How likely is likely?

[dburn]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj6hakj5dt3ckq632&w=skqt84h762dq86caj&n=s53h83d942ct98754&e=sa972hqt94dakj75c&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1d1h1sp4cp4dp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

North leads ♥8; South cashes three rounds and plays a fourth. West puts his hand face up on the table and makes no statement. All four players return their cards to the board and write 620 in the appropriate column on their scorecards. The next board is played.

 

At the end of the set (this occurred in a knockout match), North-South are surprised to discover that they have lost 12 IMPs. "I ruffed the fourth heart high," explains their Western team-mate, "cashed the other top spade in my hand, and finessed ♠9 next. What happened at your table?"

 

Should North-South call the Director? How should the Director rule if summoned?

[nigel_k]

In the context of 69B2:

 

"a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued"

 

I think 'likely' means a greater than 50% chance, which is not the case here so I would not adjust.

 

See also: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/43213-claim-concession-or-both/

[dburn]

In the context of 69B2:

 

"a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued"

 

I think 'likely' means a greater than 50% chance, which is not the case here so I would not adjust.

 

See also: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/43213-claim-concession-or-both/

Oh, I have seen it. In that case, the question was whether it was "likely" that a player would follow a proven line; the majority seemed to consider that it was not (somewhat surprisingly to me, given the propensity of the majority to rule that of course a bum claimer would "normally" play double-dummy).

 

Here, though, declarer has no proven line, and his best percentage play for the contract is (by a small margin) to follow the only "normal" line that loses. Should the Director take this into account when making his ruling?

 

If North-South had objected to the claim at the time it was made, there is no doubt that the contract would have been ruled down one under Law 70E1:

 

"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 [here, the jack of spades]". Should the Director take this into account when making his ruling?

 

Why did West claim rather than play on? Perhaps because he knew the safety play with KQ108x facing A9xx, so "could not lose a trump trick". Perhaps because he had the jack of clubs in with his spades. Perhaps because he's an idiot. Should the Director take this into account when making his ruling?

 

Why did the opponents concede? Perhaps because South had the jack of spades in with his clubs. Perhaps because they're idiots, but even idiots are entitled to a trick when whether or not they will make one depends exclusively on a guess by declarer which, if incorrect, relies only upon the defenders' not revoking in order to score that trick. Should the Director... but you have the picture by now.

 

What is the substantive difference between Law 69B and Law 71?

[nigel_k]

I agree that if the opponents had contested the claim then declarer would have been held to nine tricks. I also agree that law 69B and law 71 are in conflict - they deal with exactly the same situation but resolve it differently.

 

However this only matters when there is a concession. Here, N/S did not concede. They merely accepted declarer's claim. Since there is no concession so law 71 cannot apply.

[pran]

What is the substantive difference between Law 69B and Law 71?

Law 71 would have applied if North/South had conceded (the rest) after taking their three tricks and then later asked to have their concession cancelled.

Law 69B is the applicable law when North/South first accepted the claim made by West if they later ask to have their acceptance of the claim withdrawn.

[iviehoff]

What is the substantive difference between Law 69B and Law 71?

The claim laws provide 3 different standards for judging claims/concessions, at 69, 70 and 71, each applicable in different circumstances, according to who disagrees with the claim and when. I'm sure you understand the difference between when to apply which standard. What you are asking is what is the difference between the standards in each case. (Well you don't ask about Law 70, but I put it in for completeness.)

 

Law 70 is the usual one we apply when there is an immediate objection to a claim. The benefit of the doubt lies with the opponents of the claimaint, and the standard is close to overwhelming (any normal play).

Law 71 is when a claimant who concedes a trick tries later to change his mind. The benefit of the doubt lies with the opponents of the claimaint, and the standard again is close to overwhelming (any normal play).

Law 69B is when a the opponents of a claimant, who originally agreed the claim, later change their mind. Now the benefit of the doubt lies with the claimant, however the standard is not overwhelming, (no mention of normal plays, it is merely "likely").

 

So that is the substantive difference - the benefit of the doubt now lies with the other side, but unlike the law 71 criterion, it is not the overwhelming criterion of "any normal play", merely a "likely" standard. For avoidance of doubt:

 

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 [here, the jack of spades]". Should the Director take this into account when making his ruling?

"

No, this is not the standard that applies here, the standard is the one stated in Law 69B, of "likely".

