Slip of a Forked Tongue

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=st752hak42dkjtc32&n=saqhqj3daq94cakqt&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1np7nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

West led the ten of hearts, and South claimed with the statement "Taking the club finesse unless the jack of clubs comes down". (sic)

 

How would you rule

a) if West has the king of spades and East has jack to four clubs?

b ) if East has the king of spades and West has jack to four clubs?

[RMB1]

How would you rule

a) if West has the king of spades and East has jack to four clubs?

b) if East has the king of spades and West has jack to four clubs?

How about:

c) if East has singleton king of spades and West has jack to five clubs?

 

I would look to Law 70E1. An unstated line of play is along the lines of HQJ, CAKQ, DKJAQ, HAK throwing C10 unless CJ has appeared, then either taking the spade finesse or playing SA if West is known to not have SK. Are alternative lines irrational?

 

The law does not ask us to accept an unstated line of play, if the stated line is irrational (or inconsistent).

[mgoetze]

West led the ten of hearts, and South claimed with the statement "Taking the club finesse unless the jack of clubs comes down". (sic)

 

i.e. he is going to play a high club, cross to hand and play a club to the 10. He has 12 top tricks and is trying to get the 13th on the ♣10.

 

How would you rule

a) if West has the king of spades and East has jack to four clubs?

b ) if East has the king of spades and West has jack to four clubs?

 

a. the club finesse fails, down one

b. the club finesse wins, making

 

I don't see how the the king of spades matters?

[Coelacanth]

i.e. he is going to play a high club, cross to hand and play a club to the 10. He has 12 top tricks and is trying to get the 13th on the ♣10.

 

 

 

a. the club finesse fails, down one

b. the club finesse wins, making

 

I don't see how the the king of spades matters?

It doesn't matter in the two given scenarios. If East has SIX clubs to the jack, so that West shows out when declarer leads toward the KQT, then it might matter.

[lamford]

The problem is that he HAS stated a line of play, which is to take the club finesse if the jack of clubs does not fall. The only way he can play in accordance with his statement is to cash a top club and later finesse the jack. Around 51%. Not as good as cashing the top clubs and then hooking the spade, but that is unstated, so he cannot do that!

 

He clearly intended to say finessing the spade if the jack of clubs does not drop, but in a claim it is just tough. And tough on East with the king of spades and West with jack to four clubs.

[blackshoe]

The line of play is win trick one, take the ♣A, return to hand, take the club finesse. If it wins, he makes his contract. If not, he doesn't. That there are better lines of play is irrelevant. This is the one he chose. If the ♣J is stiff, the ♣10 is his 13th trick, pitching the ♠Q.

[Bbradley62]

withdrawn...

[lamford]

How about:

c) if East has singleton king of spades and West has jack to five clubs?

 

I would look to Law 70E1. An unstated line of play is along the lines of HQJ, CAKQ, DKJAQ, HAK throwing C10 unless CJ has appeared, then either taking the spade finesse or playing SA if West is known to not have SK. Are alternative lines irrational?

 

The law does not ask us to accept an unstated line of play, if the stated line is irrational (or inconsistent).

 

But it does allow the claimer an unstated line, not embraced by the original statement, if the stated line is irrational. I have actually changed my view now, and believe that the statement itself, where the clearly right line is to take the spade finesse if the jack of clubs did not drop, makes the only normal line for this class of player cashing three clubs and taking the spade finesse. How would you rule if he had said "taking the heart finesse if the jack of clubs does not drop". Or if he had said "cashing four rounds of clubs and taking the spade finesse if the jack of clubs has not dropped."?

[blackshoe]

Those are different scenarios, which means the ruling might well be different from the ruling in the original case.

[lamford]

Those are different scenarios, which means the ruling might well be different from the ruling in the original case.

 

I agree, but the principle is the same; if the stated line is irrational but legal, is the claimer allowed to substitute another line? 70E1 seems to say "yes". The statement "taking the club finesse if the jack of clubs does not drop" is just gobbledygook although legal.

[mgoetze]

But it does allow the claimer an unstated line, not embraced by the original statement, if the stated line is irrational. I have actually changed my view now, and believe that the statement itself, where the clearly right line is to take the spade finesse if the jack of clubs did not drop, makes the only normal line for this class of player cashing three clubs and taking the spade finesse.

 

Actually, if East shows out on one of the first three rounds of clubs, the clearly right line is to play for a squeeze. I don't believe that the definition of "irrational" should depend on "the class of the player".

[Bbradley62]

Following South's claim, did East say "Down one, since I the club finesse fails"? When did the director get called?

[lamford]

At the table, West had the Jxxx clubs and East Kxx of spades. West replied "The jack of clubs does not fall and I assume you mean the spade finesse, and that fails too." The director was then called, and ruled ...

 

And I think the show-up squeeze is exactly the same as cashing the clubs and taking the spade finesse (when, as here, everyone follows to three clubs). A country mile ahead of the stated line.

