Claim in a grand slam

[cherdano]

Indeed. But do you see any such ("normal") lines here?

Run the spades, pitching all minor suit "losers" from dummy, cross to the king of hearts.

[RMB1]

Run the spades, pitching all minor suit "losers" from dummy, cross to the king of hearts.

Indeed. While West comes down to -/Jxxx/K/K (without looking uncomfortable :)).

[bluejak]

At a lower level I might rule down one, but in the top league I would give him the contract:

All three finesses work as do all possible squeeze variants.

 

Then we wonder why average players think that tournament directors operate of the elite, by the elite and for the elite, and wish that they shall perish from this earth.

That is entirely unfair. There are also many cases where we rule in favour of the poor player, and against the expert. A notable example is the "protect yourself" type of case.

 

At such times expert players "think that tournament directors operate of the mediocre, by the mediocre and for the mediocre, and wish that they shall perish from this earth".

[bluejak]

The Director must adjudicate the claim on what will happen during all possible normal lines of play as the cards lie. East with his holding of cards has no part in this.

Indeed. So you are assuming that the TD will play it double dummy for declarer?

 

If you do that I might actually have some sympathy with Steph's comment. But the vast majority of TDs will not, fortunately.

[pran]

The Director must adjudicate the claim on what will happen during all possible normal lines of play as the cards lie. East with his holding of cards has no part in this.

 

 

Indeed. So you are assuming that the TD will play it double dummy for declarer?

Certainly not. But I still haven't found any "normal" line of play where a player at this level would fail to make his grand as the cards lie.

 

Show me one and I will (of course) rule a failing claim.

[RMB1]

What is wrong with the line of play I gave? This seems "normal" for a player at any level who miscounted his tricks.

 

Or who thought ♥Jxxx was an impossible holding.

[cherdano]

Certainly not. But I still haven't found any "normal" line of play where a player at this level would fail to make his grand as the cards lie.

 

Show me one and I will (of course) rule a failing claim.

What is wrong with the line of play I gave? This seems "normal" for a player at any level who miscounted his tricks.

[pran]

Certainly not. But I still haven't found any "normal" line of play where a player at this level would fail to make his grand as the cards lie.

 

Show me one and I will (of course) rule a failing claim.

 

 

What is wrong with the line of play I gave? This seems "normal" for a player at any level who miscounted his tricks.

That is what I might consider "normal" for a player at a lower level, but at this level I would be extremely surprised if the player didn't automatically (almost without thinking) cash his two minor Aces before running spades. The position will then be ♥KT,♦Q and ♣Q in North and the four hearts in South. A small heart to the King now ends the board unless one defender holds ♥Jxxx and the other both minor Kings. Even I would make that play automatically, and I am definitely not a top level player.

[cherdano]

That is what I might consider "normal" for a player at a lower level, but at this level I would be extremely surprised if the player didn't automatically (almost without thinking) cash his two minor Aces before running spades. The position will then be ♥KT,♦Q and ♣Q in North and the four hearts in South. A small heart to the King now ends the board unless one defender holds ♥Jxxx and the other both minor Kings. Even I would make that play automatically, and I am definitely not a top level player.

That would look pretty silly if LHO had all the hearts, and RHO the minors suit kings.

 

(Btw, this is just Germany's first league, not the "top level". I don't know how good you are, but I assume your declarer play beats that of an average player in Germany's first league who has just miscounted his tricks.)

[pran]

A declarer in the top national German league has to play 7NT on a ♠ lead:

(Btw, this is just Germany's first league, not the "top level". I don't know how good you are, but I assume your declarer play beats that of an average player in Germany's first league who has just miscounted his tricks.)

:unsure:

[iviehoff]

That is what I might consider "normal" for a player at a lower level, but at this level I would be extremely surprised if the player didn't automatically (almost without thinking) cash his two minor Aces before running spades. The position will then be ♥KT,♦Q and ♣Q in North and the four hearts in South. A small heart to the King now ends the board unless one defender holds ♥Jxxx and the other both minor Kings. Even I would make that play automatically, and I am definitely not a top level player.

