Claim

[Phil]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt2h52d7ckjt432&n=skj43ha63dak2ca75]133|200[/hv]

 

South plays in 7♠ on a heart lead, draws trump in three rounds, plays the ♣A (nothing interesting happens) and says: "Clubs are good".

 

Would you allow this claim if the ♣Q drops doubleton in West?

 

Thanks

[Phil]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt2h52d7ckjt432&n=skj43ha63dak2ca75]133|200[/hv]

 

South plays in 7♠ on a heart lead, draws trump in three rounds, plays the ♣A (nothing interesting happens) and says: "Clubs are good".

 

Would you allow this claim if the ♣Q drops doubleton in West?

 

Thanks

[blackshoe]

Yes.

[RMB1]

Yes.

No. Law 70E1. This law used to be headed "Unstated Line of Play (Finesse or Drop)" and I believe it still applies to finesse-or-drop situations: you can't get them right unless you can't get them wrong.

 

I think ACBL has a "from the top down" regulation under Law 70E2. Perhaps this changes things, I have not read the regulation. But I think "from the top down" should only apply playing a suit from one hand, not where there is an opportunity to play to the suit.

[StevenG]

Surely "clubs are good" means "play clubs from the top down".

[iviehoff]

Surely "clubs are good" means "play clubs from the top down".

No. "Clubs are good" actually means "I can't reliably count to 13". The fact is, clubs can't be known to be good.(*) He probably thinks he has shown from cashing tha A that clubs break 2-1, so the Q is falling. But when he plays a small club from dummy, RHO will play a small club, which will demonstrate that clubs are not breaking 2-1. He will now realise he has a decision to make. Law requires that he be deemed to make the wrong decision (70E1). Formal assumptions that players play suits from the top are not for situations such as this - they are to ensure that a player holding AKQx with only one outstanding card does not play his 2.

 

But I'd come to the same conclusion even without visible evidence of mis-thinking. Unless someone clearly sets out their line of play, someone who makes an illogical claim that relies on a (lucky) miscalculation is always liable to wake up to their miscalculation, and thus the plausible but unsuccessful line remains open to them.

 

(*) And a logician might point out that from a false statement we can make any deduction we choose.

[blackshoe]

No. Law 70E1. This law used to be headed "Unstated Line of Play (Finesse or Drop)" and I believe it still applies to finesse-or-drop situations: you can't get them right unless you can't get them wrong.

 

I think ACBL has a "from the top down" regulation under Law 70E2. Perhaps this changes things, I have not read the regulation. But I think "from the top down" should only apply playing a suit from one hand, not where there is an opportunity to play to the suit.

 

I am in the ACBL. So is Phil, who posted this problem. The ACBL does have such a regulation. Whatever you may think, the regulation doesn't say that. So I replied "yes", and I'm sticking to that.

 

If the venue had been somewhere else, no doubt I might have a different answer.

[bluejak]

Perhaps you could just post the regulation so we could look at the wording. But remember that such a regulation is made under Law 70E2 which includes "(but always subject to any other requirement of this law)" so I agree with Robin's reasoning: Law 70E1 cannot be superseded by a regulation under Law 70E2 and we give the defence a trick even in the ACBL.

[Phil]

LAW 70

CONTESTED CLAIM OR CONCESSION

A. General Objective

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.

 

The Director proceeds as follows.

 

B. Clarification Statement Repeated

 

1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification

statement he made at the time of his claim.

 

2. Next, the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim, but the Director’s considerations

are not limited only to the opponents’ objections.

 

3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table.

 

C. There Is an Outstanding Trump

 

When a trump remains in one of the opponents’ hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to

the opponents if:

 

1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and

 

2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an

opponent’s hand, and

 

3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal*

play.

 

D. Director’s Considerations

 

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.

 

2. The Director shall not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner’s selecting

a particular play from among alternative normal* plays.

 

3. In accordance with Law 68D, play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the

claim, this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The Director

may accept it as evidence of the players’ probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy

of the claim.

 

E. Unstated Line of Play

 

1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends

upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to

follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

2. The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g., “from the top down”) in which the Director

shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to

any other requirement of this law).

 

* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

 

The boldface is unclear to me. The ACBL publishes this document, so why not just say "in the case of an unstated line of play, declarer is deemed to play a suit from the top down". They are the regulating authority, and its not like they can allow units to modify this section.

 

Move to "Changing the Rules"?

[blackshoe]

They certainly could have made this election at the back of the law book, as they've done for other laws. Or they could leave it to regulation, which is what I believe they have done. Unfortunately, I can't find the regulation at the moment. An old version of the Tech Files, which is online, says

The order of play of non-trump suits should be the worst possible for claimer (although play within the suit is normally from the top down).

Looks like I may have to change my position. But not yet. I'm still looking. B)

[AndreSteff]

Perhaps unwise from me to go against the opinion of the heavyweights, but I too cannot understand the statement "Clubs are good" as anything else as : "I will play the King next, dropping the Queen". As this happens to be so, declarer would escape with thirteen tricks on my watch.

 

Please expose the fallacy in this reasoning. I tried to understand ivieoff's reasoning that on seeing RHO follow suit on the second round of clubs declarer would realise that the suit would not be divided 1-2, but I failed.

[nige1]

1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends

upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to

follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

2. The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g., "from the top down") in which the Director

shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to

any other requirement of this law) .

Another of Bluejak's 30 second contested-claim rulings? A simple basic case of the application of 70E1? Unanimous verdict? :) :) :)

[bluejak]

I tried to understand ivieoff's reasoning that on seeing RHO follow suit on the second round of clubs declarer would realise that the suit would not be divided 1-2, but I failed.

When a suit is divided 2-1, and the relevant cards are queen and two small cards, you play a round and then start another. At this point you have seen two small cards, so the next card must perforce be the queen. When it is not, you reconsider your basic premise, namely that the suit is breaking 2-1.

[barmar]

I interpret ACBL's election as clarifying the case where you have a running suit with a hole in it, e.g. ♠AKQTxx and you say "spades are good". In the past, people have said that if you do this while the Jack is still out, the opponents are entitled to it, because if you thought they were good you might just as well play them from the bottom as the top.

 

It's not as clear how to apply this election when you have to play a suit from two hands. Obviously when you play the Ace from dummy you're not expected to play the King from hand, so you're not playing both hands from the top down simultaneously. If you played it out you would play high from one hand and low from the other, occasionally going back and forth as each hand becomes high. Do you think ACBL's election applies to this?

[blackshoe]

Well, at that point, all you can conclude is that there's at least one more card out, and you have no idea where it is.

[AndreSteff]

When a suit is divided 2-1, and the relevant cards are queen and two small cards, you play a round and then start another. At this point you have seen two small cards, so the next card must perforce be the queen. When it is not, you reconsider your basic premise, namely that the suit is breaking 2-1.

 

Of course! I surrender B)