that the clubs aren't blocked!

This is one of the more disingenuous misinterpretations of a post I've seen in some time.

[lamford]

Easy to overlook: one poster on this topic (5th post) actually asserted that the clubs aren't blocked!

This is one of the more disingenuous misinterpretations of a post I've seen in some time.

"There is no blockage" seems clear enough to me.

[bluejak]

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?

Fair, yes. Why, because I don't believe you?

 

Quite good players have blocked suits against me. I have blocked suits. The one thing you can be certain of is that when he put his hand down at trick one he had not noticed the blockage otherwise he would have mentioned it.

 

If a medium player had played this out do I believe he would have made 13 tricks 100% of the time? No. Players with obvious tricks play more carelessly: if you gave this to a 100 declarers in a game where claims were barred I bet at least two would not make 13 tricks.

 

Isn't unblocking natural for fair players? Certainly: that is why they will immediately play off the two KQs.

 

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.

Absolutely not: a lot of people start to unblock the red suits.

 

Actually, it is the poorer players who automatically play clubs first: better players think about unblocking the red suits.

[jdonn]

Easy to overlook: one poster on this topic (5th post) actually asserted that the clubs aren't blocked!

This is one of the more disingenuous misinterpretations of a post I've seen in some time.

"There is no blockage" seems clear enough to me.

That may be because both the definition of "disingeuous" and the concept of "context" elude you. Or maybe it's just because you chose to ignore that poster's later post explaining his comment.

 

 

Quite good players have blocked suits against me.  I have blocked suits.  The one thing you can be certain of is that when he put his hand down at trick one he had not noticed the blockage otherwise he would have mentioned it.

Not only am I not certain of that, I believe it's more likely untrue than true! I bet it's far more likely that, rightly or wrongly, the player simply thought that the path(s) to 13 tricks is so obvious that it didn't bear mentioning.

 

Besides, your argument is a clear oversimplification. You could use it to rule that a trick 1 claim without a clear line gets 12 tricks in notrump on the following hand:

[hv=n=sxxxxxhxxxdxxxcax&s=sakhakqjdakqjckqx]133|200|[/hv]After all you and I and all good players have blocked suits before!

[bluejak]

Where in this thread did anyone say the director was called? Certainly it wasn't in the original post.

It does not need to be, Ed. It is implicit. If you put an obvious ruling case into a rulings forum, you really do not need to say "A ruling was asked for".

 

If the director was called, then he wants to hear the objection. So, anyone want to take the part of the defending side here, and state an objection?

We know that declarer has not noticed the club blockage: he would definitely have mentioned it. Unblocking the KQs is a normal albeit careless play. So he will not make 13 tricks because he will not have the entries once he realises the problem in clubs.

[bluejak]

Not only am I not certain of that, I believe it's more likely untrue than true! I bet it's far more likely that, rightly or wrongly, the player simply thought that the path(s) to 13 tricks is so obvious that it didn't bear mentioning.

Not a chance! :D

 

Besides, your argument is a clear oversimplification. You could use it to rule that a trick 1 claim without a clear line gets 12 tricks in notrump on the following hand:

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ xxxxx ♥ xxx ♦ xxx ♣ Ax ♠ AK ♥ AKQJ ♦ AKQJ ♣ KQx

After all you and I and all good players have blocked suits before!

We use bridge judgement in making judgement rulings. Players block AKQxxx opposite T987: players do not block Ax opposite KQx. The cases bear no similarity.

[jdonn]

Not only am I not certain of that, I believe it's more likely untrue than true! I bet it's far more likely that, rightly or wrongly, the player simply thought that the path(s) to 13 tricks is so obvious that it didn't bear mentioning.

Not a chance! :D

If only this hand were not obviously made up so we could place a wager on it and ask the declarer. :D

[Vampyr]

Isn't unblocking natural for fair players?  Certainly: that is why they will immediately play off the two KQs.

Let us be honest, this is what springs to mind at first glance; it is after this that one notices the club blockage. I am sure that a declarer who has noticed the blockage would have either made a statement or played one top club before claiming.

 

Not noticing the club position until too late is not as improbable as some people here seem to think; and do not forget that this was not posed as a "problem" to declarer.

[lamford]

That may be because both the definition of "disingeuous" and the concept of "context" elude you.

Indeed. When I googled disingeuous, I got a message "We are unable to search the Klingon language".

[blackshoe]

Damned Klingons. Why can't they speak English, like everybody else? ;)

[Finch]

Of course people block suits like this. Sometimes twice at the same time.

 

A world champion blocked a suit as declarer against me. My partner didn't realise it was blocked (because he hasn't been watching the pips) and then let the contract through anyway. This was even done on vugraph, for extra embarrassment.

 

OK, the blockage was a little more subtle than the (obviously fictional) OP, but it was still single-dummy blocked.