Word of Mouth

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqjhakqjd32c432&w=st986h54dt74cj865&n=s432h632daq6cakqt&e=s75ht987dkj985c97&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2np7nppp]399|300[/hv]

Lead 10♠. IMPs. Our club seems to be getting more than its fair share of marginal claims of late. North raised aggressively to 7NT on the above hand, opposite what should have been a 21-22 2NT. West led the ten of spades, and South, who was a bit behind having made a contract on the previous board with a nosittej squeeze, claimed at trick one, with the following statement: "If the jack of clubs does not drop I will take the club finesse". East said "I presume you mean the diamond finesse?" but North, who looks a little bit like the Secretary Bird, chipped in with "No, my partner said the club finesse; Director, please!" How do you rule? And how would you rule if all of East-West's minor-suit cards were transposed?

 

When ideas fail, words come in very handy. - Goethe

[gordontd]

There are two possibilities for what he intended when he claimed. Is it really too much to ask him to clarify?

[iviehoff]

You seem to be having a lot of surprising grand slams too. And a lot of people claiming at inappropriate moments.

 

He will be allowed to repeat his statement of claim when the director arrives. If your appeal committee have been sacked, as they deserve, then a sensible director will allow obvious mis-speaks to be corrected. If he makes no attempt to correct it, then, taken at face value, it is incoherent. Someone might try and say it means "cash two rounds of clubs and then finesse", but someone who meant that would have used some words that actually described such a line of play. And it is surely sufficiently well known that this is an inferior way to play the clubs, that surely it is difficult to assert that is what would be meant.

 

So, in the present case, we either have a corrected statement, which results in going 1 off, or an incoherent statement, on which basis I will not interpret it as having no meaning other than the line that happens to work, so 1 off.

 

If we exchange EW's cards, then we either have a corrected statement, which will now work, or an incoherent statement that results in 1 off even you try to give it meaning. As I said, I think your appeal committee were quite wrong, so I will allow the correction of the mis-speak, if South asserts it.

 

Ultimately I don't think this adds anything to the earlier thread. The points are settled as far as I am concerned. It seems to me that obvious mis-speaks ought to be allowed to be corrected, as they are in other parts of the game. It seems to me obvious that in interpreting something incoherent, it would be odd to assume it meant the claimer had thereby committed himself to precisely the line that happens to work, especially when it is not even the obvious line.

[lamford]

It seems to me that obvious mis-speaks ought to be allowed to be corrected, as they are in other parts of the game.

I agree with that, provided you mean that the Laws ought to allow them, rather than the TD ought to allow them under the current Laws. In other parts of the game, bidding and calling for a card from dummy, mis-speaks are corrected (with conditions), and it states so in the relevant law, but in the claim laws there is no provision for mis-speaks. Is this just an omission by the Lawmakers, or do they want the rule to be that mis-speaks stand when making a claim? The fact that the TD asks the claimant to repeat his clarification statement suggests that the exact wording of the claim is followed - if legal - until it breaks down.

[lamford]

There are two possibilities for what he intended when he claimed. Is it really too much to ask him to clarify?

The TD did, but by then, perhaps influenced by dummy, South stated that he meant that he would finesse the club if the jack did not drop in two rounds, exactly as he stated.

[Cyberyeti]

Is N allowed to say what he did ? I'm not sure what rights dummy has after a claim, but before it's agreed, this is PP territory if he's not and should know better.

 

Had N seen EW's cards ? I'm not sure if technically it makes any difference, but if he did this blind, I'm more likely to be positively disposed towards him.

 

If he'd seen the cards I would rule against him unless the ♣J drops in 2 or both finesses work as his intervention has precluded his partner giving an uninfluenced clarification.

 

If he's not seen the cards, the contract stands and falls by the third round club finesse as that's what declarer said he would do and he has not really been prejudiced by his partner who could easily be wrong.

[lamford]

Is N allowed to say what he did ? I'm not sure what rights dummy has after a claim, but before it's agreed, this is PP territory if he's not and should know better.

 

Had N seen EW's cards ? I'm not sure if technically it makes any difference, but if he did this blind, I'm more likely to be positively disposed towards him.

 

If he'd seen the cards I would rule against him unless the ♣J drops in 2 or both finesses work as his intervention has precluded his partner giving an uninfluenced clarification.

 

If he's not seen the cards, the contract stands and falls by the third round club finesse as that's what declarer said he would do and he has not really been prejudiced by his partner who could easily be wrong.

I think play ended when declarer claimed, so I cannot see anything in Law 43 preventing dummy from chipping in. I would imagine that dummy guessed from East's comment "I presume you mean the diamond finesse", that the diamond was wrong and the jack of clubs was not dropping. However, there was no indication he had seen either of the opponent's hands. I would rule in the same way in any case. If declarer had stated, "I will take the club finesse unless the jack of clubs drops singleton or doubleton", I hope all TDs would give him the contract. In response to gordontd, the only interpretation of his statement is to cash two high clubs and if the jack does not drop by the second round to finesse the club. I don't think you can go swapping club for diamond, even if you think that is what he meant. That gives him a double shot. He gets to make it when the clubs are 3-3, when the clubs are 4-2 with the jack onside or when the diamond finesse is right. This is why we must apply his wording exactly, and why the Lawmakers have not indicated mis-speaks may be corrected unless the correction is to the only normal line.

