Another Claim

[mfa1010]

I agree, the TD decides what is normal given that he forgot about the trump. But here there are no trumps, and no stated line of play. Nothing in the Laws permits the TD to decide on how this particular declarer was going to play the hand. Indeed, the declarer is allowed to introduce an unstated line of play, such as "playing the spades from the top", if the TD decides that failure to adopt that line would be irrational. 71.2 makes it clear that declarer can withdraw his concession of one down, if a trick could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. No, there is nothing in the Laws at all which require - even permit - the TD to guess how this particular declarer was going to play the hand based on any remarks he might or might not have made. The sole requirement of the TD is to establish, for this class of player, the least favourable normal line.

 

The class of player was presumably intermediate. The beginner would play out the winners and hope the long spade was good. The expert would (I hope) claim immediately. The true expert would recite, like a congregation chanting the Lord's prayer, "ace of spades, king of spades, queen of spades, jack of spades, ten of spades, spade, ace of hearts, king of diamonds, queen of diamonds, diamond to the ace, club to the king and the ace of clubs,", conforming with 68C and ideally without pausing for breath so that Mr Burn cannot give him a slow play fine. However, the normal line for the intermediate player is, as you know, I know, and everyone else knows to play out the thirteen winners in order. The normal line for some idiot that miscounts the spades could be anything, but that is not what the TD is supposed to impose. He is supposed, nay required, to give "this class of player" (not this confused player) normal play. And for every class of player, normal play does not include ridiculous lines of losing a club at trick thirteen.

 

And for the avoidance of doubt, I disagree that the principle of normal lines does not apply where there is a concrete claim statement. Where do the Laws say that? 70D1 indicates to the contrary - that clearly applies the test of normality to the statement itself. So, if declarer had stated "I will give you a spade", again that would not be a normal line, and the contract would still make! I believe the old rules had something like "in strict accordance with his statement" - but that is no longer there, so the HH and SB tussles have lost a bit as a result.

I don't have energy to pursue this further, but just a final remark:

 

I think my standpoint is pretty uncontroversial. When declarer says something clear, then that applies. When he says or indicates nothing, then normal play applies. When he says or indicates something unclear, then the general principle in 70A is used to resolve the unclear matter against the claimer. Normal plays takes over in all the aspects that remain unresolved.

 

In this case we are all interpreting declarers claim - the timing and his statement - as an indication that he thinks the spades are not cashing. 70A is then used to rule that this means that he is not intending to cash the 6th spade just like that (just as if he had said so explicitely) and we now have to look for normal lines* in that context.

 

*We resort to normal play in that aspect because he has not indicated how he intends to cash out.

[barmar]

Maybe we should rule that he ducks a spade at trick 2 to rectify the count. :)

[lamford]

I think my standpoint is pretty uncontroversial. When declarer says something clear, then that applies.

Where do you find that in the Laws? Only if what he says is a normal line. The declarer always gets the only normal line, whatever drivel he spouts out. I see the corollary of 70D1:

"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." as

If there is no alternative normal line of play that would be less successful, the director will accept from claimer a successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement." Some would substitute "may" for "will" in that corollary. And similarly for 71E1 where there is no stated line. I don't know why you continue to make a statement, which you cite as uncontroversial, which is at variance with the Laws.

 

And where do the Laws give the TD the power to decide how declarer was going to play the hand?

[lamford]

I don't have energy to pursue this further <snip>

Good.

[mfa1010]

I don't have energy to pursue this further <snip>

Good.

Was that really necessary? I'm here to learn, maybe you are not, but you have not so far convinced me in this thread. So I don't write "I agree" when I don't.

 

Where do you find that in the Laws? Only if what he says is a normal line. The declarer always gets the only normal line, whatever drivel he spouts out. I see the corollary of 70D1:

"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." as

If there is no alternative normal line of play that would be less successful, the director will accept from claimer a successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement." Some would substitute "may" for "will" in that corollary. And similarly for 71E1 where there is no stated line. I don't know why you continue to make a statement, which you cite as uncontroversial, which is at variance with the Laws.

 

And where do the Laws give the TD the power to decide how declarer was going to play the hand?

Your corollary is a logical misunderstanding. It is like saying: A=>B means not A=>not B.

 

I think you are cycling through the laws but are taking the eye off the ball underway. 70D1 is about resolving unclear matter. This follows from last sentence of 70A. 70A is the main rule and that is what I am basing my reasoning on.

 

Try this example (unrelated to OP):

Declarer has the rest in icecold top tricks, but says: "I claim the rest through a diamond finesse (the king must be onside after the bidding)". Declarer is having a blind spot. When the finesse loses and not cashing out from the top should (in this situation) clearly be deemed as worse than normal play - would you then override his stated line of play and give him the rest?

 

I say no, law 70A, and that is what I find uncontroversial.

 

I think my standpoint is pretty uncontroversial. When declarer says something clear, then that applies.

[mfa1010]

And where do the Laws give the TD the power to decide how declarer was going to play the hand?

70A gives TD the right to resolve unclear matter. TD can't invent something completely out of the blue, and I never said he could. I said that when an aspect is not covered by the claimer's statement or indication then normal play applies.

[lamford]

Try this example (unrelated to OP):

Declarer has the rest in icecold top tricks, but says: "I claim the rest through a diamond finesse (the king must be onside after the bidding)". Declarer is having a blind spot. When the finesse loses and not cashing out from the top should (in this situation) clearly be deemed as worse than normal play - would you then override his stated line of play and give him the rest?

I say no, law 70A, and that is what I find uncontroversial.

