Give Me a Break

[blackshoe]

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.

 

 

Law 12B2: The director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

[gordontd]

This isn't really to the point, since we aren't adjusting, penalising, or rectifying.

[blackshoe]

Depends what point you're talking about. The quote of the law certainly answers Paul's point that he couldn't find it. :P

[pran]

[...]

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?

[...]

Once upon a time the claim law was very simple and easy for the Director to apply:

 

When a player (usually Declarer) made a claim he must face his cards and from thereon opponents could specify each card to be played so long as their specifications did not conflict with the statement made by the claimer. (Opponents were permitted to consult each other and to inspect each others' cards during this process).

 

Fair? - Sure, it was the same law for everybody. No question about class of player and such matters.

 

Desirable? - well, the lawmakers pretty soon ended on a different approach.

 

Do we want the original rules? - I seriously doubt it (except that it would efficiently end all doubtful claims).

[lamford]

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.

In the other thread, I agree. Because Law 70D1 tells us not to accept the alternative line. In this thread, I also want to penalise declarer because of what she said. She said "if clubs break". The TD interprets that as "breaks 3-3" as no other meaning is plausible. The clubs did not break 3-3, therefore she takes the diamond finesse.

 

So, in both cases, I am deeming the declarer to follow what they said, or, if what they said makes no sense, they are deemed to take the least favourable normal line.

[lamford]

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.

No, he did not state that he was going to cash the six of clubs if it became good. He stated that he would cash the six of clubs if the clubs broke [3-3]. Unluckily they did not, so he takes the diamond finesse. How would you rule if he had actually used the expression "break 3-3"?

[lamford]

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.

The correction is only allowed if there is no other normal line, so A. If the correction is deemed to be part of the original clarification statement, then that could be different. I do not know how soon a correction has to be made for this to be so; perhaps there is some case law on the matter. The original claim looks "normal", as does the second line. The right line looks to be to cash one top diamond and the clubs from the top, playing the show-up squeeze when West has the long club and East Qx of diamonds, but no doubt someone will find a better line. I would regard anything involving cashing diamonds or clubs, or taking a diamond or club finesse as "normal". Running the jack of diamonds at trick two would be hopeless and not normal. So the original claim is always imposed here, and the contract depends solely on whether that works. If the claimer states "I will run the jack of diamonds", then I think he gets the least successful normal line, as the law does not exempt the claim statement, as far as I can see, from the normality test, and the claimer is allowed to substitute a normal line. The trouble is he gets the least successful normal line. One of my students is so bad that I encourage him to claim silently at trick one, and he gets to make far more contracts than he would if he played them out.

[lamford]

Imagine how difficult it is to construct a line of play that really is the worst.

One of my partners seems to have no problem.

[phil_20686]

In the other thread, I agree. Because Law 70D1 tells us not to accept the alternative line. In this thread, I also want to penalise declarer because of what she said. She said "if clubs break". The TD interprets that as "breaks 3-3" as no other meaning is plausible. The clubs did not break 3-3, therefore she takes the diamond finesse.

 

There is that dangerous word again.

 

Of all the words I have ever looked up in a dictionary, break has the longest entry. Among its other meanings are "a sudden piece of good fortune". Thus if the claim statement was "If there is a favourable break in clubs...." it would certainly include all winning layouts in the club suit, so it seems unreasonably pedantic to claim that the statements "a favourable break in clubs" and "clubs breaking" embrace two different strategies in playing the suit.

[barmar]

Them's the breaks. :)

[blackshoe]

One of my students is so bad that I encourage him to claim silently at trick one, and he gets to make far more contracts than he would if he played them out.

 

I find this troubling. You're encouraging him to violate the law. :(

[lamford]

I find this troubling. You're encouraging him to violate the law. :(

Not so; he only plays online and there is no obligation under the rules of the site to type anything when claiming. The opponents accept or decline as they choose.

[lamford]

Of all the words I have ever looked up in a dictionary, break has the longest entry.

But we are told that the TD asked him what he meant and he replied "if the clubs break 3-3 I will discard my two diamonds". They didn't. So he doesn't.

[lamford]

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.

This appears to be bluejak's and many others' approach to claims, and I agree with you that it is not the right approach. The Laws require one down on both this and the other. Unequivocally.

[phil_20686]

But we are told that the TD asked him what he meant and he replied "if the clubs break 3-3 I will discard my two diamonds". They didn't. So he doesn't.

 

You wrote in the other thread that declarer was to disregard what declarer meant, and only rule based on what he actually said. Indeed, you applied the same approach to the construction above. Why is the TD allowed to take account of intention here, when he is not allowed to otherwise?

