Give Me a Break

[lamford]

The fact that the clubs cannot, in fact, be 3-3 is irrelevant.

This is where we differ. The old laws I believe forced declarer to play in strict accordance with his statement. You are concluding that declarer would have played three rounds of clubs and continued to miscount them, noticed that East did not beat the six of clubs, and now you are making him assume that West has no higher club than the six so that he makes his contract. It is clear that this a line not encompassed in the original claim statement. There is an alternative normal line - the immediate diamond finesse.

 

The TD is not there to guess what declarer meant if his statement is legal - he just follows it. If the clubs are 3-3 he will discard diamonds on two clubs. Let us say that he does play three rounds of clubs. When East follows to the fourth club, he now knows the clubs are not 3-3, both from his original holding, and from the fact that he has seen seven clubs from the opponents. His original statement now requires him to ruff this and take the diamond finesse, clearly a normal line, as he might have miscounted by two clubs.

[gnasher]

You are concluding that declarer would have played three rounds of clubs and continued to miscount them, noticed that East did not beat the six of clubs, and now you are making him assume that West has no higher club than the six so that he makes his contract.

 

I've carefully reread my three posts in this thread, and I can't find anything that would lead you to believe that I've reached this conclusion (or, indeed, any conclusion).

 

At the moment, all I'm disagreeing with is posts such as:

 

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.

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.

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]

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

As I understand it you think the claimer has effectively stated that he would follow that line, even though that is not what he said. I argue that if the clubs broke 3-3, he would follow that line, but they didn't break. And he has two bits of evidence to convince him that they didn't break 3-3: the appearance of a seventh club from East, and the fact that he only started with six in his combined hands. It would appear that you think declarer should be awarded his contract, but if not, I apologise for forming that conclusion.

[VixTD]

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.

If declarer started a claim statement with the words "drawing the last trump" when it turned out the opponents' trumps had by this point already been drawn, would you rule that part of the claim statement invalid because it is impossible to draw a non-existent trump, and look only at other plausible lines of play, or would you adjudicate the claim on the basis that declarer is going to start by trying to draw a trump that isn't there?

[lamford]

If declarer started a claim statement with the words "drawing the last trump" when it turned out the opponents' trumps had by this point already been drawn, would you rule that part of the claim statement invalid because it is impossible to draw a non-existent trump, and look only at other plausible lines of play, or would you adjudicate the claim on the basis that declarer is going to start by trying to draw a trump that isn't there?

I think that there is a WBFLC minute that the TD follows the claim until it breaks down, and I recall RMB1 indicating something along those lines, but rather than my search for this, others may recall any relevant pronouncements. If declarer had prefaced his claim with "drawing the last trump", that would involve playing another round of trumps and looking for lurkers. Personally, I would hold him to the remainder of his statement, if it was not negated by this drawing of the last trump. Which gives me the idea for another hand ...

[gnasher]

As I understand it you think the claimer has effectively stated that he would follow that line, even though that is not what he said. I argue that if the clubs broke 3-3, he would follow that line, but they didn't break. And he has two bits of evidence to convince him that they didn't break 3-3: the appearance of a seventh club from East, and the fact that he only started with six in his combined hands. It would appear that you think declarer should be awarded his contract, but if not, I apologise for forming that conclusion.

If someone disagrees with part of your argument that doesn't mean they disagree with all of it. Maybe you're just too used to everyone disagreeing with everything that you say?

 

I think the point you made earlier about the possibility of declarer's recounting the suit is a good one, and there's also the possibility that when declarer leads the fourth club he will see RHO's club and now decide that the clubs are 4-4. I'm just not sure whether either of these is an alternative "normal" line of play.

[lamford]

If someone disagrees with part of your argument that doesn't mean they disagree with all of it. Maybe you're just too used to everyone disagreeing with everything that you say?

 

I think the point you made earlier about the possibility of declarer's recounting the suit is a good one, and there's also the possibility that when declarer leads the fourth club he will see RHO's club and now decide that the clubs are 4-4. I'm just not sure whether either of these is an alternative "normal" line of play.

There is only one aspect to my argument; that the original clarification statement must be followed exactly. And indeed, I am used to everyone disagreeing with that. They are right, and I and the Lawmakers are wrong. I am sure the next edition of the laws will be corrected to reflect the majority view.

[RMB1]

I think that there is a WBFLC minute that the TD follows the claim until it breaks down, and I recall RMB1 indicating something along those lines, but rather than my search for this, others may recall any relevant pronouncements.

 

I had stopped reading these threads but I can say that the EBU White Book is the place to look.

 

Suppose a player claims, and part of his claim is to discard a club on dummy’s diamond. Unfortunately he will have to follow suit at that time: how does the Director rule?

 

The revoke is not accepted by the Director, so he follows the claim statement up to the revoke, and then treats it as though there was no further statement. However, if a later part of the claim appears to be valid he should take account of that in his considerations.

 

The same applies for any other irregularity embodied in a claim.

[WBFLC minutes 2001-11-01#3]

(my italics)

[gordontd]

There is only one aspect to my argument; that the original clarification statement must be followed exactly. And indeed, I am used to everyone disagreeing with that. They are right, and I and the Lawmakers are wrong. I am sure the next edition of the laws will be corrected to reflect the majority view.

I doubt if the lawmakers will see any need to change the laws to take account of a single idiosyncratic interpretation of them.

[lamford]

I doubt if the lawmakers will see any need to change the laws to take account of a single idiosyncratic interpretation of them.

But ... but .. four hands in less than a week featured a need to rule on whether the claimant's original words should stand; and I was not alone in arguing they should, although in a signficant minority. And I hardly think it is idiosyncratic to argue that they do. In games like "Just a minute", the exact words matter a lot!

[gordontd]

But ... but .. four hands in less than a week featured a need to rule on whether the claimant's original words should stand; and I was not alone in this view, although in a signficant minority. And I hardly think it is idiosyncratic to argue that they do. In programs like "Just a minute", the exact words matter a lot!

Then let's look at your exact words to which I was replying:

 

I am used to everyone disagreeing with that. They are right, and I and the Lawmakers are wrong.

 

So which is it: everyone disagrees with you; or you are in a significant minority? Or does the whole thing break down as soon as you contradict yourself, allowing us to disregard everything you say and imagine you are actually proposing a normal line of interpretation? :)

[lamford]

Then let's look at your exact words to which I was replying:

So which is it: everyone disagrees with you; or you are in a significant minority? Or does the whole thing break down as soon as you contradict yourself, allowing us to disregard everything you say and imagine you are actually proposing a normal line of interpretation? :)

"Everyone" was used colloquially. And I thought that the sarcasm in the other post was obvious, but maybe you think that is idosyncratic as well. But I agree that it is best to avoid both sarcasm and speaking colloquially on here. So I will spell it out.

 

The majority of people here believe that if someone makes a "slip of the tongue" or similar in his original claim, he may correct it, even after the original clarification statement has been challenged, and his intention is far more important than what he says. I think they are completely wrong and I think I am right. The player should be bound by his statement if it is legal. Where it is illegal, then, as RMB1 points out, the TD may take into account part of it. You are entitled to disagree, as is everybody else. nigel_k summed up the procedure in another thread.

 

And I shall not post on any of these four threads about claims anymore (good riddance, I hear you say).