 

We don't judge claims under Law 69B very often, so we are unfamiliar with its contours. I think the case you bring up is a good one for exploring its contours.

 

Also the question you ask is a good one. Does "likely" mean "anything more than 50%" or does it require somewhat better odds than that? I think we don't know.

 

I think one could argue this particular case both ways.

 

(1) For the claimant. To go off, W has to ruff high and then finesse, two decisions that might go either way. One could therefore argue that ex ante it is rather less than 50% it will go off, because each decision has to be in NS's favour for it to go off. That's probably not good enough to be "likely" that NS will get a trick.

 

(2) For the claimant's opps. At the moment of the claim, West thinks he has all the tricks, so it is reasonable to assume he will ruff high at that point. Then when he comes to think about drawing trumps, he will realise the error of his ways. Because of the 4-2 heart break, it now becomes slightly favoured to play for the finesse. It is likely that a player will choose a line of play that is slightly favoured. We don't play 40% lines 40% of the time when we have a 60% alternative, we play the 60% line whenever we realise it is better than the 40% line. Now in this case a calculator tells me it is 53:47 in favour of the finesse, but nonetheless reasonably competent bridge players ought to take it most of the time, as we should realise that the odds are in favour of the finesse even if we can't calculate them precisely at the table. So it is likely that he would go off.

 

Take your pick, I think they are both reasonable rulings. I'd probably choose (2).

[dburn]

Law 71 would have applied if North/South had conceded (the rest) after taking their three tricks and then later asked to have their concession cancelled.

Law 69B is the applicable law when North/South first accepted the claim made by West if they later ask to have their acceptance of the claim withdrawn.

But Law 68B1 says that a player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand. In this case, then, North-South have: agreed with West's claim (so presumably can ask to have that withdrawn under Law 69); and conceded (so presumably can ask to have that withdrawn under Law 71). Which applies?

[blackshoe]

I do not think acquiescing in a claim constitutes abandoning one's hand.

[pran]

I do not think acquiescing in a claim constitutes abandoning one's hand.

Definitely not! :rolleyes: :D :)

[ahydra]

I say one off - didn't West need to mention he is not ruffing the heart with the ♠4?

 

That is to say, this claim "requires an opponent with a particular card", namely North with a void in spades or singleton 3.

 

ahydra

 

PS. Also, shouldn't the auction go 1D-2C-2S-5C-p-p-X-all p? :)

[gordontd]

But Law 68B1 says that a player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand. In this case, then, North-South have: agreed with West's claim (so presumably can ask to have that withdrawn under Law 69); and conceded (so presumably can ask to have that withdrawn under Law 71). Which applies?

L69

[gordontd]

(1) For the claimant. To go off, W has to ruff high and then finesse, two decisions that might go either way. One could therefore argue that ex ante it is rather less than 50% it will go off, because each decision has to be in NS's favour for it to go off. That's probably not good enough to be "likely" that NS will get a trick.

I don't think it's right to look at it as two decisions: when you think the opponents are looking to promote a trump trick, you look at the whole before ruffing. Everyone seems happy with the assumption that South will continue hearts. Given that South has four hearts and North two, I would have thought (but am happy to be corrected), that the percentage line (by a fair margin - 9:8[edited]?) is to ruff high and finesse the second round of trumps. It just happens not to work here. Isn't that what is "likely" to happen if it gets played out?

 

The fact that South has overcalled a four-card suit would, if anything, incline me towards the expectation that he has a singleton (spade).

[gordontd]

One further thought occurs to me: if a line is, for example, 56%, that doesn't mean that the expectation that the line will be adopted is 56%. I think a far greater percentage of players who think that is the expectation for the line to work, will adopt it.

[pooltuna]

One further thought occurs to me: if a line is, for example, 56%, that doesn't mean that the expectation that the line will be adopted is 56%. I think a far greater percentage of players who think that is the expectation for the line to work, will adopt it.

 

 

I don't know what the laws require here but I hate this sort of claim unless the defense directs the play. If declarer is allowed to do so some kind of game theory applies because if LHO objects he probably has Jxx of trump left if RHO objects he probably has Jx of trump remaining. So in the first case declarer finesses and in the second he plays for the drop. That is unless the LHO realizes what is going on, then in this case he objects :)

[Rossoneri]

I don't know what the laws require here but I hate this sort of claim unless the defense directs the play. If declarer is allowed to do so some kind of game theory applies because if LHO objects he probably has Jxx of trump left if RHO objects he probably has Jx of trump remaining. So in the first case declarer finesses and in the second he plays for the drop. That is unless the LHO realizes what is going on, then in this case he objects :)

 

But play ceases after the objection to the claim, no?

