Forked Tongue

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakt92ha54d43c873&w=s54hqjt6dj76c9642&n=sqj73hk3daq5cakqt&e=s86h9872dkt982cj5&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2n(FG%20spade%20raise)p4s(Min)p4np5c(0 or 3)p7sppp]399|300[/hv]

IMPs, Lead Q♥

South was a bit careless with his claim here at a local club of mixed standard. He won the lead in North and drew trumps, and then stated: "If the diamonds don't break I will take the club finesse". East, the club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, said, "The diamonds don't break, and the club finesse loses, so you are one down". "Sorry, I meant if the clubs don't break I will take the diamond finesse", said South. "Well the clubs don't break either, continued SB, and the diamond finesse loses, so you are one down." How would you rule?

[gnasher]

I rule that he makes 13 tricks, because what matters is what he intended to do, not what he actually said, and it's obvious what he intended to do.

[jdeegan]

:P Claiming is good. It saves time. But, I think in any competitive environment, however mild, it has to be accurate. So, IMO, a bad claim is what it is. Down one. Just like any other bad play, however careless, has an unfortunate consequence.

[lamford]

I rule that he makes 13 tricks, because what matters is what he intended to do, not what he actually said, and it's obvious what he intended to do.

So you would regard it as worse than careless to a) not notice when the jack of clubs fell or b) not notice that the fourth club was the ten, and therefore you would presumably also award the contract if dummy's clubs were AKQ9 and East's J10. I would agree that the transposition of diamonds and clubs should be allowed, but if declarer had considered the jack dropping being of benefit, would he not have said "if the diamonds provide four tricks" rather than "if the diamonds break"? If he had said "if the diamonds provide four tricks" I would allow the claim!

 

I think that it is wrong to allow this claim, and I am normally criticised for being too generous. SB is right again, sadly. South was very upset (the TD ruled against him) and he said he would not be coming to the club again.

[gnasher]

When did declarer say anything about a 3-3 break? He didn't specify what break or breaks he meant.

[lamford]

When did declarer say anything about a 3-3 break? He didn't specify what break or breaks he meant.

In your other post in this thread you argued that "it's obvious what he intended to do". He stated "if the diamonds break", and I agree it's obvious he meant clubs, and his follow-up statement clarifies that. When he said "if the clubs break", he clearly meant 3-3, as, if dummy's fourth club were smaller than the nine, this would be necessary in order to avoid the diamond finesse. The clubs must break somehow, and "if the clubs break" is common parlance for "if the clubs break 3-3". It might mean "if the clubs break 4-2 or better" in another layout. But it does not really matter what he meant; all we need to decide is whether it is a normal line to cash three clubs and when they are not 3-3, we take the diamond finesse. That is a poor line, but only careless.

[1eyedjack]

The Clubs do break, so at best the secretary bird's objection is flawed. Not that that is necessarily the deciding factor.

[Cyberyeti]

He's been imprecise, but I'm prepared to go with him meaning if the clubs behave when played from the top, "break" while not exactly meaning that is only a slightly careless variant, 13 tricks.

[aguahombre]

Anyone thinking (saying) the clubs didn't "break" is being as much of a Secretary Bird as the one who was at the table.

[Free]

what matters is what he intended to do, not what he actually said

Really? :blink:

[ahydra]

How strong a player is South? If he's any good, his original claim is valid (one would cash the ♣AK before finessing, and the jack drops). But...

 

Has anyone considered awarding one down because he's failed to mention he's ruffing a heart? That to me feels a more legitimate reason to reject the claim than the entire "break" vs "jack drops in 3 rounds" thing - suppose he plays clubs from the top and throws a heart from hand on the ♣10...

 

ahydra

[lamford]

How strong a player is South? If he's any good, his original claim is valid (one would cash the ♣AK before finessing, and the jack drops). But...

 

Has anyone considered awarding one down because he's failed to mention he's ruffing a heart? That to me feels a more legitimate reason to reject the claim than the entire "break" vs "jack drops in 3 rounds" thing - suppose he plays clubs from the top and throws a heart from hand on the ♣10...