[blackshoe]

Not so; he only plays on line and there is no obligation under the rules of the site to type anything when claiming. The opponents accept or decline as they choose.

 

There are online laws. Those laws require a claim statement. If you think that the WBF is irrelevant to online bridge, well, you're entitled, as a friend of mine used to say, to your wrong opinion. :P

[campboy]

But we are told that the TD asked him what he meant and he replied "if the clubs break 3-3 I will discard my two diamonds". They didn't. So he doesn't.

That's ridiculous. He has to find out the information before using it. You seem to be interpreting his claim statement as "I will look in the opponents hands to see whether the clubs are 3-3 and if they aren't I shall take the diamond finesse."

[bluejak]

This appears to be bluejak's and many others' approach to claims, and I agree with you that it is not the right approach. The Laws require one down on both this and the other. Unequivocally.

What does "unequivocally" mean? That you are right and we are wrong?

 

Methinks it is time you re-read the first sentence of contested claims again, which you are required to follow, even though most people forget it.

[gordontd]

But we are told that the TD asked him what he meant and he replied "if the clubs break 3-3 I will discard my two diamonds". They didn't. So he doesn't.

How would he find out if the clubs break 3-3? By playing three rounds and seeing if both opponents follow. They do, so in terms of the decision that leads him to make next, they "do" break 3-3.

[lamford]

How would he find out if the clubs break 3-3? By playing three rounds and seeing if both opponents follow. They do, so in terms of the decision that leads him to make next, they "do" break 3-3.

I submit that whether the suit breaks 3-3 is a matter of fact. He did not say "if everyone follows to three rounds of clubs" when he would indeed make the contract. He can find out if the clubs break 3-3 from Law 1: Duplicate Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards, consisting of 13 cards in each of four suits. So he can deduct the number of clubs he holds from 13, and find out that the suit will not break 3-3 without playing a single card in the suit. Armed with the results of his research, having discovered the clubs cannot be 3-3, he takes the diamond finesse. QED.

[lamford]

What does "unequivocally" mean? That you are right and we are wrong?

 

Methinks it is time you re-read the first sentence of contested claims again, which you are required to follow, even though most people forget it.

I am aware of the requirement to adjudicate claims as equitably as possible. Methinks it is time you re-read the last sentence of 70A, which I presume is the clause to which you refer. That tells the TD how to proceeed in order to fulfil that objective.

[campboy]

Ok, lamford. Suppose we alter the EW hands to give West four clubs to the 8 and the king of diamonds. Declarer makes the same claim. Now I would rule that declarer goes off, as will almost certainly happen in practice, after he cashes three rounds of clubs, notes that both opponents follow, and pitches a diamond on the six of clubs. Would you still rule that "whether the suit breaks 3-3 is a matter of fact" and since it doesn't he takes the diamond finesse?

[barmar]

You wrote in the other thread that declarer was to disregard what declarer meant, and only rule based on what he actually said. Indeed, you applied the same approach to the construction above. Why is the TD allowed to take account of intention here, when he is not allowed to otherwise?

Perhaps because in this case, the word "break" is ambiguous, so it's necessary to find out which sense of the word he was using to know what he "actually said".

 

In the other thread there was no interpretation of the original claim statement that could possibly apply to the cards.

[lamford]

Ok, lamford. Suppose we alter the EW hands to give West four clubs to the 8 and the king of diamonds. Declarer makes the same claim. Now I would rule that declarer goes off, as will almost certainly happen in practice, after he cashes three rounds of clubs, notes that both opponents follow, and pitches a diamond on the six of clubs. Would you still rule that "whether the suit breaks 3-3 is a matter of fact" and since it doesn't he takes the diamond finesse?

No, he makes his contract; the clubs were not 3-3, and playing three rounds of the suit has not changed the probability which was 0% throughout. There is a slight chance that one or other of the opponent's hands could be as deficient as the declarer's brain, but in that case the missing card would be deemed to belong to their hand, and the suit would still not break 3-3. Therefore he takes the diamond finesse. Effectively his original statement was "I will take the diamond finesse". If he had added "unless clubs are 2-2", he would still be required to take the diamond finesse.

[gnasher]

The phrase "If the clubs do not break" was plainly intended to describe part of his line of play, even though it was phrased as a description of a layout. The fact that the clubs cannot, in fact, be 3-3 is irrelevant.

 

Declarer's original claim statement, together with his subsequent response to the director's question, make it clear that his intended line of play was:

- Play on the assumption that the opponents have six clubs between them

- Cash three rounds of clubs throwing a diamond.

- If each opponent has played three clubs, play the remaining club and throw another diamond.