Give Me a Break

[shyams]

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.

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.

I don't understand this section. Cashing the ♦A will make no difference if it is followed up with playing the "13th" club -- which coincidentally turns out to be a winner -- and declarer discarding his last remaining diamond on it.

[lamford]

I don't understand this section. Cashing the ♦A will make no difference if it is followed up with playing the "13th" club -- which coincidentally turns out to be a winner -- and declarer discarding his last remaining diamond on it.

gordontd was considering if the club were not a winner. He would then rule one or more down.

[phil_20686]

On this particular hand, it seems hard to go off, after cashing 3 clubs the only "natural" way to return to hand is to ruff the last club, when you play the club from dummy and rho plays a smaller one he will know its a winner regardless?

 

In general it feels like the laws needs a definition of words that are common in claim statements. It still seems eminently reasonably to interpret "break" to mean that the last club will be a winner. If Benito Garozzo had made this claim no one would have questioned it. Its fortunate that this hand is spared needing to watch the club pips as rho has the 4th one.

 

 

If the defenders clubs were reversed this would be different.

 

 

 

[ggwhiz]

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.

 

 

He doesn't have to follow the spots. The ♣ suit broke 3-3 and despite that being impossible declarer didn't know that until it was pointed out by the Director. The statement of claim was to pitch after the ♣ suit "broke 3-3".

 

Clearly intending to play a 4th round of the suit and pitch a ♦. And be surprised but making.

[AlexJonson]

He doesn't have to follow the spots. The ♣ suit broke 3-3 and despite that being impossible declarer didn't know that until it was pointed out by the Director. The statement of claim was to pitch after the ♣ suit "broke 3-3".

 

Clearly intending to play a 4th round of the suit and pitch a ♦. And be surprised but making.

 

As a matter of fact the suit didn't break 3-3 and couldn't.

[nigel_k]

It is careless and inferior but not irrational to do the following:

 

Start playing clubs and then realize that there are seven missing, not six. Not notice that the ♣6 is high so come to hand with a spade and take the diamond finesse.

 

Down 1.

[campboy]

I think that is extremely unlikely. I've often made the mistake of thinking there were six cards in a suit out when there were seven (or the same with different numbers); I can't remember ever realising the mistake before it became clear by someone playing the "fourteenth" card (or both showing out when I thought there was one left).

[lamford]

I think that is extremely unlikely. I've often made the mistake of thinking there were six cards in a suit out when there were seven (or the same with different numbers); I can't remember ever realising the mistake before it became clear by someone playing the "fourteenth" card (or both showing out when I thought there was one left).

Indeed, but as you say in other thread you are not expert. So I guess an expert is someone who can count up to thirteen, both for a suit that has been completely played and for one that has not. I prefer "an ex is a has-been and a spurt is a drip under pressure", but that does not have much bridge relevance. I agree with iviehoof and nigel_k that declarer may well realise the suit cannot break before he plays the fourth round. When his count gets as high as 8, he might realise there are 5 left of which he has but 2. The other views get overruled because doubtful points are decided against the claimer.

[campboy]

Indeed, but as you say in other thread you are not expert.

So what? My experience of miscounting suits is more relevant than your experience of counting them correctly.

 

I don't consider it a doubtful point, since I have no doubt declarer will be thinking "there are six out... now there are four out... now there are two out... now the last one's good." Obviously what is and is not doubtful is a matter of judgement.

[lamford]

So what? My experience of miscounting suits is more relevant than your experience of counting them correctly.

I also miscount suits from time to time, but neither my nor your miscounting percentage is relevant. We surmise that this declarer counted trumps correctly, as he drew exactly two rounds before claiming. He miscounted clubs before playing a round. The only evidence we have is that he counts right half the time. So, there is a 87.5% chance that he will count the clubs correctly after three rounds of the suit. I agree it is not doubtful; this declarer will probably discover that the clubs are not 3-3 in time to avoid making it! So, he is one off.

[gnasher]

I also miscount suits from time to time, but neither my nor your miscounting percentage is relevant. We know that this declarer counted trumps correctly, as he drew exactly two rounds before claiming. He miscounted clubs before playing a round. The only evidence we have is that he counts right half the time. So, there is a 87.5% chance that he will count the clubs correctly after three rounds of the suit. I agree it is not doubtful; this declarer will probably discover that the clubs are not 3-3 in time to avoid making it! So, he is one off.

You seem to be assuming that he will recount the suit after each trick. Why do you assume that, rather than the alternative of counting each suit once, then relying on that original figure for the remainder of the hand?

 

Furthermore, if he does recount after every trick, your inference that he counts right half the time is doubtful. He had three opportunities to count the trump suit, so we don't know when he realised that the opponents had four of them. Nor do we know whether he will detect a discrepancy between the latest count and an earlier one, or what he does after detecting such a discrepancy.

[lamford]

You seem to be assuming that he will recount the suit after each trick. Why do you assume that, rather than the alternative of counting each suit once, then relying on that original figure for the remainder of the hand?