[gordontd]

I don't know what the laws require here but I hate this sort of claim unless the defense directs the play. If declarer is allowed to do so some kind of game theory applies because if LHO objects he probably has Jxx of trump left if RHO objects he probably has Jx of trump remaining. So in the first case declarer finesses and in the second he plays for the drop. That is unless the LHO realizes what is going on, then in this case he objects :)

In the given situation, declarer need not know who objected since it happened much later, while scoring up. In any case declarer isn't going to decide on the line - the director is.

[pooltuna]

In the given situation, declarer need not know who objected since it happened much later, while scoring up. In any case declarer isn't going to decide on the line - the director is.

 

what is going to guide him in his selection or is that Burns' question?

[gordontd]

what is going to guide him in his selection or is that Burns' question?

Yes, that was the question, and the answer is L69B

Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within

the Correction Period established under Law 79C:

1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, in fact, won; or

2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have

won had the play continued.

The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

Now we just need to decide what "likely" means, and then determine what was likely to happen had play continued.

[jallerton]

In order to decide what would have been "likely" to have happened if play had continued, the TD needs to form a judgement as to West's state of mind at the point when he claimed. So if possible, the TD should ask West why he claimed the rest of the tricks at that point.

 

According to the opening post, West claimed after South had led a 4th heart. One possible explanation of the claim was that West had not appreciated that dummy would have to follow to the 4th heart; If dummy had been now void of hearts, then ruffing with the 10 or 8 would have been a 100% line. In that case we would conclude that had play continued the contract would likely have made (somewhat luckily for West as the line selected by David's team-mate looks better) and not adjust under Law 69.

[pooltuna]

Yes, that was the question, and the answer is L69B

Now we just need to decide what "likely" means, and then determine what was likely to happen had play continued.

 

 

Well if there are 2 lines of play that are essentially equilikely presummably the NOS side gets the benefit of assuming the failing one will be played?

[nigel_k]

Well if there are 2 lines of play that are essentially equilikely presummably the NOS side gets the benefit of assuming the failing one will be played?

Usually a questionable claim is not an irregularity so there is no NOS. But here, declarer's failure to state a line means that N/S can get the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that the test is based on what is likely to have happened. While there is doubt about what would have happened, there is not really any doubt about what is likely to have happened. The fact that declarer claimed means it was certainly not likely he planned to ruff high and finesse through North.

[bluejak]

No, of course he did not intend to, because he presumably did not realise the problem. If he had played it out, he would presumably have ruffed high, cashed a high trump - and come to a halt as suddenly he realised he had a problem - and then he might decide to follow the losing line.

 

The benefit of the doubt goes to the non-claiming side because the Law says it does, not because he failed to state a line. Claims without statements are very common, and generally are equivalent to a claim statement of "I am playing it in the obvious way". The huge majority of such claims are fine, but do not get to forums. It really makes no difference whether he makes no statement, or an inaccurate one: they get treated the same.

[nigel_k]

If the claim is contested, the non-claiming side gets the benefit of the doubt under 70A.

 

But once the claim is agreed to, as it was here, if the non-claiming side want to contest it later they have to do so under 69B, which has no 'benefit of the doubt' provision. Instead they have to show they would likely have won a trick.

 

What I think pooltuna was suggesting is that N/S, as the non-offending side, can rely on 84D so they are still entitled to the benefit of the doubt. That is the point is was replying to. The failure to state a line is an infraction, so N/S are the non-offenders and 84D applies. If declarer had stated a line, even an incomplete one, there would be no infraction and no application of 84D.

[bluejak]

Oh, well, I just read this without remembering the earlier part of the thread.

 

If it was a claim accepted at the time and later disputed then Law 69B applies whether there was a claim statement or not. Law 69B is pretty well worded to make this clear. The benefit of the doubt has shifted.

[iviehoff]

Law 69B is pretty well worded to make this clear. The benefit of the doubt has shifted.

We agree that the benefit of the doubt has shifted. But how much? We are trying to work out just what L69B does mean in this case, and we don't find it so clear. How likely does it have to be to be 69B-likely?