 

ahydra

He is an intermediate player, and I think the most likely is that he did not consider the jack of clubs dropping, but would have noticed if it did. If the clubs had been AKQ2 opposite 943, with the jack-ten doubleton, I would not dream of allowing the claim, but this is much closer. I think he has to have said "if the clubs do not provide four tricks", to show that he was aware that clubs 3-3 or singleton or doubleton jack was enough. The phrase "if the clubs break" suggest that it was at least a possibility he did not notice the ten. He might only look to see if both opponents followed to three rounds and then cash the long club if they did. Saying "diamonds" instead of "clubs" does not count against him in my view.

 

But I think throwing a heart would be worse than careless. And his line is certainly worse than cashing three clubs (if no marked finesse appears), and playing the show-up squeeze on West if he has the fourth club, adding the small extra chance of singleton king of diamonds with East. Add the fact that he did not even mention the marked finesse if East has a singleton club and we can tell that he is not the sharpest pencil in the box.

[peachy]

I rule that he makes 13 tricks, because what matters is what he intended to do, not what he actually said, and it's obvious what he intended to do.

 

 

I think it matters what he said. It will be a slippery slope if it "matters what he intended" instead of what he said. Sometimes there is evidence clear enough of intentions, but just like any other mistake, this is a mistake.

[iviehoff]

I think it matters what he said. It will be a slippery slope if it "matters what he intended" instead of what he said. Sometimes there is evidence clear enough of intentions, but just like any other mistake, this is a mistake.

At L45C4b, the law allows someone to correct mis-speaks when designating what card they intend to play. They are also allowed to correct mis-speaks when bidding at 25A. What specifically matters in these cases is the intention, not the words that come out. So it would appear that "what he intended" can be what matters in many cases when a player speaks. We make think the law shouldn't be like this, but it is. In the case of a mis-spoken claim statement, there is no explicit statement of law, but the player is specifically required to repeat his "clarification statement" to the Director when a claim is contested. The player correcting his obviously incoherent statement, in a manner that clearly displays it as a mispeak in which he exchanged two words, appears to have been allowed by everyone else here, and I agree.

 

It is arguable that one should allow the marked club finesse in the case of a favourable 5-1 club break, because of the wording in relation to unstated lines of play at L70E1 "or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play". Allowing the J dropping in 2 is an easier case: as some other people say, Jack dropping in 2 counts as "suit breaking" for these purposes; it isn't very precise wording, but there is little doubt the player would get it right.

 

The law doesn't really provide for claims of X or Y. The opps are supposed to call the director if they don't like your claim. Here they started a negotiation over whether it was X or Y, which is off the script as far as the law is concerned. Especially when facing the SB, better to clarify the club situation before claiming, and mention the heart ruff.

[lamford]

At L45C4b, the law allows someone to correct mis-speaks when designating what card they intend to play. They are also allowed to correct mis-speaks when bidding at 25A. What specifically matters in these cases is the intention, not the words that come out. So it would appear that "what he intended" can be what matters in many cases when a player speaks. We make think the law shouldn't be like this, but it is. In the case of a mis-spoken claim statement, there is no explicit statement of law, but the player is specifically required to repeat his "clarification statement" to the Director when a claim is contested. The player correcting his obviously incoherent statement, in a manner that clearly displays it as a mispeak in which he exchanged two words, appears to have been allowed by everyone else here, and I agree.

 

It is arguable that one should allow the marked club finesse in the case of a favourable 5-1 club break, because of the wording in relation to unstated lines of play at L70E1 "or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play". Allowing the J dropping in 2 is an easier case: as some other people say, Jack dropping in 2 counts as "suit breaking" for these purposes; it isn't very precise wording, but there is little doubt the player would get it right.

 

The law doesn't really provide for claims of X or Y. The opps are supposed to call the director if they don't like your claim. Here they started a negotiation over whether it was X or Y, which is off the script as far as the law is concerned. Especially when facing the SB, better to clarify the club situation before claiming, and mention the heart ruff.

Another approach to this claim is to rule that the original claim statement "if the diamonds break" has no validity at all, and that the TD just decides as though no claim statement were made. If the TD had been called there and then, South could well just have repeated his claim statement - indeed a good TD would have asked him to do so verbatim. The TD would decide that declarer had no means of telling whether the diamonds were breaking, nor was it in the slightest bit relevant. He would, I suggest, have imposed the diamond finesse as the worst "careless" line for declarer. It would not occur to some players that they could test the clubs first, and taking the diamond finesse without doing so is inferior, but just careless.