 

Furthermore, if he does recount after every trick, your inference that he counts right half the time is doubtful. He had three opportunities to count the trump suit, so we don't know when he realised that the opponents had four of them. Nor do we know whether he will detect a discrepancy between the latest count and an earlier one, or what he does after detecting such a discrepancy.

As we don't know whether he counted the heart-suit correctly before playing it or after one round, we cannot include those tests as we do not have the results. But, you are right, there is no reasonable means of assessing whether he counts each suit every trick; we have evidence that he should do so. However we do not need to get at that figure exactly. Doubtful points are resolved against the claimer, and it is doubtful if he will realise that clubs are not 3-3 however many rounds he plays. Therefore he is one off.

[ggwhiz]

"I thought a 3-3 break would allow me to discard both my diamonds", was the reply.

 

This quote from declarer after the fact makes his state of mind clear (but confused).

 

How can you now have THIS player 1. actually count the suit. 2. Not know that the last club is high.

 

OK. 2 is a slam dunk but playing the last club for a ♦ pitch is clear as a bell isn't it? Stated in the claim and confirmed by the above.

 

The 3-3 break (phantom though it is) is what he played for and it worked. He simply got away with a brain cramp IMO.

[lamford]

This quote from declarer after the fact makes his state of mind clear (but confused).

 

How can you now have THIS player 1. actually count the suit. 2. Not know that the last club is high.

 

OK. 2 is a slam dunk but playing the last club for a ♦ pitch is clear as a bell isn't it? Stated in the claim and confirmed by the above.

 

The 3-3 break (phantom though it is) is what he played for and it worked. He simply got away with a brain cramp IMO.

I find it astonishing why people are not just plodding through the laws on these cases. The claimer said "if the club don't break, I will take the diamond finesse". It was established by the TD that he meant "break 3-3". They didn't. So he is going to take the diamond finesse. He didn't say, or mean, "if the clubs break 4-3, and the six of clubs miraculously becomes a winner" I will cash it. Following the laws exactly leads to one down in both this and the other case. But then claims never get agreement, do they?

[ggwhiz]

I find it astonishing why people are not just plodding through the laws on these cases. The claimer said "if the club don't break, I will take the diamond finesse". It was established by the TD that he meant "break 3-3". They didn't. So he is going to take the diamond finesse. He didn't say, or mean, "if the clubs break 4-3, and the six of clubs miraculously becomes a winner" I will cash it. Following the laws exactly leads to one down in both this and the other case. But then claims never get agreement, do they?

 

I understand your legitimate point but IMHO I think the ♣ did break in the mind of the declarer, using "mind" loosely since it took a walk.

 

However, I do bow to more experience opinion.

[campboy]

I find it astonishing why people are not just plodding through the laws on these cases. The claimer said "if the club don't break, I will take the diamond finesse". It was established by the TD that he meant "break 3-3". They didn't. So he is going to take the diamond finesse. He didn't say, or mean, "if the clubs break 4-3, and the six of clubs miraculously becomes a winner" I will cash it. Following the laws exactly leads to one down in both this and the other case. But then claims never get agreement, do they?

Suppose a player had claimed in a position where he has a choice of two finesses, saying "if the heart finesse doesn't work I'll take the spade finesse instead". Would you "follow the laws" and allow him to make all the tricks by taking the spade finesse when the heart finesse doesn't work?

 

What the player here meant was "if I find out that the clubs aren't 3-3 I'll take the diamond finesse". He won't find out that the clubs aren't 3-3 until East plays the thirteenth club under the twelfth, at which point it would be irrational to take the diamond finesse.

[phil_20686]

As we don't know whether he counted the heart-suit correctly before playing it or after one round, we cannot include those tests as we do not have the results. But, you are right, there is no reasonable means of assessing whether he counts each suit every trick; we have evidence that he should do so. However we do not need to get at that figure exactly. Doubtful points are resolved against the claimer, and it is doubtful if he will realise that clubs are not 3-3 however many rounds he plays. Therefore he is one off.

 

In the other thread you wanted to peanalise declarer by holding him to what he actually said, as opposed to what he meant. In this thread you wish to penalize declarer because of what she meant, while ignoring what she said.

 

Let us consider a different construction: Your hands are say

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s43hakqjd432cakqt&n=sakqh432dakj5c432]133|200[/hv]

 

in 7N, suppose the claim statement is "cash the top diamonds" then if that doesnt work, cash a top club and take the hook", immeadeately corrected to "cash the top clubs, if that doesnt work, cash a top diamond and take the hook".

 

Would you rule

A that the initial claim stands

B that the corrected claim stands

C The contract only makes if both claims would have succeeded. I.e. Declarer is assumed to play whatever line fails.

[AlexJonson]

I find it astonishing why people are not just plodding through the laws on these cases. The claimer said "if the club don't break, I will take the diamond finesse". It was established by the TD that he meant "break 3-3". They didn't. So he is going to take the diamond finesse. He didn't say, or mean, "if the clubs break 4-3, and the six of clubs miraculously becomes a winner" I will cash it. Following the laws exactly leads to one down in both this and the other case. But then claims never get agreement, do they?