It is a normal line, but who cares? It is not the only "normal" line in the sense meant in the laws, which includes "careless" and "inferior". Moreover it is not a 100% line, and it isn't usual to claim all the tricks without qualification when you don't have a 100% line. So it is unlikely that is what he had in mind when he claimed.

[lamford]

It is a normal line, but who cares? It is not the only "normal" line in the sense meant in the laws, which includes "careless" and "inferior". Moreover it is not a 100% line, and it isn't usual to claim all the tricks without qualification when you don't have a 100% line. So it is unlikely that is what he had in mind when he claimed.

The failing line of cashing both minor aces, king of spades and then, say, ace of hearts, king of hearts, weighs in at over 85% and is certainly only inferior. I am not sure what the best line is, as it will be hard to squeeze East discarding after dummy, but playing it as a double squeeze is, I believe, a little over 90%. How anybody can give declarer this contract is beyond me. I would rule against a World Champion here.

[Jeremy69A]

7NT down 1. I couldn't find a line(but thanks to DBurn for trying)for more than one down. Reason for one down: Declarer did not state a line. He showed no appreciation that a squeeze might be on. At least he did not try to draw trumps in 7NT which is good.

I would not give him a PP becuasewe 68A says "A contestant also claims when he suggest play be curtalied or when he shows his cards....." He did this so where is the breach? When he fails to state any line he is putting himself in the lap of the gods. Given the comments here some gods are preferable to find oneself in the lap of than others.

[pran]

That is what I might consider "normal" for a player at a lower level, but at this level I would be extremely surprised if the player didn't automatically (almost without thinking) cash his two minor Aces before running spades. The position will then be ♥KT,♦Q and ♣Q in North and the four hearts in South. A small heart to the King now ends the board unless one defender holds ♥Jxxx and the other both minor Kings. Even I would make that play automatically, and I am definitely not a top level player.

It is a normal line, but who cares? It is not the only "normal" line in the sense meant in the laws, which includes "careless" and "inferior". Moreover it is not a 100% line, and it isn't usual to claim all the tricks without qualification when you don't have a 100% line. So it is unlikely that is what he had in mind when he claimed.

I am not saying that it is the only "normal" line, but IMHO it is definitely not "normal" for a player at this level to just run all his spades without first getting rid of his two minor aces and have the minor Queens for a possible squeeze. If either defender holds both the hearts and at least one of the minor Kings the squeeze will show off by itself.

 

Other "normal" (although inferior) lines of play include trying one of the minor suit finesses, but as I have said before: I have yet to see a "normal" line that will fail as the cards lie.

 

According to Law 70 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. Correspondingly, if the Director is unable to find any such alternative and less successful "normal" line of play he must accept the claim, even if the claim statement is unsatisfactory in any way.

[bluejak]

I am not saying that it is the only "normal" line, but IMHO it is definitely not "normal" for a player at this level to just run all his spades without first getting rid of his two minor aces and have the minor Queens for a possible squeeze.

My experience is that even top players do not play for squeeze positions when they have the rest of the tricks.

[blackshoe]

7NT down 1. I couldn't find a line(but thanks to DBurn for trying)for more than one down. Reason for one down: Declarer did not state a line. He showed no appreciation that a squeeze might be on. At least he did not try to draw trumps in 7NT which is good.

I would not give him a PP becuasewe 68A says "A contestant also claims when he suggest play be curtalied or when he shows his cards....." He did this so where is the breach? When he fails to state any line he is putting himself in the lap of the gods. Given the comments here some gods are preferable to find oneself in the lap of than others.

 

The breach was of Law 68C:

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 defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed.

 

Now, of "should" the laws say

failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized

and many will point to that last clause as justification for refusing to issue a PP. I think that's the wrong approach. When the law says a player "should" do something, one should be less inclined, perhaps, to issue a PP, but that doesn't mean one should never do it. This is a well known and ubiquitous offense, one which players can be expected to continue to make unless they are given some clear disincentive. IME, an adverse ruling and score adjustment is not sufficient to deter future infractions, hence (again, my opinion) a PP may well be warranted, and is in this case.