 

This seems correct, as 70D1 states "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". The line of testing the clubs first was clearly not embraced in the original clarification statement, and there is an alternative normal line of play (the immediate diamond finesse) which was less successful. This caters for mis-speaks as well, as if there were no alternative to the intended line, the mis-speaker would be allowed his intention. One down seems correct.

[blackshoe]

Claimer could have done a better job in his claim statement, or could have delayed his claim until the picture was clearer. However, that he didn't do those things is not in itself reason to rule against him. Once we allow him to correct his (rather obvious it seems to me) original misstatement regarding the minor suits, we have to look at how the play would have gone according to the stated line. I don't think it's reasonable to rule he would not recognize, when the ♣J falls, that his ten is good. So the clubs "break" in the sense that he gets four club tricks, and if he gets four club tricks, his line indicates he will get all the tricks. That's how the TD should rule, and if the Secretary Bird doesn't like it, tough.

[vigfus]

13 tricks. Here is so obvious mistake in explaination that there can be NO JUSTICE in not allowing 13 tricks. I sure allow South to see the ♣Jack dropping.

[phil_20686]

If you were going to be pedantic about this claim statement, doesn't his claim mean he would cash the ace of diamonds, and if there is no singleton king of diamonds he will play the clubs AK and take the club finesse? That seems to be the most consistent interpretation of his claim, given that every intermediate player knows that with AKJ opposite xxx you should cash a top one before they hook. They commonly do so even when its horrendously wrong: IMO it is more believable error for an intermediate player to cash and then hook with AKJT opposite xx. :)

 

Still, its obvious what he meant and if I was a TD at a local club one might mention that east's claim was decidedly unsportsmanlike like considering the obviousness of what he meant.

[blackshoe]

If you were going to be pedantic about this claim statement, doesn't his claim mean he would cash the ace of diamonds, and if there is no singleton king of diamonds he will play the clubs AK and take the club finesse? That seems to be the most consistent interpretation of his claim, given that every intermediate player knows that with AKJ opposite xxx you should cash a top one before they hook. They commonly do so even when its horrendously wrong: IMO it is more believable error for an intermediate player to cash and then hook with AKJT opposite xx. :)

 

Still, its obvious what he meant and if I was a TD at a local club one might mention that east's claim was decidedly unsportsmanlike like considering the obviousness of what he meant.

 

Unsportsmanlike? How so?

[lamford]

If you were going to be pedantic about this claim statement, doesn't his claim mean he would cash the ace of diamonds, and if there is no singleton king of diamonds he will play the clubs AK and take the club finesse?

Why would he do anything in particular in clubs when he did not say how he was playing them? Would you award a trick to the defence if the jack was tripleton with East? If declarer had nine clubs missing the queen, with only a one-way finesse, and did not say how he was playing them, I am sure we would all award a trick to the queen unless it was onside, singleton or doubleton. And always if it was doubleton and there was a two-way finesse. I asked three players of the same calibre how they would play the hand, and they said that they would cash the clubs, and if the jack did not fall, they would take the diamond finesse. Not one of them mentioned a "club break" (not one of them mentioned the show-up squeeze either). One mentioned they would finesse in clubs if East had a singleton. Their choice of words is a strong indication that the player just noticed he had AKQx opposite xxx, and thought the only way of the suit providing a discard was if it "broke". And I am sure he meant 3-3. Why should he wake up when the jack falls and realise he has the ten?

[gnasher]

When the director asked declarer what he meant by "break", what was his reply?

[lamford]

When the director asked declarer what he meant by "break", what was his reply?

I only know that he ruled against the declarer - not at my regular club. I don't have any additional facts, sorry.

[aguahombre]

Per your earlier posts, I would be surprised if he would even ask the question because common sense says the suit breaks for all practical purposes. He might have just said "Ah, come on; next case?"

 

Oh, wait! It was Lamford :rolleyes:

[lamford]

Per your earlier posts, I would be surprised if he would even ask the question because common sense says the suit breaks for all practical purposes. He might have just said "Ah, come on; next case?"

 

Oh, wait! It was Lamford :rolleyes:

Common sense says that he did not say that, or he might have ruled in favour of the declarer. But I would also be surprised if he would even ask the question as the meaning of "breaks" is "breaks 3-3" in the context of this hand. The meaning of "behave" or "provides four tricks" or "the jack drops" is also clear.

[aguahombre]

Common sense says that he did not say that, or he might have ruled in favour of the declarer.

was intended as bad humor