 

As it happens I agree with your logic on this post, perhaps because the construct 'if a then b else c' seems quite well defined/determinate to me.

 

However, a tongue tied statement that cannot be intended is a different matter, I hope, so I continue to disagree with the SB view of the other post.

 

So -1 this time and makes last time.

 

Meanwhile strengthen the Laws or their interpretation as much as you wish, you will eventually be alone claiming, as everyone else harbours doubt and plays it out.

[nigel_k]

The relevant law is 70-D-1:

 

"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."

 

where "normal" includes "play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved".

 

As I stated earlier, I think it is clear that there is a "normal" line that would fail. But I think we haven't fully addressed the issue of whether the successful line is "embraced in" the original claim. My position this:

 

When declarer used the word "break", in the context of this hand he clearly meant "break 3-3". Since there is no way for a suit to break 3-3 when there are seven cards missing, that part of the statement is essentially meaningless. So I would just rule that there is no line of play whatsoever that is "embraced in" such a statement.

 

The alternative view is that we work out what would have happened if the hand had been played out in accordance with declarer's intention, using his statement of claim as evidence of that intention. This would not be a bad rule, but it isn't the rule that is actually written in the laws.

[bluejak]

I find it astonishing why people are not just plodding through the laws on these cases. The claimer said "if the club don't break, I will take the diamond finesse". It was established by the TD that he meant "break 3-3". They didn't. So he is going to take the diamond finesse. He didn't say, or mean, "if the clubs break 4-3, and the six of clubs miraculously becomes a winner" I will cash it. Following the laws exactly leads to one down in both this and the other case. But then claims never get agreement, do they?

I think what you mean is "Following the Laws exactly as lamford sees them leads to one down ..." It is quite clear that your views on the Laws on claims are not exactly agreed by everyone else who posts here.

[lamford]

I think what you mean is "Following the Laws exactly as lamford sees them leads to one down ..." It is quite clear that your views on the Laws on claims are not exactly agreed by everyone else who posts here.

In both cases there was a significant minority for down 1. Does that mean the Laws are difficult to interpret or does it mean that they are too vague? My view is that people want to be fair, and are ignoring the Law about "not rectifying because the penalty seems too harsh", which I cannot find at this moment.

[mrdct]

In both cases there was a significant minority for down 1. Does that mean the Laws are difficult to intrepret or does it mean that they are too vague? My view is that people want to be fair, and are ignoring the Law about "not rectifying because the penalty seems too harsh", which I cannot find at this moment.

Perhaps we are just giving fairly heavy weight to the part of Law 70A that says, "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides".

[Fluffy]

Not sure if this makes any sense with the laws, but IMO a declarer who doesn't count clubs won't notice the 6 is good, however if dummy's hand was:

 

♠AKQ

♥QJx

♦AQx

♣AKQ6

 

 

then the only way to move back to hand after drawing trumps and cashing clubs would be to play ♣6 to ruff, and seeing that it is good he would let it run.

[iviehoff]

In both cases there was a significant minority for down 1. Does that mean the Laws are difficult to intrepret or does it mean that they are too vague? My view is that people want to be fair, and are ignoring the Law about "not rectifying because the penalty seems too harsh", which I cannot find at this moment.

Adjudicating claims is a judgment ruling. If you choose examples where there are plausible alternatives, it is not surprising that there are differing views on what the ruling should be. The law explicitly tells us to adjudicate claims equitably, subject to various things, so it is not surprising that people think fairness is relevant.

 

We could have a law that removed judgment from claim ruling. There are a couple of possibilities. One is to say that if the claim statement is faulty, any trick that could be lost by any possible play is lost (and as it is impossible to draw an exact line between perverse deliberate misere play and other play, that would have to include perverse deliberate misere play). Do we want that? Another possibility is the kind of play-on rule that they have in on-line bridge, although there would invitably be a UI restriction that reintroduces judgment if there is a disagreement ove that. Having looked at that rule, when Nigel tried to argue for it, I'm not sure I'm persuaded that's a good way to go either, at least not for serious level bridge.

 

Yes we can construct examples where the claim law is unsatisfactory, as the judgment element results in large differences in the result. I would suggest that in practice this doesn't happen very often, and is happens less often than the judgment element in UI cases results in large differences in the outcome. So on balance, things are not so bad. Maybe we could have a bit more official guidance on equity/balance of doubt/normal plays in claim rulings, but that would make the amount of reference material needed to make the ruling even larger, so that is not necessarily a good idea either.

[gordontd]

We could have a law that removed judgment from claim ruling. There are a couple of possibilities. One is to say that if the claim statement is faulty, any trick that could be lost by any possible play is lost (and as it is impossible to draw an exact line between perverse deliberate misere play and other play, that would have to include perverse deliberate misere play). Do we want that?

I don't. Apart from other considerations, it would probably make our life harder: imagine how difficult it is to construct a line of play that really is the worst. Rather harder than working out the best line (because it's harder to see things the opposite way than we're accustomed to), and we know from arguments about Deep Finesse analysis that seeing the best line isn't always obvious.