lamford Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 [hv=pc=n&s=sa52hak532d873c97&w=sjt93ht6d6542cjt8&n=skq6hqj97daqcakq6&e=s874h84dkjt9c5432&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hp2n(FG%20raise)p4hp4n(RKCB)p5c(0%20or%203)p7hppp]399|300[/hv]IMP. Lead J♠. This hand, at a local club last night, had a surprisingly familiar ring to it, and the TD was uncertain how to rule. Declarer won in North, drew trumps and stated: "If the clubs do not break, I will take the diamond finesse". How do you rule? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexJonson Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 7H-1, not 7H-2 for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrdct Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 On this hand, it is even more clear that "clubs breaking" means "clubs breaking favourably" than your earlier post. Clubs are breaking favourably, so he won't need to fall-back on the diamond finese. Making 13 tricks. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 I think declarer has miscounted the clubs and will believe dummy's last club to be good on any layout where both opponents follow to three rounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 It would be a more interesting question if we swapped the C7 & C5, and put the DK onside. Oh, I remember now, this is a real hand. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexJonson Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 I think declarer has miscounted the clubs and will believe dummy's last club to be good on any layout where both opponents follow to three rounds. Yes I considered this (and also think he has miscounted clubs), but finding yourself looking for a discard from dummy on the third round might affect the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iviehoff Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 I think declarer has miscounted the clubs and will believe dummy's last club to be good on any layout where both opponents follow to three rounds.I think in ruling on a claim you have to rule on the basis that among plausible explanations the least advantageous to the claimer is true. So you would have to be utterly certain there was no other plausible explanation to rule on the basis that Declarer has a misperception which will cause him do the most advantageous thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vigfus Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 What is going on in South's mind ? Well we do not know. But we try to figure out.I think South has miscounted the clubs, thinking if opp's follow AKQ, then clubs break.In that case I allow the claim. 13 tricks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggwhiz Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 What is going on in South's mind ? Well we do not know. But we try to figure out.I think South has miscounted the clubs, thinking if opp's follow AKQ, then clubs break.In that case I allow the claim. 13 tricks. The ruefull rabbit gets the carrot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iviehoff Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 What is going on in South's mind ? Well we do not know. But we try to figure out.I think South has miscounted the clubs, thinking if opp's follow AKQ, then clubs break. In that case I allow the claim. 13 tricks.That is exactly the same argument I criticised in Campboy's case. Is there really no plausible way of going off once you get yourself into this misperception? Of course there is. What can happen is that he wakes up to his miscount at some point. Since he didn't think it mattered, he wasn't watching the spots carefully. He decides to take the diamond finesse. He might come to hand with a spade, so never leads the C6 to see E unable to beat it. So now he takes the diamond finesse. We have to rule down 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 When the director asked declarer what was going through his mind, what was the reply? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 Yes I considered this (and also think he has miscounted clubs), but finding yourself looking for a discard from dummy on the third round might affect the situation. It might, if it were to happen, but it's not happening here. On the third round of clubs, declarer will discard the ♦3 from his hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted September 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 When the director asked declarer what was going through his mind, what was the reply?"I thought a 3-3 break would allow me to discard both my diamonds", was the reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted September 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 It would be a more interesting question if we swapped the C7 & C5, and put the DK onside. Oh, I remember now, this is a real hand.No it wouldn't be more interesting. East would play a higher card than the six on the fourth round, and it would be worse than careless to fail to ruff it and take a diamond finesse. And yes, you are right; I am reluctant to tamper with the spots to entertain forumites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 Apparently, the rule is that if your claim statement does not clearly state your exact line of play, you must be presumed to screw it up. There is no basis for TD judgement, and no way you can be allowed to clarify your statement. Does the law really say that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 Making 13 tricks. I really don't see this as a problem. Even a careless player is going to play out the top clubs. When they "break," he will play the ♣6 from dummy. Seeing the ♣5 from RHO may be a surprise to declarer, but he will still see that the 6 is high and you can't force him to ruff it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iviehoff Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 Apparently, the rule is that if your claim statement does not clearly state your exact line of play, you must be presumed to screw it up. There is no basis for TD judgement, and no way you can be allowed to clarify your statement. Does the law really say that?Not quite. You must be presumed to screw it up, but only within the range of things you could possibly have meant or be thinking about, and excluding lines that are worse than careless. TD applies judgment: where is the dividing line between careless and worse than careless, and what is the range of things you could possibly have meant or had in mined when you delivered a faulty claim; will you wake up to your misperceptions; what will you do when you realise things aren't going as you expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted September 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 Apparently, the rule is that if your claim statement does not clearly state your exact line of play, you must be presumed to screw it up. There is no basis for TD judgement, and no way you can be allowed to clarify your statement. Does the law really say that?I have checked with the TD as to what happened when South was told the suit could not break 3-3, he stated: "you're right; I presume that I am still allowed to take the diamond finesse, however". I think that South is allowed to add to his original statement, but only if no other line is rational. In my opinion, the TD should follow the claim statement exactly until it breaks down, and then select the worst normal line for declarer from that point. The claim broke down here when it was established that the declarer meant "break 3-3". The ruling is one down therefore. The other hand is similar. That claim broke down immediately, and the diamond finesse was the worse of two normal lines. I am told that there is plenty of case law which indicates that the TD follows the claim until it breaks down, but maybe someone with minutes can clarify this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexJonson Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 It might, if it were to happen, but it's not happening here. On the third round of clubs, declarer will discard the ♦3 from his hand. Thanks for the correction Blackshoe, though I think declarer is even more likely to recount when he has to discard from his own hand. I would never accept this claim as a player: I wont assume that despite his misconceptins about the hand, South will follow the spots in clubs, or play off the last club just in case. On the other hand it is already clear (even if it surprises me) that several TDs would award the contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 No it wouldn't be more interesting. East would play a higher card than the six on the fourth round, and it would be worse than careless to fail to ruff it and take a diamond finesse.Having seen that the clubs are breaking, is there any reason why he wouldn't cash his DA before discarding his losing diamond on the "good" club? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 In practice, a player that cannot count to 13 is not going to notice that the ♣JT8 are falling, much less remember that they held the ♣97 in their hand in the 1st place. How this affects the claim adjudication, I have no idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted September 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 Having seen that the clubs are breaking, is there any reason why he wouldn't cash his DA before discarding his losing diamond on the "good" club?That would seem to be an unnatural play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 That would seem to be an unnatural play.I'm not sure that it is: I've noticed myself doing that type of thing. It's consistent with our general principle that when players believes all their cards are winners, they might well play them in any order and so we impose on them the least favourable order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted September 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2011 I'm not sure that it is: I've noticed myself doing that type of thing. It's consistent with our general principle that when players believes all their cards are winners, they might well play them in any order and so we impose on them the least favourable order.Yes I can go with that. In which case, we would make him cash the hearts before the A♦, so he will go down more. I presume whenever a declarer wrongly thinks a card is a winner, you would find the line that goes down most? So in this case, if declarer may think the card is not a winner, perhaps on reflection, we do not allow him to cash it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted September 11, 2011 Report Share Posted September 11, 2011 I do not think so. See my comment in the other thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.