[Bbradley62]

At the table, West had the Jxxx clubs and East Kxx of spades. West replied "The jack of clubs does not fall and I assume you mean the spade finesse, and that fails too." The director was then called, and ruled ...

 

And I think the show-up squeeze is exactly the same a cashing the clubs and taking the spade finesse. A country mile ahead of the stated line.

I certainly allow South to say "I meant exactly what I said"! West should have called the director without saying anything about the lay of the cards.

[pran]

This discussion is strange:

 

Please show where the laws allow the Director to deviate from an unambiguous claim statement on the ground that the stated line of play is irrational?

 

(And a line of play that has 51% probability of success can hardly be ruled irrational)

[lamford]

I certainly allow South to say "I meant exactly what I said"! West should have called the director without saying anything about the lay of the cards.

 

The problem with this is that you create an Irrational Coup, a distant cousin of the Alcatraz Coup. If the jack of clubs falls or the king of spades is onside, a non-SB West would not contest the claim. Indeed I would regard it as not the way to play bridge as South clearly meant the spade finesse.

 

A South who tries to get away with "I meant exactly what I said" is lying. He knows that he has made a slip of the tongue, and now knows that pretending that he did not is going to work to his benefit.

[lamford]

This discussion is strange:

 

Please show where the laws allow the Director to deviate from an unambiguous claim statement on the ground that the stated line of play is irrational?

 

(And a line of play that has 51% probability of success can hardly be ruled irrational)

 

Law 70E1. And a line of play that is over 99% could be irrational, so your argument is ridiculous. Say that you hold twelve solid spades and the singleton ace of hearts. You are in seven spades on a minor suit lead. If you lead the ace of hearts it is ruffed, but you claim instead. Not drawing the single outstanding trump first would be irrational. And 70C2 is clear on this.

[Bbradley62]

The problem with this is that you create an Irrational Coup, a distant cousin of the Alcatraz Coup. If the jack of clubs falls or the king of spades is onside, a non-SB West would not contest the claim. Indeed I would regard it as not the way to play bridge as South clearly meant the spade finesse.

 

A South who tries to get away with "I meant exactly what I said" is lying. He knows that he has made a slip of the tongue, and now knows that pretending that he did not is going to work to his benefit.

But we don't play according to what people meant; we play according to what people said.

[lamford]

But we don't play according to what people meant; we play according to what people said.

And the primary approach to claims is: "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."

 

It is a complete myth to think that a line cannot be irrational because the claimer stated it. In fact 70D1 and 70E1 indicate the contrary.

 

And when it comes to a card called from dummy, we play according to what people incontovertibly meant, not what they said, in general, so your argument is invalid.

[bluejak]

If the club jack does not fall, I allow him to succeed or fail on the position of the ♠K. If it is singleton offside, fine, he loses to it.

[blackshoe]

I don't see how anyone can claim "south clearly meant the spade finesse", when he didn't say anything of the kind. The TD cannot put words in a player's mouth. Nor do an opponent's assumptions mean anything. Claimer stated a line of play. That line is clear, as I posted earlier. If the J doesn't fall on the first round of clubs, take the club finesse. If it works, and here it does, the claim is valid.

[bluejak]

He has said a line of play, but you have assumed a different line which he neither said nor meant, and that is not how claims are ruled.

 

Unlike other things in the Laws, we are not bound to follow an imperfect claim statement. There is plenty of precedent that we do not assume an imperfect claim statement means an imperfect claim. Law 70A allows the TD latitude to use common sense in a way not allowed by other Laws.

 

If you know what the player meant, you are always allowed to rule on whether that is an imperfect claim or not. Here we know, so we rule on that basis.

[blackshoe]

It's late and I'm tired. Apparently I need to reread the thread. Certainly one of us does. :) But I'm going to bed now. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow.

[Zelandakh]

If you know what the player meant, you are always allowed to rule on whether that is an imperfect claim or not. Here we know, so we rule on that basis.

How do you know what he meant? Perhaps LHO did not hold her/his cards up and declarer saw CJ there. I think it is fine for either defender, or for the TD, to ask if his line of play is 1 round of clubs followed by club to the 10. I do believe it is right to simply assume that the stated line of play was mis-stated. I think West's actual query: "I assume you mean the spade finesse?" essentially suggesting a losing alternative, sounds like something from a Victor Mollo book.

[gordontd]

If the club jack does not fall, I allow him to succeed or fail on the position of the ♠K. If it is singleton offside, fine, he loses to it.

He has said a line of play, but you have assumed a different line which he neither said nor meant, and that is not how claims are ruled.

 

To the contrary, David, it seems that you have assumed a different line from that which he said.

 

Unlike other things in the Laws, we are not bound to follow an imperfect claim statement. There is plenty of precedent that we do not assume an imperfect claim statement means an imperfect claim. Law 70A allows the TD latitude to use common sense in a way not allowed by other Laws.

 

If you know what the player meant, you are always allowed to rule on whether that is an imperfect claim or not. Here we know, so we rule on that basis.

 

How do you know that the player meant what you think, when it differs from what he clearly said?