[mrdct]

If South has the competence to execute a nosittej squeeze on the previous hand there probably needs to be a presumption that he knows what he's doing when it comes to declarer play. I would find it pretty hard to believe that his intended line at trick 1 was to take what seems to be a significantly inferior line of combining ♣J stiff or doubleton with a ♣ finesse, which seems to be about a 65% line, compared to an 80% line of combining ♣J stiff, doubleton or tripleton with the ♦ finesse; so in determining the facts pursuant to Law 85A1 the TD needs to weigh-up South's potentially self-serving statement (which may have been influenced by dummy's comments and East's eagerness for a ♦ finesse to be taken) with the evidence that South is clearly a good player unlikely to choose a 65% line ahead of an 80% line.

 

I'd want a little bit more evidence before I made a decision about what South really intended when he made his claim statement. If South is indeed a genuine expert player, I'd be asking him quite directly why he chose such an inferior line and I'd be looking him straight in the eye as he answered. It should be fairly easy to work out if he's fibbing.

 

I think East has been a bit naughty here too. Rather than say "I presume you mean the diamond finesse?" he should've said something like, "huh - what are you doing?" which would've seen South reveal his true intentions without external influence. Perhaps equity would suggest that North-South be awarded 7NT-1 and East-West be awarded 7NT=.

 

At the end of the day the TD needs to work out on the balance of probabilities whether South meant ♣ finesse (in which case making) or ♦ finesse (in which case going down).

[campboy]

I don't think it is legal to rule different numbers of tricks to the two sides here. When ruling on a disputed claim the TD "adjudicates the result of the board" (70A) and split (or weighted) scores are only permitted when awarding an adjusted score.

[lamford]

I don't think it is legal to rule different numbers of tricks to the two sides here. When ruling on a disputed claim the TD "adjudicates the result of the board" (70A) and split (or weighted) scores are only permitted when awarding an adjusted score.

I agree that a weighted score is not permitted.

[lamford]

At the end of the day the TD needs to work out on the balance of probabilities whether South meant ♣ finesse (in which case making) or ♦ finesse (in which case going down).

Here we disagree. The TD should only do that if the clarification statement is ambiguous.

[iviehoff]

I agree with that, provided you mean that the Laws ought to allow them, rather than the TD ought to allow them under the current Laws.

One could call the relevant part of the clarification statement the "designation of a card", on which law explicitly allows corrections of mis-speaks, so arguably the law already allows it.

[aguahombre]

The dummy blew it for the only successful line. Under which Law? Whichever requires him to keep his trap shut.

 

Left on his own, Declarer might be allowed to stick with his statement, verbatim ---depending on whether the the TD buys it.

[aguahombre]

One could call the relevant part of the clarification statement the "designation of a card", on which law explicitly allows corrections of mis-speaks, so arguably the law already allows it.

Did declarer mis-speak? That is what we are deciding. There is a play consistent with his actual words and successful.

[lamford]

One could call the relevant part of the clarification statement the "designation of a card", on which law explicitly allows corrections of mis-speaks, so arguably the law already allows it.

I don't agree that this applies to a claim. For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress, and 45C4b surely refers to the trick in progress.

[semeai]

nosittej squeeze

 

What is this? I know what a jettison squeeze is, but what does it mean when you spell it backwards?

 

Added: Does it mean Ax opposite K instead of (for jettison) Kx opposite A?

 

(Sorry for being off-topic.)

[lamford]

What is this? I know what a jettison squeeze is, but what does it mean when you spell it backwards?

 

(Sorry for being off-topic.)

The squeeze at bridge by Chien-Hwa Wang, published 1993 by Cadogan Books, is the only time that I have seen the term used, but a series of articles in Bridge magazine also by the same other included it.

 

It is indeed a reverse jettison squeeze.

[semeai]

The squeeze at bridge by Chien-Hwa Wang, published 1993 by Cadogan Books, is the only time that I have seen the term used, but a series of articles in Bridge magazine also by the same other included it.

 

It is indeed a reverse jettison squeeze.

 

Thanks, but actually I still don't know what that is. Is what I added above (simultaneous to when you were replying) correct?

[lamford]

Thanks, but actually I still don't know what that is. Is what I added above (simultaneous to when you were replying) correct?

[hv=pc=n&s=sajhdc9&w=s98hdqc&n=skhjd9c&e=sqthadc]399|300[/hv]

is an example from Chien-Hwa Wang, with no trumps and South on lead. South leads the nine of clubs and discards the nine of diamonds from North and East is nosittej-squeezed. I have only ever seen the phrase used by him.

[1eyedjack]

The dummy blew it for the only successful line. Under which Law? Whichever requires him to keep his trap shut.

 

Is this true? The play has ceased. Declarer has stated his line. All dummy is asking is that the law be applied. Not even asking that declarer's stated line be changed - rather, insisting on it remaining.

 

I am a little perplexed as to how dummy might know that the literal line works when the sensible line fails.

[aguahombre]

Is this true? The play has ceased. Declarer has stated his line. All dummy is asking is that the law be applied. Not even asking that declarer's stated line be changed - rather, insisting on it remaining.

 

I am a little perplexed as to how dummy might know that the literal line works when the sensible line fails.

Yeh, play has ceased; but I hope there is something somewhere which doesn't allow partner of the claimer to help him out, to to clarify anything about what HE thinks claimer was saying or trying to say.

[blackshoe]

Once the claim is made, dummy is no longer dummy, and there is no law that "requires him to keep his trap shut". I include in that Law 73, which deals with "communication".

[Bbradley62]

I am a little perplexed as to how dummy might know that the literal line works when the sensible line fails.

Presumably based on East's body language?

[blackshoe]

So? Is that UI to (former) dummy?

[aguahombre]

Once the claim is made, dummy is no longer dummy, and there is no law that "requires him to keep his trap shut". I include in that Law 73, which deals with "communication".

I was aware that the "dummy rights" thing was gone. I said I hope there is a Law which prevents partner helping claimer with his claim statement at the time the claim is being made. If, not, oh well.