Here we agree, but the diamond finesse is a "normal" line. If the declarer has a stated line of play, then it will almost always be deeemed a normal line. The exception seems to be when it is either impossible or an obvious slip of the tongue. But that does not extend to imposing an unstated line that can be deduced from the declarer's state of mind. You have added the word "indication" to your interpretation of 70A. That is not there, and changes the meaning.

[lamford]

Your corollary is a logical misunderstanding. It is like saying: A=>B means not A=>not B.

Law is not interpreted in quite the same way as mathematics. If a sign states "Vehicles without a street trader's permit are not allowed in this space on match days," this is interpreted as "Vehicles with a street trader's permit are allowed in this space on match days". So we have:

 

"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."

 

That makes it clear what the director does if there is an alternative normal line of play etc. If there is no alternative normal line of play, it is left understood that the director will accept a succesful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is no alternative normal line of play.

[campboy]

Law is not interpreted in quite the same way as mathematics. If a sign states "Vehicles without a street trader's permit are not allowed in this space on match days," this is interpreted as "Vehicles with a street trader's permit are allowed in this space on match days". So we have:

 

"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."

 

That makes it clear what the director does if there is an alternative normal line of play etc. If there is no alternative normal line of play, it is left understood that the director will accept a succesful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is no alternative normal line of play.

Utter nonsense. Your interpretation of law would, if translated into your sign analogy, be "all vehicles with a permit are required to be parked here on match days".

 

The law implies -- and even that only in a loose sense -- merely that under some circumstances (which may be further restricted by other laws) the director may accept such a line.

 

Incidentally, if you don't want people to interpret something in a purely logical way then avoiding using words like "corollary" might help.

[lamford]

I think, as Alex Ferguson said today about the referee, that we don't need to comment on that - let others judge for themselves whether what you claim about the sign can be concluded.

 

I sampled six dictionaries for the meaning of corollary (not in mathematics) and they all gave something along the lines of "a statement that follows readily from a previous statement." The idea that the sign would be interpreted in the way you suggest is, er, utter nonsense. And why should the mathematical meaning of corollary be assumed?

 

I agree that the statement: "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." makes no statement about what happens if there is no alternative line of play that is less successful. No other Law makes provision for such a case, and it follows that the director will accept the only normal line. Especially as he bound to adjudicate as equitably as possible.

[campboy]

I think, as Alex Ferguson said today about the referee, that we don't need to comment on that - let others judge for themselves whether what you claim about the sign can be concluded.

 

I sampled six dictionaries for the meaning of corollary (not in mathematics) and they all gave something along the lines of "a statement that follows readily from a previous statement." The idea that the sign would be interpreted in the way you suggest is, er, utter nonsense. And why should the mathematical meaning of corollary be assumed?

Firstly, since corollary is a technical term which is rarely used outside of a technical context it is at least reasonable for people to interpret it that way, particularly if their background is in that area. I am not saying you should not use it with a different meaning, merely that if you do you can hardly blame people for reading it as having its mathematical meaning (which is meaning #1 in my dictionary and, I imagine, almost all others).

 

Secondly, of course it is ridiculous to interpret the sign as I suggested. That is my point; the ridiculous interpretation of the sign exactly parallels your interpretation of the law. Can you not see that saying X may not be done if Y suggests no more than that X may be done if not Y? If you assume from the sign that vehicles with a permit may park there on match days (which is an overassumption as there may be another sign saying, for example, that vehicles over a certain height may not park) then the parallel in law is to assume that the TD may accept the line in any circumstances where that law does not prohibit it.

[bluejak]

I use corollary in a non-technical way, and in my experience others do as well.

[lamford]

then the parallel in law is to assume that the TD may accept the line in any circumstances where that law does not prohibit it.

I already wrote earlier "Some would substitute "may" for "will" in that corollary" and fully accept the above. There does not seem to be a Law which prevents the TD accepting the only normal line - so that, in practice, is what the TD will do. I understand that the WBFLC regard the claim statement as automatically a "normal" line - but others might confirm that.

 

And your definition of corollary, where it comes first, has a subheading "Mathematics", so I think bluejak's view is mainstream.

[iviehoff]

"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."

 

That makes it clear what the director does if there is an alternative normal line of play etc.

No, it says what the director does if the claimant seeks present an alternative line of play as justification for a number tricks, where "alternative" means other than what he said in his statement. Of course if the claim statement is incomplete, incoherent, etc, then any possible line of play is an alternative line of play, and therefore the claimant is implicitly relying upon some alternative line. In the event that the claimant has given an adequate specification of a line of play, and does not attempt to rely upon any other, then the TD does not even apply this law.

[lamford]

No, it says what the director does if the claimant seeks present an alternative line of play as justification for a number tricks, where "alternative" means other than what he said in his statement.

I think alternative means "an alternative to the line that the claimant seeks to present". Let us say that the declarer states line 1 - "drawing trumps". He realises that there are no-trumps and now states line 2 "knocking out the ace of clubs". Are you saying that the test is whether there is a line other than Line 1 - in effect a line 3 - that would be less successful? That is certainly not my reading of it. But it makes no real difference - I think that he gets the worst of all normal lines anyway.

 

I believe that the WBFLC policy is to impose a line that is not normal, if that was part of the claim, even though I believe 70A and 70D1 allow the TD to replace a stated line that is not normal with the only normal line.

[iviehoff]

I believe that the WBFLC policy is to impose a line that is not normal, if that was part of the claim, even though I believe 70A and 70D1 allow the TD to replace a stated line that is not normal with the only normal line.

That is my understanding also. It isn't the only part of the laws where the official interpretation is to do the sensible thing rather than what it actually says.