[richlp]

The breach was of Law 68C:

 

Now, of "should" the laws say and many will point to that last clause as justification for refusing to issue a PP. I think that's the wrong approach. When the law says a player "should" do something, one should be less inclined, perhaps, to issue a PP, but that doesn't mean one should never do it. This is a well known and ubiquitous offense, one which players can be expected to continue to make unless they are given some clear disincentive. IME, an adverse ruling and score adjustment is not sufficient to deter future infractions, hence (again, my opinion) a PP may well be warranted, and is in this case.

 

I think it's absurd to give a PP for not providing a claim statement.

 

For example:

Declarer is playing NT and is in hand with the following

 

♠AQ32

♥A

♦ -

♣ -

 

 

♠KJ

♥x

♦xx

♣ -

 

Against anybody except a total novice I would simply face my cards and say "I've got the rest." I expect a quick glance from the opponents and then the board will be scored. I would certainly at the level of competition in the OP's hand.

 

Had I claimed in the actual hand then when the opponents objected I'd give an "OH #$%^" and accept down 1. But a PP for mis-counting my tricks??????

 

I believe that tournament bridge is a serious game - but there are limits and a minor violation of procedure hardly warrants that kind of penalty.

[lamford]

The breach was of Law 68C:

 

Now, of "should" the laws say and many will point to that last clause as justification for refusing to issue a PP. I think that's the wrong approach. When the law says a player "should" do something, one should be less inclined, perhaps, to issue a PP, but that doesn't mean one should never do it. This is a well known and ubiquitous offense, one which players can be expected to continue to make unless they are given some clear disincentive. IME, an adverse ruling and score adjustment is not sufficient to deter future infractions, hence (again, my opinion) a PP may well be warranted, and is in this case.

Why do you need to deter future infractions? The penalty for a faulty claim, especially if Burn is directing, is Draconian. I agree a PP is inappropriate.

[blackshoe]

To me, refusing to ever give a PP in these cases is tantamount to saying "we don't care if you breach the law requiring you to make a claim statement". If that's the case, why is the law there at all?

[cherdano]

To me, refusing to ever give a PP in these cases is tantamount to saying "we don't care if you breach the law requiring you to make a claim statement". If that's the case, why is the law there at all?

Have you ever watched top-level bridge? Almost noone ever states a line.

[blackshoe]

So? They think perhaps that they're above the rules?

 

Look, if it doesn't cause any problems - and at that level perhaps it doesn't, or does so rarely — then fine. I would never suggest a TD go witch hunting. But when it causes problems, it is certainly within the purview of the TD to issue PPs, and I don't think anyone should tell him he should, as a matter of policy, not do so just because "everybody" commits the offense.

[Vampyr]

Have you ever watched top-level bridge? Almost noone ever states a line.

Maybe because almost no-one claims without the remainder of the tricks.

[jh51]

To me, refusing to ever give a PP in these cases is tantamount to saying "we don't care if you breach the law requiring you to make a claim statement". If that's the case, why is the law there at all?

 

If a prior poster's quote of the law is accurate, the rule uses the word "should" and not "must". The word "must" indicates that an action is mandatory. The use of the word "should" suggests that it in some cases optional. Unless the law prescribes the cases where an emplanation must be provided, and this is one of those cases, it would seem to me that this is not in the strictest sense a breach of the law.

[blackshoe]

Yes, the rule uses "should". I believe I was the one who posted that. However, your understanding of the law in this area is flawed. What it actually says is

Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (es- tablishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), “shall” do (a vio4lation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger — just short of “must not.”

So failure to do something you "should" do is an infraction of law, and failure to do something you "must" do should incur a PP at least as often as "more often than not", but not necessarily always. Put it another way: something you "should" do is mandatory, as is something you "must" do, but failure to do the latter is a much more serious infraction than failure to do the former.

[Vampyr]

The first time the word "should" is used in the body of the Laws is Law 2:

 

No board that fails to conform to these conditions should be used. If such board is used, however, the conditions marked on it apply for that session.

 

So no, "should" is not mandatory.